1972 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 179 ]

OCTOBER 24, 1972

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

Hon. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to draw to the attention of the House that today is United

Nations Day. And I think it's very appropriate that we have

students in our gallery today because, of course, they are the

ones that the deliberations made through the United Nations will

effect their future.

A United Nations flag is flying at this moment outside of the

Parliament buildings. We are very fortunate also to have with us

on the floor, Mr. Larry Ryan, who is the President of the

Victoria United Nations branch. And I believe I can thank Mr.

Ryan for the peace rose which has been presented to each Member

of the House today. This is the international peace flower.

United Nations Day in these times of so much strife across the

world is one I know many people probably questioned, "well, what

is the United Nations doing?" But I think we all have to realize

as long as that body exists and is working towards peace there

will be hope for peace in this world. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we have, in

the Speaker's gallery this afternoon, the pleasure of four former

members who sat in this legislative assembly in previous years.

Watching us this afternoon will be Mrs. Kripps, Mr. Wolfe, Dr.

McDiarmid and Mr. Capozzi, four former members of the previous

Legislature; former backbenchers in the government side of the

House like myself at that time. I'd like the assembly to welcome

them to Victoria this afternoon.

MR. SPLA.KER: The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Member for North Peace

(Mr. Smith). I thought he was going to continue discussion on the

United Nations because I think that all sides of the House should

recognize the importance of this day. Thirty-seven years is a

long period in this type of a troubled world, and one of the

great shining lights that mankind has in this period is the

United Nations. I am so happy to join the Minister of Education

in saying that the people of British Columbia support the United

Nations 100 per cent.

We know full well that they have difficulties, they have

disappointments. Why? Because we don't live in a perfect world.

If we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't need such an

organization as the United Nations.

But the type of work they have done to help the oncoming

countries and wherever there has been distress and famine, and so

forth throughout the world, they have been there to help.

I was pleased that when I had the honour to lead a government

that we set up a perpetual fund and I'm sure the government will

never cancel that fund. Because the interests of that will be

there forever to give benefits and help to these distressed areas

throughout the world.

And so I'm very happy and glad to join the Minister of

Education this day in supporting the United Nations and to thank

the representatives on the floor today. And also to thank all

those who are taking

part in the United Nations, not only in the

headquarters in New York, but throughout the world because these

days they live in very dangerous positions. Very dangerous in the

type of world in which we live and they should be supported.

[ Page 180 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health.

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

me say that I'm delighted to hear of the former Members,

particularly that they are in the gallery, and…(Laughter).

And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome them here. I'd also

like to welcome, on behalf of the House, 25 members of a class

from New Westminster Secondary School. Mr. Speaker, they are here

under the kindly guidance of their teacher, Mr. Knight, and I'd

also particularly like to welcome my daughter, Allison.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party, to whom

I apologize. I should have recognized him sooner.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): That's perfectly alright, Mr.

Speaker. We also join in welcoming the visitors, both ex-members

and students perhaps future members — to look at our

deliberations this afternoon.

But I would like to join with the Hon. lady Minister and also

the Hon. the former Premier of this province and associate my

party with the remarks made on the occasion of United Nations

Day. It's something to remember that there are many difficulties

which confront us both here and in the provincial Legislature and

many in the dominion affairs. And internationally we have many at

the United Nations. And I feel that while there have been

disappointments, while there have been set-backs, nevertheless,

United Nations has made great strides and will continue to do so

with the support of Canadians.

I personally, having worked there for some, weeks, do

appreciate the fact that we have this opportunity here to pay

tribute to the fine work of the United Nations and also, I might

add, of the United Nations Association of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, welcoming remarks for Liberals arriving in town

will be confined to the airport, and will be made by the Premier.

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I would like to add

my comments with respect to United Nations Day. And particularly

pay tribute to those local and provincial members, men and women,

who remind us regularly on a local and provincial and regional

basis of the importance of the United Nations. For surely the

U.N. could not survive if it simply received money from the

nations of the world and had no support through those individual

countries.

I think I might also take this opportunity to point out that

perhaps the new government would like to follow the lead of a

nearby municipality which flies the United Nations flag on a

regular basis, a municipality with which I am closely

associated. That flag flies every day of the year and frankly

it's not a bad idea.

I do pay tribute to Mr. Ryan and others who remind us

regularly of the importance of the United Nations and who support

it locally.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

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

like the House to join in welcoming with me a group of students

from Alpha Junior Secondary in Burnaby North.

Introduction of bills.

MR-SPEAKER: The Hon. the Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUPREME COURT ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

28, intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act .

[ Page 181 ]

Motion approved.

Bill No. 28 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

today.

Orders of the day.

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

move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS.DAILLY: The first bill today is Bill No. 12, the

legislative procedure bill, to be introduced by the Hon. the

Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE INQUIRY ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, it's the

first time I've spoken in the House, other than in a procedural

way and I want to take this opportunity of congratulating you on

your election, and do so happily at the same time as I introduce

for second reading Bill No. 12, which colloquially is being known

as "the bill to set you free."

I know that you are a student, and have been for many years,

of parliament and I know that if only we could alter the rules

today you would be making this speech about this bill. Hopefully

I can perhaps, in moving second reading, cover some of the ground

that has been mentioned in parliaments gone past because I think

it's a bill that has a great deal of interest to us all.

In moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill

is to authorize you or such other persons as you may appoint, as

a committee to review and to enquire in to and to investigate the

practices and procedures of this parliament, of this legislative

assembly and all its parts, both in whole and in part.

The government is of the opinion that the conduct of our

business should be modernized and it also should be made much

more accessible to the public. When we talk about modernization I

think we should say that, for instance, the standing orders of

the House have not been reviewed since before I was born. When

the final report came in in 1930 and I will say, because I know

we are going to get a great deal of input from the opposite side

of the House, that the Liberals and Tories of the day in 1928 to

1930 took two years to review standing orders. It took two years,

and I hope we can improve on that in 1973.

The Members of the legislative assembly will note that the

terms of reference are very broad and they extend even to the

mention of accommodations and staff, not only in the legislative

precincts, but back home in the constituencies.

The bill allows you to establish committees, and I know that

it will be your desire to make sure both sides of the House are

represented, to carry out the inquiry and provides that the

inquiry can be carried out between sessions.

Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker, in final form as a piece of

legislation gives to you and to any person appointed by you all

the powers that we can possibly bring — the power of a select

standing committee, the power of a commissioner appointed under

the Public Inquiries Act — to you to do this job. And I venture

to say, Mr. Speaker, that a successful inquiry couldn't be

carried out without those powers.

I think the House should also know that the legislation

provides for a report to be filed with the House within 15 days

of the commencement of each session.

That's a programme of work I think we are all excited about, a

programme of work that I think both sides of the House want to

start on as soon as

[ Page 182 ]

possible. And I don't feel I should delay the House much

longer in introducing this bill, simply to say that the work it asks you to

do and your committees to do will substantially alter the style, the tone,

the thrust, perhaps the behavioral attitudes in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear.

HON. MR. HALL: The whole question of the arts and sciences of

the skills and practices of politics in government, Mr. Speaker,

are up for review in this new government and in British Columbia

today. Your work will be a crucial part of that review and I take

a great deal of pleasure in moving second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I think perhaps it's very

appropriate that this bill should be the first bill to be debated

in this House on United Nations Day. And I would like to thank

again those for the flowers. I notice that it's an artificial

flower and I hope that's in no way an insinuation of the spirit

behind its gift nor the spirit in which we will debate this

particular bill, because…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I agree, Mr. Member. I think when we listen to

the greetings and the comments in relation to the United Nations,

Mr. Speaker, that all the goodwill that was shown should

certainly assure the expedition of this bill in second reading at

this time. And I think that along with the concept and the ideals

that were made reference to in relation to the United Nations we

also might feel these within ourselves when we address ourselves

to the principle of this bill. Because surely this is one of the

most important bills to be placed before the floor of this House

in many, many years.

I would venture to say, in part with reference to what the

previous speaker said, that this will and should one day become

an historical document. It will do this in that it deals with the

very foundation of our democratic way of life in British Columbia

and the enacting of democracy in British Columbia and the future

powers of the elected government in this province.

It deals with the role of the Opposition and the degree to

which the responsibility of each party, the government and the

Opposition will extend in future. And it will deal with their

ability to assume and carry out these responsibilities in the

future in this Legislature and in this province.

It is a bill, Mr. speaker, as you know, because you are very

much involved in it, that gives wide, wide scope and wide, wide

powers to the Speaker of this House. It offers unlimited

financial authority at this time and an equally unlimited power

to adjust or to alter the democratic process in the parliamentary

system as we know it in British Columbia. The Premier and the

leader of the government party has frequently spoken of his

desire to revamp the legislative procedure and we accept this in

his sincere desire to do this.

But in spite of this and our hopeful support of this bill, the

review of the bill brings into thought some new precedents that

will be set. And in bringing in the thought of new precedents in

its examination it automatically raises some concern. I would

suggest the first concern is that capable though the Speaker is,

and we know him to be a very capable man even though he has had

the opportunity to make a few bloopers in this session — we

accept them in good humour — he has been given a very complex

and a very arduous task for a person so new to his position and

really with a person with so little time in which to carry it

out.

In principle the bill does make provisions for technical

expertise and staff and we fully support this and we hope that he

will feel free to use it. But in its introduction, in principle,

it does leave the Speaker open to

[ Page 183 ]

possible criticism in the future and possible criticism of the

staff that he will hire. And while ordinarily one wouldn't like

to suggest this, I must call to your attention the possibility

that some of the actions on the part of the newly-elected

government and, in fact, the Speaker himself… I must ask for

assurance that these positions will be filled on a nonpolitical

basis and in complete public light.

The actions of the new government in its hiring and firing

policies have come into question and, whether it's intentional or

not, it has left the impression that a considerable asset in

applying for a job with the Government of British Columbia is to

be an N. D. P. member or an N. D. P. supporter. You are a new

government and we intend to give you the benefit of the doubt but

we must also judge you on your actions to date, through you, Mr.

Speaker, to the Attorney General.

This bill when you examine it, by nature of its introduction

and its principle, indicates that there will be discussions

between the Ministers of the Crown and the Speaker and this is

generally not done, and it also brings concern because there has

been a precedent set at this time since this government has been

in office.

I would cite as an example that when the Speaker-designate was

announced and certainly was assured of his appointment by the

very nature of the majority of the government, that it was the

Provincial Secretary who was carrying out much of the action of

the Speaker-designate and the Speaker's office. And we respect

the Speaker's office as an independent voice of the people and an

independent authority of the people and of this House.

