1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2967 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Clarification of Health department position on cancer programme. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2967

Point of order

Possible error in Votes and Proceedings . Mr. Smith —

Routine proceedings

Renters Resource Grant Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 102). Hon. Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading — 2969

Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 105). Hon. Mr. King. Introduction

and first reading — 2969

Municipal Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 103). Hon. Mr. Lorimer. Introduction and

first reading — 2969

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 102). Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction

and first reading — 2969

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act (Bill 120). Mr. Wallace. Introduction

and first reading — 2969

Oral questions.

Empty office space. Mr. Bennett — 2969

Instructions to use plane instead of ferries. Hon. Mr. Strachan answers —

Enforcement of Renters Resource Grant Act. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2970

Transit losses and free buses. Mr. Wallace — 2971

Bus service to Metchosin, Sooke and other areas. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

New poultry processing plant for Okanagan-Shuswap area. Mrs. Jordan —

Conflict of interest on lab accreditation committee. Mr. McClelland —

Bicycles on ferries. Mr. Gibson — 2972

Employment of Joyce Nash. Mr. Chabot — 2972

Limitations Act (Bill 8). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2973

Amendment to

section 3. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2973

section 6. Mr. Wallace — 2973

Amendment to

section 8. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2974

section 8 as amended. Mr. Gibson — 2976

section 12. Mr. Gibson — 2976

Amendment to the schedule. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2976

Report stage — 2976

Credit Unions Act (Bill 82). Committee stage.

On the title. Mr. Smith — 2977

Report and third reading — 2978

Fisheries Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 70). Committee

stage.

section 23. Mr. Chabot — 2978

Report and third reading — 2978

Coroners Act (Bill 87). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2978

Gasoline Tax

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

Division on third reading — 2980

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

reading.

Division on third reading — 2980

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

reading.

Division on third reading — 2980

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

reading.

Motion to recommit the bill. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2981

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill 86). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2982

Division on second reading — 2998

Free Public Toilets Act (Bill 90). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Smith — 2998

section 2. Mr. Phillips — 2999

section 6. Mr. Chabot — 3000

Report and third reading — 3000

Appendix — 3000

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

would like to draw attention to the presence in the gallery

this afternoon of the students from Delbrook Secondary School

in North Vancouver, including my cousin Lou Anne, accompanied

by their teachers, Mr. Richter and Mr. Dunn. I would ask the

House to make them welcome.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's a

pleasure to inform the House this afternoon that we have a

group of students from that community in northeastern British

Columbia of Fort Nelson. They're a long way from home; they're

down here to observe parliament in action. With them is a group

of students from Taylor, British Columbia, the gas capital of

this province. They're also here at the same time, although

they came in separate groups. I wish the House to welcome the

students, their teachers and their supervisors who are with

them.

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

just like to make a brief statement to the House. Could leave

be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I've been contacted in the last

number of days by a number of different groups of people,

including the medical association, the CBC and one or two

women's groups, asking about whether or not a Dr. Michael T.

Richards has the endorsement of the Health department for a

cancer programme he is backing. Mr. Speaker, I understand that

the impression is being left that not only my department and

myself but even Marc Lalonde, the Minister of National Health

and Welfare for Canada, has endorsed this programme.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we endorse no programme for

the control of cancer of the breast in this province unless the

programme is fully endorsed by the B.C. Cancer Control Agency.

I called the Hon. Marc Lalonde, and he indicates that he

neither endorses nor will finance this programme, certainly at

this time with the amount of information that is available. I

just don't want the impression to go abroad that either

federally or provincially this particular programme has the

endorsement of these groups.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): May I respond with a question, Mr. Speaker?

I sense some concern on the part of the Minister, quite naturally, if there's

wrong information being spread around. But I wonder, is the Minister concerned

about the particular role that this doctor is playing and has the Minister concern

enough that he wishes to intervene in the activities of the doctor, of whom

I have no knowledge?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I believe that that matter will

be dealt with in due course by the college of physicians and

the various medical associations.

At this point I feel it's important that when groups are

being asked, women's groups particularly, for support of a

programme, no impression is left that this programme is

endorsed by the Department of Health in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: May we go on to question period? If there are

any further questions on the subject, it might be arranged for

that time.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to

draw to the attention of the Speaker an error which occurs, in

my opinion, in Votes and Proceedings , starting May 27.

There's a repetition of the error May 28, 29, 30 and June 2.

It's with reference to the matter of the motion by leave of the

House to move into Committee of Supply. If you look, Mr.

Speaker, during the morning sessions, whenever they have been

called, we move into Committee of Supply pursuant to order of

the House.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct, yes.

MR. SMITH: Then in the afternoon or the evening sessions a

motion is moved by the House Leader or the Premier to move by

leave of the House into Committee of Supply. The motion that is

recorded reads this way: "By leave of the House, on the motion" — the first time it appeared — "of the Hon. Eileen E. Dailly,

the House agreed to resolve itself into the Committee of

Supply, permitting debate."

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the last two words are not in

order inasmuch as the House itself decides the matters of

business that will be brought before it, and the House itself,

once accepting a motion by leave — which is the customary way to

ask for unanimous consent of the House — and there are no

dissenting votes concerning that matter, that is the matter

that's before us at that time and there is no reason to suggest

we should add the words "permitting debate." It's a matter of

course that debate will then take place within the House.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I must disagree with the Hon. Member. In

the afternoons during the normal business of the House, under

standing order 45A you

[ Page 2968 ]

would not be permitted debate or amendment. What has

happened really, and I think this wording must be looked at, is

that by leave of the House, which is unanimous, the House has

permitted debate in the Committee of Supply. The Committee of

Supply is required as a precedence motion whenever the House

meets, by our sessional order adopted, until Committee of

Supply is finished. But what is different is that debate is

permitted on those occasions when the Committee of Supply is

meeting by unanimous leave of the House in the afternoon.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I

respectfully disagree with you. Once the....

MR. SPEAKER: Well, how would you word it?

MR. SMITH: Okay, once the House agrees by unanimous consent,

that's the end of the matter and it supersedes either motions

that were placed before the House before or our own standing

orders. This has been said time and again: the House is the

master of its own situation at that particular time, and when

the House accepts a motion by unanimous leave of the House to

move to Committee of Supply in the afternoon sessions or the

evening sessions, in my opinion, that is the end of the matter.

I would ask you to check into that. There's no requirement then

for the records of this House to show the added words

"permitting debate." It's a matter of the sequence of events in

the House at that time — that once we accept that motion by

unanimous consent, that's all there is to it, period. No

addendum — those two words at the end.

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of the Journals is to explain to

later generations, presumably, and later Members of this House,

what went on. It's obvious that what is going on each day,

whenever the Committee of Supply is called, is that if standing

order 45A were invoked, and it must be every day, unless

otherwise ordered by the House by leave, then all that would

happen in the afternoon is that each vote would be called and

voted upon without debate or amendment. To get away from that

and in order to permit debate, it has been agreed each day, on

those occasions other than in the mornings where we already

have a motion dealing with each morning, except Fridays, that

the House has agreed by unanimous consent to permit debate in

Committee of Supply in the afternoon. That's the grave meaning

of the matter, permitting debate. Otherwise, there would be no

debate; you would just have each vote put in accordance with

standing order 45A. So what the House Leader, presumably, is

doing is asking unanimous leave of the House to permit debate

in Committee of Supply when it is called in the afternoon.

Now if you can think of any better wording for this I would

appreciate you assistance on the matter and we will look into

it and see what should be done in reporting these Journals each

day.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask you to

consider this suggestion and idea. The addition of those two

words would seem to me to be an affront to the House, inasmuch

as once we have unanimously agreed to proceed on a certain

course in the House, that is the course we can proceed on

without any further discussion or debate. Once you add an

addendum which says "permitting debate," that is really

in contradiction to the motion that the House Leader (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) has previously, in almost the same breath, put to the

House. So I suggest to you that it's an affront to the Members

of the House. Once we have agreed to something, that is the

course of action we should take.

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with respect that it's not an

affront to report what the House has agreed to on leave. It

agreed to it on leave, it proceeds to do it that way and the

Journals report it that way. But I'll certainly give

consideration to it with the Clerks and with the Member himself

as to what changes might be made, if any, to make it clear what

the House is doing when it goes into debate in Committee of

Supply in the afternoon. Certainly it's permitted by the House — it's been ordered in effect by the House when the House

grants leave in the afternoon.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, would you then clarify for the

benefit of the Members of this assembly why, on many occasions

in the past, you yourself have said — and you have referred to

previous Speakers who have said — that the House is the master

of its own business, and what the House decides by unanimous

vote is what the House shall do. At that point, I submit and I

ask you to consider the proposition that once we have moved to

the position of accepting unanimously a motion such as we have

had put before us on May 27 and subsequent days that we resolve

ourselves into Committee of Supply, there is no requirement to

add the words "permitting debate." I would ask you to consider

the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion only covers the morning sitting the

way it is now. It doesn't cover any other time except by

unanimous leave of the House. If we went into ordinary

Committee of Supply in the afternoon or at any other time than

in the morning, we would still be faced with no debate. What

has happened on these occasions — what is reported in the

Journals , as I have pointed out — is that debate by unanimous

leave was permitted. That's what happened. I can't see how you

can get round the fact that that is the very nub of the issue —

that

[ Page 2969 ]

debate be permitted.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get into a long

exchange...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, perhaps we can discuss it later and ask

the House to....

MR. SMITH: ...but I would ask you to consider the matter,

because I believe that there is no necessity for the addition

of those two words once the House has given unanimous leave.

We've done it before on many other occasions.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll ask a simple question that really spears

that argument. That is simply this: what is the House giving

unanimous leave for?

MR. SMITH: To resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it isn't. By rule and precedence it must

resolve itself into Committee of Supply every afternoon. The

thing it is giving special leave for is permission to

debate.

Introduction of bills.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I have

the honour to present a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's always in order, Mr. Member; read

the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure you know that message bills have

precedence over all other business.

RENTERS RESOURCE GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Renters Resource Grant

Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 102 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers' Compensation

Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 105 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act,

Bill 103 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment

Act, 1975.

Bill 102 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the

Conservative Party. (Laughter.)

