1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1972

Afternoon and Night Sittings

[ Page 787 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to present to the House a group of visitors and ask the House to

welcome them. They are a group of about 60 people, members of the New

Democratic Party in Vancouver South and Point Grey. I ask the House to

welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

galleries today a group of Grade 12 students whose teachers are from

Vancouver South but the school is the Windermere School. They are my

guests for today in the galleries. I would ask the House to welcome

them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are in

the legislative precincts today, and will be later in the galleries, 65

schoolchildren from Surrey Centre School with their two school teachers

and their helpers. I hope that the assembly will welcome them in the

usual fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I'd like the

Legislature to welcome a class of young people from Glanford Secondary

School. I know that they show forth the happiness that all of us like

to see in this Legislature. Happiness is a direction, not a place.

Thank you, I'd like you to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting after today:

Bill No. 90 intituled

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act .

Bill No. 88 intituled

An Act to Amend the Trade-unions Act .

Orders of the day.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

THIRD READINGS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 23 Mr Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 23, intituled

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act .

Bill No. 23 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 24, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 24, intituled

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962 .

Bill No. 24 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 31, intituled

An Act to Amend the Hearing-aid Regulation Act .

Bill No. 31 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 32, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 32, intituled

An Act to Amend the Litter Act .

Bill No. 32 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 42, intituled Human Tissue Gift Act .

Bill No. 42 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 43, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 43, intituled

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act .

MR G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I move an

amendment that the words "six months hence" be substituted for the word

"now." Seconded by the Member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley).

Motion negatived.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 43 be now read a third time.

Motion approved. Bill No. 43 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 44, intituled

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act .

Bill No. 44 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 788 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 45, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 45, intituled

An Act to Amend the Physiotherapists and Massage Practitioners Act .

Bill No. 45 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 46, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 46, intituled

An Act to Amend the Practical Nurses Act .

Bill No. 46 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 5, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1961

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 5. The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): This has been

considered by us, Mr. Speaker, and we've also checked with some of our

colleagues in the profession concerned with the deletion of the

affidavit of bona fides in the Bills of Sale Act .

It seems to be the considered opinion that it has been sort of a check

and balance but it hasn't proved to be too workable. We're supporting

the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question is that Bill No. 5,

An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act , now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 10 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

SHARE CAPITAL PURCHASE ACT, 1972

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No.

10. The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver– Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) is absent.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in Washington.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question is that Bill No. 10, British Columbia Railway Company Share Capital Purchase Act, 1972 be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 10 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 11, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PACIFIC GREAT

EASTERN CONSTRUCTION LOAN ACT, 1954

(continued)

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm winding up the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just want to say this that we have a

further report on the derailment on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway

on February 19, 1972.

The investigation of the derailment indicated that it was no fault

of the locomotive trucks. It shows that the first wheels off were in

the first and second car. These cars are American railway ownership. It

has been found that maintenance in some American railroads of their

equipment has not been up to standards. We have these cars coming on

our tracks.

With the high percentage of foreign equipment on our railway, it makes it more difficult to catch each car's defects.

An engineering study has been completed for the area in question.

The grade from Horseshoe Bay to Vancouver is original construction of

the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in 1914. Since that date housing

developments have taken place between Nelson Creek and Horseshoe Bay to

such an extent that no local revision can be accomplished to improve

the alignment of tracks to reduce the hazards of derailment due to

defects.

The railway has decided to construct a 4,500 foot tunnel from Nelson

Creek to a point beyond Horseshoe Bay which will eliminate 2.1 miles of

the present line in the most densely-populated

section of the railway

subject to damage in event of derailment. This costs about $2 million

but for safety through that area, railway management feels we should

have that tunnel built.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 11,

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954 , be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

B ill No. 11 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BRITISH COLUMBIA

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY ACT, 1964

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 12. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, this bill is kind

of a few pennies that are going to be spent here on behalf of B.C. or

give them permission to borrow a few extra pennies to carry on their

work. $500 million, we're asking the Legislature to authorise them to

spend another $500 million. Now I don't think anyone in the House would

want

[ Page 789 ]

to place any obstacle in the way of the B.C. Hydro

from carrying on and progressing as the province progresses. The only

thing that we have been asking for is an accounting or an indication as

to where this $500 million may be spent.

We know that we were short a great deal on the Columbia River Treaty

development. It would be quite easy for the Honourable the Minister of

Finance to tell us some of it is going to be spent here. We know

there's other projects in the offing such as the pipeline to the

island, is it going to be spent there? There's talk about the Moran

dam. Is there any idea that it might be used for the building of the

Moran dam?

I feel that the Legislature has a right to know what is contemplated

to do with this money. That's the only objection that I have got and

that our group has got really to the bill. It's the not giving of any

knowledge, just asking us to sign a blank cheque and say go ahead and

spend it wherever you like.

I think that the House is entitled to an explanation as to where this money may be used.

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

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, we

oppose this bill. As the last speaker was just saying, we're basically

being asked to write a blank cheque to a company that has no

accountability to its shareholders. That actually is what we're being

asked.

I give you a specific example. We've raised the question in this

House on several occasions of the Kootenay canal project. We've said

the expenditure is $130 million for a project that at least one eminent

consulting engineer suggests is not economically viable.

I think everyone is aware of that report. I make no pretence of

trying to judge that report. The fact remains that we are told that the

installed capacity at the Kootenay Canal project may cost as much as

$1,000 per kilowatt which is uneconomic and makes it a completely

unviable project and a very, very expensive project.

The very fact that those kind of questions can be raised and the

only answer that we've had in this House has been one of the Ministers

from Hydro has waved his arms and said: "Well, we know there's a little

shortage of water, that is true. But we think it's going to be all

right." That's really the only specific answer we've had.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan) said that.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I'm sure I put it much better than that.

MR. BROUSSON: He didn't say any more than that. He might have

put it in nicer words. You might have said it a little louder and you

waved your arms more, but that's really all you said.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: You know I don't wave my arms.

MR. BROUSSON: You did that night.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: So really, Mr. Speaker, what we're asking is

some kind of accountability on these kind of projects and all these

other expenditures. I think the public of British Columbia is entitled

to it. I know for one thing as a businessman, if I own shares in a

company, I would expect to be able to go to the annual meeting of the

company and ask questions of the chairman of the board or the president

or whoever was in the Chair and I would expect to get some answers.

That has clearly been established as a principle of Canadian,

American and British business practice but it's not been practised in

this House. We ask question after question about B.C. Hydro. They stay

on the order paper. There are no answers. We ask questions in the House

and there are no answers.

So basically we're back to the problem of accountability on a simple

business-like basis. Why should we carry on with this business of

father knows best? I don't have that kind of confidence in this father

and I suggest we need specific and business-like answers. More than

just father knows best.

We oppose this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. EA. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I don't think there

is any doubt about the fact that B.C. Hydro will require additional

funds throughout the years for expansion purposes and I am sure that we

would all agree that with our rapid development, that further power

will be required within the province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LeCOURS: We're not going to buy flowers with it, you can

be sure of that. In contemplating the fact, though, that when they have

borrowed a further $500 million we're going to be faced with paying

between $30 million and $35 million or perhaps more additional interest

per year on the B.C. Hydro debt, then…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LeCOURS: It's not a government debt, it's a B.C. Hydro debt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member address the Chair and proceed.

MR. LeCOURS: I think, Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the

Honourable Members opposite that B.C. Hydro debts are paid for by the

users of B.C. Hydro, and not by the taxpayers of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LeCOURS: However, Mr. Speaker, as a user of B.C. Hydro

facilities, I am not prepared to pay any more than I have to for the

services which they offer and I want to urge again upon the B.C. Hydro

and upon the government Members who are directors of the B.C. Hydro to

consider the possibility of using at least part of this in their own

credit.

I have made some reference in years past — I think last year and the

year before — to using energy credits. This would be very, very

appropriate in the case of B.C. Hydro because they sell energy. They

sell electrical and gas energy and if they were to use their own credit

— the same as many

[ Page 790 ]

of the big stores and other concerns in the

province — use their own credit in making exchanges for labour or among

people at times, and you can cash that credit in at any time.

With annual income of over $250 million, I believe, that the B.C.

Hydro has, it could quite safely issue at least $100 million in their

own credit which would cost them nothing. They wouldn't have to pay 6

per cent, 7 per cent or perhaps 8 per cent interest or more on it.

That would be a great saving to the consumers of this province who

use the B.C. Hydro facilities and I think that one move would be very

welcome and one which would enable us to keep our electrical rates down.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I agree

entirely with what was said by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Brousson) that this is like a shareholders' meeting. I mean, who

are the shareholders of the B.C. Hydro? They're all of the people of

British Columbia and we are their representatives here in this

Legislature and the B.C. Hydro is floating a loan here and being given

the power to do that to the extent of $500 million and the government

has given no explanation whatsoever even to the elected representatives

of the shareholders who are ourselves and none whatsoever to the

shareholders.

As I say, this is a shareholders' meeting. If any board of directors

drew a veil of secrecy over their activities as this government is

doing in this case, they would be subject to being fined and locked up.

They would be required to issue a prospectus for a borrowing of this

size and if there was non-disclosure in that prospectus or false

information, they would be prosecuted for that.

Yet the government has lowered the velvet curtain, and asks us to

vote for $500 million borrowing power. We like Hydro and we know there

are important projects to be undertaken in the province and while I'm

prepared to vote for the bill at this time because we support this

provincial organisation — I know it's a difficult decision to make, but

I'm also prepared…

AN HON. MEMBER: Wiffle-waffle. You're $500 million blind.

MR. MACDONALD: This is second reading of the bill. Then there

is the committee stage. First there is the winding up that the Premier

is going to make in a few minutes. We intend to listen to that and

specifically we're asking him — does this money or does it not provide

the means whereby B.C. Hydro can build the natural gas pipe line to

Vancouver Island? Will the Premier answer that when he's winding up?

Well, we insist upon that kind of an answer, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of thing we have a right to know.

Silence on that kind of a question from this government will be

interpreted, failure to give the accountability that we've been talking

about will be a sign, not only of arrogance on the part of this

government but senescence. I almost said senility, Mr. Speaker.

Senescence as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Does the Premier wish to make a statement, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

MR. HARTLEY: I want to come back up again.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Member proceed please?