It wasn't, if you wish further examples, the Speaker-designate

who contacted the Opposition for a listing of the Opposition

structure — it was the Provincial Secretary. And while this was

happening, and this might have been an accepted procedure if

other actions hadn't been going on, the Speaker-designate was in

direct correspondence with private Members in the opposition

regarding seating in the House and other matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MRS. JORDAN: This, in the past, Mr. Speaker, and by British

parliamentary tradition and British parliamentary rules, has been

an internal matter within the Opposition. And the traditional

role of parliamentary procedure has been for the

Speaker-designate, or the Speaker's office, to contact the Leader

of the Opposition in regards to these matters or that person whom

he appointed.

I'm very curious, Mr. Speaker, when this is a matter that

should have been between your honoured office and yourself and

the Leader of the Opposition, that so many of the cabinet

Ministers on that side of the government have comments. And I

would suggest that this reinforces our concern that the precedent

that will be set in this bill, that there will be dialogue

between cabinet Ministers, Ministers of the government and the

Speaker, is one for very serious concern and serious reassurance

from the Provincial Secretary on your behalf.

I would suggest that those actions might well have been

misinterpreted and might have been considered mischievous on the

part of the Speaker designate as well as the Provincial

Secretary. However, we will accept them as evidence of their

inexperience and perhaps a little irresponsibility in their new

role.

I would suggest for the Attorney General's enlightenment,

through you, Mr. Speaker, seeing he has so much to say on this,

that the order standing on the Votes and Proceedings under his

name with regards to the appointment of select standing

committees in this House by tradition has been the right of the

various parties to name their own representatives. The Attorney

General took upon himself to submit this without consultation

with the Leader of the opposition and, while we don't object to

our appointment, we do expect that he would have abided by the

traditions of the parliamentary system.

A small point, small point, you might say, Mr. Attorney

General and Mr. Speaker, but in light of the sweeping powers in

this bill and the unprecedented procedures that are going to be

unveiled, such indiscretions natural-

[ Page 184 ]

ly arouse concern and should be brought to the attention of

this House. This bill, if it is to do its job, and the Speaker,

and if he is to do his job, and the committees that are appointed

under this bill, if they are to do their jobs, not only in light

of the democratic process and the British parliamentary system

which we have all sworn to uphold, but in light of the political

process in British Columbia and with respects to the people must

be absolutely above suspicion and must have the confidence of all

Members of this House.

We would ask that the Provincial Secretary, in addressing

himself to closing the debates on this bill, would elaborate for

us to the best of his ability some of the questions we wish to

pose. We would like his assurance, and I don't think it will be

difficult for him to give, that any appointment to these

positions outlined in this bill will be made by public and open

competition, and that they will be selected on the basis of

ability and that political affiliation, if there is any, will

tend to be away from that of the party in power.

I would respectfully suggest that the former Speaker of the

House, perhaps more knowledgeable than anyone in Western Canada

and one of the most knowledgeable in Canada on the parliamentary

procedures, would be an excellent selection for consultation.

We would appreciate having assurance that the cabinet Members

do not exert undo influence on the Speaker or any Members of this

committee. And that all meetings or conversations…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think you can be assured of that

and I don't think the imputation should be made against the

Speaker that I would do otherwise.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, you have misunderstood. I am not

impugning your reputation. I am citing an example where in fact

there have been unprecedented steps made by some of the cabinet

Ministers in this government. I am suggesting that these are our

concerns, openly so you can understand them. I'm sure you

wouldn't object to that. We are concerned about your protection,

Mr. Speaker, and the protection of the honour of the Chair and we

are concerned about this committee and its ability to function as

it should.

I suggest that for your own protection and for the protection

of the government that we would all like to suggest that this

bill, which we hope will involve major reforms and major changes

in the procedures, will not unduly tax the financial resources of

this province at this time.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker — and we would like assurance from the

Provincial Secretary himself — that these committees will be

prudent and that the taxpayers' money will involve expenditures

which are justified in the public interest and that they will not

involve, necessarily, the interest of the Members or those

serving the committee whether they come from inside this House or

outside.

We would like to be given some information, Mr. Provincial

Secretary, through you, Mr. Speaker, how long the government and the

Speaker anticipates it will take to carry out the major changes that I'm sure he

has under consideration and thought about and that are allowed for in this

bill in relation both physically and procedurally. We would like to know if

possible, in ball park figures, which is alright, what he feels the

major programmes will cost. And perhaps he would break down these figures as he has

anticipated them to this time.

We would like to know when the committees for the major

legislation and the, procedural changes will bring in their first

report. And we would like to know what dollars he has allowed for

advisors or expertise as a whole, and the approximate salaries

for these positions.

We would appreciate knowing the anticipated travel involved

and the expenses. And again, Mr. Speaker, we want to do this for

your protection. We wouldn't want any suggestion that you were

around the country in India or Afghanistan with some of your

friends, and I'm sure you wouldn't be. I We would like to know what form he anticipates that the

overall investigating structure will take. Who will serve on the

various committees? I'm

[ Page 185 ]

sure you can appreciate this as a matter of concern to the

Members of the Opposition. How many appointments will come from

the Civil Service, from the public sector and from the government

itself, speaking in terms of this Chamber?

We would like to know what procedure he plans to employ in

dealing with the appointments to carry out with the procedures of

this bill.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, it's very dismaying to

us when we are sincerely wishing to put our confidence in this

bill. We are asking very serious questions which are of concern

not only, I'm sure, to the Members of this side of the House but

probably to your own Members, and I'm sure to the public at

large. This is their process of democracy that we are talking

about and that you are taking upon yourself to authorize

alterations.

We would like to know what number of seatings and meetings

that you will be planning — this is of concern to the members

individually who must adjust their personal lives if they are to

sit on this committee — and when you anticipate such

appointments will be made.

How often various people will be called upon to meet and, as I

suggested, where these meetings will take place. Will they be in

Victoria, Vancouver, in other countries? Will they be around the

province? Will there be public hearings in the province?

Do you intend to involve some of the students that are

involved in parliamentary clubs in the schools such as the

association which is quite active in the Hon. Member for

Saanich's constituency?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, the Older Boys' Parliament.

We would like assurance from the Provincial Secretary that the

principle intent of the bill will in no way violate the

parliamentary rights of the official Opposition or the public

through this parliamentary process and change.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: We are not opposing the principle of the bill,

Mr. Speaker.

I'm really just intrigued with the Liberal lawyers that launch

into involved diatribes about legal technicalities…

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: You are toying with the democracy of this

province, Mr. Member, and you should hang your head in shame.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member address the Chair,

please.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: The Liberal from Point Grey. The unemployed

employed. My dear…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please address the

chair.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to come back to the bill, Mr.

Speaker. But, will you bring the Members to order? I'm not

standing up here in order to have fun. I'm concerned about the

actions of this committee and this bill and I think you should be

concerned, and I'm sure you are.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm very concerned.

MRS. JORDAN: But I am disturbed that some of the legal Members

of this House choose to treat the matter so lightly and I suggest

again that the pub-

[ Page 186 ]

lic of this province would be concerned if they could hear

such giggles and laughters and inane comments from the judiciary

of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll endeavour to keep them in order, Madame.

MRS. JORDAN: As I believe the editor of the Victoria Daily

Colonist said — he wouldn't accuse half the lawyers in B.C. of

being crooks. He would say that half of them are not crooks. And,

I would say half of them are not irresponsible.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask the

Provincial Secretary to answer these questions in order that we

may place our confidence in this bill and support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I

start off by saying that it is a great pleasure to be here today.

I think that it is perhaps the first time in British Columbia's

history that we have a Premier in the chamber — an acting

Premier — who is a lady and she's doing a fine job.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, the lady Premier may well be more

effective than a male Premier, however, Madame, or Mr. Speaker…(Laughter) Mr. Speaker, having praised one lady perhaps I

could chide another.

I have often read newspaper accounts, and I have often

attended debates in this House. And I was really very impressed

with the comments of the preceding speaker in that it had never

struck me before quite so forcibly as it did in her speech — it

shows how effective her speech was — the concern that her party

feels for democratic practices and such things as we're

discussing in this bill. Never before have I noted it in that

party, but she has reassured me that they do feel that these

things are important. I would like to thank her for her

comments.

I would like, however, to defend the Hon. the Provincial

Secretary who did, I'm sure, try to get in touch with the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition just as he tried to get in touch with

me. He did succeed in my case but the whole province was

wondering at that time where was the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I read the newspapers. We noted this.

I myself was interested…

AN HON. MEMBER: We're still wondering who.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Back to the bill itself. I am delighted

that this bill is before the House. At least in its intent it's

excellent.

We are to have a full and wide ranging inquiry into all

aspects of procedure going right down — I don't know if you can

call it procedure but it even specifies the restaurant and lounge

facilities. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that they're going to set

up a committee for restaurants. We have one of those lawyers from

Vancouver in this party, a gourmet of note who will be happy to

serve on that committee.

Nevertheless, it deals with just about everything. And I'm

pleased that you do have such wide ranging terms of inquiry in

that I think it is important to look at everything.

Where I might perhaps take exception to this wide ranging

nature of the bill, is that there is no requirement for you to

terminate your discussions, deliberations, travels. And, while

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, in your case we naturally have no question

that you would wish to act very expeditiously that your successor

using these powers granted in this bill might not act as well as

you will and while I have no concern for you, Sir, there should

have been some time limit in this bill.

[ Page 187 ]

Perhaps you, in your terms, could rectify this by the use of

the powers in this bill when it says in

section 1 you are to make

recommendations to the legislative assembly. I trust you will

bear in mind the need to make a recommendation to this assembly,

the need to repeal this bill and I trust that your deliberations,

and your efforts will be successful enough that you can bring in

such a recommendation to us.

Because I do not like, as I have mentioned before on the floor

of this House, I do not like the granting of wide powers — which

is apparently the practice of this government — not only to

Ministers, but in this case to yourself. Not that I have any

doubt that you will use them wisely, but there is always a

possibility of abuse when wide powers are granted.

On this bill, as on other bills I and the other Members of my

party intend to speak up, defending at least the principle of

having powers more specifically assigned by the Legislature.

Powers circumscribed to a certain degree, powers which have some

time limit. Because, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, it's all too

easy for people acting under legislation of this nature to get a

trifle carried away, to go on too long, they find it perhaps

enjoyable — after all this bill is virtually a blank cheque, or

at least a blank air ticket to anywhere in the world to consider

their legislative procedures. I trust that we will be able to

terminate it before the end of this legislative assembly, in

other words in the next, say, four years.

We wish, apart from that, to fully support the principle of

this Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act. A colleague

of mine will be bringing in an amendment but it does not touch

the principle of the bill, which we endorse.