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 120,

An Act to Amend the

Hospital Insurance Act, introduced, read a first time and

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

the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, the Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and myself

are pleased and honoured to have in the audience this afternoon

a citizens' group from Vancouver Centre, referred to as the

Downtown-East Side Residents Association. I would like the

Members to join in welcoming them.

Oral questions.

EMPTY OFFICE SPACE

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

the Minister of Public Works. Over the past few months I have

asked the Minister some questions relating to empty office

space, which he took as notice. I wonder, after this extreme

length of time, whether he could provide some answers to the

House.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, while the

Leader of the Official

[ Page

2970 ]

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) was absent I answered the questions

he had asked prior to him deciding to play truant. (Laughter.)

The last question he asked and the last question I answered was

with regard to a building that he described as 600 Bute Street — the wrong address. We did, on behalf of the Vancouver

Community College, lease a seven-storey building in that

general area. What they do with it is their responsibility.

MR. BENNETT: Well, just a further supplemental, because all

of the answers weren't provided to all the questions.

I have another question for the Minister, then, that he

could bring in the answer for when he brings in the answers to

the other questions relating to office space at 1620 West 8th

Avenue in Vancouver, which was leased January 1, 1974, and was

still empty as of May 30. It seems to be part of an excessive

expenditure of money, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister advise

also, and perhaps use these questions to develop some

policy?

I would also advise him that it was unfortunate that I was

in the hospital for two or three days — the only three days I

was absent — but....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker that last statement of the

Leader of the Opposition was not true.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY : Yes, he was in the hospital. We were sorry

that he was kicked off that steer and in the hospital. We don't

excuse him for playing truant, and that's what he was doing

when he voluntarily absented himself from the Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

INSTRUCTIONS TO USE PLANE

INSTEAD OF FERRIES

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

Communications) : Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question yesterday

by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). I was

asked if any instructions had been issued verbally or in

writing to most or all provincial government departments

prohibiting or discouraging the transportation of government

vehicles on B.C. Ferries, and if the instruction has been

issued that such employees who must travel in the course of

their ordinary duties are to use aircraft instead.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I really didn't know where to start

in trying to find an answer to that question. I checked with my

Deputy Minister, had my assistant check with the Associate

Deputies, the comptroller, the manager of the ferries and the

administrator for aircraft. Then I had him phone either the

Deputy Minister of the secretary of every Deputy Minister, and

here is the answer to the question.

Transport and Communications, Fraser McLean, answers no. The

comptroller: the answer is no. The manager of the ferries: the

answer is no. The administrator of aircraft: the answer is no.

Agriculture's Deputy Minister's secretary: the answer is

no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Minister

could tell us if there are any yeses. If there were, it would

shorten the proceedings.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, people wonder what

some of the high-priced help does. They are trying to find

answers to questions.

Every department said no, except two that said yes —

verbally. Evidently the suggestion was that instead of taking

up space on the ferries, they should check with the flight

administrator and utilize any empty spaces that might be on the

scheduled flights. But it took a lot of time and a considerable

amount of money to check this rather wide-ranging question.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I thank the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

for the detailed work carried out. The question was asked in

good faith.

A supplementary; I wonder if he could indicate which two

departments or agencies said yes, as he has just outlined.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I want to give you the noes too,

you see, but I was stopped. You want the yeses? All right. He

didn't rule it out of order. Verbally, according to the

information I have, the Department of Housing and the

Department of Economic Development.

ENFORCEMENT OF RENTERS

RESOURCE GRANT ACT

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

Housing.

In view of the fact that the Renters Resource Grant Act

entitles people to apply as of June 1 for a new $30, or $80 as

the case may be, renters resource grant, may I ask the Minister

what instructions his office is giving to those who do apply to

take advantage of this entitlement under the law?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: A bill has just been

[ Page 2971 ]

introduced which will give force and effect to the

procedures. I think that until it's read I would defer

answering.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's just the point. I raised this

matter with the Minister back, I believe, on May 21 or 22,

giving him plenty of time to amend it before June 1. But the

fact is, the law as it is presently written entitles people to

re-apply. The bill introduced has not been considered by this

House. I requested a copy and it has not yet been delivered to

me. I feel that the law on the books should at least be

enforced until such time as this House decides.

So could I ask the Minister whether he will take steps to

make sure that the law on the books, namely the Renters

Resource Grant Act, is enforced and the grant is given to those

entitled to it in accordance with the decision of this

Legislature?

TRANSIT LOSSES AND FREE BUSES

MR. WALLACE: Since the Minister of Municipal Affairs seems

to be very chipper today, I'd like to ask him: can he confirm

that on Saturday he stated publicly that he's proud of the fact

that the government lost $17 million on public transit last

year and will lose even more than that next year?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I doubt

if I said exactly those words, but I said I was very proud of a

government that put service for people ahead of dollar bills,

and that I wasn't ashamed of the fact that we lost $17 million

last year and will lose more next year and likely more the year

after that. So I don't know whether that's the answer to your

question, but that was my intent.

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask a supplementary.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The question of pride isn't important, but the

question of....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Double the bus fare to the

elderly. That's the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary question. What degree of

continuous monitoring and review is carried out to determine

the percentage occupancy of buses, since it appears, apart from

the peak period, that the buses run almost completely

empty?

HON. MR. LORIMER: We do monitor the system.

In the previous administration, they used to have a

gentleman there who used to phone up head office and take a

certain run off the line because there were only two people in

it. When you take one bus off, you ruin the whole system in

that community for that particular run. It's absolutely

necessary to have a system available at reasonable times for

people so that they can do away with their automobiles. That

bus may not be used very often, but a person who has no

automobile and who has to get to a certain place at a certain

time and has to take that bus wants it to be running. So you

have to take the good with the bad. You have to take the peak

hours with the slack hours, and you have to provide a service.

The service has to be a good service or you might as well have

no service at all.

MR. WALLACE: Another supplementary. The Minister has stated

that free public transit has been considered but is not

feasible at the present time because there are not enough

buses. Does this mean that the government has decided that once

there are enough buses, free bus transit will be

introduced?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Oh, this question of free transit is

always an interesting subject.

MR. WALLACE: Have you made up your mind?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I have no objection to free transit. We

couldn't handle it at the present time or in the immediate

years to come. I think there is a good area for free transit in

the core centre of the community, and I think it could be

worked there if you had the vehicles to handle it. I don't

think free transit from Prince George to Hope is feasible. In

certain area, I think free transit is good. I want to say how

pleased I am that the opposition are very happy with the fact

that we have been able to keep the fares down. Even though we

are losing money, we're looking after the people of the

province.

BUS SERVICE TO METCHOSIN, SOOKE AND OTHER AREAS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In view of the Minister's statement,

could he assure the House that the service to Langford,

Colwood, Metchosin and Sooke, which was reduced following the

government takeover of the stage lines, will be re-instituted

and we will now get adequate service in these areas which are

close to Victoria and which could use public transit to come

into the city?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The service was not reduced after the

company stopped operations, and the province was forced to give

some type of service. The service we are giving in Sooke,

Metchosin and

[ Page 2972 ]

Colwood is not a good service. It's the same service that

was being conducted on May 28, 29 and 30. We took over on June

I know what you're going to say: that the Metchosin run is

not operational. We hope that it will be operational by

tomorrow, because we have lack of a vehicle. But that was not

operational on May 27, 26, 25, or May 1 for that matter. The

previous operator discontinued that service without authority

at some time before the provincial government took over. We are

hoping to have another vehicle in Victoria for that purpose by

tomorrow, but it may be a couple of days before it's

initiated.

NEW POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT

FOR OKANAGAN-SHUSWAP AREA

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'd like to address a

question to the Minister of Agriculture on the proposed poultry

processing plant for the North Okanagan–Shuswap area. In view

of the fact that there have been statements made in the

interior today that this plant is in fact not going to proceed,

would the Minister advise the House if there has been any

change in plan for the development of this processing

plant?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): The answer is

no, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary. Is the Minister giving his

commitment that this plant will be proceeding as he outlined in

his estimates?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it is not outlined in my

estimates, but it is my intention to proceed with that

plan.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON

LAB ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE

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

ask a question of the Minister of Health. I wonder if the

Minister of Health could tell the House whether or not he is

aware that there is a possibility that some doctors in British

Columbia who have recently started a laboratory supply business

may also be involved in the accreditation committee for lab

facilities at hospitals.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Langley for having

given me written notice of this question. I checked on the matter and you are

quite right in that the business is held by three members of the medical profession,

one being from the university, two being from the private sector of labs, one

serving on the committee of laboratory accreditation at the present time. We

are looking very carefully at this whole question of expanding into the laboratory

supply business. Naturally it just happens to come at a time when we have been

studying also the increasing costs of pathological labs, escalating at a rate

far more than the general health care is escalating. That does not include,

however, radiological labs, but pathological lab work is escalating very quickly.

I think that there will have to be tighter public control of the whole system

in light of some of the evidence that is taking place at the present time. As

far as these particular situations are concerned, I will be discussing them

with the B.C. Medical Association.

BICYCLES ON FERRIES

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Is the Minister as yet in a position to

report any good news to this House on the very important

question of making provision for bicycles on the Burrard Inlet

ferry?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I am certainly in favour of supplying

bicycle service on the ferry system. I am quite sure that there

will be arrangements for bicycles on that system somehow or

other.

EMPLOYMENT OF JOYCE NASH

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the

Provincial Secretary. Has one Joyce Nash, vice-president and

former provincial secretary of the NDP, recently gained

employment in the government service? If so, in what capacity,

and what is the annual salary or the daily stipend?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Not to my knowledge,

Mr. Member. Perhaps you could assist me in telling me what your

information is. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Another fishing expedition.

MR. CHABOT: I was asking to see whether you were aware that

she has.... (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HALL: And I was replying the best I could.

MR. CHABOT: I have reason to believe....

AN HON. MEMBER: Another blooper!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. I have reason to

believe....

[ Page 2973 ]

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I am just asking the Member —

and I'll try to rephrase the question — if he could give me the

reasons which gave him the reason to believe.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the bell has rung.

Orders of the day.

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

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

Leave granted.

Interjections.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Too bad you got recognized.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Quiet!