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, it's really remarkable to have a

bill of this nature from a government (1) that says there are no debts,

(2) from a government that says that it believes in private enterprise

and not public ownership and (3) a government that says it's open to

the people, that it reports to the people.

Now here we are passing judgment on a one-page Act. Approximately 50

words so those words are worth $10 million each. $ 500 million, a half

a billion dollars. There's 50 words, I counted them. So it's $10

million a word. And we can get no answers.

The government Members are not prepared to get up and defend this or

explain it. On this side of the House we have always supported public

ownership of power and industry that was monopolistic in nature. So we

support the basic philosophy, but I think that a government that is

giving leadership, it's time that they had some plans for the future.

If this half a billion dollars is just bailing us out the more from

the mistake that the Premier and the Minister of Water Resources made

on the Columbia treaty, we all recall that, back in 1964, how we

finally got the Premier to admit that $273 million plus was not enough

money. But the financial wizard that he was then, he got up and told

us: "No, I now agree that $273 million is not enough but we will invest

that $273 million at 5 per cent and 6 per cent for 10 years."

As we know he invested $100 million by loaning it to Quebec at 5 per

cent but ever since then he's been borrowing money here and there at 6

per cent and 7 per cent so any child with grade school arithmetic knows

that when you loan money out at 5 per cent and borrow money at 6 per

cent and 7 per cent that you have less than your $274 million.

Now, do we have $500 million less on the Columbia exercise? Is this

the reason that we're borrowing this money, to bail this government out

of the Columbia? To pay for the cutting down of the snags up in Duncan

dam that weren't cut as they were promised at the time of the debate?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, during the Hydro debate back in 1964, on the

Columbia Treaty, I asked if those valleys would be cleared and grubbed

out before they were flooded and the Minister of Water Resources stood

in his place and said yes they would. In a year or two's time we saw

that the dams were being built and the valleys were being flooded

without being cleared. So now we're going over it in a very

incompetent, a very expensive way, attempting to clean those valleys.

We have problems below the Duncan dam with great fish kills. Some of

this money could be used to help overcome the problem of nitrous

poisoning that's killing our great Kokanee and other trout runs in

those lakes. Now, surely as representatives of the users, if this is

truly a publicly-owned and administered authority, this Legislature is

entitled to answers to questions to some of the points that I've raised.

I think that we should at least have some indication if we are being

bailed out of the Columbia or if this money is going to be used to

build the Moran dam or other dams on the Fraser or other dams on other

watersheds. Or is this money

[ Page 791 ]

to be used to build a gas pipeline, Mr. Speaker? Is the Hydro going to build a gas pipeline over to Vancouver Island?

No, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Premier. I think this $10 million a word

bill is the height of arrogance. This shows how far this government is

prepared to go in dictating to the little people. Supreme arrogance.

That's what it is. $10 million a word. Is there any other bill that

we've passed this year or in the lifetime of this government that has

cost more than that?

Mr. Speaker, the only people, possibly the only person, that knows

what the plans are is when we have one of those very special cabinet

meetings when the Premier meets with the Minister of Finance. Possibly

those two in that personality. Yes, no doubt it's this lack of

knowledge and lack of information that not only the Opposition suffers

under but the private Members on that side, the cabinet Ministers on

that side. They suffer because this one man, arrogant government keeps

to himself what he is going to do with this $500 million. This $10

million a word bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, the Member says she knows what arrogance is. Well, she should well know. She sits close to it. She sits very close to it.

Now these decisions are made behind that green door. Not the green

door of the cabinet, but the green door of the combined office of the

Premier and the Minister of Finance. It's a closed decision behind a

closed door. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell)

doesn't know what's going on but if he was serving his constituents and

other users of B.C. Hydro, he'd be up asking some questions too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, through you, I'd like to challenge

the Minister of Municipal Affairs to get up and make a public statement

on this $10 million a word piece of legislation that's before him and

he's going to vote on it. He's prepared to sell his constituents down

the river at any price.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Let's get back to the principle

of this bill. We're not discussing the principles of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. HARTLEY: Well, I think it is something that affects

municipal affairs. It can in fact affect the taxes and the taxpayers of

every citizen and every municipality of the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Certainly. Certainly.

Those of us who were here in 1964 and voted in support of the

Columbia Treaty — we're paying for it. We're paying for it now in our

increased light bills. We remember on many occasions the Premier

getting up here and going into orbit, waving his arms and flying about

and saying there will be decrease after decrease, at least before every

election.

Now, we have no decreases before election but increases in rates

after the elections. The whole style has changed. It will be very

interesting to see the Premier get up and go into orbit today.

There is one thing certain, Mr. Speaker, that I'm certain that he

won't be getting up and laying forth proper plans, plans that the Hydro

should have.

Let's us know whether he's going to build a grid down the Fraser

Canyon so that in times of ice storms like we had this winter, the

upper Fraser valley and the metropolitan area can be fed by a different

route. This would be good engineering. It is something that I think

should be discussed in this Legislature at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'll try to be brief

and try to avoid repetition. I simply wish to go on record as saying

that for the same reasons — lack of accountability, lack of information

— this is a very large sum of money we're being asked to borrow, or to

allow the borrowing of this large sum of money.

I think that the Member stated that everyone recognises the 8 or 9

or 10 per cent increase in the need for power each year and I

understand that the studies of the energy board should be available in

May. I think that this is the kind of study which should provide us

with the answers to the questions that many of the Members have been

asking, but I do agree with all that has been said in criticism of the

bill, that the citizens of British Columbia should be aware, even in an

approximate way, of how this large sum of money is to be used. For that

very basic reason I oppose the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

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

Speaker. What I may have to say will I'm sure be repetitive and

redundant but in an issue of this kind I don't believe that it can be

said too many times to impress this government with the need for

accountability.

When you consider what we are being asked to do in this bill, Mr.

Speaker, and compare it with the exercise which is currently going on

in this House and has been ever since the close of the budget debate,

it must be note worthy that we have spent hour after hour, day after

day, and week after week debating in many cases in the finest detail,

proposed expenditures of this government over the forthcoming year.

These expenditures will total something like $1.5 billion, yet in

this one bill we are to give the authority to a Crown corporation to

borrow an additional $.5 billion — 1/3 of our budget — without any

answers whatsoever to the questions properly posed: "What will the

money be used for?"

The example has been given, an analogy if you like, by Members

speaking in this debate to what might happen in other corporate

circumstances. In fact, Mr. Speaker, many companies — the directors of

many companies — have the power to borrow ever-increasing amounts of

money without the approval of their shareholders.

But it so happens that this Legislature in 1964 saw the wisdom of

limiting the borrowing authority of the British Columbia Hydro and it

is for that reason that we are having this debate today. The

Legislature in 1964 acting in its wisdom must have seen fit to place a

limit for some specific purpose.

We are now being asked to abridge that limit and we are therefore

entitled to ask why. Why are we this year being asked to allow this

company to borrow $500 million? For what purpose? What are their plans?

We have no answers. We're just voting in the dark. I'm surprised

that the Hon. the first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

standing in his place speaking today who

[ Page 792 ]

has standing on the orders of this House a bill dealing with — he calls it The Sunshine Act — open disclosure, everything that goes on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support it?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Of course I'll support it. Will you support this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: We want to know the answers yet.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I'm quite certain that the N.D.P.

will rise in their places and support this bill. Speaking against it

but supporting the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Support them. Liberal laws?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It really is a disgraceful performance and it's one which…

AN HON. MEMBER: Just wait for third reading. See what we do then.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Which is typical of the positions they have taken in so many of the Acts before us this year.

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But, Mr. Speaker, to come back to the principle of this bill. The principle of this bill is unprincipled.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: "Give us the money. Don't ask any

questions. We'll go ahead and spend it. Don't ask any questions after

it's been expended. Don't, don't, don't!" That's all we have from the

government of this province in respect of the operations of the B.C.

Hydro.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: There are other examples in this country

of a Crown corporation and the kind of accountability that they go

through. Look at the Canadian National Railway for example. Annually it

has to have an independent audit. Its affairs must be laid before the

railway committee of the federal government for open, precise, scrutiny

of the conduct of the affairs, financial and otherwise, of that railway.

We don't have that chance at all with the B.C. Hydro. The government

of this province, the Premier of this province, refuses to give this

assembly the opportunity of meeting with the senior officials of Hydro

and posing to them the questions which they can answer and which I'm

satisfied, Mr. Speaker, they are willing to answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's crazy!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Silence!

AN HON. MEMBER: He turns his back!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We even have sitting on the government

benches two of the directors of Hydro and in this debate they remain

silent. You would have thought that at some point in this debate they

would have stood up and justified the positions which they hold on the

board of that company.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liars!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What secrets are there? What dark things

need to be locked away? What absence of planning do we have in B.C.

Hydro? The monster which is slowly gobbling up ever-increasing amounts

of the fiscal resource of this province, and doing a great deal to

depreciate the environment. This is the control that it has over our

province, over its land and over its people. We who are here are

entitled to demand, and we do demand, that we be given the information

before we vote on this bill.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): The Opposition, the

official Opposition has supported the B.C. Hydro Authority for many

years. We have done so because we are convinced and have always been

convinced that public ownership of a great utility must be under the

auspices of government. But this is not to say thereby that when the

government is a Social Credit government that the official Opposition

should quietly submit without any concern for the people of British

Columbia to an absolute arrogant silence by the government on what the

authorising of these powers is all about.

Surely it is time that this government accounted to the people of

British Columbia — the people who buy that power, who have supported

this great corporation the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority — so that

they may know why the authorised borrowing power is sought in this

bill, $500 million?

It could have a variety of purposes. It's simply speculation until

the Minister in charge of the bill explains to the House why this

borrowing power is required.

There are so many things that still are projected in the future of

B.C. Hydro of which we know at this present time from this government

so little. In fact you could paraphrase Churchill's remarks in that

regard.

I point out to the government that it has shown an ambivalent

attitude in regard to where its generation of power is coming from in

the future. Whether it's going to be hydro power, nuclear power or

whatever.

You know, it would have been so appropriate and so right in the

terms of government with a proper administration in this province if

before this bill has passed second reading even the B.C. Energy Board

had reported to this House on what its proposals for the future are,

and the government's reaction to those proposals.

Because there's no more vital matter in the economic future of

British Columbia than for us to know the future of the British Columbia

Power Authority and its power generation — how the plans of the future

are going to be met, what options exist that must be decided and

decided now.