I just would repeat one thing. When the Provincial Secretary

said quite proudly, I think, we were bringing you, Sir, all

powers we could possibly bring, I trust you realize that this is

a very exceptional case, and I trust that the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) through you, Mr. Speaker, will realize

our acceptance of this with respect to you does not mean to say

that we hope to see the same type of powers so widely granted to

Ministers.

The legislation which has already been put before us contains

far too much of this. And while in the case of the Speaker we

make an exception we will not be making an exception in the case

of Ministers. And I trust this point will be borne in mind by the

government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is

perhaps one of the most exciting bills in this session since

really what its implementation will mean is provision of

so-called open government which was a subject of several

political platforms in the election, including the government of

today.

One of the things that comes across so clearly during an

election campaign is the fact that by and large, the citizens of

this province at least, and perhaps of Canada, have lost

confidence in the political process. There is the feeling that a

well-intentioned and well-motivated structure by which the

governments could function perhaps 50 years ago is so totally out

of keeping with the needs of today that when a provincial

government comes forward with a suggestion such as this for a

bill to modernize the whole political process and methods by

which this government functions, I think we should all rejoice.

Certainly this party, the Conservative Party, strongly supports

the bill.

There have been concerns expressed, Mr. Speaker, about the

wide range in powers that are granted to you. Let me say very

clearly that we have every confidence — this party, the

Conservative Party, has every confidence that the powers are

necessary to do this job properly. After all, if you're only

going to do a big job every 40 years you want to be sure to do it

right.

I really cannot be impressed by the apparent conversion of the

lady Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) regarding her

tremendous concern at a time when the previous government over a

period of 20 years did absolutely nothing to modernize the

present methods by which this legislative assembly functions.

[ Page 188 ]

But unfortunately this seems to be the whole theme of this

session, this special session, that day after day we sit here to

discuss the principle of bills and all we hear from the Socred

Party is a complete turn around to criticize the government for

all those things which they totally neglected when they were in

power.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Clean, Mr. Clean.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Clean I may be. But I remind the House

that the concepts inherent in this bill constitute very clearly

on the record the reasons why I left the Socred Party.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Took you a long time to do

something about it.

MR. WALLACE: If you will read the record, my friend — through

you, Mr. Speaker — I think it's a measure of some maturity on

the part of Members not to hastily decide they've made the wrong

move, and if it took me two years I certainly gave that party

every chance to show some concern for the kind of principles in

this bill and received none.

Mr. Speaker, I came into the House this session trying to be

constructive and it bothers me that I get off the track at

times.

To get back to the constructive and positive aspects of this

bill, Mr. Speaker, I think that the most important function of

government is to listen to the people we are elected to

represent. As I said earlier I think that by and large people in

this province and probably in Canada — if some of the apathy of

the federal election is anything to go by, there is a cynicism

and a lack of conviction by citizens generally that the political

process actually functions in terms of how it is supposed to

function.

The whole question of access of the citizens to government,

and to the elected representatives, is one that gives me

considerable concern and is a subject that came up frequently

during the campaign when certain voters told me that they were so

cynical they weren't going to bother to vote for any party.

I think that if this is the depth to which we've sunk in a

democratic society, then we have to look to ourselves and to the

system under which we are functioning and go the furthest

possible distance that we can go to correct this and modernize

it. Certainly, the word "communication" and the word

"consultation" which have been frequently expressed by the

government cheer me considerably. I think these are the two

keynotes in this bill — that we are to find ways by which citizens

of this province can express themselves in a realistic and

effective way, not just through the newspapers, or through the

media, but to the men and women who represent them. By adopting

new methods, and new techniques and more committee work these

Members' must respond to the needs that are expressed by the

citizens.

One or two points I'd like to mention on principle, Mr.

Speaker, is that I think we must make long-term planning when we

implement the recommendations of these bills even to the extent

of enlarging this chamber, or attempting to devise a method of

enlarging this chamber.

Our neighbour province of Alberta has 75 members representing

a smaller population and we do know that this province's

population is increasing at twice the national average and

therefore it seems to make sense that very soon this chamber will

have to accommodate a larger number of elected representatives.

This is something that has been left out.

The question of communication can only succeed, or the

function of communication can only succeed, if we become well

aware of the numerous arms of communication as expressed by the

news media. Certainly I am appalled at the physical gymnastics

which members of the media presently have to be capable of to

fulfill their function in the little rat trap above your Chair,

Mr. Speaker. Now I know this was perhaps adequate 40 years ago,

but these are the kind of simple aspects which should be

considered in this bill.

The principle of communication I feel is lost in large measure

by the lack of committee work in this legislative assembly and

one of the principles

[ Page 189 ]

in this bill which I most whole-heartedly support is the

emphasis placed on the inquiry into committees in the House. I

might even go further and stand to be criticized by saying that

in the throne speech debates, and the budget speech debates in

this House that there is even reason to consider whether these

might be curtailed in one way or another in order to give much

greater time and emphasis to committee work. Because so often if

we sincerely believe in the principle of democracy and the fact

that the citizens can't get to their elected representatives,

surely committees are the most satisfactory way of making initial

contact between groups and citizens to give them contact with

government.

In that regard, there is tremendous need to revamp the

committee system as it already exists for the simple reason that

many of the committees overlap. And if you're on two committees

you are looked upon as neglecting some of your duties because you

simply cannot be in two places at once.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I think that we as elected

representatives just cannot function without the modern

secretarial and electronic help of tape recorders and clerical

staff, and I would compliment you, Mr. Speaker, in the moves you

have already made in this direction — particularly in relation

to the full time secretary that this small party enjoys. I hope

that the human factor will not be lost sight of when we discuss

in large measure electronic and mechanical means of

communicating.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am

indeed gratified that the former First Member from this riding

(Mr. Capozzi) came all the way from Vancouver from his heavy

duties to hear my maiden speech. I am very grateful.

I am reminded in that regard back to February of last year. I

attended in the Speaker's gallery, and Mr. Capozzi was kind enough to

introduce me to this House. And if I recall his words correctly, which were

burned into my memory: "I wish to introduce one of the New Democratic Party

nominees for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Gary Lauk. And I sympathize with him on

his impending job around the Titanic".

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if any of the Hon.

Members of this House are going for a stroll down at Victoria

Harbour and they see an empty Calona red wine bottle with a note

in it, don't open it. (Laughter) Just let it float by.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am permitted some indulgence

in my maiden speech to make just one or two comments about my

observations as a new Member, and I hope I have the indulgence of

the House and if not I will proceed anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh! (Laughter)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member will find that he will only

proceed a certain distance around the boat.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment

briefly on the Liberal leader of the Opposition (Laughter).

I got the impression that this also new Member of the House

was the boy wonder from Ottawa come to Victoria to tell us how

it's all done. And with the greatest respect I find that he

sounds less of a Liberal leader and more of an adjudicator of a

dominion drama festival. Perhaps when he's referring to the

Anderson text book on how a cabinet Minister should frame and

present their legislation, he should take into consideration the

fact that there is a corporal's guard over there that you have to

still rout and that your position should be taken in that light.

I will not criticize the corporal's guard. I wish to inform the

Liberal leader I only pick on people I like.

Insofar as the bill is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have this to

say. The second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) some few days

ago greeted the socialist hordes. And he said, "I fear that

they're not only at the gate but they're in the temple" — an

observation that was obvious to all. And that they were about to

sack it.

[ Page 190 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, we're not here to sack the temple, we are

here to rededicate the temple. And very much a part of the

rededication is the bill before this House — a needed

rededication, I'm sure some Members will agree. Let me go through

a little of the history in this House in the 20 years gone by.

And for the edification of the Hon. Members of this House I will

refer them to Journals of this House 1953, page 14 and page 70;

1958, page 26; January 1969, page 118. Short passages indeed, Mr.

Speaker, but passages which are very revealing indeed having

regard for the comments made by the Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan). In 1953 it was established (vis-à-vis an

oral question period) by the then Speaker of this House as

follows. He said:

"Hon. Members, at the last sitting of the House, Friday February 6, an

unexpected development gave rise to the question of the answering of written

questions orally. In the first place the Speaker wishes to admit that he was

remiss in permitting comment and cross comment and will in future watch this

aspect of questioning more carefully.

"Standing order No. 25 apparently permits the putting and answering of

oral questions, but standing order No. 47 subsection 1 in part states: 'and

the substance of all replies made by Ministers of the Crown to questions put

to them shall be in writing and handed to the Clerk of the House and entered

in the Journals of the Session'.

"A careful and prolonged search into the record reveals no previous occasion

on which a written question was answered orally and thus there is no precedent

on which to found a discussion, but paying careful attention to the wording

of that part of sub-section 1, standing order No. 47, I feel that there was

an intention to eliminate the oral answering of questions. I therefore rule

that hereafter unless otherwise ordered by the House all written questions shall

be answered in writing only. This

interpretation is based on what I conceive

to be the effect of that rule."

1953 and 26 years went by without oral questioning.

A ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, I agree must follow until there is revision.

Again, and on several occasions Members of the New Democratic Party who sat

in this House raised the point. In January 23, 1969, on a motion of appointment

of standing committees the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) as

he now is rose and moved an amendment seconded by yourself, Mr. Speaker — "That

the motion be amended by adding the following words with respect to the select

standing committee on standing orders and private bills 'that upon its appointment

it be empowered to study and report on standing orders of this House with a

view to their modernization, in particular in relation to the following matters:

A. The provision of a daily oral question period. B. The granting of permission

to broadcasters to broadcast by television and radio the debates from the House.

C. The preservation of Private Members' days. D. The fixing of a definite time

for adjournment each day. E. The provision for appointing as chairman of public

accounts and printing committee a Member of the official opposition."

The effect

of the amendment, the Speaker of the House then found, was to instruct select

standing committees and it was ruled out of order. Attempts were made year after

year to reform this House and that, once tyrannical bunch rejected it. And now

we hear from the corporal's guard as the emperor slinks into his tent and sulks.

I say "audacity", Mr. Speaker. Audacity. The Hon. Member from one of the Rivers

over there.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the Members will recall that this is the

Hon. Member's maiden speech.

[ Page 191 ]

MR. LAUK: I invite comment, Mr. Speaker. I invited it in my

opening remarks and I expected it and I'm sure that the usual

courtesy could be suspended in my case.

It's clear from an ordinary reading of standing rules No. 47,

subsection 1, what you must do now. It's not clear what you must

do in the future. Except as it is outlined in the bill.

It is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. And I might say that we

are bound in the chains of the old procedure until you return

with your report. And I wish you God speed.

But the very people across the way who are complaining against

these procedures and rules and the limitation of the Opposition

are people who fashioned the chains they now wear and that must

never be forgotten.

