1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

2403 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order Request for release of Hansard tapes to the media. Mr. L.A.

Williams — 2403

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates. Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress —

Point of order Request to proceed to private Member's day. Mr. McGeer —

Routine proceedings

Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 15). Second

reading. Mr. Kelly — 2405

Division on adjournment of the debate — 2411

Point of order Clarification of procedure. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2411

Routine proceedings

Government Computer Privacy Act (Bill 21). Second reading.

Mr. Curtis — 2417

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2419

Point of order Clarification of procedure. Mr. McClelland — 2419

Routine proceedings

Highland Water Control Act (Bill 22). Second reading. Mr.

Liden — 2420

Point of order Possibility of Bill 22 being out of order. Mr. Chabot —

Routine proceedings

Highland Water Control Act (Bill 22). Second reading. Mr.

Liden — 2421

Citizens' Initiative Act (Bill 34). Second reading. Mr. Smith —

Franchise Dealers Protection Act, 1975 (Bill 35). Second reading. Mr. Smith

— 2423

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2424

Water Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 36). Second reading. Mr. D'Arcy —

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2425

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

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

this afternoon in Committee of Supply and again in the House,

certain events occurred about 3:50 p.m. involving the Member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). In view of the

precedent established earlier this afternoon, I wonder if I

might have the leave of the House for Your Honour to release

the tapes of the proceedings that took place both in the

Committee of Supply and in the House, commencing with the page

marked 332-1 of Hansard Blues until the withdrawal of

the Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the advisable course in a matter of

that kind would be to have the consent of the parties concerned

since there's more than one person involved — there are the

Member himself and the other Members involved in it. I think if

their consent were given ... and the House's consent should be

given unanimously because it relates to things that were said

back and forth that were, to some extent, out of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that

and I anticipated your concern. I have taken the liberty of

discussing this with the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

and he admits that in the course of the discussion he doesn't

have an accurate recollection of precisely what took place and

he will be pleased if those tapes could be made available. I

assume that only you, Your Honour, and the Chairman are

otherwise involved, and I am certain that you and the Chairman

would have no hesitation in having the tapes being made

available.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not present at the moment ... what am I

saying? The Chairman isn't present — and I'm not present

either, it sounds like. The Chairman isn't present at the

moment, and I haven't got the copies of the proofs available,

so far as the printed ones from Hansard are concerned.

But as soon as I can get out of the chair for a few minutes, I

will be glad to look at them, and at some convenient time

discuss the matter with the House and see what the House wants

to do about the matter.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When I released the tapes I was the only voice that could

be recognized, as I understand it, on the tape. I certainly gave my consent

as I felt it was in the interests of the people of British Columbia that the

truth be known in view of the statements that have been made in the press.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Could I just clarify

one thing? You say you gave your consent. Was there a request

to which to give consent?

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, no. We've gone over that this afternoon. If you are

talking about this other episode ... or are you talking about one now?

MR. McGEER: No, I am talking about the other episode. I am

trying to establish....

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly gave my consent to my release of

the tapes, yes.

MR. McGEER: You consented for yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Absolutely. I certainly did.

MR. McGEER: I see.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought it was a wise thing to do in the

light of the libels that were being spread around the

province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, for the same reason I make the

request, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't like there to be any

suggestion of any libel on any Member of the House, the Speaker

or the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: And that is the difference, maybe, in this

case. We will have to consider it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think the appropriate way is to make

the tapes available.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly give it my urgent

consideration.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): You just said that the tapes

contained libelous statements. Considering your comments this

afternoon....

MR. SPEAKER: What tapes are you referring to?

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know. You said "libel." I didn't say

it. You said that there were libelous statements being

spread.

MR. SPEAKER: I said....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, are you saying that...? You

know, in light of the comments you made this afternoon, how

does that stand with the comments you made about immunity for

the Members — privilege for the Members?

[ Page 2404 ]

MR. SPEAKER: You mean that statements are made outside the

House?

MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say anything about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements that are made outside the House that

are libelous can be corrected by the publication of the tape

that showed quite a different story than what was being spread

throughout the province by the two Members concerned who

claimed that there was some kind of an agreement to throw them

out which, of course, was absolutely false.

Interjections.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a

matter of concern for all Members. I would ask that the House

rules committee, if the House agrees, come together with the

Speaker and work out some method of handling this for all

Members.

MR. SPEAKER: It might be a very salutary suggestion.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: We have a standing committee on the House

rules.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the salutary offer of the

Premier, but I think our rules are adequate in this respect.

You, Your Honour, have indicated quite clearly that you will

take this matter under consideration. I respect the advice you

will give to the House, and I don't think we have to go farther

than that.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll take a look at it and see what I can see

and advise the House about it because there are other persons

involved in this matter. As in any case where there are other

people involved, I am going to consult with them.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce two guests who have come a very long way to watch the

provincial Legislature in action. They are Mr. and Mrs. Hubert

Henry from Denver, Colorado. Mr. Henry is an attorney in Denver

and a former member of the state Legislature. I'd like the

Members to make them both welcome.

Orders of the day.

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

the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: correction services, $27,501,093 — continued.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

NAYS — 10

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Mr. Morrison requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises, reports

progress and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that

there was a division and asks that it be recorded in the

Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 23, second reading.

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

your attention to standing order 25. Today is Thursday, private

Members day, and our

[ Page

2405 ]

orders of the day, under that standing order, call for the

precedence of Committee of Supply and, following that, public

bills in the hands of private Members. The House Leader has

called for public bills and orders in defiance of the orders of

the day, and I insist that she follow standing orders and

proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that insistence

is not necessary. We are quite willing to proceed with second

reading of Bill 15.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that I'll reserve on the

question raised because it seems to me there was some case I

remember reading on the question of whether that sitting meant

the afternoon sitting and the evening one as well. I'll look

into it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, today is Thursday. It is spelled

out quite clearly in standing orders, and the private Members

on this House have continually....

MR. SPEAKER: I understand. Let's not have an argument about

it. I said I'd look at the question. I haven't had time to even

consider it. We'll deal with the public bills in the hands of

private Members.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I am indeed very

pleased to be able to rise today to speak on behalf of the bill

that I introduced in this House early on in this session.

The bill,

An Act To Amend the Industrial Act, doesn't sound

very effective — or it doesn't sound very spectacular, I should

say. This is a bill, when it was originally introduced many

years ago, which gave the authority for the original damming of

the Nechako reservoir. This was the bill that gave the Alcan

Co. of Canada the authority to utilize the power from the

Nechako reservoir.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): What government did that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Long time ago. Can't remember.

MR. KELLY: This is the area where, even today and under laws

that were passed years ago, that company still has the rights

and, maybe, through the laws that were passed in those days, is

required to go ahead and develop the second phase of that

Kemano enterprise: the increasing of power through the damming

of several rivers in that complex up there in the Dean, the

Morice, Nanika and other rivers in the area.

MR. FRASER: What year was that passed?

MR. KELLY: I believe, Mr. Member, it was before the time of

your government.

MR. FRASER: Why don't you say that?

MR. KELLY: Certainly I'm not trying to put any blame on

anybody today. It happened so long ago that I'm quite sure

there's nobody here, including myself, trying to lay any blame

on what happened in those days. The fact is that we have that

history behind us.

The Nechacko reservoir, which is very remote, really isn't

in the forefront in the eyes of the politicians or the people

in the province. Very few people are actually concerned about

what is happening there. But here we have a reservoir with

practically 1,000 miles of shoreline and with 80,000 acres of

drowned timber protruding above the surface of the water. That

was one of the greatest disasters that ever happened in British

Columbia.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Next to the

flooding of the Peace.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Columbia.

MR. KELLY: What frightens this Member, of course, is that

there is a possibility that the levels of the Nechako reservoir

might be increased once more because of what might have to

happen in terms of increasing the power at the Kemano 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have the power to do that.

MR. KELLY: They do have the power to do that. Do you know

that there have been experiments in attempting to clear some of

the present reservoir? This is a terrible disaster that

happened. When you see pictures of the reservoir as it is

today, there is timber below the surface of that water that

will remain there for hundreds of years in perfectly good

condition, but it is just as treacherous as any iceberg ever

was in the ocean. Something must be done to stop the

continuation of creating these kinds of reservoirs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Several people have died as a direct or indirect

result of this drowned timber.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): When? Name them.