I expect that the B.C. Energy Board report will come down after this session of the Legislature is finished and all of

[ Page 793 ]

us have gone back to our homes. This is the way

this government works. It doesn't believe in logical, informative,

explanations of its policies to anybody. It's above that kind of

explanation to anybody.

I'm going to suggest to the Members that the obvious answer to this,

as in every case where it is a mystery wrapped around the enigma of the

B.C. Hydro, that what we do is we send this to a committee. Now to do

that you have to pass second reading and it's obvious that…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: Well, I can't help it if my Hon. friends are not familiar with procedure.

In principle there is only one answer to this and that is to find out in committee what's going on.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: Through long experience in this House I know that a committee of the whole House never seems to get any information.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: You know, in the history of this House, I can

only imagine one occasion when they ever dragged any witness before the

bar of the whole House. He was merely there to accept a presentation

from the House for his good work in one of our many centennial

celebrations.

But to expect this group to ever inquire into the affairs of B.C.

Hydro and to call those officers of B.C. Hydro before us to tell us

what they want this borrowing power for would be an exercise in

futility. Therefore, I can see only one course open to us. When we're

talking about this bill in principle we're talking about the right of

B.C. Hydro to have borrowing power. If the Liberals are opposed to that

let them say so.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: It's one thing to give the power. It's another

thing to exercise it. I say, well, alright, they're going to vote

against it. That's their position.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: They are not prepared to accept the idea that this bill should even pass second reading.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: But I say everyone's entitled to another chance.

The Premier has a chance to explain to the House when he winds up in

second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll give you a chance.

MR. DOWDING: And then he has another chance and that is when it goes into committee.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: I suggest that he has those two chances before the ultimate decision of this House as what we do with this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going on for your third time.

MR. DOWDING: Well, maybe. We'll see when we get to that stage.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: But I'm going to tell you this — when we get to the motion as what we do with this bill, we'll tell you what it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker and a few others have gone around and around the mulberry bush.

They might vote second reading, they might vote in committee. They

might not vote in third reading therefore the people of British

Columbia should know that the minds of the N.D.P. — the Socialists — are not 100 per cent for public power in this province because they may

vote against it in the third reading. They said so themselves and they

said they'd make up their mind then.

That doubtfulness, that lack of decision within the N.D.P. Socialism

is the reason why they're not government today. Because the people will

never trust them. Never trust them.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Order? You're never in order! You haven't got enough people to have an order!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's his personal attack. There he goes again.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On who? On who?

AN HON. MEMBER: On the Liberals. Picking on those poor fellows.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to Bill No. 12?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I know you're their friends. The Liberals

are the friends of the N.D.P. I know that they're their friends. They

always vote together.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to Bill No. 12?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We should know that they're the same — eeny, meeny, miny, mo.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The first Member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) asked two very important questions; because he asked them in

a very serious way I'll give him answers.

Would there be money in this $500 million for the

[ Page 794 ]

pipeline to cross the island? If the P.U.C. and

everyone decides that they're the best people to build it the answer is

yes. The money will be there in that money. Yes.

Then the other question was is there any money in the $500 million

for the Moran dam? That was a serious question, I'm sure. The answer is

no.

I want to say as far as the planning of the expenditure of this

money and recommending the expenditure it's set out in the Hydro bill.

The Hydro people and their engineers, they have the responsibility

given by the Legislature, not the Premier of British Columbia. I

haven't got that responsibility. It is Hydro's. Where the government

has the basis we appoint the Hydro and they're not there in any 10, 20

or 30 year agreements. They've always been as all the appointments of

this government, always been at pleasure. Always been at pleasure.

I want to say this. They say there should be a real auditing firm,

auditor of books. I know of no better auditing firm, and I don't want

to give them a plug, but I know of no better auditing firm in the whole

Dominion of Canada than Price Waterhouse and they are the auditors of

the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Surely that is sufficient. I would

move second reading, Mr. Speaker,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question is that Bill No. 12 be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Ney

Barrett

Black

Marshall

Dailly, Mrs.

Fraser

Cocke

Capozzi

Campbell, B

Hartley

Vogel

Wolfe

Lorimer

LeCours

Smith

Williams, R.A.

Little

McDiarmid

Calder

Jefcoat

Chabot

Wenman

McCarthy, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Jordan, Mrs.

Chant

Mussallem

Dawson, Mrs.

Loffmark

Price

Kiernan

Campbell, D.R.J.

Macdonald

Williston

Brothers

Strachan

Bennett

Shelford

Dowding

Peterson

Richter

Nimsick

NAYS — 6

Brousson

Wallace

McGeer

Gardom

Clark

Williams, L.A.

PAIR:

Merilees

Hall

Bill No. 12,

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964 , read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 18, Mr. Speaker.

GREEN BELT PROTECTION FUND ACT

(continued)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 18 the Green Belt Protection Fund Act . The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 18, the Green Belt Protection Fund Act

has been discussed at some length in the House, however there are a

great many points in this bill that I think should be discussed further.

In 1968, the government goofed badly in my view. They dumped the

regional planning board at that time, and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs defends the fact that splitting up the Lower Mainland Regional

Planning Board was the best thing. But you know in doing that he really

created a very bad climate for this new bill. Because a lot of the

things that they were suggesting back in 1965, '66, '68, when they were

finally disbanded in 1968, in those years they were suggesting these

very thoughts, they were suggesting a green belt around the lower

mainland.

I know the Green Belt Protection Fund Act isn't

only for the lower mainland, but it's the place that it is patently

obvious that there is a tremendous need. Because of the fact that their

ideas at that time were not followed, and because of the fact that they

were broken up, now nobody has the kind of authority that's needed. We

don't really have the muscle to do the job that this Green Belt Protection Fund Act indicates.

Mr. Speaker, the most important area in the whole lower mainland as

far as I could see at the time was the protection of Delta. For many

reasons, the fact that Delta is probably the richest farming land in

North America capable of six crops a year, wasn't even considered when

the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board made their recommendation

that there was conservation of land around the super-port.

The government felt, no — that wouldn't be a good idea, that that

land should go for industrial development along the railway. That was

the choice the government made at that time, and they've lost the great

green belt, and not only just a green belt but a food production area.

So the bill comes in late, and very weak. Naturally it's going to

help in patches. I'm sure when we fly over the area it's going to look

like patches too. Because the minister said when he was introducing the

bill, that "there would be no expropriation."

It's never stopped Hydro, Mr. Speaker. When Hydro wants an area they

expropriate. When the people want green space, park land, recreational

land, the Minister says: "It's not important enough to expropriate." So

therefore, this is the kind of climate that we have in the introduction

of a new concept — a long-overdue concept, Mr. Speaker.

The flight that you take over the land is going to show you the kind

of holes that are in this legislation — industrial land, interspersed

with green land. It's going to be very much like a man standing with a

belt, and the belt slips and his pants are right around his ankles. And

this green belt has slipped badly. Instead of being close to the

Vancouver area, the lower mainland area, each time it slips into the

Fraser Valley. That's where the pants are at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

Out in the Fraser Valley.

Mr. Speaker, on that basis we would like to know whether or not

there's going to be a little more muscle put into the implementation of

this Act. We would like to hear the Minister on winding it up, indicate

that he's prepared to take this whole matter seriously, tell us that

there is an overall plan, tell us there is some direction.

[ Page 795 ]

Don't tell us, "write to your M.L.A., " or "the M.L.A.'s should

write in and say we should conserve this acre" and that kind of

patchwork job. Mr. Speaker, we feel what's needed here is a firm

announcement by the Minister that there will be some real protection as

a consequence of this Green Belt Protection Fund Act .

And I would hope that when the Minister stands in his place that he is

going to give us some sort of indication of just how they're going to

go about this thing in a workmanlike, businesslike manner.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 18 be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Ney

Nimsick

Black

Marshall

Barrett

Fraser

Wallace

Dailly, Mrs.

Campbell, B.

Cocke

Capozzi

Wolfe

Hartley

Vogel

Smith

Lorimer

LeCours

McDiarmid

Hall

Little

Chabot

Williams, R.A.

Jefcoat

Skillings

Calder

McCarthy, Mrs.

Chant

Wenman

Jordan, Mrs.

Loffmark

Kripps, Mrs.

Dawson, Mrs.

Campbell, D.R.J.

Mussallem

Kiernan

Brothers

Price

Williston

Shelford

Macdonald

Bennett

Richter

Dowding

Peterson

NAYS — 5

Brousson

Clark

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

McGeer

PAIR:

Merilees

Strachan

Bill No. 18, Green Belt Protection Fund Act , read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 26, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

(continued)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 26,

An Act to Amend the Motor-Vehicle Act . The Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We intend to support this bill…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: I am being heckled by my own side now, Mr. Speaker.

We intend to support this bill and I moved adjournment for an

opportunity for all Members to find that there was a consistent

principle throughout the Act, knowing how difficult it is on the

Attorney General's part to amend comprehensive statutes in any specific

way.

There is, however, one main point in this bill that deserves some

mention at this time. And that is the question of the improvement in

those sections dealing with hit-and-run accidents. I think it's safe to

say, Mr. Speaker, that anybody would applaud any toughening up of

legislation dealing with hit-and-run drivers, particularly when we are

trying to do something on the other side of the coin by making sure

that the offences are checked and receive the due process in whatever

punitive or remedial measures are open to us in the Act.

I don't want to see the situation continue — as indeed it has on a

few occasions — whereby in order to avoid one penalty people will leave

the scene of the accident. Certainly I think that punishment meeted out

to those who do hit and run should be equal to the most severe

punishment that is contained in the Act itself. I think that's a fairly

commonsense approach to it and I recommend that course of action and I

will say that the bill receives that support.

Mr. Speaker, the other

section deals with drunken offences and I

think the House has indicated its unanimous support of the Attorney

General in the way he's going on that and we take pleasure in

supporting the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this

is one measure that I am very, very interested in and I pleaded for

better and safer driving laws in this province long before I was first

elected and I notice that over the past six or seven years or so we've

had things come into the Dominion of Canada such as the breathaliser

test, the blood level of alcohol lowered insofar as consumptive quality

is concerned, and furthermore the penalties and the fines and the

suspensions have all become stiffer.

I would, however, continue to advocate to the government, Mr.