Mr. Speaker, Committee on Bill 8, Limitations Act.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: If you tell him to be quiet....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! If you would kindly resume your silence,

we could hear what bill we are calling here. Bill 8?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 8, Mr. Speaker: Limitations Act,

Attorney-General.

LIMITATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 1.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I move

the amendment to

section 1 standing in my name in the order

paper on page 19. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on the same page.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, this

section seems

to be causing a fair amount of concern, particularly to

professional people.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I am going to move an

amendment to

section 8 dealing with both hospitals and doctors

which I have in my hand and can explain. Maybe this answers

your question, maybe it doesn't. I don't want to hurry the

Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If it doesn't, he's last. He can't argue

it.

MR. WALLACE: I feel I should, perhaps, present the position

that has been made known to me. It really deals with this

matter of the running of the time with respect to the

limitation period. I have had communications from the

profession. I am sorry that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) is not in the chamber at the moment, because he is aware

of this and I haven't had an opportunity to talk with him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He knows what's in the amendment,

too.

MR. WALLACE: Very quickly I will say, Mr. Attorney-General,

that the way it reads at the present time, and which you may

well be on the point of amending, is the fact that medical

problems or the effects of treatments might not become known

for five, eight or 10 years from now and it's at that point in

time that the two-year period of limitation then begins to take

effect. It's been discovered, for example, that pregnant

mothers who are given a drug called diethylstilboestrol can

give birth to female children who later may develop cancer.

This kind of situation, under the present writing of

section 6,

could lead to litigation against a physician 10, 15 or 20 years

from now. I would very much hope that the Minister's amendment

is to make sure that cannot happen.

MR. SMITH: I wonder if it wouldn't be in order to consider

in this particular section, for the sake of simplicity,

abolishing all the time limits involved in

section 6(l)(i). I

think we have to question what is the real value, particularly

the social value, of these

[ Page 2974 ]

time limits. Is it practical to have time limits in this

particular section? If you did abolish them, would it really be

any imposition on the Crown? I don't think so. I think it's a

concept that the Minister should at least review in that time

limits enclosed there may not really be necessary from the

standpoint of the actual implication of the law that is

involved. Do you really think that it's necessary to impose

this sort of thing? If so, why? If not, why couldn't they be

removed because of the practical application and the fact that

things that are of urgent importance will probably come up

quickly and those that are not may not ever come up at all? Is

there any real reason for the limitations involved?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, there has to be some certainty at a

certain point in time in respect to actions. It's not right

that somebody who has an action can sit on it. He knows about

it, can keep it in his pocket, and then spring it years later

against the defendant. So what we try to do is make the

limitation rules understandable, clear and simple. But to say

that they should be abolished completely, I can't agree with

that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just a point that I meant to

raise a moment ago. In this same general area relating to, for

example, the keeping of medical records and other evidence over

a period of years, has the Minister given consideration to the

real possibility that this kind of legislation is moving in the

direction of causing the problems that we have in the United

States, that there is an ever-increasing chance of doctors

being sued, justly or otherwise, because of malpractice?

Consequently, the cost of insurance against malpractice is

rising steadily and rapidly to the point where we have this

regrettable situation in the United States where it costs many,

many thousands of dollars for a doctor to protect himself

against malpractice suits. Inevitably the consumer pays.

Whether the consumer is the sick person or a healthy person,

sooner or later these costs are passed on. I wonder if the

Minister could comment, just briefly and in general terms,

whether this element has been considered in deciding how long

it should be before a doctor can no longer be sued under these

circumstances.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to comment, and in doing

so will be referring to the amendment I am proposing to

section 8. There are

very few actions that would extend over the two-year period for personal injury

by reason of the fact that the victim did not know that he had suffered damage.

But such actions can exist. For example, a sponge can be left in somebody's

stomach by a careless doctor, and they have no pain or disturbance from that

for 20 years. It can happen, and there are other examples.

In the one that the learned Member gave about

diethylstilboestrol. I might say that's a chemical that's fed

to cattle in the United States of America but is not allowed to

be fed to cattle in Canada. That's the reason American cattle

are denied — even with Mr. Andras — importation rights into

Canada. It kind of bombs your mind to think that that might be

used in the case of pregnant mothers, but I'm not a doctor. It

kind of alarms you that something that can't be fed to cattle

could be administered to a sick person or an expecting

person.

Anyway, we're trying to balance the two interests involved: that the victim

should have recourse for medical malpractice or against a hospital — but not

forever. And so I have, on the basis of the representations made to my colleague,

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), by hospitals, which have the record-keeping

question, and by the medical profession, in view of this malpractice situation

that could erupt in British Columbia, suggested 10 years outside. Now even there

there will be very few actions, as I say, where the injury isn't known immediately.

In connection with these malpractice suits, these things can

become a bit of a racket, you know — a kind of an

ambulance-chasing, litigation, harassing business against a

professional person, against an insurance company. You can have

good claims and you can have fraudulent claims. You can have

claims whose intention is, as I say, to harass and extort a

settlement instead of having the whole court process go

through. Some lawyers in the United States, I think, practise

in what I would think would be an unethical way in respect to

these malpractice suits. They have a terrible problem in

California. While it isn't directly under this bill, it touches

on it. That's why we're cutting back the thing to 10 years.

But apart from that, I think we have to watch very carefully

in British Columbia that kind of a malpractice suit to make

sure that legitimate claims will be compensated but no that

there be the kind of harassment that I've been talking

about.

Section 6 approved.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I move to

section 8 reads as follows:

"or in the case of an action against a hospital, as

defined in

section 2 or 25 of the Hospital Act, based on negligence, or

against a medical practitioner, based on professional negligence or

malpractice after the expiration of 10 years from the date on which the

right to

[ Page 2975 ]

do so arose."

I so move the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak

briefly on the amendment. I suppose in difficult issues of this

nature one can always ask: why 10 years? I'm not unaware of the

Minister's difficulty in deciding whether it should be 5 or 10

or 15 or what; I think it's important to mention that even in

Canada, it seems to me, we are moving into an area where there

is a greater awareness by the individual citizens of medical

and surgical matters. It is good that there is wider education

of the public on a lot of these matters.

But the problem is that a lot of the information is

incomplete, and a person can no more understand some of it than

I can understand some of the legal information that a lawyer

would bring forth. The example the Minister quoted a moment

ago, that I originally mentioned about the use of a certain

hormone during pregnancy, is as puzzling to the medical

profession as it is to anybody else. In other words, the exact

nature and role of some of these hormones, for example, in the

treatment of cancer is still ill-understood.

Therefore all I'm trying to say on this point is that as

long as this legislation is not unfairly penalizing the

conscientious physician who today is using to his best judgment

accepted methods of treatment which a year or 3 years or 10

years from now might be shown to have been ill-advised on the

basis of new evidence.... And very often the nature of the

evidence which might justify the litigation doesn't just come

in one blinding flash one day or one week or one month. There

is, as we all know, a tremendous amount of research being done

in the cancer field, and certain evidences tend to incriminate

certain chemical agents or hormones or cigarette smoke or what

have you.

What bothers me a little bit about even the 10-year

situation is that 10 years from now we may well finally prove

or provide more accurate proof of the available evidence we

have today. And what attitude are the courts to take? What can

a physician expect, if the litigation is launched and based on

evidence that was partially or fairly suggestive but not

proven, and then a year or two later it was proven?

I don't think this issue is just as clear-cut as most of us

might consider at first glimpse. I couldn't agree more with the

Attorney-General that there has to be the unquestioned

availability and access to the courts for a patient who has

been badly treated, and to the right to receive redress for bad

treatment or negligent treatment. I'm not disputing that for a

moment.

I am concerned that in light of this trend south of the border — and

quite often Canada seems to follow American habits, whether by design

or otherwise.... I know that within the medical profession there is

already concern developing that it must not be made so easy for people

to undertake litigation against physicians almost, as the Minister

himself said a moment ago, as a kind of a habit or just something

that's worth doing, even though the grounds for the case might be

slight and even although the case fails.

The fact is that it takes time and money. We've already

heard that in this province in particular we don't have any

excess of lawyers. If lawyers are tied up in less than

justified suits of this kind, then presumably they are less

available for perhaps more important functions in our system.

So this is a much bigger subject, I think, than it perhaps

appears at first glimpse, or as to whether it should be 5

years, 10 years or 15 years.

I appreciate that the Minister has amended this section. The

amendment is certainly a step in the right direction. But I

hope that he would realize some of the far-reaching

consequences that are involved in this issue. This particular

amendment isn't, I don't think, the whole answer to the

problem, and, I'm sure the Minister recognizes that.

I do feel it would help if the Minister could give us the

assurance, perhaps, that there will be continuing discussions

with the medical profession to try and analyse the dimension of

the problem, or the potential for the kind of problem which has

developed in the United States where the cost of insurance has

risen to such a point that we have not only the very

undesirable situation where doctors are withdrawing their

services and closing down the hospitals, but where the cost to

the consumer is passed on.

Whether we have a much superior insurance system in British

Columbia as compared to the States is just not the whole

answer. The fact is that if physicians in Canada find that they

have to pay large sums for insurance protection, we can be

quite certain that the costs in one way or another would have

to be passed on to every individual citizen in the province who

receives medical services. So I hope that the Minister will

consider, by whatever vehicle he considered most convenient,

that some continuing discussions take place with the medical

profession to, perhaps, consider further amendments to this

legislation in the near future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it may not be this

legislation, because this is time limits, not the law of

malpractice. In our common-law system, however, the judges

require pretty heavy onus upon the plaintiff to show that the

doctor acted unreasonably. It isn't just that the doctor

selected the wrong treatment. There may have been three ways to

go — A, B and C — and the doctor chose B, say. Maybe that

wasn't the best one, looking back with

[ Page 2976 ]

hindsight, but that doesn't make a case for a plaintiff. I

think you'll find our damage awards in British Columbia, while

we should continue to watch the situation, are much below some

of the egregious judgments we hear about in the United States

of America. I would hope that the lawyer's take, which you hear

about — some of the contingency fees in the United States — I

hope that kind of thing will never happen here. Sometimes you

hear about 80 per cent of the award to some victim of medical

malpractice going for legal costs because the patient signed

that kind of an agreement. Those are things we should

watch.