These rules, as it has already been stated, have not been

reviewed since 1930, or 1931. They are concerned with and relate

directly to May's Parliamentary Practice and there are several

parliaments within the democratic world that use May's

Parliamentary Practice . I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that in your

inquiries that if there is any extensive departure from those

parliamentary procedures your inquiry should be careful and

considerate, and I'm sure it will be.

It will take time. The example of an oral question period that

was raised by one of the Liberal Members in the opening session

was a little too hasty in terms of deciding the precedent for

this House until we have your report on that matter. There must

be some study as to how it's done in other areas, what the effect

is on the good order of government in the House in question, what

notice should there be for questions in the oral period, what

experience there was in Ottawa — and has been in Ottawa.

What should the effect be for starred questions? How should

they be answered? How should they be framed? and so on. All of

these matters I'm sure many of the older Members of this House

are aware. What kind of a question should be asked in the oral

question period? The importance of it — should it concern an

emergency matter of state? Something that should be raised orally

in the House? Or just a question of information that could be

answered in a written form by the Minister without taking up the

valuable time of this assembly?

I would suggest some priorities if I may be so bold, through

you, Mr. Speaker. Because in years gone past the New Democratic

side of this House made many efforts to achieve an oral question

period, would that be your first priority? And that some sort of

reform and preferably one that will last a long time because of

its value and justice will be brought forth before us at the next

sitting of this House.

The second priority I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, has to do

with television and radio coverage of this House. In modern

times, in McLuhanesque times, we find that people can be best

informed by using modern techniques. To bring this House out of

20 years of darkness and disreputation within our community it

would be fair indeed to not only revise rules and procedures for

our conduct but to bring our efforts before public view in a

broad sense. This would have the effect I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, of cleaning up our habits in terms of shouting at one

another across the floor and it might bring about a more

considerate speech now and again from the Hon. Members. One that

is better prepared and one that a certain amount of lasting

meaning and substance to it. On the other hand it may be

dangerous because every Hon. Member would be aware of those

television cameras and instead of speaking to you, Mr. Speaker,

with great respect, would be speaking to all of those people out

there in television land.

The third priority I would suggest, and this is only a

suggestion — I'm speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker — is that

there be a closed circuit television system within this building.

I would suggest that that be your third priority, that the

television and radio coverage broadly, that the circuit

television be implemented by the next session and that it be

limited to the leader of the government, the leader of the

Opposition, the Speaker, and perhaps the house leader of the

government and to the Press gallery as well. Many of those ladies

and gentlemen in the Press gallery are limited in their time and

their ability to be in the chamber and it would be a great

service to them and to the public if that were provided to

them.

[ Page 192 ]

There is the great question of Hansard , and I know there are

several things outlined in this bill but I would ask that Hansard

already being expanded be expanded further for the next session

of the House. And I would ask that that be taken into

consideration.

There are many problems with Hansard and it's a question of

economics and how available it should be and how much we should

subsidize it. And how should it be expanded.

The other problems that must be gone into and I'm sure revised

before the next session — I hope before the next session, but it

is a difficult problem — and that is standing committees. They

must be modernized to meet modern needs. There are many areas

where new committees are essential. I have my pet areas that I'm

interested in and I would suggest a committee, for example, on

the administration of justice. It would also be able to sit year

round and revise thinking of the chamber on many matters through

their information and reporting.

There are many other committees that should reflect modern

needs.

And lastly, with respect to this bill, Mr. Speaker, it is

essential that we do expand — not as the Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) said earlier "limit". I don't see how

opposition rights can be limited any further than they have been

in this House. Expand the rights of the Opposition and recognize

that without the full voice of the Opposition this House would

not be democratic, it would not represent the traditions of

democracy. That's something that we all wish to achieve. They

must have full voice, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that private Members' bills and motions which

never seemed to get much hearing in the old days be given a

special time. A special day that could be only set aside by this

House in special circumstances. So that some of the bills that

are in many cases considerate and appropriate bills to be

considered by this House should be before us.

Well, with a good heart I'm sure that all of the Members of

this assembly will wish you well and God speed as I have said. In

this I wish to assure that this is a government of reconciliation

and it's a new era for democracy. We will look with interest at

your findings, Mr. Speaker, and I fully expect you to listen to

Opposition and other parliamentarians to evolve a considerate,

fully-researched revision of our rules to make this rededication

of our temple shine out as an example to democracy everywhere. A

just House, fair in hearing of the voices from all segments of

our society no matter who represents them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

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

also like to join with the earlier speakers in the welcome to the

former Members of the House who are sitting in the gallery. Four

were mentioned a little bit earlier and I see that another one

has just joined us — the former Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) I think a hearty welcome for him

too.

I think it would be a very nice thing, Mr. Speaker, and maybe

the request was not made, but I do think that when we are

privileged, and I think we possibly were privileged, to have

former Members, of the Legislature come to visit us in Victoria

and hear our deliberations that they be afforded a seat on the

floor of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope you will put in the request…

MR. GARDOM: I would like to, let's hope they don't all come at

once.

But I would like to express my good wishes, Mr. Speaker, to

the former speaker in his maiden speech and it was a very

interesting discourse. I personally do not recall, although I may

be quite wrong, that I suggested that the N. D. P. were sacking

the temples, Sir. I believe my words were that they were sacking

the economy. And I think as best witnessed by the early remarks

of the Hon. the Premier that could well be the case.

[ Page 193 ]

Would the page mind coming over and bringing another rose to

the Hon. Member over there? He seems a little bit agitated. If

the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) might

have another rose to give to his fair wife it'll keep his

disposition in order for the remainder of this afternoon.

This bill which we're now discussing, Mr. Speaker, is

something very, very dear to our hearts over here and certainly

to the democratization of the political process in this province.

It is something that we consider has been woefully needed and

woefully lacking in B.C.

Many Members of the House fought very, very hard and very,

very long for the kind of reform that is proposed and envisioned

by this bill and I think to all of those who did that a hearty

vote of thanks.

My own first request for legislative reform was during my

first speech in 1967, after the 1966 election, when I drew to the

attention of the House, which at that time perhaps most of them

knew in any event, that this particular assembly had the very

unique distinction of being pretty well the only parliament in

the western world, let alone Canada, without some record of

printer, Mr. Speaker, as you're well aware, first printed the

Journals of the House of Commons in 1774. And it was his son

Curson Hansard, who incidentally was born in 1776 which is rather

a prophetic date in itself, he began to print the parliamentary

debates in 1803.

So, British Columbia had up until a very few years ago the

very unique distinction of being about 200 years behind the times

and absolving itself and waving a blind eye for about 200 years

of very good precedent from the mother parliament and in British

Columbia we were still the land of legislative hush-hush.

Then reluctantly the mini- Hansard or the somewhat censored

Hansard came in and I remember that the first day again, when I

was speaking, Mr. Speaker, the then Deputy Speaker of the House,

who we all recall with a great deal of warmth and understanding,

I'm sure, gaveled me out of order in the first speech because he

said I knew full well — which I may say I didn't either know

full or well — that I was reflecting on a vote or some such

equivalent nonsense. And those were quite some days, I can tell

you.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): "Oh, just one

moment".

MR. GARDOM: "Oh, just one moment", that's right. And then the

heavy hand of the gavel which we can all recall…

MR. SPEAKER: "Just one moment" will you address the Chair?

(Laughter)

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I didn't think you'd be back to your

old tricks. (Laughter).

Now at last, Mr. Speaker, we've got something in this bill

that should cut the darkness and let in some light. I think,

hopefully, something that should be very, very demonstrative

evidence that the maxim "justice must not only be done but must

also appear to be done" can apply to government equally as well

as to courts.

Government must not only govern but they must appear to

govern. This bill is a great pace along the road to just that

kind of promise. I say one very great pace along the road to

proper governmental accountability and I'd say hopefully the end

of the secret life in B.C.

The former administration seemed to take unto itself, Mr.

Speaker, the philosophy of the divine right of kings. Because in

British Columbia there was for practical purposes no account. The

government couldn't be sued. Accounts could not be properly

investigated. There was the abandonment, Mr. Speaker, of the very

long-lasting parliamentary tradition that the chairman of the

Public Accounts Committee should be an Opposition member rather

than a government member. There was no ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, or

ombudswoman or ombudsperson to cure administrative and cabinet

abuses. The total treasure, Mr. Speaker, of the Province of

British Columbia was locked in Hydro and in the P. G. E. and they

were totally unanswerable for their policies. Totally

unanswerable for their direction. And totally unanswerable for

their actions.

[ Page 194 ]

We didn't have the benefit of an auditor-general which is not

a new thing in Canada. It's been a federal post for about 94

years since 1876. But we didn't have that kind of check or that

kind of balance in British Columbia.

The cabinet, Mr. Speaker, could refuse to answer any questions

they chose. Any questions they chose. You could ask questions

about the Hydro or the P. G. E. or the Liquor Control Board or

questions during estimates and if they chose not to answer one

witnessed that turned back.

And public money we also found, Mr. Speaker, being spent on

political, propaganda. And the Elections Act, Mr. Speaker, that

we found was out-dated, out-moded, and unfair. In short, Mr.

Speaker, B.C. was carrying on a system of legislation in the

dark. A system of democracy in the dark. But those, Mr. Speaker,

who believe in and who have long advocated governmental

accountability and governmental answerability say this public

business has to be subject to public review.

Public money as a right must be under the public microscope.

And by analogy, Mr. Speaker, the shareholders of British Columbia

are the citizens of this province. And the directors are the

cabinet. And the citizens. of this province, Mr. Speaker, are

entitled to be, assured that the stewardship of those cabinet

directors may be inspected and those cabinet directors have the

solemn responsibility to make full reports, not partial reports,

but full reports to their citizen shareholders.

These things that I've mentioned are somewhat beyond the

compass of this bill, but they still sit within the principle of

this bill — and the things that I've mentioned this afternoon

are your next steps, before which it is impossible for us to have

a proper process without a proper vehicle. But what the New

Democratic Party and the government have proposed today I say

unequivocally is an A-1 start and I congratulate them for that

indeed.

And for the converts, the Social Credit converts, to my right

I say Amen.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's an

interesting debate. I'm glad the House is unanimous that this

bill should pass. From what I've heard the House is

unanimous.

A number of interesting comments have been made. I was

interested in the by-play between the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) when comments were made about his political career of

the last three years. His has, been a career — and we're not

discussing it, yet it's related to this bill. It's related to

this bill because part of his history has been an objection to

the fact that the contents of this bill were not part of the

operating process of this House. I was one of those who urged

that individual to stay in the political life of this province

because he was an honest, forthright, a straight forward and

above all else a fair individual with a belief in fairness.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And on that basis I told him at the time

before we knew what was going to happen or anything else, that

politics needed his kind of person. That was a sincere belief of

mine and I reiterate it here. Politics does require people who

are honest, straight forward and try to be fair when they're

forthright. And if people of that caliber quit politics and leave

it to those who may not happen to have those qualities they in so

doing debase the currency of politics.