[ Page 2406 ]

MR. KELLY: In recent years, Mr. Member. I don't remember

their names but I was in the location where these people were

caretakers of the Redfern Lodge on one

section of this

reservoir. They found the family all drowned; they were going

through an area of submerged trees.

MR. CHABOT: What was the coroner's decision?

MR. KELLY: I can't blame the death actually on this

submerged timber but I would say it happened as a result of the

drowned timber.

MR. CHABOT: That's your opinion.

MR. KELLY: That's correct. That is my opinion.

It's been known as a fact that many hundreds of animals have

attempted to swim this reservoir and drowned as a result of the

blockage of timber on the windward side of that reservoir. Even

that is a terrible loss to the community.

They have in fact attempted to clear some of this reservoir.

It is strictly experimental, but there is one commercial

operation that is doing quite a good job. Even at that, it will

take literally dozens of years before this reservoir will be

cleared up.

MR. CHABOT: You're against Block Bros.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Hon. Members have

anything to contribute to debate, they could do it in a formal

way.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, with the money that has been put

into this cleaning of this reservoir, it is estimated that it

could cost $30 million, $40 million or $50 million to clear it

to where it could be considered satisfactory.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MR. KELLY: That is probably a conservative estimate, Mr.

Member...

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MR. KELLY: ...because of the vast amount of timber that is

submerged and is actually just laying there below the surface

of the water. If it is ever to be considered a recreational and

maybe transportation corridor on quite a large reservoir in

that area, all this wood will have to be removed. I would

suggest that that amount might have to be doubled, in fact,

before it could finally be cleared to be completely safe.

I know that it is a terrible thing to look at environmentally. I guess some

of the worst damage that people have ever seen except in the Williston reservoir

is there — certainly the worst that I have ever seen. Even flying in a plane,

you can see for 60 or 70 miles in one direction and see nothing but trees sticking

through the water now, maybe 20 or 25 years later, laying in utter wreckage

because of the ice flows that have pushed it from one direction. Then when the

wind changes from another direction, it pushes into another direction. So rather

than standing up as it was when it was first drowned in the lake, now a lot

of it is just a mishmash of debris of trees standing in the shallow water near

the shores of the lake.

Mr. Speaker, my bill was, I think, introduced to curb the

further construction on that reservoir to add to the water in

terms of holding water, and to get public response to this kind

of an operation. I think that it was quite necessary.

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

Oh, I'm sorry, the Minister of Lands....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'd be quite glad to call the Hon. Member

I was about to name — the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) — unless there's a point of order which has

priority.

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

No, I just.... He has the floor so many times, Mr. Speaker, he's used to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member named please proceed?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I appreciate the

courtesy and generosity of the Minister. It's hard for us

independents here, Mr. Speaker, to make ourselves heard at

times but, of course, the Minister recognizes the courtesies of

the House in going from government to opposition side.

As a representative of the government I want to compliment

the Member because, Mr. Speaker, I'm completely in support of

the position that he has taken. Like the Minister of Lands and

Forests, when he was in opposition, I heartily support the

Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and want to say that some of us

in this House have consistently called for action to clear up

the debris of former regimes. In this particular case, Mr.

Speaker, we're going back well over a generation, because the

damage was done by a rather careless act of the old coalition

government, and it was ignored during 20 years of Social

Credit. Now during almost three years of socialism there's

absolutely no progress at all.

It turns out that the socialists are more callous

[ Page 2407 ]

towards environmental damage than any government prior to

them, Mr. Speaker, because their inaction — there has been

inaction — is set in a rather different context. In prior times

there wasn't the demand, there wasn't the concern for the

environment that we have today. Former governments — the old

coalition government and the Social Credit government — didn't

seek a mandate from the people on a platform of improving the

environment. Only the socialists exploited the environmental

issue. Only the socialists were the opposition at a time when

this became a matter of world-wide concern, and a particular

matter of provincial concern because of the neglect of many

governments in many generations.

But in office the socialists have just been as callous as

any government before them. And now, Mr. Speaker, who has to

carry the torch?

AN HON. MEMBER: The independents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pat McGeer!

MR. McGEER: No, no, no, Mr. Speaker! We speak as we've

always spoken — consistent to the end. Mr. Speaker, it's the

backbenchers. Yes, it's the socialist backbenchers — the people

who've been sold out by those whom they supported in

government.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Are you talking as a recycled

Socred or a recycled Liberal?

MR. McGEER: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the former

Member for that same area, who at one time was a member of the

Liberal Party and changed to Social Credit and became a cabinet

Minister, spoke very eloquently for action in that area. But

the Minister of Lands and Forests in that former government was

just as indifferent as the Minister of Lands and Forests in

this government. The Minister has no concern for the pollution

of the atmosphere. He won't even answer questions on the order

paper. The former government always did that. We have this

autumn madness every year; our sky is filled with smoke as the

Minister of pollution who now has control of things carries on

in his madcap way.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Read tonight's paper about

Woodfibre.

MR. McGEER: Woodfibre? I can tell you, I was going to take pictures

of Howe Sound last summer when I was out boating on it, because we never had

more debris, never more air pollution, never more water pollution on Howe Sound

than we have today. Never more debris in Vancouver harbour, never more debris

coming down the Fraser River. Never more pollution in British Columbia, Mr.

Speaker, than this very day! The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

has done nothing in the time he's been in power. All we've done is to sleep,

and to sink deeper in this environmental morass.

I want to congratulate the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly)

for having some courage. He's the only one with any guts on the

matter of environment in the NDP government. He's brought a

bill forward. He's blown the whistle on the government, Mr.

Speaker, and he understands about this area. I've been up and

examined it. I know what his concern is.

This was formerly Tweedsmuir Park, named after a great

figure in this country, formerly one of the beauty spots of the

world, now turned into an environmental nightmare through

indifference and carelessness, perpetuated by indifference,

callousness and neglect by the present government.

Mr. Speaker, in my view, the only way to handle this and

other problems is to begin cracking down. It could be readily

done by requiring that those who benefit from the power

developed by that flooded land either be required on their own

to repair the environmental damage they've created, or that the

provincial government do the job for them and charge it to them

either by taxes or by direct levies. The appropriate way, of

course, is to draw down the reservoir the necessary number of

feet while that total area is cleared out on the foreshore.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: That's the way it's been done ... yes, you're

quite right. It was the old B.C. Electric that flooded Stave

Lake.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: It's going to take a long time, but the point is

that the job has been started on Stave Lake. There's a little

bit of profit there; there are valuable trees.

But, Mr. Speaker, how hollow it is for a government to stand

in opposition to convince the media and the electorate that

they deserved office because they were going to attend to these

things; then get into that comfortable row of pews over there

on the other side.... Nobody's more comfortable than the

elegant Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources,

wallowing in the luxuries of office, indifferent to the

concerns of the little man, contemptuous of the rural areas of

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's No. 9 speech, isn't it, Pat?

MR. McGEER: No, no, that's coming later.

Mr. Speaker, there aren't too many people who have courage

of principle. We can certainly exclude

[ Page 2408 ]

the Minister responsible.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Like sticking with the Liberal

Party.

MR. McGEER: I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker: some of us are

consistent in the stands we take. We mean what we say, and if

we were to claim we were going to do something about pollution,

we'd do it. But the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources is a man who had much to say in opposition; and as

far as I can tell from studying his actions, he has been what

the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) said: Mr. Inconsistency.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's you.

MR. McGEER: I didn't coin that phrase for him, but it

certainly fits.

MR, L.A. WILLIAMS: If the cap fits, wear it. And put the

hair in next time.

MR, McGEER: Certainly I could....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's quite uncalled for.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You already withdrew that

matter; I'd be delighted if you'd leave it where you threw

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you just throw him out?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I could spend the rest of the

evening citing the hypocritical stands of that Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw the word "hypocritical." You know it's not permitted

in the House.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll rely on my records here

of Hansard to illustrate my point. I would leave it to

you, Sir, and the Members to....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member withdraw the statement?