Amendment approved.

section 8 as amended.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Just before we

leave

section 8, Mr. Chairman, I notice that it starts out by

saying "subject to

section 3(3)." What I am concerned with here

is that I want to make sure this portion labelled marginally

"ultimate limitation" in no way applies to any legitimate claim

in law that the Indian people might have in respect of lands

taken prior to 30 years from this date, which is the

application of this section. I wonder if the Attorney-General

could clarify that. Does the exception of

section 3(3) look

after that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think so, Mr. Member —

section

3(3)(a).

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. GIBSON: Once again my concern is with lands which may

have been taken from the Indian people. I am not a lawyer, Mr.

Chairman; I would appreciate explanation of this term "adverse

possession" and whether that might impinge on that topic.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Possession, even for an infinite number

of years, will not give you automatic title.

MR. GIBSON: I see. That's what "adverse possession"

means.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

Sections 12 to 18 inclusive approved.

On the schedule.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the complicated-looking

amendment to the schedule, which I now move, on page 19 of the

orders of the day, really restores

section 739 of the Municipal

Act as a notice provision which is required by somebody injured

and about to sue or having a potential suit against the

municipality.

On the amendment.

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

when we were debating this bill in second reading, I pointed

out the concern of local government, whether it had been

expressed, as the Attorney-General indicated later, or whether

perhaps it had not been noticed by some municipalities. The

removal of sections 738 and 739 from the Municipal Act in this

connection or in this context would have been very, very

harmful indeed.

I would express a personal opinion that ideally it would be

more satisfactory to see both 738 and 739 deleted from the

schedule. However, 739, I agree, Mr. Chairman, through you to

the Attorney-General, is the more damaging, or could have been

the more damaging, and frankly I congratulate the

Attorney-General for responding to what I believe was a point

made not only in the House but by the Union of B.C.

Municipalities.

Schedule as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, Limitations Act, reported complete with amendment to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 82.

CREDIT UNIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 60 inclusive approved.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Perhaps a point of information.

I have no great comments to make on this bill, but is this

acceptable to go 10 sections at a

[ Page 2977 ]

time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It has been done in the past,

providing that no objection is raised.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I just make a point, Mr. Chairman,

because sometimes when you go through sections one at a time I

have a great job catching your eye, and, although I am not

commenting on this particular bill, I would think it is all too

easy for you to miss someone trying to catch your eye when you

go 10 sections at a time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member does wish to

speak on a particular section, just stand and draw my attention

by speaking a word or two, and then the Chairman, I think,

would be agreeable to going to that

section and starting at

that point.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River) I might suggest that in some of

these long bills the past practice has been to move more than one or two sections

at a time, but it has always been the practice of the Chair to allow anyone

to rise on a particular

section and stop there and carry on from that point

at eight or 10 sections, or whatever, at a time in order to facilitate the work

of the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the Hon. Member.

Sections 61 to 196 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I could not let the title of this

bill pass without noting that it is intituled Credit Unions

Act. I would hope that we will be able to refer to the Credit

Unions Act in future sessions of this Legislature as an

organization which is still in business in the Province of

British Columbia, that the credit unions will remain as a

viable financial institution to provide services for the little

people of the Province of British Columbia and that, in fact,

the new banking corporation which is provided for in another

bill, which I must not refer to, will not replace the credit

unions in the Province of British Columbia, because they do

provide a valuable service, and have provided a valuable

service, for a large segment of the population of the province

over a long period of time. They have stood the test of

time.

It is my hope, in passing the title, Mr. Chairman, that we will not have to

refer to the Credit Unions Act of British Columbia a year or two down the road

in a past tense. I hope they'll still be with us and provide the same functions

they have been able to provide in the past and that, in fact, the other organization

which is to be incorporated under a bill before this House will not replace

them or undercut them or in any way detract from a valuable service provided

for the people who are members and shareholders in the particular venture in

the Province of British Columbia. I hope we keep in mind the fact that they

are the bank of the individual and the small person. Many times they have provided

the only recourse in terms of finance that a small individual with a limited

amount of capital and assets could turn to in the Province of British Columbia.

They were the only institution for years that would take a chattel mortgage.

If you went to the other institutions, they laughed at you.

So let's pause for just a moment and reflect upon the bill

that we are about to pass, the Credit Unions Act, an

institution of the people, for the individuals and small people

in the Province of British Columbia. Hopefully they will remain

in business for many years so that we will, perhaps, in the

future, still debate amendments to the bill that is before

us.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Have no fear, be of cheer — we are here!

This is a bill for the expansion of the credit union movement

and for the safeguarding of its integrity and democratic

participation. I foresee tremendous growth for the credit union

movement in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): I don't think I

should let this moment go by without some reference to the

origin of the first Credit Union Act in British Columbia. In

the '30s we worked hard to try and have a Credit

Unions Act, and I tried to organize a credit union under the

cooperative Act and failed. Dorothy Steves was the one who

brought the first Act to the floor of this House as the CCF

Member for North Vancouver. Following that year — they turned

it down that year — the first Credit Unions Act of British

Columbia was brought in. That was in 1939 or 1940, I believe. And in that short time, from 1940 to

today, to think credit unions have grown to such an extent....

And, of course, prior to that their origin was in Nova Scotia

and in Quebec by Mr. Desjardins, who first started the credit

union movement throughout all of Canada. I am sure that great

credit should go to those people. I am very pleased today to

hear the opposition say that the credit union has given great

service to their members and to the public.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2978 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 82, Credit Unions Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 70.

FISHERIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I was wondering if the

Minister would outline to us what the repealed

section 27

pertains to, please.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Well....

MR. CHABOT:

Section 23 repeals

section 27 of the former Act.

Would the Minister tell us what he's repealing?

MR. FRASER: He should have it memorized.

MR. WALLACE: Try reading the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe he'll take it as notice.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The question was:

section 27, why is it

being repealed? It's merely a simplification of the former two

subsections, and there's no change in substance other than

requiring that a licence conform to either federal or

provincial fisheries Acts, and not just to the provincial, as

in the past. It's bringing the licensing procedure in line with

the federal Fisheries Act.

Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 70, Fisheries Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, just before I call the next

one, for the information of the House, it is our intention to

do the Coroners Act now, followed by the third readings of the

Minister of Finance's bills. After those are finished, we will

go to Bill 93, the Liquor Distribution Act. The Coroners Act

first, then we will go on to third readings of the Minister of

Finance, then on to the Liquor Distribution Act.

Now, second reading of Bill 87, Mr. Speaker.

CORONERS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In moving second reading of this bill,

may I say that it does not alter the substantive law with

respect to coroners' inquests or inquiries? It does provide a

code where all of the laws can be found. I think it provides

that the community must be more vigilant in the cases of deaths

occurring for unexplained reasons, in either the form of an

inquiry or an inquest. So that somebody will be actively

charged with a province-wide responsibility, it also provides

for a chief coroner. You know, we haven't had that. We've had

things happening in different communities throughout the

province, and not happening too consistently — and I say that

without disparaging any of the existing coroners. But I think

that if some person with the experience to watch the entire

system of coroners' inquests and inquiries is charged with that

duty, then the community is going to be more vigilant in

searching out the causes of fatalities than it has been in the

past.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: We support the principle of this bill. I think

it's an updating that's probably overdue in the Province of

British Columbia. It follows, as closely as we can determine, a

similar bill introduced and passed not too long ago — as a

matter of fact, last year — in the Province of Alberta.

We do want to question the Attorney-General respecting the

steps he intends to take to guarantee that once a coroner's

inquest and jury have handed down a recommendation, those

recommendations will be followed and carried through. It would

seem to me that in the past, for one reason or another — and I

am not suggesting it was the fault of the Attorney-General

entirely — some very thoughtful recommendations came out of

hearings by coroners' juries respecting accidental death or

problems where they have been called in. A jury of people has

been called in and made a number of recommendations to

government in many aspects concerning the safety of people, the

enforcement of law and so on.

I would just ask the Attorney-General, in closing second

reading — and we wish to debate the bill further in committee —

what steps he is prepared to

[ Page 2979 ]

take, or is in fact taking, to follow up on the

recommendations of the coroner's juries to make sure that the

things they have recommended are looked into in depth and, if

possible, become inculcated into some of our laws and

legislation.

Quite often, as the Attorney-General knows, they do

recommend certain matters that can only come about through a

change in existing legislation. It is beyond their power to do

anything more than recommend as a coroner's jury.

In my experience, when I have been involved in looking at

the decisions of coroners' juries, and that is not too often,

they have come up with some very down-to-earth recommendations,

but that is as far as they can go. Will there be some system of

cataloguing those recommendations or is there one in effect at

the present time, so that they become part and parcel of the

recommendations or the amendments suggested in the following

year or whenever it is practical to do so?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very good bill,

as I understand it. It is written in very clear language — a

little easier to understand than some of the other bills the

Attorney-General has to struggle with. I think perhaps better

debate can take place in committee stage, but there are just

one or two points I wanted to raise.

There seems to be very often considerable delay in obtaining

transcripts from coroners' inquests. I am thinking particularly

of one about which I was approached very recently regarding a

sudden death in a public place. The circumstances were

suspicious and uncertain. An autopsy has been carried out, I

understand. I don't want to go into a lot of detail, but the

parents have found this whole tragedy very harrowing for

reasons we needn't go into. But many weeks have gone by and

they still can't find out what the autopsy did reveal. I

understand they have made numerous contacts, and I think it is

about a month ago that their son died.

I suppose this is covered by the regulations, and that

really brings me to the other point I am a little bit concerned

about in the principle of this bill. I can't find any mention,

other than in a

section dealing with the regulations, as to how

witnesses are remunerated or paid if they lose time from work

and so on, or to what other degree they are penalized

financially. I know that often coroners' inquests are held in

the evening when presumably it is easier for witnesses to

attend. But if they have to attend and lose time from work,

with the rising wages and cost of living, it stands to reason

that it costs them more to give evidence.

The Minister has always maintained in debates in this House that each of us

as individuals has a duty to serve the cause of justice on juries and at coroners'

inquests. I hope the Minister, in winding up second reading, might mention what

reasonable kinds of safeguards there will be in the regulations to ensure that

this aspect doesn't fall behind, that the cost and the expense to the individual

concerned is not overlooked in setting the allowances and payments which can

be made to a person giving evidence, whether that person is a professional from

a medical point of view or from whatever point of view. If he is involved in

giving up time, which costs him an expense away from his normal occupation or

profession, I hope the Minister will see to it that that possibility is looked

after. Principally, is it to be covered under the regulations? I suppose it

is, but perhaps the Minister could touch upon that.