I was a little disturbed at the opening remarks by the

spokesman for the official opposition. The only phrase I can

think of that would describe it was sanctimonious humbug. The

only fair phrase I can find. Because what I said before the

election and what I've said since the election was that I would

never be a part of any government that treated the opposition in

this House the way the Opposition was treated in this House

during the last 20 years.

[ Page 195 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Well then, resign.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would never be a part of a government in

this House that put the Opposition through the wringer that I

went through the last 20 years.

And to hear the official Opposition standing up and talking

about how they believe in democracy, how they were going to judge

us on our actions! From what basis of rectitude can they judge

our actions? From what knowledge of rectitude in this parliament

can they judge our actions? From what base of democratic

understanding can they bring forth any comment on this bill that

is now before this House?

Because that was one of the issues that faced the people of

this province just a few weeks ago — whether or not the

democratic process in the Province of British Columbia was going

to survive in a capable, livable manner. It is not without reason

that the young people of this province and this country were

becoming cynical and disillusioned with the governing processes

under what we call the British parliamentary system.

Because they had before them — especially the 19, 20 to

25-year-olds had before them — as a prime example in the

Province of British Columbia a fact, a demonstrable fact that

there was no parliamentary democratic system in the Province of

British Columbia. They sought year after year, session after

session and these are troubled times. They're challenging times.

They're changing times. And one of our responsibilities is to see

to it that this parliament operates in such a way that it can

restore the respect of the people for politics and politicians

and we must make this system work. Because the alternative to the

British parliamentary system is anarchy and chaos.

I regret very much that in the few days that we have been in

this session in my opinion there have been attempts made to

prevent this system from working.

It's important. What's the choice? We simply have to make the

system work and that's why this bill is before us today. It's a

genuine effort on the part of this government to revamp the

rules. To rewrite the procedures. To allow the fullest possible

participation. To maintain the strength of responsible government

and increase the responsibility of the individual Member. And

only by so doing can we restore that respect for politics which

in turn will bring respect for the politicians.

Churchill once said that the British parliamentary system was

the worst system of government ever devised — except every other

system of government ever devised. What he was saying was our

system sometimes makes mistakes. It is sometimes slow moving. But

eventually it corrects its mistakes and eventually reflects the

wishes of the people.

In this bill we are attempting to find the procedure so we can

perhaps move more quickly toward reflecting the wishes of the

people. And perhaps make fewer mistakes. So, I'm very pleased

today to stand here after 20 years of suffering, let me tell you,

and support a hill that I feel sure will never subject any future

Member of this House to what I have been put through during these

last 20 years.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in rising

to support this bill may I say how pleased I was to hear the Hon.

Minister of Highways, former leader of the Opposition speak with

his old passion on the matter of House reform. I know that his

passion is equaled by your own, Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall on

several occasions your speeches being the cause of gavels being broken and the then Deputy Speaker trying to

enforce unenforceable rules.

I think the most dramatic moment I can recall in my

legislative experience, came during the opening of the 1967

session of the legislature. This particular session was not held

in these precincts, as you well recall, Mr. Speaker. It was held

in the fair city of New Westminster, not in front of a

[ Page 196 ]

few hundred people but in front of 10,000. The government of

that day made the dreadful error of neglecting to put a

microphone in front of the Leader of the Opposition.

He didn't require it, he was so angry he could easily have

been heard right here in Victoria. He moved an amendment to the

standard motion put forward by the government that the debates of

the House should be printed.

After a little bit of desultory debate, a vote was taken and

the government voted down the simple and obvious request. Mr.

Speaker, you will recall the dramatic moment that followed — 10,000 people booed their elected representatives and the

government.

It left some of us with goose pimples, I was one. What

occurred to me was how different our actions might be if they

were conducted in the full view of all the people of British

Columbia, and how much more rapidly we would gain our sanity and

common sense and how much better off democracy would be and the

public of British Columbia if only that could take place.

So I see our opportunity presented by the bill which you have

introduced is not just to reflect the passions of so many of us

to see common decency in the House and reasonable rules under

which we can operate, but to make something of our British

Columbia Legislature which cannot be found elsewhere.

Because, we aren't the only Legislature that's been slow to

reform. We've been the slowest, little doubt of that, but if one

were to take the most advanced House anywhere it still wouldn't

have gone so very far down, the road of bringing public

proceedings to the public.

This is what I passionately hope for in British Columbia. That

we can transfer everything that takes place in this chamber into

the living rooms of the people of this province. So that our

business is taken to their homes. Because, this Legislature isn't

ours, it's not for the elected representatives. It's the people's

Legislature, and it's for them.

The day will come, even if we're not the ones to make it

happen, when the legislative proceedings will be taken into the

home. The day may even come when television sets will, be

equipped with buttons so that all the public will be able to

record their vote on matters that arise before the elected

representatives. Again, I think we would have a much better,

democracy if that were the case.

I hope that we can project just a little bit of idealism into

the deliberations that will be made possible by this bill. The

objective is to get away from that habit that plagued legislators

no matter where they come from — to hide from public view, to

disguise the business that they were doing under one cloak or

another and thereby to permit practices to go on long past the

time when they served any useful function.

We've had such a dose of that in British Columbia for the past

generation that our will should be strong not just to bring this

Legislature abreast of the others in Canada and the Commonwealth,

but for the first time to become true leaders and to set forth

new standards that other legislatures will be wishing to follow.

In other words that this Legislature will no longer be a laughing

stock in Canada, but become a guiding light.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to add my congratulations to the government on bringing in

this reform bill so quickly. I would like to add one or two very

brief comments to the debate.

I was privileged just a very few days ago to spend an

afternoon in the House of Commons in London, England. I think the

first thing that I noticed — and one or two comments have been

made about this chamber — the first thing that I noticed, I

think in terms of beauty and design and grandeur, I think this

Chamber is ahead, is better, than the chamber in which the House

of Commons in London in Westminster is housed. More beauty and

more grandeur surrounds us here.

I don't agree, Mr. Speaker, with the suggestion from the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that perhaps we need a larger

chamber for more Members. I think that one of the problems in our

society today is

[ Page 197 ]

perhaps that we have too much government and too many people

involved in government and I would not want to encourage that

trend. At that point I had not had the privilege of sitting in

this particular parliament under its new Speaker, and I was

therefore struck for the first time by the very dignified

procedures that can be observed in a parliament. Certainly the

quality of the debate, at least on the day that I was in the

House of Commons in London, was very high. The question period,

of course, was especially interesting and noteworthy.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how you would feel. I know you've had

the problem of many new people sitting in front of you whose

names you had to quickly remember to recognize. I wonder how

you'd feel with a possible 630 different members with no little

guideline map to guide you as to the names of the individuals

because they are just sitting in rows on the benches and one

leaps to his feet, and the Speaker immediately calls him by his

name. I though that was a masterful demonstration of a very

brilliant Speaker in London.

MR. SPEAKER: But Dr. King had been there a very long time.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, one of the other things that was

very noticable about the question period was the fact that the most

probing and the most difficult, and perhaps the most critical questions were

coming not necessarily from the Opposition side of the House — they were

coming from Members of the government side, who were taking the

opportunity to probe and criticize and question their own Ministers in a way I have

never seen in this House.

I felt that was a very laudatory thing and I commend it to the

back benches of the government here. I think this is a fine thing

and it is real democracy in action, where the government members are not

afraid to stand up and criticize and probe their own Ministers.

In one hour, Mr. Speaker, 33 major questions were dealt with

orally, including in most cases four or five supplementals to

follow the major question. It was a very invigorating exercise to

watch.

The one thing that I'd particularly like to draw to your

attention, Mr. Speaker, was a little pamphlet I brought back with

me. I think all of us are very proud to see the number of

visitors who come to the galleries here. Particularly from high

schools and similar groups. In the past, about all we've had to

give them here, Mr. Speaker, is a little pamphlet with a few

pictures in it. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate you

on the speed with which you were able to get this new publication

printed, but really, Mr. Speaker, this publication doesn't

explain very much to the visitors of the gallery as to what

really is going on in the floor of the chamber and the rules of

the procedure are.

This guide as distributed at Westminster in the House of

Commons to all visitors, is an excellent one. It describes in

simple language the rules of procedure the rules of order and how

the whole matter is carried out and I would commend your

committee, Mr. Speaker, a study of this. I would be pleased to

send you this copy.

I thought the House may be interested in one of the rules of

order that are in here. Under the heading of "divisions", it

explains how a division works — and if you have, I suppose, 630

members, a division is a pretty complex thing to hold.

It does say that if a member raises a point of order while a

division is in progress he must do so from a seated position and

must wear a hat. I thought that this might be of some interest to

some of the Members who might wish to do the same, in the

future.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you well in the operation of this

committee and I'm sure all of us will do everything we can to

assist you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the

debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the contributions,

at least most of them, from the Members of the House on this

bill. I think there

[ Page 198 ]

have been a couple of points that I should refer to in

bringing this debate to a close.

I will say that there are many Members who have been here

before and departed who should take some pride in the

contribution they have made over the years to the thinking that

went into this bill. One of them has been mentioned already today

in the House, Mr. Clark. While I prefer the present Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour from a purely political party point of

view, I do want to say that I listened over six years to a number

of speeches on this point by that former member.

I also listened with interest to the new Leader of the Liberal

Party who seems to me to have a little penchant for looking for

bogie men all over the place. He talks about powers, as though he

has never seen them before, and coming from Ottawa, that bothers

me a little, where they've had some rather amazing examples of

power going on, even when he was a member of the government

party.

What are these powers and what are these things he's worried

about? In the bill we've given sweeping powers to you, Mr.

Speaker, to find out, to learn, to get information. Those are

what the powers are in this bill for. The power to do something

about it, Mr. Speaker, lies in this House and no where else

should it lie.

When I hear the official spokesman for the Opposition party

talk about the government not interfering, not pressuring and

then coming out with a series of rhetorical questions about what

we are going to do, what instructions we are going to give, she

begs her own question and that was what was wrong with it for 20

years before they got on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the powers that have been given to you are to

find out and to refer to this House.

The termination date will be attached to the motion that comes

before this House on the adoption of the points of the

recommendation.

Everybody wishes the bill well. Everybody, I think, but the

first speaker. I will only say, because I want to be in the full

spirit of most people who have been talking about this bill, that

her position and the position of the official Opposition can best

be summed up by saying: "When the devil was sick, the devil a

monk would be; when the devil was well, a devil a monk was

he".

I move second reading of this bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Is that the Minister's answer to the questions

that were put before him?