MR. McGEER: Of course.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. McGEER: I just want to cite evidence and leave the

conclusion to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the matter is to be

unqualified, and that's all there is to it.

MR. McGEER: Of course, Mr. Speaker, of course. I don't want

to make a value judgment; I would like the House to do

that.

I quote from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources with respect to estimates of the Minister of Lands

and Forests (Mr. Williston) who preceded him. May I read what

he had to say in Hansard , January 26, 1970, page 32?

The Minister of Lands and Forests' estimates during the last

session were dealt with in one day. The economic base of this

province — lands, forests and water resources — were dealt with

in one day, because the Leader on the other side of the House

was determined there shouldn't be a full debate. That's the

reason....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Who said that...

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It was a good speech.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: ...about the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources? The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

When did he say that? Mr. Speaker, he said that when he was

in opposition. He sat right down there in the chair now

occupied by the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison).

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Those were the days.

MR. McGEER: Those were the days. Yes sir, Mr. Speaker,

that's the kind of thing he said when he was in opposition.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He was a real fighter then.

MR. McGEER: Yes sir, criticizing the government for passing

estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

in a single day — two and a half hours of debate. Boy, did he

think that was disgraceful when he was in opposition!

[ Page 2409 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Two and a half hours?

MR. McGEER: He was a tiger about those sorts of things then,

and he was a tiger about pollution.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I'm not going to call him hypocritical, Mr.

Speaker. That's unparliamentary.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I wouldn't call that Minister hypocritical.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. By doing it indirectly, you are

doing so.

MR, McGEER: I'm not. I'm not calling him hypocritical, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that becomes a sophistry, as you

know.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, would you explain that?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, after the big words you used yesterday,

we are clearly entitled to try.

MR. McGEER: I'm trying to support the Member for Omineca

(Mr. Kelly). I'm trying to tell the Member for Omineca and the

House the sorts of things the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources used to say before he began to wallow in the

luxuries of office — when he cared about the people instead of

himself, when he was worried about the environment instead of

the comforts he had in office, when he was a man instead of a

Minister.

Yes sir, Mr. Speaker, times change, but the problem stays

because the people who now occupy those offices — I won't call

them hypocrites...

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't cry.

MR. McGEER: ...that's unparliamentary. But I will say this, Mr. Speaker,

if I may: they were less than totally frank. I don't think they wanted to solve

these problems; I think what they really wanted was power. I think they were

willing to say anything to gain power, and I think that when they got power

they lost their interest. That's why the Member for Omineca has to bring in

bills like this one: because the government doesn't care about anyone but itself.

The government is callous. The government doesn't care about the environment.

The government doesn't care about any of the things it crowed about when it

was in opposition. The government only cares about itself.

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

Communications) : All you care about is yourself. You're the

most selfish man in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw that.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to make comparisons,

but I think that was unkind. (Laughter.) I think that was very

unkind.

MR. SPEAKER: I think both sides of the House have been

unkind this evening, and I hope that kindness will restore

itself to the debate.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between

kindness and candour.

AN HON. MEMBER: See a doctor, Pat.

MR. McGEER: I've been advised to see a psychiatrist, but I'm

resisting that temptation for the moment.

MR, L.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Transport has lost his

voice.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, I want to once more reiterate

my strong support for the Member for Omineca, and I want to

remind him that many times in this House I've said that the

backbenchers must rise up.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right.

MR. McGEER: They've got to fight for their rights, because

their own survival depends on it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we backbenchers — and I speak for myself as well as the Member for Omineca —

stand up and strike a blow for the people, we'll begin to get

some action on the problems that have been neglected for so

long in British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't help but think that

maybe the Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) might reconsider

the bill after that speech from the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

You know when I hear a speech like that from the good doctor

from Point Grey, the professor from the

[ Page 2410 ]

university, I can't help but think about giving some kind of

grade. At best it is a C-minus piece of work. It's just too

much to hear from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey talking

about lack of concern by this government with respect to

environmental questions.

You can check your estimate book. You can see what we are

spending now in Williston reservoir. Hydro is spending more

than it ever spent. It is mopping up the mess left by that crew

in terms of their projects all across the landscape of British

Columbia. Hydro now has the job of cleaning up, with the

British Columbia Forest Service, the massive mess on Williston

reservoir because you didn't care about it at the beginning.

You were willing to create the biggest lake in the province,

inundate all the trees, forget the wildlife, not even carry out

hydrographic surveys — not even hydrographic surveys with

respect to creating the greatest, huge, the largest lake in

British Columbia. Absolutely incredible!

That was par for the course for 20 years in British

Columbia. So we are now spending more money cleaning up as a

result of the Columbia River treaty. In the lowest water on the

Arrow Lakes in the last year in the summer we spent extra money

out of B.C. Hydro — not tied to the Columbia River treaty, my

friends — extra money from our own Hydro utility to clean up

the beaches on the Arrow Lakes. The people on the Arrow Lakes

know it, but I doubt if the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

ever gets up there.

Additional work is going on now on that mess that is named,

beautifully, Williston reservoir. We have had to create a huge

new barge to burn the debris in the middle of the lake. We are

trying all these new experimental methods. As a result, the

British Columbia Forest Service under the NDP administration

has become the world's experts in cleaning out massive, messy

reservoirs — something to be proud of, gentlemen and madam.

That's the job we inherited from you. And then to hear from the

Liberals....

AN HON. MEMBER: Independent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whatever.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Liberal-Socred or whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Tory backbencher.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a recycled Liberal — a retread.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. No wonder the price for recycled

products is going down these days and the recycling agencies

are having trouble.

But one can't help forget, Mr. Speaker, that Ootsa Lake and the dam that created

Ootsa Lake was named after a prominent Liberal, Mr. Kenney, another former Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. That was the way the Liberals did things

in the old days. And Kenney Dam — what kind of money did Mr. Kenney think was

tremendous funding for reservoir cleanup on Ootsa Lake, the very one that the

Member for Omineca is concerned about, just as the former Minister of Agriculture

(Mr. Shelford) said he was concerned but never did anything about it? What amount

of money did Mr. Kenney think was great from the aluminum company for cleaning

up that mess? Why, he included $250,000 right in the bill and agreements! A

quarter of a million dollars was the outside limit for reservoir cleanup on

Ootsa, Whitesail and all of the various lakes in the chain and all the rest

in Tweedsmuir Park — $250,000 from the big-spending Liberals concerned about

the environment in those days!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How much would you have spent 30 years

ago? Where were you 30 years ago?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And what was the impact even of that?

Minimal, absolutely minimal. And now the job has fallen to the

new government. The job again has fallen to the new government,

again to work on the mess left from the coalition

administration.

We have spent $300,000 a year in experimental work on Ootsa

Lake south of Vanderhoof to see exactly what the costs will be.

The intent is to follow that up once we've developed a full

programme — and we are very close to that now. Then we can go

to the aluminum company and say: "Look, this is the cost of the

mess. This is the cost of the inheritance you've left us and we

think the job is for you to do and for you to fund." That seems

a reasonable approach to me, and I am sure it would seem a

reasonable approach to the Member for Omineca.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey can say all he likes

about the lack of concern, but what about new projects? It just

isn't happening any more in British Columbia. The new projects

of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority will involve

total clearing of the basins, and they will be small basins. We

don't intend to get into the massive reservoirs that you on

that side got into in the past, both for the aluminum company

in the form of the Liberals and the old Tories and the messes

that Hydro had to create under the former Social Credit

administration. It simply isn't happening.

There's now a process, and the process involves public

hearings. But before the public hearings, there are information

meetings. As a result, in the Pend-d'Oreille, information

meetings were held by B.C. Hydro in the area. Subsequently

there were hearings held by the water comptroller from the

[ Page 2411 ]

water resources branch. There will be additional hearings by

the comptroller of the water resources branch with respect to

the Pend-d'Oreille. There will be full clearing of that

basin.