The only other principle that worries me a little bit is

that in the bill there is considerable discretion and power

given to the coroner in deciding that national security is

concerned and that the coroner's inquiry should take place in

camera. I suppose perhaps we're all overreacting to events of

the last few years in the United States where the term

"national security" was used to cover a host of shortcomings

and rank dishonesty by politicians. It may well be that this

section was in the bill formerly, but I wonder if the Minister

would comment in winding up the debate as to whether it seems

reasonable that one person, namely the coroner, should in his

own mind decide the degree to which national security justifies

the closing of a hearing. I wonder if it wouldn't be reasonable

that there should be some reference by the coroner either to

the chief coroner or to the Attorney-General's department, and

that it should not really just rest on the shoulders of the

coroner to decide to close a hearing.

I would assume that very few are closed to the public, since

the whole purpose of a coroner's inquiry is really to

investigate every fact and piece of evidence pertaining to the

unexpected death. But I do feel that examples have occurred

elsewhere where the phrase "national security" was abused for

an ulterior motive. I would be much happier if it was not just

in the authority and jurisdiction of the coroner himself to

decide that national security is involved to such a degree that

he can close the hearing.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon.

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), the existence of the

chief coroner will help us to collate and bring together the

recommendations of coroner's juries. At the moment, you know,

there are all kinds of distinct operations that go, and they

end up as a file in the A-G's department. I think it will bring

the thing together.

Transcripts are a problem.

[ Page 2980 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, thank you. The problem is court

reporters, a skilled animal in our society whose numbers are

too short.

On the question of witness fees, while it isn't in the bill,

it's something we're considering. The whole question of the

range of fees, not only before the coroner's jury but before

the court where it's now $10 a day.... It's a money matter,

and sometimes the Legislature isn't as generous to me in my

estimates as it might be.

National security. I'll look at that. I think it should be a

very outside case where any part of an inquest is closed to the

public. We'll consider your suggestion that perhaps that should

be in consultation with the chief coroner or even the

Attorney-General. It's just repugnant that any inquest should

be closed unless there are the strongest possible reasons. So

we'll look at that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll look at that. I move second

reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 87, Limitations Act, read a second time and referred to

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Third reading of Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

GASOLINE TAX

(1948) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 31 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 33

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

king

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 32.

MOTIVE-FUEL USE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 32 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 33

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 33,

Coloured Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1975.

COLOURED GASOLINE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 33 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

[ Page 2981 ]

YEAS — 32

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 73,

School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act.

SCHOOL TAX REMOVAL

AND RESOURCE GRANT ACT

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): In accordance

with the provisions of standing order 86, I move, seconded by

the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that the

third reading of Bill 73, School Tax Removal and Resource Grant

Act, be discharged and the bill be recommitted.

Mr. Speaker, in support of the motion I suggest that the

House has committed an error in proceeding this far with this

bill in its present form. When the Hon. Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) delivered his opening remarks in the budget

debate, he made it clear that this year there was to be an

increase in the School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act. From

the words that appear on page 28 of the budget address, he made

it clear by the example he gave that for those residents who on

farm properties are paying $400 in gross school taxes, the

provincial offset will be $280; for those aged 65 and over, the

provincial offset in this case will be $330. I'm quoting from

the budget debate.

Mr. Speaker, in the last seven days the tax bills have gone out in the municipalities

of this province. It is with regret that either some error has crept in in the

wording of the bill or some improper instructions have been given by the Department

of Finance to the municipalities with respect to the application of the School

Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act legislation. I must say that I find it a

bit startling that the municipalities have drawn their tax bills in such a way

as to anticipate legislation which has not yet been passed by this House or

received royal assent.

But as it turns out, Mr. Speaker, in the example that the

Premier gave of a property having $400 in gross school taxes,

while it is true that for those people who are under the age of

65 there is a maximum grant of $280, for those who are over 65

the maximum grant is not $330, but instead it is $310. In order

for a person over the age of 65 to obtain the maximum grant of

$330 as indicated by the Premier, it would be necessary for

that individual to have gross school taxes of $450.

Now if you use other comparisons, Mr. Speaker, you will find

that if the gross school taxes are only $300, the person under

the age of 65 receives a total homeowner and resource grant of

$240. But the resource grant for the person over 65 is reduced

to $20. It appears that what we have done — and I say done, I

believe, inadvertently — is to have penalized the person who is

over 65 years of age. We give them the $200 provincial

homeowner grant that everyone gets. We say to them: "You're

entitled to a $50 additional homeowner grant by reason of your

age; but when it comes to the calculation of your school tax

removal and resource grant, you are penalized." I'm sure that

this is not the situation which the Hon. Premier and the

government intended.

I happen to have in my hand, without giving the name or the

description of property, exact figures from the City of

Victoria. This is for a piece of property belonging to a person

over the age of 65. As the City of Victoria has set out the

school taxes, municipal taxes and the calculation of the grant,

it is quite obvious that this senior citizen is receiving a

school tax removal grant of $30 where, if that person had been

under the age of 65 years, the school tax removal grant would

have been $39.50. That is clearly shown on the tax notice to

this taxpayer.

Now the reason for that is, Mr. Speaker, that the total

provincial homeowner's grant of $250 has been applied first and

then, when you calculate the 40 per cent grant which is in Bill

73, the additional $50 made available to the over-65 person

mitigates against their receipt of the full school tax removal

and resource grant.

I notice that when the Premier opened second reading on Bill

73 he said that this year the amount — he's speaking of this

grant — is doubled so that 40 per cent of any school tax in

excess of the homeowner grant will be paid where the maximum

amount payable to any home or any farm under this Act is now

$80.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that the government on

purpose has done this. I trust this is

[ Page 2982 ]

not the case. I think it is an oversight; I think it is a

matter which has arisen from the wording in this particular

bill.

As I said a few moments ago, it is also obvious that some

inaccurate instructions have been given to the municipalities

in order that they may send out their tax notices now.

Therefore I suggest that this is an appropriate time to have

third reading discharged and this bill recommitted.

I fully appreciate that under the standing order 86, if the

bill is recommitted, the person obtaining such an order must be

obliged to indicate the basis upon which the bill would be

reconsidered in committee. I have appended at the foot of the

motion paper what I believe is an appropriate cure for the

situation. It is simply by adding words to

section 1 which

would provide that where the person entitled to a resource

grant is 65 years of age or over, the amount of such grant

shall not be less than the amount which would be payable if the

person were under the age of 65 years.

Therefore in the example which I've used in the City of

Victoria, I'm not suggesting that any more be given to the

person over the age of 65 because of their age, because they've

already received that benefit by the $50 increase in the

provincial homeowner grant. In this particular case, the

over-65 person would receive the $250 provincial homeowner's

grant and would receive $39.50 by way of a resource grant, as

you or I would receive, Mr. Speaker, and not be penalized the

$9.50 Therefore they would get the advantage of the

government's concern in the provincial homeowner grant but

would not be penalized as a result of that additional grant

from receiving what Bill 73 is intended to provide.

I think the matter is quite clear. I also fully realize the

difficulty in which I would find myself once this motion

carries of placing an order on the paper for an amendment which

might need to be a message amendment. But I would hope that if

the government sees fit to have this bill recommitted, rather

than putting me into a position of being out of order in

committee, the government itself might bring in a message

amendment which would make this minor but, I think, very proper

change. Then the legislation would follow directly what the

Hon. Premier said in opening the budget address.

If he would do that, I would be only too happy to have him

autograph my copy of the budget with the words of Job,

chapter

1:21. For those who don't read, "The Lord giveth and the Lord

taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, to accommodate your very

reasonable argument and to give greater consideration to the

point you made, I move an adjournment to the debate on your

motion.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that the motion before the

House, under standing order 86, as presented by the Member, is

in order?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please! Order, please!

May I go ahead with the explanation of this motion so we know

what we're voting on?

The motion to recommit is in order, and, if passed, a notice

of instruction can be put on the order paper. But it would be

out of order in the hands of a private Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I moved adjournment of this

debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, all right.

MR. SPEAKER: So you're voting on a motion to adjourn the

debate. I'm first advising the House that the motion is in

order. I think it's important that we know, before we start,

that the motion is in order.

The motion now is to adjourn the debate on that motion.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to call adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill 86.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Bill 86 means a great

deal to a great number of people. Just before adjourning

debate, I indicated the excitement that is around the land on

this whole question. I talked about the seeming barrier that

exists between the east and the west. Sometimes we look at the

Rocky Mountains and find them impervious. I believe sometimes

Bay Street and other financial centres of North America look

from the other direction and have difficulty in understanding

the needs of British Columbia.

The people in British Columbia do know their own needs, and

they want access to a vehicle that will provide them with a way

of better meeting those needs. So often we hear people talk

about being masters in their own homes — maîtres chez nous....

AN HON. MEMBER: What language is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pig Latin.

[ Page 2983 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: The feeling that the people have is a valid

feeling that should be followed, and the government is

providing that vehicle now. It is largely going to depend on

whether or not the people really cooperate with their own

institutions, Mr. Speaker. It strikes me that in the past, many

of us — not all of us — have ignored cooperative opportunities,

credit unions and cooperatives, period. But it seems that when

we do that, we are working to some degree against our own being

served better.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that there is a great deal of

cooperation. I hope the people view this as their financial

institution. I hope that it will do the job that it is set out

to do, and that is to provide, even within the province, better

regional parity so that people in the north have a great deal

more influence on what happens in the north, people in the

Kootenays have a lot more influence on what happens in the

Kootenays and people on the lower mainland and southern

Vancouver Island have that same kind of ability to influence

the financial structure of our province.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the side benefit (and a great

benefit it would and will be too) is the better availability of

credit. We have always known that in times when the money

market is starved, the area furthest away from the financial

centre of Canada often suffers the most. Mr. Speaker, having

said that and having discussed this bill with a great many

people in the last few days, I find that there is support,

there is excitement, and an expectation out there of people

seeing the possibilities of being a little bit closer to being

masters in their own homes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that there is the kind of support in

this Legislature that there is out there in the public. I hope

that the kind of support isn't that "we will vote for it but

speak against it" kind of situation that so often prevails in

this House.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but

make one point in this debate. When I was a student at the

university studying economics, one of our required assignments

was to study the theory of Social Credit. That was not too long

after the time that my father, who is now deceased, was a

candidate for the Social Credit Party, and almost insisted that

the rest of the family read some of the Social Credit

literature.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ask your brother — he studied it too.

MR. DENT: I just wanted to make the point that Mr. Aberhart did have

a genuine concern. Albeit he tried to provide a remedy which was not economically

feasible, he did identify a very important problem. I just want to read his

definition of social credit and draw one point from it. This is from the Social

Credit Manual, Province of Alberta, 1935 :

"What do you actually mean by social credit? Social credit

is that form of credit which arises from the association of

individuals together which enables them to make use of the

goods and services when and where delivered before they are

destroyed, disintegrated or seized by others.

"It involves the flow of real credit that manifolds its

usefulness. It is the unearned increment of real credit secured

by association. It is possible for a province such as Alberta

to have an enormous real credit as stated above and yet be

unable to use the same. It may be able to supply goods when and

where needed, but the people may be unable to use the same

through lack of purchasing power because of the draining of

real credit by financial credit. Social credit differs from

financial credit in that it gives the consumer the advantage of

the increment of association."

MR. WALLACE: Could you explain all that?

MR. DENT: The point very simply is this. All of the people

in the Province of Alberta, and today in the Province of

British Columbia, all do things for each other. Out of this

action of serving one another, there is a total benefit or

increment to the people.

Mr. Aberhart meant by financial credit that financial

institutions such as banks, insurance companies, and so on, had

a way of draining off that surplus credit that was developed by

the total actions of the people of the jurisdiction in Alberta

at that time, or today in B.C. Furthermore, the people would

get in debt, the municipalities would get in debt, everybody

would be in debt to the financial institutions. They wouldn't

be able to pay off any of the principle because they just had

enough to pay off the interest. The interest would be

compounded and in the end they would be ruined. This was

precisely what was happening in 1935, and even today it happens

occasionally. People actually get snowed under by the interest

as it begins to compound and close in over top of them. Thus

the name "social credit."

I like the term that he uses here. He calls it "the

increment of association." That is a very meaningful term. In

other words, it's the association of all of the people in the

jurisdiction working together, producing services, giving their

labour, giving their management expertise, but all of them

together produce an increment out of that association, out of

that cooperation and effort together, which benefits everyone.

But as he pointed out, the financial institutions — the banks

and the insurance companies

[ Page 2984 ]

— were draining off that increment of association.

There was great criticism of the financial institutions of

the day. One quotation from a Social Credit pamphlet reads as

follows. This is a quotation from Graham Towers:

"A government can find money in three ways: by taxation, or

they might find it by borrowing the savings of the people, or

they might find it by action which is allied with the expense

of monetary policy — that is, borrowing which creates

additional money in the process. Social Credit rightly has been

very critical of that third process, namely inflation, allowing

money to be created just out of thin air...."

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): And borrowing it from

outside sources.

MR. DENT: "...and various other jiggerings with the

monetary system."

This is a point that I have often thought about and which I

am sure many have thought about: this creating money just out

of thin air is no way to create money. So they had an idea.

Let's make the social credit the increment of association.

Let's bring it under control in the local jurisdiction and make

it work for the people. Let's put it to work in the local

jurisdictions instead of having it drained off to the

headquarters of the great banks and insurance companies.

However, in 1956 — and I'm reading from the Social Credit

campaign manual for 1956 — I read a startling statement. This

was a manual intended for Social Credit candidates, and I

couldn't believe my eyes when I read what I saw. It said at the

end of the

section on finance: "The senior Finance department

officials who advise the Social Credit government on fiscal

policy are the same men who advised the Liberal and coalition

governments." Terrible. They had feet of clay. They lost their

soul in 1956 in the Social Credit Party. They were taking

advice from the advisers of the previous administrations in the

Province of British Columbia, instead of their own financial

advisers like Mr. Aberhart or his successors, who could have

well told them the system of social credit.

But today, I thank heavens, the situation is being remedied.

This is a milestone. In 1956 the party in power, named Social

Credit, had feet of clay and were unwilling or unable to

implement their ideals and to deal and grapple with the whole

matter of credit, and the social credit that was built up by

the people's hard labour and effort and management expertise in

the local jurisdiction. They had never grappled with it. They

continued to trust in the banks in New York and in

Montreal.

Today this bill we have before us will implement Aberhart's ideal that we bring

back to the control of the people the capital which the people are creating

by their labour and by their management expertise in the local jurisdiction.

In cooperation with the credit union movement, this new

trust and savings bank can do the very thing that Aberhart

dreamed of in his day, and bring back under the control of the

people the increment of association of the labourers and the

management expertise of the people of British Columbia. We will

now generate our own capital, just as ICBC has done.

(Laughter.) It has returned to the Province of British Columbia

our own money for investment and use in this province.

So a giant step is taken to the implementation of the finest

ideals of Social Credit.

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

enjoyed that last presentation. It's been some time since we

had a good tub-thumping Social Credit speech in this House. I

must say it was done with appropriate Biblical fervour, but I

did think the Member was a little off base talking about the

fleshpots of the Middle East, because it seems to me if any

government has feet of clay, it would be his own government

which has placed itself in debt to the fleshpots of the Middle

East — and we don't even know which one! (Laughter.)

We know it's down among those oil sultans somewhere. Mr.

Member, we wish we knew which fleshpots we've just gone in debt

to.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill and speaking to it in

second reading the Premier also gave his arguments with passion

and fervour. Placed before us at the time of his press

conference was this very elegantly done booklet with the same

old picture of the Premier there in the front, working through

the kind of elegance that only Manny Dunsky can give us. It was

in the best of Manny Dunsky's style.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't attack that picture; that's

Shirley's picture in the background.

MR. McGEER: I think it's a marvelous picture. It's the best

thing about the Premier since he took office — that picture is

one of the few really good things he's going to leave

behind.

In any event, as a tribute to Manny Dunsky's genius, Mr.

Speaker, in the middle page there is a quotation from Stephen

Leacock that's done with appropriate Montreal expertise.

"When I go into a bank I get rattled," said Stephen

Leacock, according to this brochure. Mr. Speaker, I want to

tell you that when the Premier and the government start

monkeying around with financial institutions, I get rattled

because the record is anything but an unblemished one. We have

an almost perfect record of record government losses. There's

no reason for us to believe that the vaguely worded

[ Page 2985 ]

bill we have before us is going to produce anything more

than the kind of success that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) was bragging about the other day.

You remember when he opened the latest bus service for the

government he said that they were proud that the government was

losing $17 million — they were proud of that, I don't know what

kind of things swell the pride of the NDP government, but I can

tell you that if it's that sort of thing, we shouldn't be in a

savings and loan business.

Mr. Speaker, not too long ago Members may recall passing

amendments to the Revenue Act. I would like to remind the

Members before they vote on this bill what

section 9(

c) now

says: "The Minister of Finance may, in his discretion, invest

any moneys of the consolidated revenue fund in fixed deposits,

notes, certificates and other short-term paper of or guaranteed

by any chartered bank, credit union incorporated under the

Credit Unions Act," et cetera et cetera.

In other words, the Premier as Minister of Finance now has

the power by legislation passed under this parliament to do

everything that this expensive brochure is claiming. We don't

need to pass

an Act of this House to do the things that this

expensive booklet claims need to be done.

One of the things that really disturbs me about the bad

habits that governments fall into — and when they are not

checked up for it, continue to develop and emphasize — is this

business of putting out expensive con jobs, which is exactly

what this brochure is. It's all public relations and zero

substance. It's done with the public money to tell them a story

that, as far as I can determine from the legislation itself,

simply isn't true.

Mr. Speaker, if the government now has the power to do

everything it says it's required to do in this booklet, then

why the legislation? I would submit that the major purpose of

the legislation is to gain control of the credit union movement

in British Columbia.

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Groans from the backbenchers who haven't yet

determined the Machiavellian ways of government. But if they

were in the cabinet they soon would.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman if there is an area of government which shouldn't

be touched up with public relations and fancy stories, it's that which has to

do with finance. In finance there's always a day of reckoning; the bitter truth

always comes home. If you spend beyond your means, there's a day of doom. And

that's why there's no place at all for a fancy public relations job. When you

get to finances, you really have to stick to the hard facts.

So what has the government done? Well, we've just passed an

Act earlier this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, which gives the

government the power under the Credit Unions Act through their

superintendent to say whether a credit union may open a new

branch, or, if it has a branch, may change the location of that

branch, or whether a branch shall close. It's all under

section

19. In other words, the government through its superintendent

now has complete control of the branch operations of the credit

unions.

So what about the central credit union? Well, the central

credit union now gets absorbed by the B.C. Savings and Trust.

Oh, I know, theoretically a credit union in Yahk and Ymir or

one of these little places in British Columbia doesn't have to

buckle under; it doesn't have to associate itself with the

government. But it's just like a supermarket moving in on the

corner grocer. How easy it is for the government temporarily to

offer some kind of an attractive issue to those credit unions

which will affiliate, leaving the credit unions that won't

affiliate high and dry. It could easily do this with one issue

of subsidized mortgages.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you checked that out with your two

lawyers?

MR. McGEER: Just one issue like that. All he has to do is to

put one government run of subsidized mortgages through the

credit union system and cut out all of those that didn't want

to play ball with the government's board of directors.

AN HON. MEMBER: But they're independent!

MR. McGEER: Sure they're independent! If they can survive as

independents in the face of bonuses given by the B.C. Savings

and Trust Corp. for those branches that want to play ball, well

and good. But it's so easy with this legislation, Mr. Chairman,

just to take complete control of the credit unions and

emasculate their independence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Yes, groans from the government. But it's all

there in black and white, and you only have to read it to see

it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're a phony, Pat.

MR. McGEER: I must say I do agree with one thing the Premier

did. I think that he made a wise move...

[ Page 2986 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you going to vote against it, Pat?