MR. SPEAKER: If there is no point of order in your question,

would the Hon. Member please be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: Those are the Minister's answers? There is going

to be no effort to explain to the Members who is going to be on

the committee, or the time served?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order! You've heard the motion that

Bill No. 12 be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill .

Bill No. 12 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We'll now proceed to Bill No. 10, the

Tobacco Products Act.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT

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

speaking to the principle of the Tobacco Products Act, I want to

spend three of four minutes at least in outlining not only the

principle of the bill, but in a general

[ Page 199 ]

way the kind of regulations we intend to effectuate in order

to carry it out. I do that because there is a companion piece of

legislation in the next bill which will be repealing the existing

legislation in this field.

Now the reason we're moving, Mr. Speaker, is very simply that

the previous legislation was not workable and was not fair. It

was not workable because, as the judge said in the court case and

the legislation of course was upheld to this limited extent, the

judge for example said, "nor does the statute prohibit the

sending into British Columbia from abroad of newspapers and

journals containing advertisements in respect of liquor". This

was in that extract. The same thing applied in the case of

cigarettes.

So we were flooded with such things as T. V. Guide , which I

hold in my hand, which it was impossible for the law as it had

been written to do anything about, because it might be mailed

into a household. Of course it would have cigarette advertising

and liquor advertising — and there are many other examples of

the same kind.

So the law was unfair. It hit local publications, who could be

prosecuted or for whom an injunction could be sought, but did not

touch a great deal of the written material that was coming into

the Province of British Columbia.

In making a workable statute, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it

perfectly plain, that we recognize fully — and I'm sure the

Minister of Health will back up this statement — that cigarettes

kill you by inches. We intend within the full limit of provincial

jurisdiction to bring that message as closely as we can to the

attention of all of the people of British Columbia, in particular

the young people.

Now we are suggesting, because the bill is couched in broad

form, that it be largely a matter of regulation, and we do that

deliberately, because we must mesh our British Columbia laws in

with what is happening in the United States of America and what

is happening in the rest of Canada.

For example, in Canada, and I'm talking about cigarettes at

the moment, Health Minister John Munro was in the process of

endorsing the federal Bill C-10 and he backed away from that, and

I'm not going to speculate on the reasons why he backed away. I

think it is unfortunate that he backed away from actual

legislation, but in the process of doing so, he got an agreement

that there would be no tobacco advertising on radio and

television. Which I thought was a good thing.

He must have got an agreement from the Canadian cigarette

manufacturers that they would place a warning on the cigarette

packages. The members who know will see that warning printed on

the cigarette packages printed in Canada.

But, if you turn to the cigarettes that are manufactured

outside of Canada and that come across the border, you find that

the Surgeon General's warning, "That this cigarette is dangerous

to human health", is omitted from the packages that are sold by

the vendors in the Province of British Columbia.

Now you would think that if they had to make up the packages

and the labeling for an American Package of cigarettes that they

would keep the warning on of the Surgeon General of the United

States. But they take it off, and I think they take it off

because they realize that to some extent that warning is

effective. To some extent it's curtailing sales. If a warning of

that kind curtails sales of cigarettes in any way whatsoever,

we're all for it. We will require that American-produced

cigarettes bear the warning and Canadian-produced cigarettes bear

the warning and that all billboard advertising of all tobacco

products be prohibited. We're not touching cigars at this time…

MR. CHABOT: Or snuff?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …or snuff.

MR. McGEER: Or pipes?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …or pipes. We're not making the pipe

amendment, which might be called the Edgar Benson amendment, at

this time.

[ Page 200 ]

And as I say we're not touching cigars in terms of a warning

because the health evidence is not there at the present time, and

in any case the Attorney General himself is a living and alarming

warning of the ravages of Panatellas.

But we propose to regulate so that, as time goes on we, can

backstop and supplement whatever is done in the United States of

America and whatever is done at Ottawa to make our warnings and

our advertising restrictions as effective as possible.

Now we're not touching either radio or T. V. In our

regulations. But if Members will look at

section 2 of the Act,

and I can't discuss it in any detail, they'll find there a

general prohibition against advertising tobacco products except

in accordance with the regulations. We don't permit that by

regulation. So, directly, we have not touched radio and T. V. and

perhaps we can't touch them within our jurisdiction as a province

because it's a federal subject matter of legislation and it's

basically for the C.R.T.C. But as far as we can go we are backing

up prohibition — the existing practice against advertising on

radio and television.

And, so with those remarks and I hope I have sufficiently

indicated to the House the kind of regulations we are initially

passing, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, South Peace. Your friend from

Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes) needs a lesson in geography.

There's really only one river.

MR. SPEAKER: So do I.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, we were under the impression

on this side of the House that Bill No. 9 was going to be debated

first. However, as the recent speaker just said, Bill No. 9 and

Bill No. 10 are companion bills.

We'd like to, maybe, Mr. Speaker, smoke a peace pipe with you

on Bill No. 10, but Bill No. 9, we're not quite so sure. And I

will be tabling an amendment to Bill No. 9 which, if concurred

with, we would be most happy to go along with the government on

Bill No.10.

What we're really asking is that we would like to see certain

of the regulations that are going to be brought in under Bill

No.10 before we go along with Bill No. 10.

I would like to say that these bills with regard to the

advertising of tobacco might well be the most far-reaching bills

discussed in this House during this particular session. Because,

not only do they have a very direct effect on the health and well

being of everyone in the province, but they have a very direct

effect on one of the greatest costs of running this province — that is of Medicare, the medical profession and health

services.

Now the Hon. the Attorney General stated that he wasn't going

to ban the smoking of pipes. Sir Walter Raleigh, when he tried to

promote tobacco back in 1560 in England, passed out silver pipes

and that was I think how tobacco was basically introduced into

the British Empire. So maybe the Attorney General would give a

second thought to banning the use of pipe tobacco because that

was how tobacco was originally introduced.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's too late to advertise it.

MR. PHILLIPS : …too late to what?

MRS. JORDAN: Advertise it.

[ Page

201 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: The other thing, Mr. Attorney General, that

really concerns me in your recent remarks or your remarks just

stated, is that you're not going to ban the advertising of

cigars. And I'd like to know — maybe you could answer me this

when you sum up the debate — just what is a cigar? Because

several of my friends have quit smoking-cigarettes only to go

smoke these little teeny what they call "cigarillos", I guess you

would call them. Is a cigarillo, Mr. Attorney General, is it a…

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not supplying them with free cigars

are you?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He wants to know what it is.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What, do they supply you with free cigars

now?

MR. PHILLIPS: Is a cigarillo to be classified, Mr. Attorney

General, through you, Mr. Speaker, is it to be classified as a

cigarette or is it to be classified as a cigar?

I'm well aware of what a cigar is. But in all earnestness,

because some of my friends have said, "Well, isn't it great. I

quit smoking". And I can be pious here because I quit smoking and

I quit cold turkey. And I didn't try to sort of wean myself on

these cigars and then cigarillos. But I have friends who say,

"Oh, I quit smoking", and go on smoking these little brown things

and they call them cigarillos.

So, we wouldn't want to change the whole smoking habits of the

Province of British Columbia. I don't know whether it's more

profitable to merchandise these cigarillos than it is cigarettes

or not.

And the other thing, Mr. Attorney General, you stated you

wanted to make sure the legislation was workable. Well, looking

at certain sections of the bill with regard to packaging and what

is going to be on the packaging — is this going to be

workable?

I'd be quite happy to discuss Bill C-10 where the federal

government was going to come out and ban the advertising of

cigarettes and tobacco products. I think that somebody got to our

federal government. I think the news media got to our federal

government — the advertising agencies, the newspapers. Because

if they had any conscientiousness and had the citizens of this

country at heart they would have followed the example set by this

government in 1971 and banned that advertising.

Now, there's going to be a lot…

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mather, Mather, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Barry Mather.

MR. PHILLIPS: Barry Mather? What about him?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's against smoking.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's against smoking? Well, a lot of our

Liberals down here on this side of the House are against… I read in

Hansard where they've been against the advertising of tobacco products. But

I don't know how many of them went to Ottawa when Bill C-10 was being

discussed. How many of you fellows went to Ottawa and urged that they

continue on with this progressive legislation?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What? Because they've got them all.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're talking about a lot of regulations and I

would like to hope that these regulations are not going to be good

for one segment of the news media and not good for the other. Because

I have a strong feeling that government should be of laws rather than

of men.

[ Page 202 ]

And when it's in a law, as the present legislation is, there

is to be no advertising, no pushing of tobacco products in the

Province of British Columbia. Now, if you're going to make all

these regulations, Mr. Attorney General — Mr. Speaker, through

you — are you going to size up every situation, every pressure

group that comes to you? And if you're going to take a look at it

— I mean, I would like to see, and that's the reason for the

amendment that I will be bringing in on this, I would like to see

this firmly written down for all the citizens of British Columbia

to see. And I would hope that it would be an example once it's

written down for all other provinces of Canada to follow. And

also for our federal government to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney General if this

advertising ban on cigarettes is going to be total. Is it going

to be a total ban on advertising? It's not going to be a total

ban? In other words, you are going to take a look at who comes to

see you. What group? It's got to be a total ban. You can't have

it both ways, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney General cannot have it

both ways. He can't say to this group, "Well, we're going

to allow you to advertise cigarettes into this group". That could

lead to political payola. And I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the

Attorney General wants no part of political payola when it comes

to allowing the advertising of cigarettes.

So, he should make it, if he's sincere in what he says, he

should make the advertising a total ban. Let's make this a total

ban on all advertising.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can't do that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you can't do that? You fellows over there… Mr. Speaker, the government can do anything if they really

try hard enough. They can do anything if they really try hard

enough.

The excuse that a total ban will not work — I can't buy that,

Mr. Speaker, because there are various provinces and various

states in the union that have different bans and don't allow some

things. And I could say for instance that the State of Nevada

allows gambling. And they allow certain other sins in that

particular state. For instance, they don't have any speeding

limit in the State of Nevada. You can drive as fast as the road

will carry you. But right next door in the State of Arizona

there's no gambling and they're a very virtuous state and they

have a very strictly enforced speeding laws, Mr. Speaker. Here's

one state that does this and a state beside it does an entirely

different thing.

So I think you as a government should decide what is right and

what is wrong and then you should do it and you should try to

enforce it. Because we have a law, Mr. Attorney General, against

stealing, but people still steal. So that doesn't mean that you

come up and repeal the law that says, "Thou shalt not steal", one

of the oldest laws in the land. No, certainly not.