In addition, there will be moneys provided to add to the

development of wildlife areas and the rest that will be

affected by that small pond. It is a totally different approach

to any administration in the history of British Columbia — at

long last, Mr. Speaker, an administration that accepts

environmental responsibility and is willing to pay the price

and the costs to see that the right thing is done. It's never

been done before in terms of the treatment of our resources in

this province, and I am very proud of these kinds of tremendous

changes and steps that have taken place in little over two

years.

I therefore move adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker,

until the next sitting.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 14

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

the House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

MR. SPEAKER: Now, where do we start? The Hon. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Could

you explain how we moved from public bills in the hands of

private Members to public bills?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we wish to make a correction, and move

to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, how did we get to public

bills when we haven't discharged...?

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we're still on public bills

in the hands of private Members. The order paper has not been

discharged. How did we move to public bills?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I haven't had the opportunity to deal with that

query that I had as to whether we could move on to any public

bills in the hands of government.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How can you move without a motion of this

House?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You don't need a motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, this afternoon I seem to recall

we went on with debate on a public bill in the hands of the

government — the Minister of Finance — without objection. Now

is the position that the Hon. Members object to debate on any

public bills in the hands of the government?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I specifically object. I want to

point out to you that the order paper for today, May 15, page 20, gives second reading of public bills

in the hands of private Members. The government knows full well

that it can't defy orders of the day without unanimous leave of

the House.

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, we've moved through a period

of the evening right through the orders of the day. We're

moving from that

section of the orders of the day and standing

orders demanded by standing orders. The House is now ready to

move to the next item on the order paper, which is public bills

and orders. That's what the Member said when she asked for

second reading of that bill — public bills and orders.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, items come up in order, on page 20

of our orders of the day. The next tern after Bill 15 is second reading of Bill 16. We're

[ Page

2412 ]

not going to have that government trample on the rights of

private Members; we're not going to have them defy the rules.

You have insisted, Sir, that we stick by the rules of the

House, and we're going to do that. Unanimous leave is not

granted.

MR. SPEAKER: If you look at the standing orders, on page 20,

you'll see public bills in the hands of private Members — well,

we've had that both this afternoon and this evening.

MR. McGEER: Oh, Mr. Speaker, don't try that. The order paper

says it clearly, and you cannot defy the order paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm trying to explain the

situation.

MR. McGEER: You have already made one bad mistake in a

week.

MR. SPEAKER: We've had public bills in the hands of private

Members this afternoon and we've had the same public bills in

the hands of private Members this evening. We've also had

public bills in the hands of the Minister of Finance — a

government bill — this afternoon. We've got to that stage of

the order paper, page 20, and the question I have to consider

is whether at any stage you can move out of that item on the

order paper. That's the question I want to consider; that's why

I was....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think this confirms my own thinking on it. I

think the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is correct in

that this is private Members' day and that we have been in

public bills in the hands of private Members this evening. We

haven't exhausted that subject.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Carry on.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to obtain a further step in the order

paper to public bills in the hands of the government, we would

have to have leave of the House. If leave is denied, and it is

clear from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

that it is denied, I would ask the Hon. House Leader to carry

forward with the private Members' day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Don't get up, Bob. Don't get up. Down,

Bob.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...for years in this House, there has

been a well-established precedent that we can move through the

order paper on any day. It is a well-established precedent and

it has happened for years. As long as I have been in the House,

the government has been allowed to move through private

Members' day and move on to public bills and orders, time after

time after time....

MR. SPEAKER: I would appreciate the help of the Hon. Member

in the particular standing order that would assist....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. This is not a time for a row. It is time

for settling the question...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: ...which I would suggest would be to the

advantage of private Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. Right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They just want anarchy, that's all.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Oh, read your standing

orders.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know my standing orders and I know what

the precedents of this House are. You don't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Challenge the Speaker's ruling, Bob.

MR. McGEER: We know what the precedent of the House is.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think if you look at standing

order 27:

"All items standing on the orders of the day, except

government orders, shall be taken up according to the

precedence assigned to each on the order paper.

"

(2) Whenever government business has precedence, government

orders may be called in such sequence as the government may

think fit.

[ Page 2413 ]

The right is reserved to the administration of placing government

orders at the head of the list on every day except Wednesday and Thursday."

Standing order 28 deals with the third reading of bills.

That is not relevant to this.

That appears fairly clear. Now if there is any

interpretation of that, if any Member wishes to volunteer, I am

always willing to listen.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What

section were you quoting, so I can

get it exactly?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Challenge his ruling, Bob.

MR. SPEAKER: I was quoting standing order 27, paragraphs 1

and 2.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Challenge his ruling, Bob.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to get the exact words, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: "Shall be taken up according to the

precedence assigned to each on the order paper" — orders of the

day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the order paper.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay. We have accepted the precedent

assigned to them in orders of the day...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...and we have moved through the orders

of the day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh no, we haven't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, we have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. And when we move to public bills and

orders, then the government order, as it says in

section 2, has

the precedence. We have moved through orders of the day and met

the requirement of standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is arguing, as I take it, that

once you go into the question of public bills in the hands of private Members,

you have paid subservience to that rule and that you can then move on. Is that

what you are in effect saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: What nonsense!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. And let me tell you further to my

point, we did this exact same thing: we met the requirements of

orders of the day at the very beginning when we moved into

Committee of Supply and immediately — immediately, even though

we were still on Committee of Supply — immediately the House

accepted a motion that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. That's right. But we had

met the requirements of the standing order and orders of the

day.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Move a motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Challenge the ruling.

MR, SPEAKER: I would submit that the question in this is....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Challenge the ruling if you don't like

the ruling.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is whether, having

paid some subservience to the rule...

AN HON. MEMBER: Only lip service.

MR. SPEAKER: ...the House can move on without leave or

without a motion.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Right. Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a very serious question. I don't know

that it has been settled by a Speaker. I would like very much

to look at the subject and, in the meantime, to avoid the

problem being hastily decided, because it is very important to

private Members, I would suggest that the House proceed with

private Members' day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I'll look at that question.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we do this,

[ Page 2414 ]

then, on the understanding you are going to be looking into

the matter and reporting?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I want to see this question properly

decided.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 21.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order. Without interrupting the

House Leader's calling of the bill, I just draw your attention,

Mr. Speaker, to your own report, The Legislative Procedure and

Practice Inquiry Act, the second report, at page 40, where you

refer to times allotted to debate private Members' business in

British Columbia, which is supposed to be two afternoons per

week. I would tend to think, Mr. Speaker, this is about the

first time we have had private Members' business debated in

this Legislature for the better part of a year, let alone two

afternoons per week.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether that helps the problem,

but anyway I will look at the problem and report on it.

MR. GARDOM: It may help Your Honour's

interpretation.

MR. SPEAKER: Now may we get on with the bill?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I make a further request to

assist Your Honour in this matter? I....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. One at a time, please.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must

disagree with some advice that the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) gave to you, because I've

sat for many Thursdays in this House over the past 12 years,

watching very carefully this particular rule. What has always

happened in the past is that on Thursdays — and this is

something that the Minister was unable to perceive when he was

Leader of the Opposition — the government always called

estimates to avoid this precedent of public bills in the hands

of private Members. On one or two occasions there was an

exception made, but always the government asked leave, and it

was granted. Had the Government Leader asked leave this

evening, it might have been granted...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who do you speak for?

MR. McGEER: ...but to assume that we would approve and

ignore the order paper I think was a mistake on the part of the government. I for one, on this

particular occasion, since we have not had a private Members'

day for a year and a half, would want to see us have the

opportunity to debate....

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know that that's contributed at all to

the question I have to consider, although it sounds like an

editorial. I'm only interested in proceeding with the bill

that's been called. I can look into the question.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On a point of order, in view

of the fact that just a little while ago we adjourned Bill 15 —

and it was not adjourned to the next sitting of this House; it

was simply adjourned — I think we should be returning to Bill

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Oh, come on! Wake

up!

MR. MORRISON: It was not adjourned to the next sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Which one was that? What number?

MR. MORRISON: Bill 15 was adjourned, not to the next sitting

of the House, but simply adjourned.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, silly bunch of jerks!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll check the record. I can't recall

whether the motion was properly put.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're absolutely childish! You can't even

keep the party together!

AN HON. MEMBER: You've forgotten how to govern!