MR. McGEER: Sure I'm going to vote against it. ...In naming

Eric Kierans as the man to be one of the trustees. His

reputation has been built on saving corporations that were

bankrupt. I think we ought to put him on the board of directors

of ICBC; I think we ought to put him on the board of directors

of the ferries; I think we ought to put him on the board of

directors of the railroad. We've got lots of money-losing

government corporations here. I think he's badly needed to

bring some help to some of the sick B.C. government

corporations. And as a fan of Eric Kierans in every respect,

except his resource policies, I would welcome him to British

Columbia, despite the fact that he's one of those dirty old

eastern financiers.

Here we've talked about how important it is, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you going to join Social Credit?

MR. McGEER: Oh, please! The Premier must be having

nightmares. Will you stop sounding like a broken record on

that, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No! No, no, no!

MR. McGEER: It really is bothering you, and I wouldn't want

it to impair your ability to discharge the duties of your

office. So please relax about it for a little while.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think it a pity from the

government's point of view. I want to say I support the logic.

I'm a friend of Eric Kierans and I admire his ability. I think

he's done a sensational job of rescuing sick corporations. I

think there's a place for him in British Columbia because of

that.

But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I think it's too bad from

the government's point of view, in trying to build up the

notion that we're doing something very home grown in British

Columbia, very regional — we're bringing on our own great

financiers; we're going to show them back east how we really do

it out here with out own institution in our own ways — that the

first guy we bring to run the show for us is an eastern

financier. I think it is perhaps a testimony of the insecurity

of the government in moving in to these financial endeavours.

Well, they should be insecure, given the record that they've

had in their two and a half years in office.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I intend to vote against this legislation, as

I will always vote against legislation in this House that is incomplete and

which has not been fairly presented to the people.

Many things are possible with the legislation as it is now

drafted. I don't for one moment believe in this fancy brochure,

because everything that this brochure claims needs to be done

is contained under the Revenue Act in powers that the Minister

of Finance has had for almost two years. So I conclude that

there is some other purpose. The obvious one is the one I have

stated — namely, to gain control of the credit union movement

in British Columbia.

I am skeptical, despite the financial genius of Mr. Eric

Kierans, through this kind of a financial institution, given

the most optimistic view of its activities, that any

significant inroads can be made on the high cost of mortgages

or the high cost of borrowing money, because if it is to be

done with the depositors in the credit unions themselves, then,

of course, those depositors would be getting less than fair

market value for their invested funds in order to satisfy

government policy.

[Mr. Dent in the chair].

Do you see what the problem is, Mr. Speaker? If I belong to

a credit union, and I deposit money in that credit union, then

the credit union must follow the policy of the B.C. Savings and

Trust Corp., which is to lend my money out for mortgages at

less than I could get if I were to make that same deposit in a

chartered bank. Then, you see, as a depositor I am being done

in. You only undermine the credit union movement if you force

on the depositors of the credit union less than their fair

share of income.

On the other hand, if the government, through deposits it

makes, is to bring about these changes in lending rates....

Let us say with mortgages — if the government makes a special

mortgage issue, and that then goes out through the credit

unions as an incentive, how far will that really go? Well, Mr.

Speaker, the total deposits, as of the latest annual report of

the credit unions, is about $1.14 billion. Just how much

subsidized money can the government put into this kind of a

retail operation that would significantly lower the lending

rates?

The government might be able to put in $100 million or

perhaps $150 million or even $200 million of surplus in a good

year, but that isn't going to be this coming year. And until

the government gets some grip on runaway spending within its

own departments, there just won't be any surpluses.

Remember that we are going to the fleshpots of the Middle

East to borrow money for the capital requirements of our Crown

corporations, so any money that the government itself funnels

into this credit union retail operation is going to have to be

done at the expense of something else.

But let us say the government has a good year and

[ Page 2987 ]

somehow they find $100 million or $200 million to place

through this operation. How much difference is that going to

really make to deposits that now total $1.1 billion? They might

be able to add 10, 15 or 20 percent. That would be all the

central government could do. How much difference is this really

going to make — $100 million or $200 million worth of

subsidized money going into a corporation that has deposits and

therefore loans of the order of $1.2 billion? The answer is:

not very much. The change that can be brought about would have

to be almost miniscule.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to come out with a fancy brochure

and suggest that a vehicle has been discovered which is going

to revolutionize the cost of borrowed money or the amount of

borrowed money is purely and simply a hoax.

Someone has to stand up and tell the truth and what the

financial facts are. We've got inflation of record-making

proportions and, until some limitation is brought in on the

amounts of money that are created by the central government and

the amounts of money that are demanded from people almost by

holding a gun to society's head, we are going to continue to

have runaway inflation and absurd rates of interest.

These are the kind of things that undermine the very gains

that the union movement thinks it has made through the large

increases it has demanded from the public in the last year or

two. It's a crazy, runaway cycle and this particular bill is

not going to solve it. Suggestions that it will are almost

deceitful. I say "almost" because I don't want you to call me

to order.

I have no hesitation in voting against this bill.

MR. SMITH: I think the Minister of Finance, in speaking in

conclusion of the debate in second reading, should really bring

to the attention of the Members of this Legislature what his

plans really are for this particular institution. I mentioned

the matter previously this afternoon in debate on the Credit

Unions Act and I want to deal with it in a little more detail

right now. It follows the same vein, I think, of the previous

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who has just taken

his seat in this debate. That is that this institution can be a

very viable and welcome addition to the many financial

institutions that we have in British Columbia provided, and

only provided, that it does not come into direct competition

with the credit unions of this province which have been

established for many years.

I think we need a direct and unqualified commitment from the Minister of Finance

that there's no intention that this institution, for instance, will locate offices

adjacent to or within the immediate area of existing credit unions in the Province

of British Columbia, because we know, and I am sure that you do, Mr. Speaker,

in such a situation who the losers will be. It will be the credit union that

is located in that locale, not the large banking institutions that we know —

the Commerce, the Royal, the Toronto-Dominion or whatever you want to name —

not the large trust companies located in the large metropolitan areas, but the

very institutions that have traditionally supplied the funds required by the

medium- and low-income people in the Province of British Columbia.

The other thing that I think we should know something about

is the type of institution the Minister envisions with respect

to loans. Is it the intent of the government to somehow provide

a means of rebating or discounting the interest rates which

prevail today to the selected clientele of the new Savings and

Trust Corp. of British Columbia? Isn't that, then, a subsidy

paid by all the taxpayers of the province whether they, in

fact, use the facility or not? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,

that it would be. Anytime we take the collective funds of the

province which are at our disposal and which we can invest at

the going rate of interest, and turn around and lend that out

at a rate which is much lower, at a discount, then that is an

impost upon every taxpayer in the Province of British Columbia,

because we have lost the value and the benefit of that

additional interest.

I know it's been said many times in this House when the NDP

formed the official opposition that they were in disagreement

with some of the investment policies of the Social Credit

Party. One of the things they objected to was the return on

invested funds — the pension funds of the province, the

collective resources of funds which are obtainable for

short-term deposit or, in the case of pension funds, the

tremendous amount of money available for long-term deposit. The

NDP were quite critical of the fact that that money was used as

a means of financing provincial government endeavours,

including B.C. Hydro. They felt that that was a subsidy paid by

the people who belonged to the plan. At the going rate of

interest in return there should have been a higher rate of

return to the people who had invested dollars or part of their

income in retirement with the province and who contributed

their fair share.

So what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Hon. Minister of Finance? What does he see as a future of this

institution? Can he give us at least a verbal guarantee as

Premier of this province that there will be no interference

with the operations of the credit union which will be

detrimental to the people who presently use that facility as a

financial institution in this province?

Can he guarantee to us that the loans provided will not be

at the expense generally of the taxpayers of this province in

the form of a subsidy to a selected clientele? Will he

guarantee, for instance, after having made a commitment at

least within the last two years

[ Page 2988 ]

to invest substantial amounts of the money available in the

Province of British Columbia for short or long periods of time

with the credit unions in the province, that those funds will

still go to the credit unions? Or will they find that as a

matter of policy the government now will redirect the funds

available to them to the Savings and Trust Corp. of British

Columbia? I think this is the most important issue we have

before us in debate on second reading of this bill.

There is no suggestion on my part that we cannot use or that

we do not need some form of financial institution in the

Province of British Columbia. It's been talked of; a means of

trying to accommodate and provide for this has been discussed

for a long time. But I do believe we must know in no uncertain

terms the future of credit unions as they relate to this new

financial institution.

If it is one or the other, then all of those people who are

presently members of the credit union need to know that fact

because they are the people who will suffer. That is a

substantial percentage of the population in the low- and

middle-income brackets in the Province of British Columbia. If

it is not that, then the Minister in closing second reading in

this debate should tell us so and make a commitment before the

Members of this House and before the press who report the

proceedings of this House, and be on record in the

Hansard of this House, that in no way will the passage

of this bill interfere, detract or reduce the effectiveness and

the position of the credit unions as we have experienced it in

this province for many years.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as indicated

previously, we will be voting against this bill.

The first reason is a very simple one. The question to ask

and to answer, which we feel the Premier has failed to answer,

is: is there a need for such an institution? I have looked at

the speech he gave last Friday, and apparently, despite many

fine words in that speech, this new institution will not be

filling any need not presently met or that could not be

otherwise and better met.

I think the real reason for this bill is admiration of the

previous Premier, his predecessor (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett). It

seems that....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It seems that I get support from this

desk at my right. I'm not exactly sure who is clapping.

It appears that the previous Premier's efforts to get a government bank was

admired secretly by our present Premier all those years. Now that he is in the

position of trying to get something very much like that, that is the reason

for moving ahead on it.

In the Premier's speech he talked about increasing the

degree of competition in the province's financial markets. He

talked about narrowing the spread between lending and borrowing

notes. He talked about the need for people to have low-interest

loans for borrowing for educational purposes. He talked about

the banks dominating the small loan field. He talked about

Chargex penalizing the working poor. He talked about not

needing to go to eastern Canada for financial expertise —

despite the fact that Eric Kierans has been named as a

director. He talked about extending credit.

We want most of all to extend credit to low- and middle-income

earners, to farmers and small businessmen, single women, native

Canadians and others who presently have difficulty obtaining financial

services.

I would ask the Premier, in closing this debate, whether he

would try and indicate, which he did not do in his opening

speech, why it is going to be necessary to have a separate

institution, a savings and trust corporation, to achieve this

objective rather than working through the existing credit union

structure which lends itself admirably to any scheme of subsidy

and special schemes for such particular groups.

If it is a question of taking on high-risk loans — what the

banks or credit unions consider high-risk loans — there is no

reason whatsoever for the Premier and for the government not to

work through the existing institutions.

It is quite possible to give guarantees to the banks or to

the credit unions or to the loan and trust companies that there

are in this province. When they do give loans to these

particular groups — low-and middle-income earners, farmers,

small businessmen, single women and native Canadians — it's

quite possible for guarantees to be given by the government so

losses will not be excessive and the interest rate can be just

as low for those people as for anybody with a better credit

rating.

As far as borrowing for education goes, surely the way for

this to be handled is for an adequate amount of money to be put

in the hands of the university bursars so that they have

opportunities to make loans. Indeed, at the same time adequate

money should be put into the summer job programme, something

that has not occurred this year, so that students can earn

enough money to return to the colleges or technical schools or

universities of their choice in the fall.

I am against this legislation because there is no way that

the government can reduce the spread between the borrowing and

lending notes, as indicated by the Premier, unless they engage

either in better business practice or in some scheme of

subsidy. There's no indication whatsoever from the

[ Page 2989 ]

government's operation whatsoever that they will be able to

operate this more effectively. Indeed, the statements they have

made about their desire to take on high-risk loans indicate

that the cost factor will probably be higher than that of

private institutions already in existence. Therefore the costs

are undoubtedly going to be substantial; therefore there will

be no way this institution will be able to operate without

subsidies.

We then go into the question of subsidies — whether or not we

should be borrowing money on the one hand and putting it into

an institution such as this one where, undoubtedly, losses will

exist. In my view, if the government has specific proposals to

increase mortgage money in the province for specific groups in

society, to increase loans for specific purposes — worthwhile

purposes such as education or anything of that nature — it can

be done by specific programmes. There is no need to set up this

institution. There is no need to go outside the existing credit

unions in the province, the trust companies in the province or

even the banks in the province.

This legislation will do nothing to assist the people the

Premier talked about in his speech, those who borrow on credit

cards and are charged — he's correct here — usurious rates of

interest. It will do nothing to reduce the charge that credit

card use places upon the ordinary consumer, about which the

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) and I have been

in complete agreement in past debates. It will do nothing at

all, despite the statement in the Premier's statement.

So we're faced with an institution which, as is stated right

in this bill, will not be a bank, is not to be a bank. Yet the

criticisms in the Premier's speech were almost entirely

directed at banks. There are other institutions; it is possible

for them to fill the need. It's perfectly possible for the

government to set up specific loans programmes or specific

guarantee programmes to handle particular problem areas not

presently covered adequately, in the government's mind, by the

private sector.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as we see this as a direct threat to

the existing credit unions and the system of decentralized

control that the credit unions have worked out, and as we see

this as an expensive and an unnecessary new institution, new

vehicle, and as we see this as something which could be used —

indeed, undoubtedly the temptation will be there at election

time or other times — in a way which will be extremely

selective, we will be voting against this bill in

principle.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say a few words on Bill

86, the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act. What concerns

me mostly about this bill — and it really concerns me — is that the Premier

is building up a great expectation in British Columbia that he is going to deliver

to the lower-income groups and, indeed, to all persons in British Columbia,

money at 6 per cent. I would like to ask the Premier, in closing the debate

on this bill, to advise us if 6 per cent money for home mortgages is going to

be available to all groups in British Columbia, or is it just going to be available

to certain groups in British Columbia.

I'm afraid that a lot of people in British Columbia are

going to take the Premier at his word and are going to be

waiting with bated breath until he delivers on his promises.

They're going to be waiting to borrow money and they're going

to expect to have that money at 6 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the

ability of this government to deliver on promises is just not

on the record.

I don't want to go back and hash over their promises with

regard to help to remove school taxes from farm property and

private homes. I don't want to go back over their promises to

look into and work toward a solution of the Indian land claims.

I don't want to go back over their promises to set up an

insurance corporation which would stand on its own feet without

subsidy from general revenue. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on

about the broken promises of this government.

Here we have the Premier who has made these promises in

opening debate. He is leading the people to great expectations,

and I am just wondering if he is going to be able to

deliver. While the Minister of Health is talking, I might give the

Minister of Health a little lesson in geography. He was saying

that British Columbia was all west of the Rocky Mountains. I

would like to inform him that a great portion of British

Columbia happens to be east of the Rocky Mountains, a

section

of British Columbia which delivers a great deal of tax revenue

to this province. But there is that Minister with his side

blinkers on. He looks straight ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is chewing gum.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing in amendments

in committee stage of the bill, and the amendments will be

worded such that we want assurance that this corporation will

not compete with the credit unions in British Columbia. The

credit unions have flourished in British Columbia for a number

of years. They have flourished particularly in the 20 years

previous to 1972. They were encouraged as an institution in

British Columbia to provide services that the Premier was

talking about to the groups that the Premier is telling us this

bill is going to serve. We want assurances from the Premier

that this institution in no way is going to compete with the

credit unions in this province.

The Premier has stated that people are afraid of

[ Page 2990 ]

large financial institutions. I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that I think that if the people of British Columbia

are afraid of the large financial institutions, they will be

more afraid of any large government financial institution,

strictly because, as I mentioned in this House yesterday, the

people of British Columbia are frightened of this government. I

am afraid that they will be frightened of this financial

institution. We will do our best to ease their fear, but we

want assurances that the very institution which has been

serving the needs of British Columbia will not have to be in

competition with this government bureaucracy.

I want the Premier and Minister of Finance to assure us, in

closing second reading on this debate, when this money will be

available. As I say, he has brought about great expectation in

the province. We need assurances that this institution will not

compete with the credit unions which have done an excellent

job.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Premier might go on and advise us if

he is going to go out and borrow money at high interest rates

which he has done elsewhere in the world. How is he going to

loan that same money out at 6 per cent? Is this institution

going to be subsidized by the taxpayers of British Columbia or

is the government going to fund this out of deposits that the

government may have from time to time and not have the

government charge the institution the regular rates? Is this

one of the ways that this institution is going to be

subsidized? Or is it going to be subsidized out of general

revenue?

It is impossible, the way I look at arithmetic, to borrow

money at a high interest rate and loan it out at a low interest

rate without some form of subsidization. Is the government

going to fund this out of deposits that the government may have

from time to time and not have the government charge the

institution the regular rates? Is this one of the ways that

this institution is going to be subsidized? Or is it going to

be subsidized out of general revenue?

It is impossible, the way I look at arithmetic, to borrow

money at a high interest rate and loan it out at a low interest

rate without some form of subsidization. If the government is

going to be subsidizing this institution, this corporation,

then how will the credit unions be able to compete? How will

they be able to stay in business? I think that the Minister of

Finance has got to tell this House what his intentions are and

how he is going to bring about the principles and the policies

that he says he wants to bring by this corporation. When will

the money be available to the ordinary citizen and how is it

going to come about?

Mr. Speaker, the government would have a great deal of money to put into this

corporation in the way of deposits, and should have. But now we find ourselves

in British Columbia in the position of not only having diminishing surpluses,

but also having to go to unknown sources to borrow money. That situation has

come about in the last two and a half years due to the spending policies of

this government. I hope, in closing second debate....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: As I say, the Premier has to explain to us how

we're going to borrow money at high interest rates — and,

believe you me, the interest rates will be going up — and loan

it out at low interest rates without some form of government

subsidization. How does he plan to subsidize it? If it isn't

going to be subsidized, what magic formula do the Premier and

Mr. Eliesen have up their sleeves? Have they some secret

formula that we're going to be able to borrow money at one

interest rate — a very high interest rate — and loan it out at

a very low interest rate?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Major Douglas.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't think even Major Douglas could

explain this one. As I say, if you're going to go out and loan

money out at low interest rates....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Level with the people of British Columbia, Mr.

Minister of Finance, and tell us that you're going to have

subsidized mortgage rates. If that's your intention, I think

that you owe it to the people of British Columbia to tell us

that the purpose of this corporation is to subsidize mortgage

rates in British Columbia.

I remember when the Department of Housing was introduced. We

had money that we — I think it was $35 million — were going to

put into mortgages so that the people of British Columbia would

be able to have money available for much-needed housing in

British Columbia. But what did it turn out to be but another

broken promise? It hasn't done anything; we're in worse shape

now than we have ever been. Where is the money going to come

from?

The Premier says that we have a surplus. If we have a

surplus, how come we're taking so long to pay our bills? How

come we're having to go and borrow money in Arab countries if

we have a surplus here in British Columbia?

The Premier has been a great critic of taking pension funds

and using them in the Crown corporations of British Columbia.

Now does the Premier, the Minister of Finance, plan on taking

these pension funds and investing them in this corporation?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, the ICBC profits.

[ Page 2991 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you mentioned the ICBC profit,

because there again I remember when ICBC was introduced. Oh,

all of those hundreds of millions of dollars were going to stay

in British Columbia to be invested in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Yet the next thing we know, the Premier is

going to Boston and unknown sources in the Casbah, as it were,

to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars. It just doesn't add

up.

If we're supposed to have all these hundreds of millions of

dollars from the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia staying in

British Columbia, I'd like the Premier to tell us where this

money is invested in British Columbia? Where is it invested?

Now we're investing losses in British Columbia. The more we

lose, the greater our investment. The other side of the coin

is, of course, that this is not true, and we do have to go

outside of British Columbia, for the first time in seven years,

to borrow money.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Get that all down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't dictate to the press.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm suggesting they write it all down —

it's precious stuff.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know Mr. Speaker, the Premier can

scoff. On behalf of the people of British Columbia, all I'm

asking is for you to give us some assurances and explain where

this money is going to come from. I think that I've asked some

straightforward questions, and I'd like some straightforward

answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. PHILLIPS: Assure us that you're not going to be

competing with the credit union movement. If you're planning on

subsidizing mortgages directly through this corporation, then

you will be, in essence, competing with the credi