We have another instance in the State of Utah, and in the

State of Utah they're a very clean-living state. They have a

tendency to hide their liquor stores in back alleys, where next

door in the State of Montana, the liquor stores are on the main

streets and liquor is sold in grocery stores. So there again

there are two entirely different concepts on the morals for a

different state, Mr. Speaker, and just because the State of

Montana allows liquor to be sold in their grocery stores, that

hasn't changed the State of Utah. They still deal with the sale

of alcoholic products the way they see fit.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to urge the Attorney General,

or through you, I'd like to urge the Attorney General that he

should make a stand on, this, a firm stand, and say we are going

to ban the sale of all tobacco products.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or, pardon me, ban the advertising. No, no, we don't want

you to bring, in prohibition on tobacco. No, no. The people have the right to

smoke if they want to. Pardon me, I wish to withdraw that statement, "to

ban the sale". To ban the promoting, the advertising. Pushing.

[ Page 203 ]

Another instance of one province having a law that is

different or unique to that particular province is the Province

of Alberta. They do not feel that anybody in the merchandising of

any products should give a product away. So when oil companies or

grocery chains et cetera have a promotion where they're going to

give you a free glass if you buy ten gallons of gas, or if a

grocery store is going to give you a free this or that or some

coupons, all the advertising must have written on it, Mr.

Speaker, that in the Province of Alberta you have to pay. Now it

might only have to be two cents but you still have to pay

something. You have to make a legal deal with the person with

whom you are buying the item from. You have to make a legal deal

with him. It is not given away.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also an argument against banning

the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products that we are

losing our advertising dollars. I don't know whether the Attorney

General is going to take that into consideration when he brings

down his rules and regulations and when he meets these groups who

are going to be coming to his office. And there will be pressure

groups coming to your office, Mr. Attorney General. I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there will be many pressure groups

coming to the Attorney General's office wanting to have some say

in how these regulations are going to be drawn up. They'll be

there to see you, they'll be there to see you, Mr. Attorney

General.

And I'd just like to remind you of the words of wisdom that

you gave the House when this bill that you're now going to repeal

and the tobacco products Act that you're bringing in now which is

going to allow you to make up your mind to bring in your own

regulations as to what shall be legal and what shall not be legal

when it comes to the advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco

products. And I would like to quote the now Attorney General who

was then a Member of the Opposition and he said, "Just one or two

words in support of the position we are taking in this House. We

are dealing with a thing where a scientific evidence is in, and

it's definitely deleterious to human health. It's not a health

food product like, for example, a glass of wine, and we have a

right to legislate in this field. The only question really is,

Mr. Speaker," and I am quoting the now Attorney General "why do

we have to be here considering banning this particular type of

advertising today because, if there ever has been false,

deceptive, fatal advertising, it's been tobacco advertising".

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now I hope, Mr. Attorney General, I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that the Attorney General will dig out his copy of

Hansard and continually read these words when he is making his

regulations. Because he goes on to say, "We shouldn't have to be

passing this bill. The people who have put out this advertising

should have been prosecuted and visited with the heavy penalties

of the law a long time ago for deceptive, dangerous advertising.

They should have been sued by the estates of the millions of

people who have had their lives lost or shortened as a result of

being led to smoke cigarettes by the advertising that has been

put out." So there should be no regulations…

Ali HON. MEMBER: Any advertising will do…

MR. PHILLIPS: There should be no regulations on the advertising of tobacco,

Mr. Speaker. It should be a total ban. And I hope that when the Attorney General

reads… It should be a total ban. This government, Mr. Speaker, should lead

the way to say that this advertising is coming in from flop-over, from the other

provinces and from the United States of America and from other provinces. That

is not an excuse at all, Mr. Speaker. If the government of the Province of British

Columbia is truly concerned they will back up the Surgeon General in the United

States and say, "Help us, we've led the way. You follow".

[ Page 204 ]

Now, the Hon. the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat, had a few words to say

about advertising. Now, there are, Mr. Speaker, these are the

present Members of the cabinet who are the ruling body of this

province now. These are the gentlemen who spoke when the law to

ban the advertising of cigarettes was brought in. Now, when these

fellows are all sitting up in their cabinet room — there's the

Attorney General, and there's the Minister of Highways and he

said, "We support this bill." I echo the sentiments of the Leader

of the Opposition in the whole field of advertising. There is a

later bill coming up, where I'll have more to say about

advertising, its role in society, where it's gone wrong, where

it's right, where it's wrong.

The Minister of Highways also had this to say, "It is our

responsibility as legislators to see that we take the necessary

steps to change the culture, to change the accepted recognitions

' to change the accepted status symbols in order to redirect

society to a better position." Those are the words of the Hon.

the Minister of Highways, Mr. Speaker.

Further, and I want this read into the record, Mr. Speaker,

because when these regulations come out, I want them to be a

total ban. I want the government, Mr. Speaker, to back up what

they have been saying and to completely ban the advertising of

cigarettes and tobacco. Now, the Hon. Minister of Highways had

this to say, "The passing of this bill will not solve the

problem, I agree. I support the bill, I advocated it and I have

done, without question, for a long time." So when you're in

cabinet, and when you're discussing what regulations you are

going to bring in, when you're met by these pressure groups that

you are going to be met by, Mr. Speaker, when the Attorney

General is definitely going to be plagued with these pressure

groups to help set out the regulations…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll send them to see you.

MR. PHILLIPS: …the Hon. Minister of Highways should remind himself

that he said, "I myself am one of those people who got hooked very young. I

left school when I was 14 and, in my culture and in my society when you went

to work it was a recognition of your manhood". But, "the passing of this bill

will not solve the problem" he says, "but I supported it for a long time".

I've supported it for a long time. Now, another gentleman who is going to be

having a lot to say about when these groups come to see you and another person

who's going to have a lot to say about what regulations you're going to bring

in is going to be the Premier. And the Hon. the Premier had a lot to say about

the advertising of tobacco products during the debate when the bill was originally

introduced into the House.

The Hon. Premier had this to say: "I would think that this bill would be far

more difficult to deal with in a province like Ontario" — the bill would be

far more difficult to deal with in the Province of Ontario because they have

a tobacco industry. There again you don't have to worry, in bringing out your

regulations, in bringing out a complete and total ban, that you were hurting

an industry which is in your province, where people were employed. Because there

is no tobacco grown here to my knowledge. I understand they're growing something

else in some of the window sills but I don't know of anybody that is really

growing tobacco.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no that's in your neck of the woods, Mr.

Attorney General. We don't have a tobacco industry in this

province. And of course because of that we can afford to be

politically far more virtuous.

Is this the attitude, Mr. Speaker, that this government is

going to take? Are they going to be virtuous, now that they're in

the driver's seat? Are they going to be as virtuous about the

advertising of cigarettes and tobacco as they were when they were

in Opposition? Because the Premier said: "You know we don't have

any tobacco industry here, so we can be very virtuous". Well, I'd

like to know, Mr. Speaker, what the government is going to do now

that they are in the driver's seat, now that they can draw up

these

[ Page 205 ]

regulations, now that they have the opportunity to keep up

this total ban, now that they have the opportunity to lead all of

the other provinces in Canada in a complete and total ban on this

dreadful front.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other things said and a lot of

them I have underlined here with regard to what the Hon. the

Premier said when he was in Opposition. But I'll just quote

shortly from one of them. And he says: "I have very strong

feelings about the way that the best brains of the advertising

world have been called upon to sell certain products in a manner

that leaves the impression that without these products a young

person or for that matter anyone in our society is just not quite

successful or just not quite capable unless he uses these

particular products."

The reason I wanted to read that, Mr. Speaker, is because it

has been said by the tobacco industry — that the advertising of

cigarettes, and the advertising of tobacco, does not promote

their sale. Well, I can't really see that the tobacco industries

spend the millions of dollars that they have been spending on the

advertising of their products if they didn't think it would

promote the sale, I just can't see it.

There's one definition, Mr. Speaker, of advertising and it

says that it is something that makes you think that you have

longed for something for years when you have never really heard

of it. Well, I don't think that's the case with regard to the

advertising of tobacco. But another definition from a dictionary

says that advertising means "to proclaim the qualities of, as by

publication or broadcasting, generally in order to sell." And I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the reasons that tobacco

companies spend the millions of dollars that they must spend in

the United States every year is that they intend to sell their

products. They intend to sell their products not only to those

who are already hooked with the habit, the devastating part of it

is, Mr. Speaker, that they intend to create desire in the use in

our land by their advertising.

The purpose of advertising, let's get it straight, and on the

record. The purpose of advertising is to sell. When this bill was

passed in the House, Mr. Speaker, I must remind all of those

that are in the House that it was passed unanimously. If the

total ban is not kept it will be a willing and useless step

backward, Mr. Speaker, a step that this government does not have

to take. It does not have to take this step at this time.

Bring in your regulations first, assure the general public of

British Columbia that you are interested in following through

with the total ban before you bring in your regulations. In other

words, let's keep what we've got, let's not go backwards, let's

keep the Act that we have, then bring in your regulations, then

let the public have a look at them. Let the cigarette companies

have a look at them, let the Legislature have a look at them, and

if it's not a total ban, Mr. Speaker, it will not be good

enough.

I would like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that very

recently as a matter of fact October 23, an

article in the

Vancouver Sun headline:

"Society says cancer found most often in the lungs. Cancer of the lung in a variety that holds the least possibility

for survival, is increasing so rapidly that the lungs are now the spot where

cancer is found most often, the American Cancer Society said Saturday.

"Lung cancer kills up to 91 per cent of its victims. And

its incidence in the U.S. has been steadily growing."

Mr. Speaker this is a report from the United States Cancer

Society. It is a report that came out on Monday of this week. It

is a very timely report, I would say, because we are discussing

this very important step at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, it might be very well and good if the

advertisements of tobacco and cigarettes would tell the whole

truth. But do they tell the whole truth, Mr. Speaker? I would

suggest to you that they do not. At a recent meeting — it's

actually a study by the Toronto School of Theology — studying

truth in advertising very recently the following was said:

"Advertisements that tell the whole truth about a product both positive and negative will never willingly be written

by an advertising agency copy writer."

[ Page 206 ]

Now, that statement was made by Henry Carpus, Senior Vice

President, Creative and Media Operations, at Reynolds and Company

Ltd. a Toronto agency.

So this goes to prove, Mr. Speaker, beyond any word of a doubt

that even those in the advertising agency realize that their ads

do not tell the whole truth. If the ads that are meant to capture

the minds of the youth of the province told the whole truth I am

sure that there would not be as many young people hooked on

cigarettes as there have been in recent years.

I have four sons myself. The oldest one smokes. And he started

smoking before the ban on cigarette advertising came out in the

Province of British Columbia. Now I have three other sons, and they're all very

close together and the other three sons haven't taken up the filthy habit.