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, I would like to suggest to

the Hon. House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) that if she looks at

our own rules, standing order 27(l), when we are in the process

of debating public bills in the hands of private Members, and

we're on second reading, "all items standing on the order paper

(except government orders)," which this is not, "shall

be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the

order paper." I would suggest that you're bound by that rule to

call 16 and 17 before you get to 21, Madam House Leader.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You're correct.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's an obligation to call

[ Page 2415 ]

the items on the order paper, except government orders, in

their proper order on the order paper.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Did you move adjournment of this one, Bob?

Then we'll go to second reading of Bill 16.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't think there's really much use in

calling Bill 15 again because I would assume that if there is

some defect in the adjourned debate motion....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: You say there was no defect? The motion was

that the debate on Bill 15 be adjourned. Is that what you're

saying?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We moved adjournment of the debate, as I

recollect. That's automatically until the next sitting.

MR. MORRISON: No, it's not.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Bill 16 has been called, Mr. Speaker. The

House has disposed, one way or another, of Bill 15. The House

has disposed of it.

MR. MORRISON: No, it hasn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It certainly has. Bill 16 has been called

for second reading, and I now move adjournment of debate on

second reading of Bill 16 until the next sitting.

MR, MORRISON: You can't do that!

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of

order, could I have clarification whether, in fact, Bill 15 was

adjourned until the next sitting, or simply adjourned?

MR. SPEAKER: It was simply adjourned, and that means that it

has been taken up on the order paper. We now move on to 16,

because 15 was before the House, was called, was debated, was

adjourned — whether it was adjourned to next sitting, it was

dealt with, and we called the next in precedence, which is Bill

MR. GIBSON: Surely now we're back to that same point again where that

bill was adjourned in the same sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the point is I don't think that because

it was just simply adjourned....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Have you any great thoughts on the subject? It

seems to me that once it's been adjourned.... That debate has

been called; it's been adjourned....

MR. GIBSON: It should be called again until it's adjourned

to the next sitting.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, who's in charge over there? It's

hopeless!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're trying to ruin this place!

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crushing majority!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think Members should realize

that this rather novel situation of moving the adjournment of a

debate without setting a time could result in what would amount

to a dropped order. That is, it might not come up again on the

order paper unless it is restored to a time. Since there's no

time set for it to debate, it's in limbo at the moment, as I

see it.

If anybody has any great thoughts on the subject....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: These people are trying to create a

shambles of this place. There's a motion before the House!

The House has disposed of Bill 15 and it now must go to Bill

16. I have moved adjournment of the debate until the next

sitting, and that's what's before this House — nothing

else!

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask

the Hon. Minister whether he wants Bill 15 to be in limbo. It

is, after all, a bill standing in the name of a Member of his

own party.

MR. SPEAKER: I am prepared, with leave of the House, to

revert to Bill 15 before any motion on 16. I think it might

solve the difficulty of leaving a bill out there in the cold.

(Laughter.) Shall leave be granted?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, somebody has to move the

motion. Despite the irresponsible

[ Page 2416 ]

behaviour of these people, I am going to recommend that the

Member move that it be adjourned until the next sitting —

despite their irresponsible, shameful behaviour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I was trying to ask the House

for leave to revert to and call Bill 15. Shall leave be

granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I recognize the Hon. Minister....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. Minister adjourned the debate,

and if it were called the next day he would be the first

recognized. It's being called now, and he adjourned the

debate.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The motion, Mr. Speaker, is to adjourn

this debate until the next sitting.

MR. MORRISON: He can't do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member tell me why he can't do

it?

MR. MORRISON: That Minister has lost his place in the debate

for today. It must therefore be adjourned by some other

Member.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, the adjournment was

by this Member. Therefore I believe that I had the right to

then follow up with respect to the debate, and I have moved

adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: So where do we go from here?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I explain the situation? The

House agreed to the adjournment of this debate, moved by the

Hon. Member, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, and the debate was adjourned. By leave of the House

the bill was recalled, as if it were another sitting.

Therefore, since he adjourned the debate, he would naturally

have precedence on the order paper if this were another

sitting. Since it's been called the same day by leave of the

House, I must recognize the Member who adjourned it, and I so

do. The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I move adjournment, Mr. Speaker, to the

next sitting.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion.

MR. McGEER: Point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. McGEER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your

attention to standing order 54: "A motion being once made, and

carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be put again in

the same session...."

MR. SPEAKER: Well, as you observed earlier, this is a

different motion.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that Member's putting the motion

twice in the same sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: No, he isn't. The Hon. Member himself observed

that the motion that previously was given was not the same as

he's now given. The motion he's now giving is quite different

from the one which merely adjourned the debate. This is a

motion to adjourn the debate to the next sitting of the House,

which is a different motion. Consequently, the standing order

you referred to would not apply.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, it says under that same rule

54 that, whatever the motion was, it must stand as a judgment

of the House. A vote in the affirmative may be rescinded in

order that the House discharge on a motion to that....

MR. SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately for your point, the House

gave leave. That changes the situation.

MR. McGEER: Did the House give you...?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. McGEER: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour say aye.

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary if any, no.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall leave being given by

Members to make the motion. It reflects on the House — that's

another standing order — that to have a motion put which

rescinds the effect of another motion reflects on the House and

can't be put. Another Member could put that motion, Mr.

Speaker, but, really, I think we're violating standing

[ Page 2417 ]

orders.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I must disagree. It's been a long

custom that the one who adjourns the debate is the one first

called upon. The House gave proper leave for the bill to be

called again, and it would pick up where it left off, with the

same Member speaking and his position is not well-taken on

standing order 54. In any case, I would now confirm that we are

taking the motion. I'll take it again.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading, Mr. Speaker, of Bill

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: For the third time this evening, Mr.

Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate on behalf of the lady

Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown).

AN HON. MEMBER: She's not here!

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that if he were

absent from the House he'd expect someone to move the

adjournment of his bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. House Leader.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 17.

TENANTS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the lady Member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), I move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if

you could clarify for the House, when we are referring to the

past two bills, the Affirmative Action Plan Act by the Hon.

Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and the Tenants'

Collective Bargaining Rights Act by the Hon. Member for

Vancouver-Burrard, who is very strong in her affirmative acts

and approach to women's liberation, why the Hon. Minister keeps

insulting her by referring to her as the lady Member from

Burrard. It's the Hon. Member for Burrard. I am sure she would

wish us to take this up on her behalf.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm sure she would.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 21.

MRS. JORDAN: It's Bill 18, and the Member isn't even in the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is here

I believe.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm going by the orders here.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry, it's not in that order?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's not in that order on the order

paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we follow the order paper, then?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Wasn't Bill 18 withdrawn, as indicated by

the sponsor of the bill, the lady Member for Comox?

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, yes, I think it was. Yes, I recall that the

Hon. Member asked leave of the House to withdraw that bill, and

it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Which is the number of the bill?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 21.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER PRIVACY ACT

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

rise with some hesitation tonight after the fate suffered by

the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), who not only lost out but

left the chamber in horror and shock. However, I hope that

after a fairly spirited few minutes I could bring the attention

of the House to a principle which I believe to be quite

important, and that is the need now for an increased awareness

on the part of government, provincially, federally and at local

level as well — municipalities — for computer privacy. That is

the theme of the bill which is before us — the Government

Computer Privacy Act. It has been on the order paper in

previous years.

In The Vancouver Sun , briefly, Mr. Speaker, on March

8, 1974, in one of a series of articles.... I'm sorry that the

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) is not in her

place at this time because I really think that any Minister in

charge of consumer affairs in any government must, in the

course of his or her daily activity, realize the threat posed

by the increased use of computers, not only in the private

sector but the public sector as well. In fact, I would go so

far as to hope and guess that the Minister of Consumer Services

in the present government would support the principle of this

bill.