Speaker, that they do what ever they can to give a proper and effective

warning to the general public. I would very much request that while

I've seen some of these government advertisements and signs in the

liquor stores, I think that they should be in every bar and every beer

parlour, and every club for that matter in the province. Also go ahead

and tack on each and every gas pump what the levels of impairment are

and the penalties that can be expected so that the general public can

know exactly what they will have to run into, and that they are going

to have to follow the very, very simple rule of either be sober, or

keep off the road,

I've also argued, Mr. Speaker, that the fine has been a very rotten

yardstick insofar as penalty is concerned. A fine of say, $300 or $400

is pretty well insignificant to a person of means. To a person of

moderate means, it can constitute some suffering. But to the poor

people of the province it could be absolute back breaking and the

people who most often suffer from the fine, are not the individuals who

perhaps may be paying it, but it would be the families and their

children. I think, as I've suggested before, give in B.C. in lieu of a

fine, some form say of social agency custody where everybody would be

in exactly the same boat. If there happened to be a conviction for

drunken driving, an individual would have to spend some time in a

hospital or a rest home doing some kind of work, or say, a little bit

of time at the morgue or even riding shot gun with a traffic officer. I

think here we would have a yardstick that would be fair, and would

apply to all economic sections of society

[ Page 796 ]

whereas the fine definitely does not.

I would also like to say a couple of things about the suspension,

notwithstanding the fact we are supporting the provisions for

suspension here. Now, a suspension in the case of a person of means

again can be somewhat of an insignificant thing, because a business man

can take a taxi and perhaps it is not too much of a problem to him.

But to another individual in society a suspension can definitely

mean the loss of his vocation. If a fellow is off the road for six

months it can affect his family, he could be put on to the bread line

for six months and there wouldn't be any money coming in whatsoever.

The magistrates — now they are the provincial court judges — have

always been very, very concerned about the superintendent of motor

vehicles essentially usurping their powers of sentence. And the

magistrates after all, Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who have the

facts first hand. They consider the ameliorating factors and the

mitigating circumstances.

In this bill it is an automatic six-months' suspension, it doesn't

have any leeway whatsoever for things such as I am talking of.

To give you an example you can have a situation where perhaps

there's a very borderline type of drinking and driving, there's not any

accident. This gentleman is brought in front of the magistrate and he

pleads guilty, or he's convicted and he's sentenced. True, perhaps it's

the man's second offence and the reason this offence may have come

about is that perhaps his wife could have died as a result of an

operation, and there was a terrific amount of emotion. It could happen

for a number of reasons. And here's a fellow pleading that in these

terrible circumstances, "I am truly repentent, I am not the type of

person who gets involved in these kinds of offences. I have some

children. And what can you do to help?"

The magistrates, and the provincial court judges as they now are in

this province, Mr. Speaker, have been able to effectively handle this

and they've done the job, and they've done a terrific job. They've said

to these people: "O.K., under the circumstances that you have suggested

I am going to fine you a certain amount of money and perhaps we'll give

you some time to pay it, and we're also going to put you off the road,

but we're not going to take you off your job. You are going to be

permitted to drive a motor vehicle if you have to be a trucker say,

between the hours of 8 in the morning and 5 o'clock, or 8 o'clock at

night, or whatever the case may be. You are not permitted to drive a

motor vehicle for social reasons, you are not permitted to be on the

road except during the work-day week."

It gives a fellow an opportunity, it's sort of parole situation, and

it gives him an opportunity over a six-month period to just prove to

the court that he can do this thing. If he happens to be picked up in

violation of this dawn-to-dusk suspension, as it's usually called, Mr.

Speaker, he can be brought back to court, and he can be resentenced.

The magistrates have the power to do that.

So I say there's a terrific — I don't want to use the word "club,"

but that's essentially what it is — there's a terrific club over the

offending party there. But please, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Attorney General, I'd very much suggest that if he's going to go ahead

with this bill in this present form for goodness sake at least give the

superintendent of motor vehicles — which you have not done — the

discretion to go ahead and grant a dawn-to-dusk suspension along the

lines that I've talked about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm just trying to catch the Attorney

General's ear. What could happen in this kind of a situation, much the

same way that happened before in motor vehicle suspensions, the

individual would have to take the time and the trouble to come say, to

Victoria or go to a branch of the motor vehicle office that was closest

to him in B.C. and he would have to be able to show good reason to the

superintendent why the suspension that was ordered should not be

effective.

I'm saying extend this tying to a dawn-to-dusk type of discretion along the lines that I have talked of.

Apart from that what you're doing in this bill you are turning 180

degrees from the other bill that you introduced in the House which I

think is a first-class bill — one we passed, the

Summary Convictions Act .

In that you granted the magistrate a discretion or was it the prison

authorities, I have forgotten which in any event a discretion was

granted, I believe to the magistrate to order that a person would not

have to be in jail throughout the full period of his term.

He could be out during the week, he could be vocational, and he

perhaps would have to be in custody during that weekend. So you're

giving this social legislation, you're giving these people the

opportunity to maintain their families, to keep their children dressed,

to keep them clothed, to keep them fed, to have these poor kids to be

able to still go to school.

I agree with you thoroughly that we need a tough law in B.C. so far

as drinking and driving is concerned here — and I want a tough law

here, make no mistake of that. But I do not feel that you should

suddenly just have rubber stamp automatic suspensions without the

people who are closest to the offence being able to render equity.

That's the word, and this is the concept of equity as the Attorney

General well knows.

Here you are destroying it, there is no equitable principle here

whatsoever. And it can be provided by reverting to the situation

whereby the magistrates do have the power as they always did have. You

had a case that went to the court of appeal not too long ago wherein

the superintendent was ordering automatic suspensions and it was

decided by the court of appeal in B.C. that he had exceeded his powers.

So at least either give it back to the magistrates to allow them to

exercise the discretion, or permit the superintendent of motors to be

able to authorise something a little more lenient if the circumstances

warranted it.

Secondly, I would have also liked very much, Mr. Speaker, to have

seen in here that there would have been government policy to the effect

that motor vehicle driving training would be compulsory in all of our

high schools. I think this is high time we had this in B.C. I've talked

about it in this House for the better part of a dozen times and I'm not

going to repeat my statements here. Secondly I cannot for the life of

me see why you don't have contained in this Act that there will be

compulsory motor vehicle inspection throughout the province.

Now it costs $25,000 a unit to have one of these units trotting

around the province to do the job, and that's not very much money. And

according to the statistics that we have received from the motor

vehicle inspection stations, the figures are either 33 per cent or 63

per cent of all cars are rejected. Well O.K., you multiply that,

Honourable Members, times the number of cars that we've got in B C. and

we've got

[ Page 797 ]

a third of a million plus motor vehicles in the

Province of B.C. that are going down the roads that are wrecks, or that

are close to wrecks, and that are causing accidents. And every Member

in the House got a…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: No, you're not a wreck, under no circumstances.

No, neither is your car a wreck, I'm sure. But I'm not too sure of your

car. But, Mr. Speaker, these vehicles that are not capable of passing

are in the hinterlands primarily, and why shouldn't these people have

the same kind of benefits to safe driving that we have here? A couple

of days ago all of the Honourable Members received from the

superintendent of motor vehicles a very, very interesting brochure

talking about the incidence of accidents that are caused by faulty

cars. And it's enormous. It's just like going down the highway with a

loaded shotgun, to have a vehicle that is in faulty shape to be on that

highway, and it should just purely and simply not be there.

The government has got this enormous surplus that's going to the

public with an election campaign, and why don't they make this part of

their platform, that there will be compulsory motor vehicle inspection

throughout the province of B.C.? It is not a dollars problem to handle

it, make no mistake of that. You don't have to go ahead and build

structures all over the province, all you need to have is a unit that

will go from A to B to C. I believe you've got one now, and I'd say buy

10 more and you'd save lives and you'd really cut the social cost of

damage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I regret that I cannot agree with

the Attorney General in respect to the cancellations of licences in the

case of a drinking driver. I agree that they have committed a serious

offence. I agree in many points of the previous speaker. But I want the

Attorney General to understand that as much as we abhor drink, as much

as I consider alcohol a hellish brew, we still must recognise that it

is part of society and I think it is proper to legislate against it,

but not to the extent of depriving a man of his living, and his power

to earn his living.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the Attorney General — and I

think the Attorney General does not see this point, because I have

mentioned it before — there are two fundamental sections of society.

One

section is the people that live in the cities, and the other

section is the people that live in the country. Now the country

individual must have his automobile or his motorcycle to move from

point to point. The city driver can use even a taxi. The distances are

not great, or he may if he wishes, use the local transportation. But

there's no such opportunity for a man in the country.

I feel that we are being unfair and prejudicial to a man's ability

to earn a living. After all this is not a function of government, it's

a serious punishment. How do you punish a man by taking away his right

to live? I think that it is a wrong thing, and the Attorney General

must use discretion here. He's removing the power of discretion, and I

call on him to reconsider this

section as I've asked him before. It is

seldom I rise on the floor of this House, and take issue with the

Honourable the Attorney General, but I must in this case because I feel

that people like the Attorney General and others whose habitation has

been the city forget the problem that country people have.

My suggestion in this House before was punishment — yes. Drastic

punishment — yes. I don't mind the punishment. I agree that punishment

must be made. But to stop that man from earning a living…would the

Hon. Attorney General — I know that he never would, but if he lost his

licence what difference would it make to him? None whatever, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself.

MR. MUSSALLEM: He bounced that back, Mr. Speaker. He bounced that back beautifully. And I should know who I'm speaking to.

Alright, if I lost my licence it wouldn't make one solitary

difference to me. As a matter of fact I'd be better off. What

punishment is that? So I say to the Attorney General, review this item.

Be fair, there should be equity in law, and there is no equity here

whatever. Punishment yes — put a flag on the man's car, paint the top

yellow or green, give him a new licence plate, make him a spectacle

among his friends — that's punishment. Call him anything but, Mr.

Speaker, it isn't fair to take away his right to live. And he has a

right to live, and this government above all acknowledges that fact of

fairness to all, and privileges to none, and I say that this enactment

is a reversal of that point of our principle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to speak

in support of the last two speakers on this question. I have an idea I

think that is applicable in the north, and possibly would help here.

We have people up North as has been said before that have to have a

licence, and have to be able to drive in order to earn a living, and

we're taking their livelihood away from them here entirely.