Now, is that any proof that the banning has anything to do on it…?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't think so. Well I think it has. I think

it has, Mr. Speaker, and maybe it's because father is setting an

example by quitting myself then think of the power that this

government here has to ban the advertising of cigarettes and the

leadership that they would give all the youth of this province,

Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say one more thing about advertising, and I

would like the Attorney General to take this into very grave

consideration when he passes this so-called regulation.

He said that most advertisers would not want to run the risk

of misrepresenting a product to the agency in the event that by

not knowing the shortcomings of a product the agency might take a

creative approach that proves to be obviously false. In other

words, Mr. Speaker, all of the advertising that we have does not

necessarily tell us the whole truth.

Now, since this bill, which is a Tobacco Advertising Restraint

Act was passed in this Legislature, there has been some funny

things happen. I think this Legislature actually set an example

for the medical profession. I think that this legislature against

all odds and with everybody saying it wouldn't work has taken the

bull by the horns and has created a fine example. So much so that

now, Mr. Speaker, the medical profession have realized that if

one government can set a ban on the advertising of tobacco and

cigarettes that other governments can do it. What have they done,

Mr. Speaker? In June of this year approximately a year after the

Government of British Columbia in 1971 passed the ban on

cigarette advertising, the following resolution was passed at the

annual convention of the Canadian Medical Association in

Montreal. Now I have nowhere on the records of a medical

profession passing a resolution at any of their conventions that

tobacco advertising be banned until such time as this Act was

passed in this House, so I would suggest from that that this

Legislature set an example to the medical profession, proved to,

the medical profession that governments could pass a ban on

advertising.

I think that when they passed this resolution, Mr. Speaker,

that they realized maybe that if they got behind the Province of

British Columbia in their forward thinking Act that maybe the

other provinces would follow.

Unfortunately, to this date no other province to my knowledge

has followed the progressive legislation that is now on the

statutes of the Province of British Columbia and which were put

there unanimously by this House. Now I would like to read this

resolution to you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the Attorney

General, and I'll give him a copy of this if he would like, so

that he can peruse it when he is making his regulation. Because,

Mr. Speaker, I want him to know that he holds the health of the

young of this province in his hands.

Mr. Speaker, I want this to be firmly implanted, firmly

implanted on the mind of the Attorney General, because I know

he's going to have these pressure groups. I know he is and I

don't want him to forget them. I don't want him to forget what he

said and what this resolution said. "Whereas advertising on

television has a significant impact on the attitude of children…" Alright we have established that…

[ Page 207 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, we have. Advertising has a significant

impact on the attitude of children and I want to clearly

establish that fact here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, because

that fact is going to be brought up in this House again when we

discuss T. V. advertising and radio advertising on certain other

products.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it worked for several

elections. All right, "Whereas advertising on television has a

significant impact on the attitude of children and

whereas

advertising on television of alcohol, tobacco and

over-the-counter drugs raises the level of acceptance by society

of these substances, and

whereas the Canadian Medical Association

is concerned that the attitude of children is unduly influenced

by such advertising;

be it resolved that the Canadian Medical

Association announces its opposition to advertising through

television of alcohol, tobacco and over-the-counter drugs."

Mr. Speaker, I think we have established that the

advertisement over radio and television has a profound influence

on the youth. I think we would also like to establish the fact

that people who smoke tobacco are more prone to smoking pot, so

if we are going to allow advertising of the smoking of

cigarettes, is this going to lead the way for the promotion of

marijuana? Is this going to lead, Mr. Speaker, allowing

advertising of marijuana, has…?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question!

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know if it's a good question, but I do

know this, I do know this people who smoke cigarettes are more

prone to smoke marijuana. I think that that's an established

fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you smoke pot?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, thank heavens. When I was a youngster I was

not subjected to the pushers of these products that we have in

this province today. I thank God for that, and I have certainly

in bringing up my children given them lots of information to read

about these products, and I hope to God that they never take the

opportunity upon themselves to try these drugs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have established that the Canadian

Medical Association is wishing to ban the sale of these products,

the advertisement of these products.

Now, I have another

article here. It's from Melbourne,

Australia. "Doctors from Australia have passed a resolution

calling for a ban on all cigarettes and tobacco advertising. The

motion was passed during the fifth world conference of General

Practice."

I haven't got the date of that here. It was just recently, it

was just the other day. Just very recently. I've got the

article

but very, very recently so now we not only a medical profession

in Canada, but we have a group of doctors from Britain, a group

of doctors from Australia, and a group of doctors from Canada,

urging the ban of cigarettes. So not only are the doctors in

Canada taking an example from this Legislature, but we have

doctors from Britain and doctors from Australia who are following

the very forward example set by this Legislature.

I have one other

article here, something new to me. It's

really new to me and I was quite amazed. I have heard many times

in a smoke-filled room or in a smoke-filled car, that people who

didn't smoke would say, "do you have to smoke? The smoke is

killing me." I used to think that that was a rather ridiculous

statement, because I didn't think that second-hand smoke would

bother anybody. But let's hear what the Surgeon General of the

United States has to say about this.

[ Page 208 ]

"Warning that carbon monoxide from cigarettes may harm non-smokers as

well as smokers, the U.S. Surgeon General recommended for the second straight

year that smoking be banned in public places." You know as I say, I have heard

people say that, "do you have to smoke?" but the carbon monoxide left in the

room from cigar and cigarette smokers can be harmful to the presence of others.

"The 226-page report said evidence continues to grow stronger,

implicating cigarette smoking as a factor in lung cancer". Now listen

to this, Mr. Speaker "…as a factor in lung cancer, heart disease and

other health problems," so it's not only necessarily lung cancer, but

heart disease and other health problems. Dr. Stenfield said that there

are now 44 million Americans who smoke, but the number would have been

75 million if the government had not campaigned against the habit.

Now I think this is evidence, Mr. Speaker, by a government

leading the people that they might possibly have some effect on

the use, by those people that they lead in the use of tobacco.

The Surgeon General says just about half of the people, in other

words twice as many people would be smoking in the United States

today, had it not been for the position taken by the Surgeon

General in the United States and by the Government of the United

States in banning the advertising.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have another

article here whereby the

Minister of Health — and I notice that he's not in the

Legislature during this discussion on the subject which has

probably more bearing on the health of the citizens of British

Columbia than any other subject which will be discussed during

this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I feel that if the Minister of

Health had the health and welfare of the people of the Province

of British Columbia at heart, that he would be here listening to

this debate this afternoon. I would hate to think, Mr. Speaker,

that the Minister of Health went out to have a smoke. Now, I've

seen him smoking cigarettes, and I know he smokes a pipe, but 1

guess the pipe is going to be all right, is it Mr. Attorney

General?

However, what I'm pointing out here, Mr. Speaker, is that he's

given the hospitals $2 million, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,

that $2 million is a drop in the ocean, not a drop in the bucket,

a drop in the ocean as what the costs of medical health are going

to be in the province in the very near future.

We have a very recent

article in the Vancouver Province ,

October 23 that says "The high cost of staying alive", and it's an

editorial. I'm not going to read the editorial, but what I am going to say is

that the editorial says doctors should help by emphasizing prevention rather than

cure. What the editorial is talking about is the high cost of medicine

and the high cost of medical services in the Province of British Columbia,

and I would suggest that a lot of the high costs of medical services in

the Province of British Columbia are due to the fact that a number of the

patients are there because of the use of tobacco.

I also noticed that the cigarette and tobacco companies, the

ad agencies, are not making any rush back to the ads, but it

didn't say, Mr. Speaker, it didn't say that they were not

preparing and not thinking about preparing their ads again to

promote the sale of this product. Which leads me to believe, Mr.

Speaker, that the ban that the Attorney General is talking about

is not going to be a total ban.

In another

article recently, and I certainly wish the Minister

of Health were in his chair, the threat to British Columbia

health care is linked to spiraling costs and these words were

spoken by Mr. R.G. Faukes, who is the new adviser to the Minister

of Health. He says that unless costs are curbed and the delivery

system for health care is sharply improved B.C. could return to

the days when only the very rich and the extremely poor could get

proper medical care in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, these words are by the adviser to the now

minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance and I would

hate to think that we would be returning to the free Social

Credit days in British Columbia where medicine was available to

only those with money. Because I think that at the present time

we have one of the finest health services and hospital

[ Page 209 ]

insurance programmes and Medicare of anywhere, as a matter of

fact of anywhere in the world. But if we do not curb our costs in

this province with regard to this service, the Minister's adviser

says that we may return to the days when only the rich and

extremely poor could get proper medical care.

That's something that should make all of us very aware of one

of the reasons of the high costs in medical services and one of

the reasons of high costs are the number of people who require

these services strictly from the use of tobacco. I did a lot of

searching but I couldn't find the article, but there was an

article out in the United States just recently, and I regret very

much that I couldn't find it. It's probably in one of my files at

home. It stated that approximately 60 per cent of the people who

entered hospitals in the United States entered them because of

the abuse of either tobacco, liquor or drugs, so I'm suggesting

that if this government really wants to lead the way, and wants

to keep the health services that are presently available in this

province, that they will lead the way in preventive, maintenance.

That's what we call in the automobile industry, preventive

maintenance. Let's call it preventive medicine.

This is why I say here today, Mr. Speaker, that this

particular discussion that we are having on this particular bill

has more far-reaching aspects than what would be on the surface,

because when we start thinking that the medical services in this

province could be curtailed because of the high costs and could

be made available only to those with money, Mr. Speaker, this

really, really bothers me. The same man in another

article says

the only way to repair health costs, is to cut services. I would

suggest that one of the ways that we can repair health costs is

to have a healthier population without cutting services. Just

have a healthier population so that everybody isn't running to

the hospital for lung cancer, heart disease caused by the smoking

of tobacco.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that bothered me since these

bills have been tabled in the House, is that the news media has

been suspiciously quiet. I don't remember seeing very many

articles. As a matter of fact the only

article that I have been

able to find dealing with these bills is the one where it says:

"No rush back to ad". That was the only

article I was able to

find. Very little mention about Bills No. 9. 10, and 11, and this

bothers me, because then I have to start think about the

pressures that you are going to be under from the news media,

from the newspaper from the advertising agencies when you start

drawing up these so called regulations.

I would really like to know what you have in mind and I would

like to know what is behind your thinking and your leader has

said that he will accept suggestions from the Opposition. Well, I

would like to suggest to you that you leave the ban on the books.

Leave the ban on the books until we have an opportunity to see

what your new regulations are going to be, because I don't want

this new government to make a mistake, to be pushed by pressure

groups and to make a mistake that's going to have effect on every

man, woman, and child in this province, not only in effect on

their health, but an effect on the services which will not be

available to them if the hospitals are crowded with people who

are there because of the use of