This article, to which I referred earlier, in The

[ Page

2418 ]

Vancouver Sun well

over a year ago was one of a series from "Consumer Cause," and the

author is Peter Wilson. I won't take more than a few moments to read

just three paragraphs:

"The envelope is becoming a familiar visitor. Every month

for the past year it has been popped into your mailbox shiny

bright, fresh from the computer. Inside the envelope is a bill

for a toaster, six pairs of socks, a tennis racket, two dozen

buttons. In all, it comes to $82.57. What angers you is that it

is $82.57 worth of goods you never bought. Even worse, the

toaster, the socks, the racket and buttons are billed to a

department store account you cancelled three years ago."

Now that

article and others along the same vein deal with

the nuisance factor of computers. It is, Mr. Speaker — I think

all of us will recognize — a common comment in conversation

these days to refer to the fact that, "I've been talking to a

computer in Toronto about my gasoline bill," or, "I've

been talking to the ICBC computer; I've been talking to some

other computer; and I'm not getting any answers. The computer

is ignoring my answers."

Yes, even getting bills and cheques from ICBC, Hon. Members

for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and First Member for Victoria

(Mr. Morrison).

So much for the nuisance, however. The intent of this bill

is to make certain, whether it happens now or at the earliest

possible time after this government leaves office, that the

Province of British Columbia will take the necessary steps,

will take a leadership role in a matter which should be and

which we believe is of an increasing concern to many of our

citizens.

That is the abuse and possible misuse of computer

information by government departments and agencies, not

necessarily for political reasons, although that's a subject in

itself, but rather the transfer of information from one

department to another, the building of a file in the hands of

government, with no need for accountability and with I think,

great threat to the individual citizen.

I would hope that the bill would commend itself. I'm sorry,

Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), if you are not happy

with it, but I would hope that the bill will commend itself to

a number of government Members, not the least of which, as I

said earlier, would be the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon.

Ms. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have seen material related to

this. I have held for some time a portion of a report which is

entitled "Privacy in Computers." This is a report of a task

force established jointly by the Department of Justice and the

Department of Communications in the federal government, the

computer privacy:

"Privacy is not a single value or claim or interest. It is

the constellation of values, claims and interests in a universe

of concurring and competing values, of supporting and

antagonistic claims of allied and adverse interests. The claim

to privacy, as we know it, is eminently a phenomenon of the

industrial and post-industrial age. The process, however, is at

times one way."

The concept of privacy is dealt with in this document, Mr.

Speaker; also there are many points which deal with the history

of privacy as far as the individual is concerned, of laws which

guarantee the freedom of movement and expression, prohibiting

physical assault, and restricting unwarranted search or seizure

of the person. A sense of privacy which transcends the

physical.

Finally — if I could just find the crunch — on page 20 of

the report to which I referred you:

"Provided the political will exists, the computer can be a

most effective instrument for achieving the dispersal of

information, and therefore, to the extent that the two are

linked, for the dispersal of power.

"Like any powerful implement, the computer can be exploited

for good or for evil. The public will, rightly, cease to hold

the computer in awe only when it will clearly be used solely as

a power for good. Although its influence appears to have been

largely beneficial so far, in terms of enhancing productivity

and efficient administration, the issue of its full social

impact is far from settled."

Now, Mr. Speaker, last year I had correspondence from a

member of the Department of Consumer Services, in fact the

Deputy Minister, who felt that this question of computer

privacy was fully dealt with in bill which was introduced by

the government. But that is not the case when we review what is

now in law in British Columbia and what is still needed.

Whether it's a private Member's bill, and their fate is

well-known, I would urge all Members of this House that we

address ourselves to the question of computer privacy and not

leave it simply to legislation against the private sector —

that will be necessary; that is recognized and admitted — but

the government now in British Columbia takes the leadership

role that is necessary and set a standard for other parts of

North America.

I move second reading of Bill 21.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the former

government's attitude to people's rights, I find this a strange

bill from that Member. I find also, in looking at the bill,

that it is out of order. It requires an expenditure of

government funds. Therefore I won't move adjournment; I'll ask

that the bill be

[ Page 2419 ]

considered to be out of order. It insists that a Minister

set up data bank, and that requires government expenditure.

MRS. JORDAN: Which bill are you referring to?

HON. MR. COCKE: Bill 21. It requires that the Crown expend

money. If you will check, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I've looked at the bill.

HON. MR. COCKE:

Section 2.

MR. SPEAKER:

Section 2 and

section 5 are two items without

which the bill could hardly function. Therefore they are

sections of the bill which are requisite to its functioning,

and they require, in the first case,

section 2: the expenditure

of public moneys; that a register be kept by the Minister and

that many things be done with respect to that; the operation of

a data bank; the operator advising the Minister; a number of

records have to be kept; and a government data bank and so on.

All those are matters of public expenditure that would be

required by this bill.

The second point is that the Hon. Member has provided for

penalties against persons. It would be out of order for a

private Member to propose penalties to any member of the public

in a public bill in his hands. I might point out that the rule

is, under standing order 58, that before I put the question on

the bill it is my duty to rule the bill out of order before the

second reading is completed. Second reading on that bill was

not completed; the Hon. Member adjourned the debate, as you

recall, when he was winding up. So we never did get to the

putting of the question of second reading.

I try to make a practice of allowing debate until I am

stopped by a point of order, I was not stopped by a point of

order, as you will recall, on that bill. But on this one I

have been stopped on a point of order.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to differ with your

interpretation. The

Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) did move second reading. Then

there was a full range of debate on that bill...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...a full range of debate on government

bills which were clearly out of order for the same reason.

MR. SPEAKER: May I read the standing order to the Hon. Member?

MR. McCLELLAND: There was never anything said. The Member

for Richmond moved second reading and closed the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: No, he didn't.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: As long as it's a government Member,

everything's fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please withdraw that?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the

Member for Richmond this afternoon in which he moved second

reading of his private Member's bill — a public bill in the

hands of a private Member. There was wide-ranging debate on his

bill. He was allowed to close the debate....

MR. SPEAKER: He did not close the debate.

MR.CHABOT: ...which you're not allowing the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) tonight. How inconsistent

can you be?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is not only insulting; he is in

error.

MR. CHABOT: You're inconsistent.

MR. SPEAKER: You, Sir, are quite wrong, and I'll point out

why.

MR. CHABOT: Okay, try.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member spoke on the debate in second

reading. He was followed by a number of Members who also

spoke.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. He then started ... he was

recognized to speak on it in winding up. Before he finished

winding up, he stated that he wished to speak further on the

subject. He moved....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! He moved adjournment of the debate, and

the records of this House will show that.

MR. CHABOT: He was allowed to close the

[ Page 2420 ]

debate. You're not allowing the Member for Saanich to do

that.

MR. SPEAKER: He did not conclude closing the debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll tell you the simple reason that makes it

entirely consistent. A Member was recognized on a point of

order — the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was

recognized in this debate — and he pointed out that it was out

of order. When that happens, it is my duty to draw to the

attention of the House that it's out of order. But in the case

of the Member for Richmond, no one brought it to the attention

of the House. Therefore I could not feel that I could rule it

out of order without someone raising that point of order. But

remember this: standing order 58 also says that before I put

the question, it is my duty, under that standing order, on my

own volition to rule it out of order if, in my opinion, it is

out of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, because I didn't put the question. The

question on second reading has not been put. It will have to be

called on a further day when the Hon. Member either concludes

his remarks, on which are adjourned...

AN HON. MEMBER: It'll never happen.

MR. SPEAKER: ...and in which case I will then have to deal

with that very question. I read out to the Hon. Member for

Columbia River:

"Whenever the Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to

the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of

parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately

before putting the question thereon and quote the rule or

authority that is applicable to the case."

In this case, the Hon. Member's bill is out of order under

standing order 67 because it calls for an expenditure and it

also involves penalties to citizens of the province.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr.

Speaker.

HIGHLAND WATER CONTROL ACT

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, after what we've seen — the kinds

of strange moves being made by the opposition here tonight — I sort of wonder

what kind of point they're going to raise next.

We do have an opportunity to discuss our bills, and this

bill, the Highland Water Control Act, comes from the fact that

the farmers, in the Fraser Valley particularly, have a real

problem. They have a problem because of the development that's

taking place in the highlands. That problem exists in many

areas; it's existed for many years. We've certainly had it in

the municipality of Delta where when we've had rapid

development on the highlands for housing....