I do not believe that people who get in trouble should be allowed to

use a car for pleasure, or for anything other than to be able to

perform their duties and their day's work. I'd like to suggest in this

particular case that their driver's licence be lifted, between the

hours, say, of 6 at night, and 7 in the morning, or something in that

line so that they would still be able to do a day's work and not be

able to use their car for a period of time that's set down under the

Act, so that they would be deprived of any way that they could use this

car for pleasure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I too am a little worried about the

provision in this Act in regards to impaired driving. I don't quite

understand that we can say that a man is sober at .079 and he's drunk

at .08. This is too fine a fine. As far as I'm concerned I think there

are degrees of impairment. There's some people that at .08, if you

didn't pick them up maybe in a road block and had them blow into a

balloon you wouldn't tell that they were impaired.

But when you say that that person gets the same penalty as the

fellow that's weaving all over the road, I think this is wrong. The

policemen today have got discretion so when they meet up with a person

that looks as though he might be impaired, they can give him a 24-hour

suspension — and he

[ Page 798 ]

might have .24. Yet they can do that if they want to.

You're giving police discretion, but you're not giving the

superintendent of motor vehicles any discretion. You're not giving the

magistrate any discretion, but you're giving the policeman wide-open

discretion to say that if a person is really impaired he doesn't have

to blow in the balloon, he can take his driver's licence away for 24

hours and that person is free to continue on.

But the other person who may be just over the mark, and sometimes,

some people might show .08 with not too much alcohol in their system,

they'll get picked up and they've got to blow in the balloon. They

throw the book at them right there and say that you're automatically

suspended from driving.

I've had a number of cases of young people who have been suspended

for impaired driving, and they've come to me because their job was on

the chopping block. They had a difficult time getting a job. Maybe they

have been very good workers, and they have come to me and asked me. And

I've taken it up with the superintendent, and I found the

superintendent very considerate in these cases. He had the power to do

these things. Every one of those cases that I have taken up and I have

got them to get their licence back to drive for work — only during

working time. I don't think you can specify hours because you take in

Trail, there are truck drivers for the company that work in shift work.

If he's given the right to drive at his work it's a big thing because

none of these people that I have managed to get their licence back for

them during working hours has failed me.

Don't ever think I didn't give them a good lecture when they got it.

I gave them a mighty good lecture on what they were doing and the

position they were putting me in and the position they were putting the

public in by giving them back their licence.

Nevertheless, we didn't wreck that person's life. A lot of these

impaired driving cases, there was no accident at all. No accident at

all. Nobody knows whether there would have been any accident. Maybe he

was just a block from his home. I'm not objecting to taking his

privileges away for pleasure, but when we start taking their privileges

away for their livelihood, I say no. I think it's wrong — I think that

under any circumstances.

Very few of these impaired driving cases you ever found were caught

at work. You never caught them impaired driving a truck at work.

They're always on the job. It's after work, in social hours, that they

get impaired. I think that the…

MR. CAPOZZI: Not true!

MR. NIMSICK: Not true — what?

MR. CAPOZZI: Impaired at work.

MR. NIMSICK: I say that they're not impaired during working hours. Very few. Very few you would ever find…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, I've never found one yet become impaired

and I've worked for a long time for industry. We never had a drink

during lunch hour. Maybe you people that run a wine factory might have

it but we don't have it in other industries.

I think Mr. Speaker that we should give the same rights to the

magistrates and to the superintendent of motor vehicles as you're

giving to the police because you're not taking their discretion away

from them. I could mention that this could happen — the policeman might

know a person and naturally he might see him and he might give him a

24-hour suspension. This is fine. I'm not objecting to 24 hours, but I

think if we're going to give that kind of discretion to the police then

we should give it to the magistrate and to the superintendent of motor

vehicles as well in regard to allowing him to drive at least at work.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a tough problem. I'd like

to give the House and the Attorney General a current case which is now

before Mr. Hatfield.

This man, it's true, he's had two convictions for being impaired — about a year apart. The last one was in January. He went to jail for 14

days and that was probably a good thing — rather than pay the fine

because when you pay the fine the family suffers perhaps more than the

man. So the 14 days is all right.

But he's been under a strain because his wife — he's in Vancouver

East — his wife is on dialysis — the Minister of Health would know more

about it, how they bring the boxes from the hospital every other day.

He has a lot of running around to do — he has five children. So under

that kind of a strain, okay, he's had two impaired charges, a year

apart. He drives a bus for Pacific Stages. Now he's faced with the

indefinite suspension. That's what he's got.

Thirty days he could live with. He could live with the 14 days in

jail. He could live with the first part of your

section — the 30-day

suspension, but the six months I think destroys him as a useful working

person in British Columbia society. I think he'd lose his job. I don't

see how they could hold it for six months.

The penalty on him is absolutely massive punishment in comparison to

his short jail term. In comparison to a fine of $500 to $600 his life

goes up in smoke. With five children suffering and the wife on the

brink of death the whole time.

I think perhaps these speakers are right, that this second six-month

thing to be automatic is just a little bit too rigid and will not in

fact be providing equal and fair justice for all people involved in

that kind of an offence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I was called out and I may have missed some of

the debate but I think the comments that were made about .08 from a

scientific point of view, the Member was possibly correct that it's

very difficult to suggest that somebody just below .08 is not impaired

and somebody a little bit above is impaired.

I think, at least in my experience with cases where this has arisen,

there are many other factors taken into account and I think it would be

wrong to leave the impression with the House that this .08 is at some

absolute and complete and total vindication of how the verdict would go

for the driver.

Certainly all the other features that suggest impairment and lack of

judgment are taken into account. It's also my experience that around

the .08 mark the police do have this degree of discretion and I have…

[ Page 799 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, but if the person is merely suspected like

the one that you suggested — where you couldn't tell by looking at him

— in these cases the person has been advised to go home and cool it for

24 hours and I think this is a good idea. I would like to add my

support to the point of view that we should try and be fair before the

law and that the person who in fact might lose his livelihood because

he has committed this offence, I think we should try to provide some

alternative sentence or some better handling by giving the magistrate

discretion.

I think on the other hand that in suggesting this, one has to repeat

that in no way is one condoning or trying to diminish the severity of

the offence or the seriousness of drinking and driving in terms of the

statistics.

Even worse than the mortality is the morbidity — the number of

people who are left mangled or with brain damage. This I may say, Mr.

Premier, is something that I think many members of the public are very

moved about — the people who are killed in the accidents. But I would

submit that a far greater heart break is to see either parents or young

men and women in their teens who are just next to being vegetables

after some of the accidents they are involved in.

So that in no way am I suggesting that this isn't one of the most

serious problems facing society. But I do say also, as many Members

have said — and I'll be very brief — I think it is fair to try and give

a person some sentence which will inflict punishment. But if it goes to

the extent of perhaps even wrecking his livelihood completely, if he's

out of work or can't travel around as an agent for example in his motor

car for six months, it's quite possible to affect his total livelihood

long beyond the six month period. It may not just be possible for him

to pick up his job six months later.

So I would submit, this is an area the Attorney General might reconsider.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my

opinion is that cases dealing with drinking drivers are very difficult

in the particular but not difficult in the abstract. None of us here

want anyone to drink and then to drive. I think that's clearly

understood throughout all the Members in this House. I agree with the

position that the Attorney General takes that we must be very, very

strict with drivers who drink. There is no alternative. We have no

other alternative.

The question is the area of flexibility in dealing with particular

cases. If some of the problems outlined by the Members are some that

occur, then I agree that there should be some flexibility. I'll tell

you the kind of experience I've had as an M.L.A. that really browns me

off.

I've got a call from a fellow saying: "I've been convicted for

drunken driving and it's a terrible thing that's happened to me." The

guy's drunk on the phone — right on the phone — and he says to me:

"I've been wrongly picked on."

He give me all kinds of abuse about the Attorney General and I said

to him: "Look, I don't need your abuse, I got my own abuse to give the

Attorney General."

But when he's drunk on the phone, then pleading his case at the same time, that's a little bit much.

I think it should be clearly understood that any reference of

understanding for the particular situation should be made on the frame

of reference that we all agree to, that anybody who drinks and drives

is absolutely stupid and he's placing not only himself in danger, but

far worse, many, many other people in danger.

The question I would like to make a suggestion on to the Attorney

General and his department, in terms of the drinking driver, I think a

sincere appeal to you through you, Mr. Speaker, to close the beer

parlors again between six and seven. That one closing hour is a very

important hour and if you examine the peaks of accidents, you'll find

that that particular hour relates fairly well to those peaks as well as

the early hour morning, after midnight. It certainly breaks the rhythm,

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker.

What it does, it forces people to go home for a meal instead of

sitting in those cavernous beer parlors — drinking, drinking, drinking.

If they are closed between six and seven, people go home and have a

meal where either their wives or their husbands can grab hold of them

and settle them down before they go on a long drinking spree that may

last that whole night or even trigger a three-day drinking spree.

That's a very, very serious appeal that I make to the Attorney

General. Please re-consider closing the beer parlors again between six

and seven. I know I'm out of order and I'm coming back to the bill now.

The other point that I wish to make is that in some of the sections,

you're altering the obligations of the statements made by the owner of

the car in terms of the insurance companies. You're changing onus in

here on proving whether or not you've got insurance. I think it's

section 15.

Now, I would like to ask the Attorney General this question. Is the

insurance board reviewing the problem of insurance companies raising

rates after an offence by a driver under sections of this Act? Is the

insurance board reviewing the problem? Are they reviewing that problem?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Not finished. No, because it will alter my answer. You may save me a whole speech.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: They are? That's fine. The problem really — one

that you and I have a great gulf between us on — is in my opinion,

under your legislation, in this Act, you have delegated to the

insurance companies the rights that only courts should have, if a man

is convicted of drinking driving.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but I have case after case. Yes, but the

penalties are there. I think you have to discuss it under this bill

because sections are now in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with insurance. You can't escape it. You inescapably tied the whole insurance scheme into the Motor Vehicle Act .

You have passed a law and you are altering a bit of it here. You've

passed a law that says it is a criminal offence unless you are able to

produce proof that you have automobile insurance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does the province get authority to enact federal law?

MR. BARRETT: Well, O.K., it's an offence…what is the offence then? You mean you can drive…you mean

[ Page 800 ]

you're telling me that it's not an offence to?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a criminal offence.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, but it's an offence? All right. But it's treated as a criminal offence by the insurance companies.

AN HON. MEMBER: No they don't.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Because they impose fines. They do impose

fines, Mr. Attorney General. I'll tell you every single M. L.A. in this

House has run across a case or two of the same thing. After they're

convicted under your Motor Vehicle Act sections,

the insurance companies take it upon themselves to increase the rate as

a penalty for your conviction. The courts didn't do that. There's no

system of appeal that we know of through British justice. It's an

arbitrary decision by the insurance companies that if there's a

violation of this Act, you'll pay on your premium. That in effect is a

crime, Mr. Attorney General. That is what it is. It is a fine.

It's more than the question of losing a job of course, it's outside

the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. If an employer says you've

been convicted and you lose your job, that's very unfortunate and we

should try and modify that. The Attorney General stands by helplessly,

while the insurance companies are on this moveable feast that they have

of compulsory insurance.

It guarantees them a compulsory market under the Motor Vehicle Act .

You must buy automobile insurance and the moveable feast comes when the

insurance companies, in their little Star Chamber rooms, rattle the

bones on their insurance rate structure and fine people for breaking

the law.

What recourse does the poor little citizen of British Columbia have

against this juggernaut? He has no recourse at all. He pays up and

shuts up because the word gets around among the insurance companies — and let's face it, they even have the facility, they admit, that they

have certain risk drivers. The word gets around the insurance companies

— "Watch out for Joe. Put him on the list."

The whole decision of whether or not this poor little British

Columbia citizen is punished — do you think that's made in British

Columbia? It's made in New York. Made in Montreal. Perhaps some of the

companies may have a head office in the city that the Premier dreads

more than any other city — Ottawa. Those decisions are made outside the

jurisdiction of the Province of British Columbia based on this law that

we're amending now.

I want the Attorney General to stand up and say that only the courts

of British Columbia will fine people, after a fair hearing, if they're

proven guilty. Only the courts of British Columbia will determine what

kind of penalties there will be and the rights of the individual will

be protected in that he can go to the courts and ask for an appeal of

that decision.

At the present time there is no appeal from the right given by the

Attorney General to the insurance companies who are fining our

citizens. They have no appeal.

Forced to buy insurance by law. Forced to pay these fines through

the heavy penalties of insurance and no appeal to anyone. It goes

against every concept of British common law and it goes against every

concept of traditional decency in terms of how we approach problems and

allow people to have court hearings and to appeal those court hearings.

I don't like it. I don't like this Act that allows outside foreign

insurance companies to pick on the little citizens of British Columbia,

protected by this government, in a law that requires you to buy car

insurance from those outside corporations — foreign-owned,

foreign-dominated. Picking on the little citizens of British Columbia.

What about that slogan, Mr. Attorney General, fair treatment to all,

special privileges to none? As far as special privileges go under this

Act, the foreign-owned insurance companies have this special privilege

of fining the people of British Columbia. I think this government

should do something about it soon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. LeCOURS: Mr. Speaker, while I think all of us would agree

that anyone who exposed himself to a second impaired driving charge has

to be more than foolish, I believe there are times when this happens

rather accidentally.

If a person exposes himself to it deliberately then maybe no

punishment is too severe. I think that there are countries where a

second offence results in a life-time suspension. However, I have been

impressed by some of the arguments expressed here this afternoon. I'd

like to endorse in particular my good friend, the Honourable Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) with respect to the fact that a person who is

in a position to hire himself a taxi or a chauffeur actually suffers no

punishment to speak of in being suspended for six months or even for a

year. As our Honourable friend said, in some cases he may welcome the

idea of having his wife drive him instead, or being able to take a taxi.

That is one important consideration. I think in addition to that the

idea of discretion advanced by the Honourable Member for Kootenay (Mr.

Nimsick) was a very valid one.

A policeman who stops you, if he happens to be a friend of yours,

might just say: "Well, gee, you're in trouble already, boy, I better

just take your licence away for 24 hours and you get home the best way

you can. We'll leave your car here or have it towed away." And that's

the end of the story for that person. He could be bombed right out of

his mind.

So, while we don't in any way condone such action, the discretion is

there. I'm sure that it is exercised in some cases. That's why I feel

that while I'm not too enamoured of some of the magistrates we have on

the bench — or the provincial judges — I think we have to expect that

in hearing the case, they have a better insight to the circumstances of

the accused and what the consequences may be — I'm aware, of course,

also that some of them don't care what the consequences are.

But I would think that some discretion should be allowed the judge

in determining what the sentence should be. I'm rather reluctant to see

this compulsory six-month suspension go into effect without knowing if

it's going to, as one of the Members said, destroy this man completely

perhaps.

If the man is going to lose his job and perhaps is not going to get

a job again, he and his family may become public charges for the rest

of their lives. Because there are circumstances — and I've had the odd

one phone me — where they're on an odd shift maybe that starts at

midnight or something like that until the morning. They just can't get

a ride that time of the day and to hire transportation or to get

someone to drive them there at that time of the day and to get them

back in the morning would cost them more than they get paid at their

job perhaps. So the only alternative they have is to give up their job.

I know it has happened. And then they go on welfare.

I don't think that is the intention. I think the intention is to protect the public from drunken drivers. I'll be the first

[ Page 801 ]

one to endorse that. We're not guaranteeing that

we're protecting ourselves against impaired drivers or drunken drivers

by extending this to six months.

There is one other aspect, Mr. Speaker, that concerns me greatly.

That is those that can afford a fancy lawyer and who can afford fancy

medical evidence will quite often beat the rap

whereas the poor little

fellow that can't afford an expensive lawyer or any lawyer at all,

perhaps, is given the full shot.

This is one type of injustice that I think we must guard against.

I'm sure that we can all point our finger at one or two cases where

exactly that has happened. Someone who is in a position to get one of

the best lawyers in town and to bring some fancy defence in has been

found not guilty by virtue of some far-fetched reason. I think this is

a great danger to see. It's very unjust to see someone else treated in

so severe a manner, in relation to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I'll be very brief. I just want to get on to the question of

the automatic suspension and mention as it's been mentioned already

that for the majority of people the automatic suspension is certainly

an inconvenience but for people like truck drivers or taxi drivers the

automatic suspension is a complete calamity, with suffering to the

families and so on.

But I think the solution is quite simple. It seems to me that there

would be no problem in endorsing the licence of that person, giving him

the right to drive his gravel truck or whatever it is that he's driving

at the place of work so that he doesn't become a charge of society,

having lost his job. I think this could quite easily be done. That

person would, of course, have to find his way to work and so on, but

his actual job, he would be able to keep that and keep the family

intact. I hope the Attorney General will consider this as a way out of

this very basic problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General will close the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very

interesting discussion particularly on the one feature of the bill

relating to the automatic suspension of licences of those who find

themselves convicted of impaired driving.

While there have been many arguments advanced this afternoon in

support of an easier, a less harsh policy than that contained in this

bill, there hasn't been an argument advanced this afternoon that I

didn't consider before recommending this particular provision to this

legislative assembly.

The reason is simply this. That while you can argue about the poor

chap in the country — and for the information of the Honourable Member

for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I was a country boy myself before coming

to the city — I state in all sincerity that that distinction between

country and city as far as impaired driving is concerned has no

application at all, none at all.

You'll find people who live in the city who need their cars as much

in terms of travelling and in terms of perhaps selling throughout the

Province of British Columbia as you do people in the country. So let's

not divide this in any sense between country and city. It has no

application, in my submission.

I say, as well, that the business and pleasure distinction, while

there is a hardship for those who need their cars or trucks for

business, you know for the person that's been killed — as many are — by

drunken drivers, it doesn't matter, does it, whether you were on

business, or whether you were on pleasure? It doesn't matter whether

you lived in the country or you lived in the city. I say the statistics

are such, the damage done by the combination of drinking and driving is

such, that we have to take harsh action.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can go right out and fly a jet airplane.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I don't have control over who flies a jet

airplane, Mr. Speaker, but I tell you this much, if I did in terms of

pilots carrying other people, I certainly would have very, very harsh

restrictions. If they flew a plane while they were impaired, I would

say they should never fly a plane again with public passengers.

Now, we're not talking about people who are sober. We're talking

about people who have been found by a court of competent jurisdiction

to be impaired. Their ability to drive a vehicle has been impaired by

the use of alcohol. Those are the people who you've been advocating a

softer approach to, in this bill.

Now what does this bill do? It says if you're convicted of impaired

driving, you're going to have an automatic suspension of one month on

your first conviction. In other words, you won't be able to drive for

one month.

Now, is that too harsh? I say it's not. You can compare the

provisions that exist elsewhere. You'll find much harsher provisions

than that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what's the advantage of having an automatic

suspension? I know some of the lawyers are against it. I know some of

the lawyers like to go to the courts and make eloquent appeals on the

behalf of their clients.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a cheap attack.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm not making a cheap attack at all. I've had representation from lawyers and I'm responding to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're well-principled people.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm not talking about their principles,

but I'm talking about a very serious matter of whether you're going to

give discretion to the courts to say: "Look, there'll be no suspension

of this poor chap's driving licence. After all, he had a reason to go

out and get drunk," so you're going to allow him to drive during the

day and not at night.

I say that there is an advantage in having simple rules. People like

simple rules that they know in advance. So if they go out and drink and

drive, they know there's no way out, no matter who they hire, no matter

how eloquent their lawyer. They're going to get this suspension for one

month.

Is this going to, as the Honourable Member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) said, take away his right to live? Is it going to take away

his right to live by a suspension for one month?

Mr. Speaker, what about the right to live of other people on the

roads? What about the right of those people? Surely, in this modern day

a person who has employment can make arrangements for other

transportation for one month. That's

[ Page 802 ]

not too long. If any criticism is due this

government it's the fact that this bill isn't harsh enough. One month

isn't long enough.

That is the problem and if you say, look, let's give the discretion

to the courts, let's give a discretion to the superintendent, then, Mr.

Speaker, you can go out and drive tonight and drink tonight. You can go

out and drive afterwards with the thought in your mind, "I can get

myself out of this. I'll go over to Ray Hatfield and tell him the story

of what happened, how necessary it is for me to have my car for work."

You can make a plea. You can hire an eloquent lawyer and be

successful, perhaps. That's why we're eliminating the discretion either

on the part of the superintendent of motor vehicles or on the part of

the courts. So henceforth, once this bill passes, everybody in the

Province of British Columbia knows before they take their first drink

what the consequences of that action are. They know if they're

convicted of impaired driving, they're not going to have the right to

drive for one month. It's as simple as that.

The six months that have been referred to refers to the second

conviction. Two tries within a special period of time. Mr. Speaker,

this is a very serious point on which I feel very strongly. I think all

of the Members should feet equally as strong when you see more people

killed on our highways because of alcohol than there are people killed

in the wars that are in operation today.

That's how serious this problem is. So we're going to get carried

away by a chap having to find some other means of transportation for

one month when he deliberately drinks and drives. I say this is

legislation that's required. I listened to all the arguments and I've

answered all the arguments.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order!

HON. MR. PETERSON: What about the truck driver? Mr. Speaker,

it doesn't make too much difference to the person that's injured by

someone on the road whether they're driving for business or whether

they're driving for pleasure.

MR. NIMSICK: That's where the discretion comes in.

HON. MR. PETERSON: That's where the discretion comes in?

That's why I say there should be no discretion so that people know in

advance that they can't use the same excuses that the courts have heard

— every excuse that's been mentioned on the floor of this House today.

The Honourable legal Members know that.

There hasn't been one excuse that's been brought forward by a Member

on the floor of this Legislature.that hasn't been before a court. So

they know in advance this is it. This is preventive, designed to be

harsh in that sense that people know in advance, so there'll be no

excuse. They'll have this automatic suspension. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 26,

An Act to Amend the Motor-Vehicle Act , be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 26 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 37, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 37, the Honourable

the first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is absent. Are you

ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 37 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 39, Mr. Speaker.

ELDERLY CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 39. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition? Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 39 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 48, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill, the Act to Amend the Provincial Elections Act .

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that once again we're facing the same

old Social Credit pin-ball game. This Act could be best described with

one word. That word is tilt, t-i-l-t.

Because this Act is a law that you're introducing into the Province

of B.C. I've always found it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to read the

Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Canadian Bill of Rights provides for the right of the individual

to equality before the law. But in fact in this Act, there is no such

thing as equality before the law. In any democratic system, Mr.

Speaker, one man should be entitled to one vote and vice versa. But in

no way, Mr. Speaker. It takes about seven times the votes to elect a

member in Vancouver–Point Grey…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member is speaking on the Constitution Act and not on the Provincial Elections Act .

MR. GARDOM: …in Columbia River. To leave that point, Mr. Speaker…

[ Page 803 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Please get back to this bill.

MR. GARDOM: I don't see any provision within this particular

bill, Mr. Speaker, to say that it will be mandatory upon the government

to maintain their time in office. This surely is where one would expect

to find that precise kind of a rule.

I can't see anything within this bill, Mr. Speaker, which gives one

individual the right to snap his fingers, look out the window on one

day, and say "this is the day." This happens to be the day that one

individual can reach a decision that's going to cost the people of B.C.

$2 million for an election, just on the whim of one man.

I don't see anything within this bill, Mr. Speaker, insofar as

reform is concerned of the order on the ballot. On the ballot in B.C.

the government Members are listed first. Why for goodness sakes, Mr.

Speaker, in the sense of all fairness?

MR. CAPOZZI: How should they be listed?

MR. GARDOM: How should they be listed? I think the fairest

way to list any people on a political ballot would be by lot. I

wouldn't advocate alphabetical order but draw them by lot. You take

your chance you end up at the beginning, the middle or wherever it may

be.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we find in this bill, of course, the requirement

of 20 candidates in order to list a political party affiliation. I have

no desire to be sacrilegious, Mr. Speaker, but under this particular

kind of

interpretation the first Christian in the world in British

Columbia would have to run as an independent. That's pretty ridiculous

in my view.

I also see nothing with this bill, Mr. Speaker, to prevent the

unwarranted public advertising by cabinet Ministers for the sole

purposes of their perpetuation of office.

I think that is unethical, Mr. Speaker, and apart from it being

unethical I think it should become illegal. I would like to see an

amendment in this bill to the effect that any advertisements by cabinet

Ministers within four months of the date of the election, or at least

after the writ issues would be contrary to the laws of the Province of

British Columbia and if they so advertise they would be subject to a

punishment under the

Summary Convictions Act

and also would have to go ahead and repay the public treasuries the

amount of the money that they spend in this kind of unwarranted,

uncalled-for, unprincipled and unethical public advertising.

I don't see anything within this bill limiting the election expenses

of the parties, of the Members in the Province of British Columbia. I

am very much in favour of some limits being placed upon them. Quite

frankly it wouldn't concern me too much what the limit was as long as

the Legislature reached a decision on it and it was a reasonable amount

of money. I would suggest that any amount expended over that reasonable

amount of money as determined by the Legislature should be subject to a

50 per cent tax and that 50 per cent tax put into the public coffers.

I cannot see anything within this bill to deal with preferential

voting in the Province of British Columbia. I do feel that the citizens

would have the better opportunity to make a more selective choice if

they could have the opportunity to have a preferential ballot.

This preferential ballot proved to be rather successful I believe at

one time, to one party. But by George, once it proved to be successful

they kept well, well away from it. If they brought in preferential

balloting again, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid it would be the heralding of

the more prompt demise of the Social Credit than is going to come about

in any event.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: In closing, surely to goodness we should have

democracy in the electioneering procedures in the Province of British

Columbia. It's the object and the function of a government, the object

and the function of an Opposition Member to primarily see that

democracy is done — and it is not being done in this Act. In fact, it's

far to the contrary.

To recap, Mr. Speaker, in one word this is a tilt Act — t-i-l-t Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. LeCOURS: Mr. Speaker, I'll only be very brief in this

instance with respect to one particular aspect of the elections Act,

one that I have mentioned in this House on a number of occasions and

I'm rather dismayed to find that we're so reluctant to adopt any new

ideas. They seem to think that unless the ideas emanate from the

Minister they're not worth entertaining, I think.

I refer especially to the use of a voting card, with the voter's

photograph on it and perhaps numbers around the outside of the card,

which numbers could be punched when you present yourself for a ballot.

So it eliminates all possibility of a person voting twice and I know

that at the last election there are many people who voted twice in two

different constituencies.

With a voting card you would simply present your card with your

photograph on it. It could be used for municipal, provincial or federal

elections. It could also serve as identification in many other

instances. I understand we're going to have drivers' licences with your

photograph on soon. It's going to be incorporated into the driver's

licence even.

It would prevent any people voting more than once. It would simplify

the entire procedure. If you are an absentee voter, away from your home

constituency, simply present your identification and be given a ballot

and the ballot is mailed back to the address shown on your voting card.

All a very simple procedure and as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I

have learned subsequent to my bringing the matter up in the House — because the idea wasn't original when I brought it up as far as I was

concerned — but I have learned since then that there are senior

officials in the department that administers the Act who have been

advocating just such a procedure for the past 20 years. It's been

ignored. I'm wondering whether it's been ignored simply because it's

progressive.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, it's

interesting to note the crossfire a little while ago about the single

transferable ballot — what it inflicted on this province and the

reasons why it was done away with.

AN HON. MEMBER: What were they? What were the reasons?

MR. STRACHAN: Because it would eventually defeat the government in power.

[ Page 804 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: They did away with it because the Premier knew

eventually he'd get defeated if he retained that system. He would have

been defeated long ago had he retained the single transferable ballot.

He knew that and that's why he did away with it. Because he always uses

not only this Act but the full power of government to stay in office

and he uses that power ruthlessly. We all know that — that's his

20-year history.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: He uses the power of government ruthlessly to

maintain himself in office. I agree with the Member who just sat down

with regard to the people being sworn in. I think it's time we had an

election Act that brought us into the 20th Century. Even the awful

federal government is able to have a complete enumeration in every

constituency all across the country. In the rural areas — and the rural

areas are defined as cities like Duncan, Ladysmith, and Lake Cowichan — you can go in, you can be sworn in and that ballot goes right in the

box.

Because people have some difficulty in differentiating between

elections, they think: "Well, I voted last time therefore I must be on

the list." In all probability there are people in every constituency

who haven't cast a valid vote in their life. Because they thought they

voted last time so therefore they think they're on the list again. But

it's under that

section 80 and goes right clunk into the waste basket.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How can they never vote once in their life if they…?

MR. STRACHAN: A valid ballot. A valid ballot, Mr. Premier, in the provincial election.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: They can go in election after election and say:

"Well, I voted last provincial election." But they voted under

section

80. Their votes went right into the waste basket. So they go back the

next election and say: "Well, I voted last time." They thought they'd

cast a valid ballot but it's in the wastebasket under

section 80.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: I say we should allow a swearing-in procedure

similar to that in the federal government and we should have a full

enumeration before every election. If the federal government can do it

there's no reason why we can't do it in the Province of British

Columbia.

Insofar as this particular bill is concerned, there are a number of

principles involved here to which I raise some questions. You state

that all of the electoral officials must be electors. I am inclined to

think that there are positions in the electoral machinery where we

could take 18-year-old high school students and use them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here?

MR. STRACHAN: And all of them can't be utilized. I don't like

the contradicting sections of this Act where it says students must

retain their registration in what is called their home constituency.

Students must vote in what is called their home constituency. But a

construction worker is not allowed to vote in his home constituency.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): He certainly is.

MR. STRACHAN: Unless he happens to be living there.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: No. There's an absentee ballot.

MR. STRACHAN: There's a

section here which says they must

register in the area in which they have lived for 30 days. Under that

section an absentee ballot under the old system can be declared

invalid, because it says they must register in the new constituency if

they have lived there for 30 days prior to issuing of the writ and

that's it. It doesn't say "may" or anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: So, you're not on the voters' list in the other constituency.

MR. STRACHAN: I know, but it'd be against the law for them to cast a ballot there with that particular piece in there.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not resident any more in there.

MR. STRACHAN: They're not resident any more.

AN HON. MEMBER: So that they don't vote twice.

MR. STRACHAN: That's not what it says. It said they must register…

AN HON. MEMBER: You read it.

MR. STRACHAN: …and on that basis any absentee ballot of

someone who wasn't in their home constituency for 30 days prior to the

issue of the writ can be challenged. So what happens then?

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Don't tell us they can still retain the old

absentee ballot rights because that's not what's in there and I suggest

it's making one situation for the students and another for construction

workers, fishermen, and others who are away from home — very often away

from home for more than 30 days prior to the issuing of the writ. I

think basically the bill is designed to help the government again and

that's why the amendments are brought in.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd just briefly like to go on

record as saying that I oppose the idea of any specific number of

candidates required before the party can be given recognition.

(Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR WALLACE: I would say further, Mr. Speaker, to

[ Page 805 ]

reassure

any thoughts the Premier might have that we will not be running 20

candidates in the next election, that this is not the cause for my

opposition.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: We will we hope to have 55 candidates and I'm sure we will. But I do feel that…

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to a

lot of the cynicism and much of the humour, there's still the

possibility even in this day and age that new political parties come on

the scene regardless of, as I say, the humorous comments that are being

made today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: New parties and not old parties?

MR. WALLACE: I'm sure it's as much the new party idea that

I'm considering, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be a sad situation

in a so-called free democratic society if in fact a new political party

is so handicapped at its outset that it cannot even be given

identification on the ballot.

I think history shows that parties have been a useful force but in

this case 20 out of 55 is a very high percentage of the total number of

seats. I think that this really if there has to be any kind of definite

number at all, I think it should be a smaller percentage of the total

number of seats and just would repeat that this I think inhibits the

tendency for new electoral forces and new political forces to develop

in this province.

Whether it's this province or any other province I think that

anything which inhibits new political ideas and ventures is a very sad

thing for the future of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'm

speaking to the bill on the Act. There's a very basic principle in this

Act I find objections to and take very definite objections to, Mr.

Speaker.

The Act as it provides at the present moment provides the right of

voting for Canadian citizens and intends to be changed for British

and/or British subjects. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the

right to vote is a right of the citizens of the Province of Canada.

I have no objections at all to the question of British subjects or

of nationalities in this at all. I've a very sincere feeling that the

duties and responsibilities are inherent in the right of being a

citizen. If we are not saying that a citizen of a country is that

person entitled to vote, then why should people become a citizen of the

country? What responsibility is there for individuals to become a part

of the nation?

This was a principle that was recognised in the federal Act. As of

1975 unless you are a Canadian citizen you will not be permitted to

vote in any federal election. This was made retroactive so any British

subject who arrived in Canada after 1968 is not entitled to vote in a

federal election. In other words, Mr. Speaker, at this moment British

subjects who are resident in Canada, who have been residents since 1968

will be entitled to vote until 1975. If by that time they have not made

their choice to be a Canadian citizen, this right — and it is a right — will be taken away.

Those people who have come since 1968 are not entitled to vote and

have no entitlement until such a time as they acquire a Canadian

citizenship.

Last year in this House, and I call the attention of the Attorney

General to this, he spoke in this House about the rights of certain

citizens and the rights of individuals. He was speaking on the Legal

Professions Act and he spoke in this House. He said that we must change

the Act because lawyers and judges must be Canadian citizens. I recall,

and I have his words here as he spoke on this bill. He said:

We have as well a number of Commonwealth countries now that are

republics and do not have an allegiance to the Queen or anything of

that nature. Some of the members of Commonwealth countries are

requiring Canadian citizenship…

and then he corrected his error.

not Canadian citizenship but citizenship of their own country as a

requirement for the Bar. The governing bodies of the legal professions

in Canada have given this question extensive study during the past two

years and they have agreed nationally that it would be desirable to

each province to make this change to Canadian citizenship.

Hence the Provision is found in this bill. I suggest to the Attorney

General that if his words ring true when he talks about lawyers that

certainly the responsibility that rests on the shoulders of M.L.A.'s is

as heavy as the responsibility that rests on the shoulders of lawyers.

If it is a requirement that you be a Canadian citizen if you are

going to be a lawyer in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Attorney

General, is the responsibility not as heavy for an individual who sits

in this House and is responsible for the weighty decisions that are

involved in the very decisions of government?

I suggest to you, Mr. Attorney General, that the rights in law

should be restricted to none. They should be restricted in a sense to

Canadian citizenships and not granted as has been the custom in the

past to another special category.

I find it difficult to believe that an individual from whatever

country, having arrived in Canada six months ago could stand for an

election, and through some method become elected — and it's possible — and would therefore sit in this House, having been in this country for

six months and not be responsible as a citizen of Canada.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I intend to introduce an amendment to

this

section at committee stage and I suggest that every individual who

sits in this House should between now and that time weigh very

sincerely in their conscience what they voted on, in the question of

lawyers, and the House was unanimous or close to unanimous in that

decision, in providing that lawyers must be Canadian citizens.

These same individuals should regard this very basic principle. I

suggest that equality as Canadian citizens which will now be a

fundamental part of the federal government, should also be a very

fundamental part of the provincial statute. I hope that that amendment

will receive the proper support at that time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, after waiting for a number of years

for the Honourable the Provincial Secretary to bring in some

amendments to the Provincial Elections Act , it's hardly worth that

wait. It's not even a mouse, not even a mouse. It's not really meaning

anything to the amendment of

[ Page 806 ]

t he elections Act. The serious problems we face, in terms of the

elections Act corrections in this province, are a matter of wry

amusement to the Members of course. Why change a system that works so

well for the government? I suppose if you want to function on that

basis, that's fair enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Honourable Member who is now on his feet has already taken his

part in this debate.

MR. BARRETT: No, I haven't.

HON. MR. PETERSON: He moved adjournment of the debate.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, the Member from…

HON. MR. PETERSON: Oh, I'm on the wrong bill. I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster moved adjournment.

HON. MR. PETERSON: My apologies.

MR. BARRETT: That's quite alright, Mr. Attorney General. I

accept your apology. I don't want you to be embarrassed that you're not

following the order properly. I accept your apology.

The point that I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is this: that the government

of this province and the Social Credit Party have formed a system of

winning elections by leaving a loose elections Act. Very, very loose.

There's no mandatory registration for voters under this Act.

When an M.L.A. phones the registrar of voters and says: "Mr.

Registrar of Voters, I want some cards to register voters," you know

what the registrar of voters said to me?

AN HON. MEMBER: He referred you to the cemetery.

MR. BARRETT: He said to me: "You can't have any registration

cards." I just phoned a couple of weeks ago and I had to plead to get

25 cards because I want to help register people in my constituency.

You've got a situation in the province where an elected official

attempting to do his duty by signing up voters on the voters' list,

simply because the government doesn't have an automatic registration of

voters, was told by the registrar of voters that it's policy to only

have 25 cards. Policy of whom? The Provincial Secretary's policy? The

Premier's policy? Social Credit policy?

This is a government that doesn't have, like the federal government,

registration of voters automatically. Now, with the new Act, you only

get one card at a time. You don't really want people on that voters'

list, Mr. Provincial Secretary. If you did, you'd have a

section in

here saying…

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member please address the Chair?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Provincial

Secretary doesn't want everybody on the voters' list. I think he's

given a great deal of thought, not so much what goes in the amendment,

but what should be avoided by this government.

Don't you believe in the freedom and the right to vote? You don't

want to make sure that every citizen that has the right to vote be on

that list. The Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) gave a very

sincere statement about the sanctity of the vote. I appreciate his

sincerity but I submit to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, certainly I

support the amendment, I will support his amendment. Will he support my

amendment that everybody that is a Canadian citizen gets registered as

a matter of right? Will he support that?

If you say that it's a right to vote, O.K. Let's see where you stand

on that right. If he feels so strongly that they should have the right

to vote, then he should support my amendment that says that everybody

should be registered. Will he support that? Just nod your head before

it falls off, just nod your head.

Everybody who registers and who's qualified, everybody who is

qualified to vote should be registered to vote in this province. Mr.

Speaker, many people think they are on the voters' list. They make a

declaration…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Neither have you. Making deals! Mr. Speaker, if

anybody ever made deals, it was the Premier and the Provincial

Secretary on this Act.

They know what to avoid when it comes to electioneering. One of the

things they want to avoid is mandatory registration of voters. The

Premier is always saying: "I go to the people. I go to the people." He

goes to the people he selects, Mr. Speaker, the selected few. He's

given orders to people, electoral officers, not to hand out voters'

cards. He gives orders now through this bill that only one card be

given out. Not everyone will be registered.

If that isn't a deal, I don't know what is, Mr. Speaker. He talks in

here about other amendments to the Act: the ball-point pen. Big deal! I

checked his recounts. There was just as many votes for the Member from

Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick) thrown out with a ball-point pen as kept. Is

that a real issue?

Well, well, well. He laboured and brought forward a mouse — a

ball-point pen. What about the real matters of the election Act that

should be changed? What about redistribution? My constituency has

39,000 voters and one M.L.A….

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is not in order.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct, Mr. Speaker. I agree that they

haven't registered all the voters in my riding. But the point is, we're

faced with a political organisation the like of which this province has

never seen before. Every angle, every method, every device that has

been avoided in this Act is designed to keep this government in power.

Why don't you put this bill in the committee? Why don't you let

politicians go over the problems they face? The business of

scrutineers: why one scrutineer now at every poll box? That means that

there won't be any communication at all between the one scrutineer at

the poll and any kind of activity in terms of turning out supporters on

election day.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't say that at all.

MR. BARRETT: It doesn't say that at all? Well, how in

[ Page 807 ]

the world are you going to do it? If you're going to switch your

scrutineers off? Oh, my friend, you've read the bill and you know very

well that people power is a thing that you fear. You're cutting down

people's activities in elections as much as possible through this bill.

Organisation on election day will be knifed by this kind of

approach. We know it. It's designed specifically against the New

Democratic Party. It's money, money, money as against people, people,

people. You know very well that the attack is on the New Democratic,

Party because they're able to mobilise people on election day and

through their organisation. You've sat down and figured out the best

way to cut down any possibility of this government being honestly

evaluated by all the people in this province who are eligible to vote.

What cynicism. It's a matter of giggling concern for a government that

has had ruthless power used ruthlessly in this province.

You don't believe that sincerity business about "let's have the

people vote who are entitled to vote." Let's make sure of it by putting

in a law — everybody that is entitled to vote be registered for every

election by government enumerators, Mr. Speaker. Anything less than

that means this government continues to play its little games, keeping

people off the voter's list, making sure that the old lists are all

jumbled up. There's dead people still left on my lists in my

constituency. You others know it too. Those lists haven't been updated

for years. There should be a mandatory registration of voters

door-to-door before every election throughout this whole province.

You don't want it that way. Those lists are so out-of-date, it's

unbelievable. Cards that represent deceased people from three elections

back or more.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BA