MR. CHABOT: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member has a point of

order. Would the Hon. Member for Delta be seated for a

minute?

MR. CHABOT: A point of order. On examining this bill it

appears to me that the bill involves an impost on the Crown —

the expenditure of public funds. It appears to be clearly out

of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I'm doing the same as your Minister of Health

did; absolutely the same kind of garbage you offered. I've seen

you do it before.

MR. LIDEN: The opposition in this House is not one to

cooperate to try and get any business done.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the Member for Delta's mike

was turned on without his being recognized in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! How did that happen?

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he is

wielding a very sharp, two-edged sword.

MR. CHABOT: I don't take that kind of nonsense from you, Mr.

Speaker! You can tell me when I'm wrong or right according to

standing orders. I don't think that kind of facetious remark....

MR. SPEAKER: It wasn't a facetious remark. I point out that

the Hon, Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) was

allowed to complete his statement on what his bill was. While

he was doing so, I was studying the bill to make sure what its

state was in regard to the rules of the House. I was trying to

do that as well with the bill that is before us now, Bill

But I point out to the Hon. Member for Columbia River that

the type of order he raised just now invites the kind of

retaliation against Members of the opposition as well. I was

rather hoping that both sides

[ Page 2421 ]

of the House would be tolerant with each other with regard

to their private Members' bills.

MR. GARDOM: It's an asinine rule!

MR. SPEAKER: It may well be, but I have to administer the

rules as they are. I hope for some tolerance by the Members so

that each Member may have an opportunity to explain the

purposes of his bill before some other kind person gets up and

tells him it is out of order. If the Hon. Member and the

opposition want me to be absolutely inflexible, it is no

problem. But I would like a little flexibility in coming to the

conclusion that a bill is out of order. I want to look at the

bill; in the meantime, I would suggest the Hon. Member pursue

his explanation.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to this House, and it

ought to be obvious to everybody in the media, obvious to

everybody in this province, obvious to everybody in this

country, the kind of thing that's been going on in this House,

particularly from the Member that's taken up from his seat and

heading for the door. He has been doing this sort of thing

today, yesterday, the day before, and he had the help from all

of his other....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

The Hon. Member for Columbia River on a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: I wish, Mr. Speaker, from time to time you would

listen to the debates that are taking place in this House and

see whether they are relevant to the matter at hand. It appears

you do when it happens to be the opposition, but not when it is

the back bench.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say to the Hon. Member that as a result

of his previous offer of information to me, I have been

studying the bill. I am looking at it at present so my

attention was somewhat distracted. I don't know what the Hon.

Member was saying that the Member for Columbia River takes

exception to.

MR. CHABOT: Don't give me that stuff!

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the Hon. Member for

Columbia River would take exception to anything that is said in

this House unless he says it. He is so busy trying to make the

rules. He wants to leave the House. He doesn't want to hear

what has happened in the past when this problem was raised when

they were the government and nothing was done.

As far back as 1955, Mr. Speaker, there was a bill introduced by that group

to try and correct the wrongs that exist in the farmlands that receive the runoff

from the developing highlands. That bill was introduced in 1955. It was a government

bill at that time. The government of that day backed off and they didn't care

to move forward to solve the problem. Some of the areas have been able to solve

the problem themselves. Some of them have been able to tackle it because it

was within their boundaries. But there are other areas like the lowlands, the

Serpentine, the Nicomekl River. Those are the kinds of areas where the farmers

have some real problems. They can handle all the water that falls on their own

land with no difficulty.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey ought to know — he's got

some rose bushes in his constituency...

MR. GARDOM: No, I don't. No, I don't.

MR. LIDEN: ...but he hasn't got a piece of farmland. I

wonder what else he's got there that makes him behave the way

he is behaving. Maybe it is the kind of dinner he had tonight....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LIDEN: He's not very responsible. He hasn't been very

responsible for some days.

MR. GARDOM: I've been here, you dumb-dumb. Don't pick on a

nice guy like me.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, for a Member who is seldom in the

House, to make that kind of remark isn't a very reasonable

thing to do.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, don't give me that.

MR. LIDEN: This bill calls for the examination of the

problem wherever it occurs, by a committee that would be set up

at the request of a diking commissioner, a committee that would

have wide representation from the Department of Agriculture,

from Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and from Municipal

Affairs.

The purpose of the committee would be to examine the

watershed area to see where the runoff comes from and to make

some recommendations in a report that would set out the

drainage area and set out the system of taxation. It's not too

far off the bill that was introduced by that government in 1955 — if they would have had the courage to go ahead with it, if

they'd had the courage to even look at the situation. But they

didn't.

MR. GARDOM: That was the lowland water control Act.

[ Page 2422 ]

MR. LIDEN: The problem is still there. The problem can be

solved if we can set up some method of dealing with it.

I suggest that this bill provides that opportunity, and I

move second reading of that bill.

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

appears to offend against standing order 67, which declares:

"It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any

vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any

part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, except by

message of the Lieutenant-Governor...." and therefore I must

rule it out of order.

I point out that

section 2 describes certain reports that

are advised to be done by the government, which would be

expensive, which would have caused the appropriation of money.

It also, in the explanatory notes, says the higher areas will

be assessed this additional cost in said districts, which

therefore would be placing an impost on the people.

For those two reasons I must rule the bill out of order.

I just want to add that it seems to me, as a courtesy to

Members, it would be welcome if they would allow Members to

complete their remarks in a normal, brief fashion on the bill

while I can examine it to determine whether it's out of order

without raising the point of order, because it really works a

hardship on the Members of the opposition.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 24.

Regret was expressed at one of our Members being absent. I

express my regret that the Leader of the Official Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) is absent for his own bill.

CITIZENS' INITIATIVE ACT

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. SMITH: Speaking on behalf of the Leader of the

Opposition on Bill 34, I'm quite happy to speak to the House on

private Members' day concerning this bill.

This bill, introduced for second reading this evening,

really, Mr. Speaker, seeks to give recognition to a solution to

the sense of frustration....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I interrupt the Hon. Member?

I think the usual practice would be to move adjournment of the

bill until the Member who is sponsoring it has an opportunity

to introduce it. Would the Hon. Member accept that

suggestion?

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: I would be quite happy to move adjournment of the debate

on behalf of the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), provided I had any

assurance that there would be any opportunity for the bill to be heard before

this House before prorogation or adjournment of this sitting. Since it is only

on rare occasions that private Members' days are allowed in this House, I think

that I should have an opportunity to present a point of view.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: All right, go ahead then. I assume your leader

will be in accord with your desire.

MR. SMITH: It is, as I suggested, that some people feel a

sense of frustration — many groups do in our society today — as

a result of bigness — bigness in government, bigness in

business, big labour organizations. All presently have

characteristics of this. The very fact that they are big means

that many individuals who would like to put forward a point of

view feel that they are frustrated in that desire.

You know, the growth of the parliamentary democracy system

under the British Crown was a series of developments which

added, from time to time, further opportunities for the access

of individuals to the legislative process. As a matter of fact,

we are participating in such a debate this evening, These

include a long struggle for universal suffrage, the right of

citizens to petition the Crown, the recognition of private

Members' day in the Legislature, which we are recognizing and

debating this evening, the rules of the Legislature providing

for the presentations of private Members' motions and numerous

amendments to various statutes which provide for the rights of

referenda or plebiscites. All of these, I suggest, represent a

growth of citizens' participation in the process of

government.

Now the British Columbia Social Credit Party feels that

there's yet another advance we could make at this time, and

this is what I wish to speak to.

We feel that if a significant number of people feel strongly

about a given or a particular subject, that in this statute, as

it is presented, 10 per cent of the registered electors could

petition the Legislature to have a point of view discussed and

put forward for debate and be heard.

Now under our present standing orders, there is no absolute

requirement that petitions, for example, come forward for

debate. There is no requirement that the House Leader bring

forward private bills or private Members' motions for debate.

As a matter of fact, it sometimes is a very rare occasion

indeed. We have seen in the past, and I presume that we will

see in the future, many, many bills and motions die on the

order paper with the prorogation or the adjournment of the

session. The statute that I wish to introduce this evening

would guarantee debate in the

[ Page 2423 ]

Legislature on proposals which were shown to have

significant public interest.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that significant public interest

would be shown by any group who felt strongly enough about any

one particular issue that they were prepared to circulate a

proper petition and obtain 10 per cent of the signatures of the

registered electors in the province. It indeed would be a large

undertaking and one which would certainly not be undertaken

lightly.

Under a long history of the development of the British

parliamentary system, most of the struggles have involved the

rights of the people as opposed to the power of the executive

branch of government. Indeed, I don't wish to reflect, but I

suggest that that is exactly what we are engaged in when we

talk about the closure that has taken place with respect to

estimates.

We feel, as members of the British Columbia Social Credit

Party, that it is time now that we extend this type of right to

the citizens of this province. It's a further avenue of

approach, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the province and the

people who are not personally represented — they are

represented, but by a Member in this House — could have

recourse to alleviate their feelings of frustration which,

under modern conditions, go hand in hand with big government,

big business and big labour organizations.

We feel it is yet another method of ensuring the individual

rights of people so they are not buried by bureaucratic

government, big business, big brother government, or any of the

problems that we become involved in today.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving

second reading of Bill 34, Citizens' Initiative Act, at this

time.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we've had

a lot of discussion tonight, and this bill deals with giving

citizens initiative.

Just briefly, I would like to remind the House how much

initiative existed prior to 1972. This House had no

Hansard . It had a rule that the way you got the

estimates through was by sitting all night until the estimates

were through.

MR. FRASER: At least we got them through.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, yes, you got them through all right —

with an iron boot. With an iron boot, Mr. Member.

MR. FRASER: Ohhh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Exactly that. I sat in this House until

12:35 the next day, and so did you, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, come on. Well into the night.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what has happened here

has been a relaxation of the rules in order that Members can

exist like human beings, and the opposition have taken full

advantage of that kind of situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Interjection.

MR, SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is out of his seat. You

shouldn't be voting out of your seat.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: This is the first time I noticed you out of

your seat.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

FRANCHISE DEALERS

PROTECTION ACT, 1975

[ Page 2424 ]

MR. SMITH: Bill 35 is entitled the Franchise Dealers

Protection Act, 1975.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can read.

MR. SMITH: Don't be facetious. We've had enough of that type

of banter back and forth across the floor of this House in the

last week, Mr. Member. Don't add to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that in a case of

private Members' bills, and when it's in the hands of another

private Member — in this case, the Hon, Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) — I should properly ask for leave of

the House for this Hon. Member, the Member for North Peace

River, to move on behalf of the other Member, who is not here,

second reading. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking to the principle

of the bill, many collective agreements today provide a

systematic system for the arbitration of grievances between

employees and employers who are parties to a collective

agreement.

The purpose of the Franchise Dealers Protection Act is to

provide a system which permits a small businessman, who has

entered into a franchise agreement, a guarantee of arbitration

with respect to any onerous conditions imposed by a franchise

grantor. After all, many of the people who are involved as

small businessmen in the Province of British Columbia are not

large enough to be involved in a collective agreement. They are

quite often one-, two- or three-man business enterprises with a

small number of employees, and the success or failure of the

business quite often depends upon their retention of a

franchise — a franchise which can sometimes be arbitrarily

lifted from that dealer without recourse, something similar to

what happened to the private insurers in the Province of

British Columbia when they were turfed out of the insurance

business as a result of ICBC, and without compensation and

without payment.

In many instances the grantor is a corporation outside the

Province of British Columbia, and it is therefore very

difficult in some instances for the franchise holders to

effectively object, to oppose, conditions which they consider

to be a burden. I am sure the Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Mr. Cummings) knows what I am speaking about.

Complaints have reached our office that during the life of a

contract pressures have been put on individuals and dealers —

sometimes to participate in expensive advertising campaigns or

forfeit their franchise, sometimes to enter into schemes that

they feel they would not otherwise have been willing to

participate in or forfeit their franchise, sometimes by extreme

pressure to feel that they have to out-produce the volume or

quota of the year before by 10, 15, 20 or 30 per cent or lose

their franchise, In such situations at the present time there is very little

recourse for the person involved in such a scheme, or the

holder of such a franchise. For that reason, the purpose of

this statute could very well have application with respect to

the position of, for instance, a small automobile dealer,

someone who operates a filling station for a large oil company,

someone who has a franchise to sell small equipment, sporting

goods. As a matter of fact, I suppose if we tried to make a

list we would find that in the Province of British Columbia we

have hundreds and hundreds of franchise dealers — I would say

thousands.

All of them have signed a contract between themselves and a company which sometimes

have restrictive covenants in them that are hard to live with. That is why we

feel that such a provision enshrined in the statutes of this province would

provide not only a degree of safety to these dealers, but it would also make

the companies that issue franchises aware of their responsibility to the small

and individual person and the small businessman in the Province of British Columbia.

Thus, regardless of the size of the franchise or the dealer,

there would be fairness and equity to all, and small

businessmen would feel they had the same protection as others.

If they were unfairly dealt with, they would not have to become

involved in a lot of litigation and expensive and costly court

fees to seek satisfaction for their particular point of

view.

With those few remarks I take pleasure in moving second

reading of Bill 35 on behalf of the official Leader of the

Opposition.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to a

number of sections in this bill that would make it out of

order.

MR. SMITH: What's out of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You cannot say that it's just a number of

sections.

HON. MR. COCKE: It is so obviously out of order.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. It is setting up boards and so

on, Mr. Speaker. It is quite obvious to all who read it. We

listened to the arguments and it's....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the same rule applies that I indicated

earlier in dealing with the Hon. Member for Richmond, I think

it was, on one of his. He had set up a corporation or

commission. The same, I think, applies in regard to the Member

for Saanich and the Islands' bill — that it would require an

appropriation of public moneys, and it is not with the sanction

of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by message as a message

bill. Under standing order 67 I would have to find that the

bill is out of order in the hands of a private Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 36.

WATER FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, the Water Facilities Assistance

Act is a fairly simple bill but rather, at the same time, comprehensive in its

generalities. It is designed to provide and recognize the need in the many communities

of B.C. — mostly in small communities, but in a few cases, large ones —

[ Page

2425 ]

for senior government aid for water collection and

distribution systems.

We have seen this government in the last three years, for

the first time in the history of the province, place

substantial aid into sewage systems, into recreational

facilities, and expanded aid into senior citizens' housing and

housing of all kinds. But assistance in that most vital

commodity has never been provided for by Act of parliament.

I have hoped that, should the Legislature support the

principle of this bill, they would recognize that the water

systems of the province are not confined to municipalities,

they are not confined even to regional districts. Water systems

of this province cross municipal boundaries; they cross

regional district boundaries; and they are provided for by

irrigation districts, improvement districts, municipalities,

private companies, and in some cases, industrial systems as

well. I would hope that there would be a maximum amount of

flexibility and a maximum recognition of the work that the

water rights branch of the water resources service has put into

this area over the years and the knowledge they have of local

conditions throughout the Province of British Columbia.

I also would like to suggest to this House that water is a

resource. It is a licence to collect water. There are conflicts

between different agencies. There are shortages of water in

various areas of the province. There are problems with quality

as well as quantity, With such a material as sewage, for

instance, it is obviously not a resource, unlike water. In

recognizing this principle, I would hope the House would

support me.

I now move second reading of Bill 36.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I

would draw to your attention the imposts on the Crown under

section 67 — valid as the proposal might be.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the operative words are "shall pay." As soon

as you see those words in a bill, it is obviously going to be out of order if

it doesn't have the message from His Honour brought to the House. On standing

order 67, I have to rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House I

would like to move the following motion, without notice, that the House shall

sit as a Committee of the Whole House from the hour of 10 a.m. until 12 noon

on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to examine any estimates now referred

to the Committee of Supply, and not previously agreed to in that committee.

This order to be effective so long as the House has fixed the day for its next

sitting, unless otherwise ordered.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who said no?

MR. MORRISON: I said no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You said no. Okay. That's fine. No, they

don't want it. They don't want what they have been fighting

before. It's been a fraud!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no point of order on

this matter. It has been disposed of by the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:41 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada