1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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 22, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

2967 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Service Benefit Plans Act (Bill 64) amendments.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Referral to Committee of the Whole House — 2967

Pollution Control

(1967) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 26) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2967

Mr. Lockstead — 2967

Mr. Stupich — 2968

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2968

Water Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 27) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2968

Mr. Nicolson — 2968

Mr. Lockstead — 2969

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2969

Land Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 29) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2969

Mr. Nicolson — 2969

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2969

Pharmacy Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 71) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2970

Mr. Cocke — 2970

Motor-vehicle Amendment 1976 (No. 2) (Bill 66) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Davis — 2970

Mr.Cocke — 2971

Mr. Barnes — 2971

Ms. Sanford — 2972

Mr. Macdonald — 2973

Mr. Lloyd — 2974

Mr. Nicolson — 2975

Mr. Barrett — 2976

Mr. Hewitt — 2978

Mr. Wallace — 2978

Mr. King — 2978

Hon. Mr. Davis — 2981

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 78) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2981

Mr. King — 2982

Ms. Brown — 2982

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2982

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 3) (Bill 80) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Davis — 2982

Mr. Cocke — 2983

Hon. Mr. Davis — 2983

Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) .

Second reading.

On the amendment to defer second reading for six months.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2984

Mr. Macdonald — 2985

Division on a motion to adjourn the debate — 2986

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2986

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1976

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Interjection.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): I'd like to inform the ministers to my left that I am standing up. (Laughter.)

If I may, Mr. Speaker, this evening I have a guest from the great

constituency of Kootenay and from one of the most important cities in

my constituency, namely Kimberley. I would like to introduce Mayor Jim

Ogilvie and two of his aldermen, Alderman Vic Dick and Alderman Jack

Reid. Would the House please welcome them here tonight.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFIT PLANS ACT

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

amendments to Bill 64, intituled Public Service Benefit Plans Act.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to

the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge

Bill 64.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: By leave, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 26.

Leave granted.

POLLUTION CONTROL

(1967) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker,

regarding Bill 26, the Pollution Control Amendment Act, 1976, the main

purpose of the Act is to provide the director of the pollution control

branch with additional powers in one particular instance, and also to

increase the amounts of fines subject for those persons who are found

to be responsible for pollution.

Dealing with the first point: under existing legislation the director of the

pollution control branch may order persons who are deemed to be violating regulations

of the section, after they have attempted to repair any equipment which may

be illegally discharging effluent or waste The amendment to the Act would provide

the director with direct powers whereby he would be able to order that such

discharging equipment be halted prior to repair if, in the opinion of the director,

the time period to repair it would be not in the benefit of the public interest.

It would be an additional power which the director at this moment does not have.

In line with the fines which will be allowed under this Act for

those who are found guilty of pollution, we are recommending that the

amount be increased from $1,000 to $10,000 maximum and that in the

penalty area the three-month imprisonment be changed to a maximum of

one year. In researching various other jurisdictions for the amounts of

money provided by their legislation we found that the $10,000 amount,

and indeed the one-year period, was keeping in line with the added

inflation.

Other particular jurisdictions have considered that similar fines to

$1,000 were inadequate, particularly for larger interests which may

find that $1,000 is not enough money to be concerned with to prevent

them from polluting. So we recommend that this be increased to $10,000

and, again, I refer to the one-year penalty.

That is the substance of the Pollution Control Amendment Act, 1976. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, our spokesman on this bill isn't here this evening, so I thought I would say a few words, Mr. Speaker.

Our party intends to support this bill. I would like to point out,

however, that the minister just mentioned the $500-per-day fine. The

$500-per-day fine, Mr. Speaker, in our opinion.... I think the minister

should perhaps re-examine that section. To a small, small outfit, a

small company — for instance, the laundry that was fined some years ago

— and I believe up to that time it was the only time in the history of

the Act that any company was ever fined under the Pollution Control

Act. But $500 a day is a lot of money to a small company like that. On

the other hand, say for a giant forest complex, a pulp mill, a

$500-a-day fine is really quite insignificant, Mr. Speaker. However, we

agree with the increase to a $10,000-a-month fine from the $1,000.

And one other section, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

we have some doubts about...and I know that many of us who represent

rural ridings particularly have found this to be the case. Where people

are attempting to subdivide properties and must receive from the

Department of Health a permit to install a sewage system it can

sometimes be a horrendous, long-term type of process to go through to

receive this permit and to meet the necessary requirements. In fact, in

some cases it's almost

[ Page 2968 ]

impossible to get an inspector.

I would think that coupled with your

section 4 of the Act we have

before us, it would be a further complicated, difficult matter for

these people who are trying to install proper sewage facilities, who

are consciously trying to install these facilities. It's a further

difficult process for them to go through and I would one day like to

see the Department of Health and your department get together on this

effort and co-ordinate your efforts so these people don't have to go

through all these various bureaucratic processes. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I don't think we

should let this moment go by without giving some recognition to the

member who perhaps is responsible for the Pollution Control Act, 1967

in the first place more than any other member. I recall that year after

year, as long as he was a member, a previous member for Mackenzie, one

Tony Gargrave, used to put on the order paper a private member's bill

urging that there be a pollution control Act.

Finally, after years of effort, he did persuade the government to

introduce its own legislation in 1967, only to find that he had more to

criticize than to praise in the legislation because the areas of

responsibility for the Pollution Control Act were so limited at that

time. I recall in particular his pleas that the legislation be changed

so that it would include control over air pollution. His pleas fell on

deaf ears at the time, although since then there have been changes in

the legislation.

I would concur in everything that the present member for Mackenzie

has had to say about the level of fines. I think it's not just a

matter, though, of having a maximum fine that looks reasonable under

certain circumstances. It's a matter also of imposing that fine and

enforcing the legislation, and while we have had a minimum on the books

that hasn't been reasonable in today's terms, even that, as the member

for Mackenzie has said, has not been applied except in very unusual

circumstances. I would urge the member to, as the member from Mackenzie

has said, provide better service on behalf of this branch and to ensure

that the fines are more in line with the charges that are laid.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Nanaimo, regarding the

amount of fines — this, of course, is legislation which permits fines

of up to $10,000, and therefore we are bound by the court decision.

The

section 4 which the member for Mackenzie referred to — I can

assure you that the amendment — amending by striking out "corporation

or municipality" — is only there because the word

"person" is now considered to include a corporation or

municipality. It has only that effect, and certainly the comments

suggested by the member for Mackenzie will be taken under

consideration. If the Department of Environment and the Department of

Health can cooperate to expedite some of these subdivisions and the

sewage, we'd be most pleased to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I move now the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 26, Pollution Control

(1967) Amendment Act, 1976, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very short bill

and again amends the penalties which may be levelled under this Act

from a maximum of $250 and, in default of payment, imprisonment not

exceeding 12 months, to a fine of not more than $2,000, imprisonment

not exceeding six months, or both. The continuing offence remains at

$500 a day.

The second part of the bill refers to the penalty for taxes not paid

in the water improvement districts, altering that from 8 per cent to 12

per cent in an attempt to encourage persons to pay their taxes on time

rather than hold back and perhaps turn a profit by allowing their taxes

to lapse.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, the Water

Amendment Act is a very important Act, especially for those of us who

are rural members. I think that these changes to the Act are positive

and they'll be supported by the New Democratic Party. One could hope,

though, that the government would recognize the importance of that

whole portfolio, the water rights branch, in serving the needs of rural

areas, the contribution that's made by people who serve on water

improvement district boards voluntarily, and the non-inflationary

nature of this. If, by increasing penalties, it would assist them in

the operation, that's good.

I would hope that the government would also recognize that people

who are now being expected to make expenditures to put in chlorination

plants and make improvements to bring health standards up to

standard...the reason is that the government has not regulated grazing

and such in watersheds. It has not regulated logging in watersheds, and

the coliform counts are rising in some of these water improvement

[ Page 2969 ]

district watersheds.

I would hope that government would give some thought, maybe over the

next year, to some really progressive amendments and also to extending

the Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act toward water improvement districts,

Mr. Speaker. So while we support this bill and we see that it might

assist in treating watersheds as a very important resource, we would

hope that the Forestry department might also recognize it — that areas

such as Blewett, Mr. Speaker, the watershed of which is threatened by

indiscriminate logging practice right close to Nelson, should also be

protected.

We would hope...and of course I think that the increase in the

interest rate would help the people that give of their time quite

generously in order to see that in the rural areas there is an orderly

distribution and a wise use of water.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just one brief word which probably doesn't

pertain directly to this bill, but to the department. I didn't have the

opportunity under the minister's estimates to say a few brief words

about the water rights branch, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to tell

you and inform this House that I have some 42 or 43 water districts in

my riding alone, very many of them in severe financial trouble. We

have, as the previous speaker has suggested, ideas and we do require

financial help. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the department should

seriously look at ways to upgrade help for these water districts that

are having financial problems.

However, what I wanted to say was that because of the number of

water districts in my riding, I've worked closely with the water rights

branch over the last four years, and I did want the minister to know

that I found the department to be an extremely good department, well

managed, very cooperative, and I know that people from that department,

.engineers, have come into various water districts in my riding —

places like Bella Coola, Texada Island, what have you — and I did want

the minister to know that I appreciated the cooperation of the people

in that department.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just a comment to the member for Mackenzie.

I appreciate your comments regarding the staff in the water resource

branch and I regret to say that for a number of years now they have

been inundated with a tremendous number of applications for water

licences and haven't at all times been able to keep up to date on this.

We're trying very desperately to streamline the bureaucracy involved so

that more persons can be served more rapidly.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 27, Water Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred

to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

after today.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I can truly say that this is a

bill which is required to clean up various designations within the Act.

It is a bill intended to provide

definitions of senior government

officials, to be known by the name by which they are commonly known by

now, professionally at least; also to amend various

definitions — an

example: striking out "Lands, Forests and Water Resources" wherever

occurring and substituting "Environment"; making minor amendments to

such phrases as "an assistant, " changing that to "assistants." Also,

throughout the bill you will find reference to metric conversion, which

is slowly taking form in many of the departments, particularly in the

Department of Lands where much of the records will gradually be

converted to the metric system. That is about the substance of the

bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will

support this bill. I do think these are some questions raised by the

conversion to metric. I would have hoped that the minister might have

outlined what costs, if any, he would anticipate as being encountered

in the conversion, how soon maps and such of various land areas,

subdivided areas and descriptions would be available in metric

measurement and really how this impact is to be felt by people other

than the fact that the Department of Highways will no longer be asking

for 66-foot road allowances. They will be asking for 20 metres and such

things as this.

Certainly the metric conversion is something which is going to come

in Canada; it's coming in many different ways. This is a necessary

move. But I would have hoped that the minister might have some idea of

how much he expects this is going to cost. I noticed that there was

something in the estimates in terms of metric conversion costs, but I

thought that that was more for an education programme. What are the

anticipated extra costs within the department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Nelson-Creston, I am sorry, I don't have those figures

[ Page 2970 ]

before me. Regarding when this will take place, I am informed by the

people who have been with the Lands department for many years that in

some instances they feel that they are still at the quill stage in

keeping records and have asked for various updating of equipment by use

of computers and other equipment. So they may be able to not only

convert to metric but also to update the records.

Contained within the estimates — I'm sorry I haven't been able to

put my finger on it — was the acquisition of a new camera which will

permit some very sophisticated map work and the compilation table to go

with it. I think the general cost would be in excess of $400,000 for

this piece of equipment. But I am assured that this new camera and

table will do the job of about 10 various operations which had to be

handled manually in the past. So we should be able to begin to move

very rapidly into a modern system of record-keeping. The metric

conversion is part of that.

It's certainly going to take a long time to bring it all about, as

it will take a long time in other departments. I couldn't give you a

target date, although they will be working towards that as rapidly as

possible. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 29, Land Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred

to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

after today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 71.

PHARMACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this

is purely a housekeeping bill. The most urgent reason for the

amendments to this Act is the repeal of the federal Patent Medicine Act

effective April 1, 1977. Following that the control of proprietary

medicines will come under regulations under the federal Food and Drugs

Act. The Pharmacy Act in British Columbia contains an important

reference to the Patent Medicines Act; this now requires amending to

meet this situation created by the legislative changes in Ottawa. The

sale and distribution of patent medicines in the province will be

unaffected, although the federal measures will improve the control at

the manufacturing level.

Another

section respecting the destruction of prescription drugs by

a pharmacist has proved to be unworkable and very cumbersome, Mr.

Speaker. The amendment to this

section would allow the destruction upon

the authorization of the pharmacist designated as manager of the

pharmacy rather than going through the procedure of getting written and

signed authority from an inspector appointed by the College of

Pharmacists or an inspector appointed under the federal Food and Drugs

Act.

Another amendment makes the pharmacist now responsible for the

protection from loss, theft or unlawful sale of prescription drugs,

whereas presently he is merely required to report such an event.

The only other amendment has to do with the term "accredited

institution" in the bill, and this causes quite a lot of confusion

because the term is mostly used in the health field and with a

different meaning than is meant in the Pharmacy Act. It is proposed to

overcome this difficulty simply by substituting the term "accredited

facility" for "accredited institution" in any place that term appears

in the Act. The remaining changes, Mr. Speaker, are simple housekeeping

amendments, most of them taking care of that aspect I mentioned.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health indicates that this bill is a housekeeping Act. I agree with him. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 71, Pharmacy Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 66.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT

ACT, 1976 (No. 2)

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, Bill 66 is a very simple piece of legislation. It is aimed at

improving the driving records of young drivers — that is, drivers under

the age of 25. There is an incentive provision provided in this bill

whereby a portion of the insurance premium which they pay in any one

year to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia will be refunded at the

end of that year, provided they do not incur more than a certain number

of penalty points in their driving records. The moneys would not be

paid out of the revenue to ICBC but out of the general revenue of the

province.

To repeat, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to

[ Page 2971 ]

provide for the payment of grants to a class of driver — that is,

the under-25s — on an individual basis for purposes of encouraging

greater safety, greater care and attention on the highways.

I move that this bill be read a second time.

MR. COCKE: I rise on Bill 66 to indicate a certain displeasure with the method of operating under these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, really what happened here was that the under-24 drivers

indicated some displeasure with the way they had been treated by ICBC.

The provincial government indicated that they were being charged a rate

commensurate with their task. Now there was a great question in

everybody's mind around that situation, and certainly I had a

tremendous question in the back of my mind, because not long before the

change of government I had looked at the statistics on the under-24s

and while they were higher, significantly higher — something in the

order of double accident rate — certainly they were nothing like they

were being charged by the ICBC.

Then suddenly, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government decided to

repent, the government that was going to keep their hands out of making

decisions in that Crown corporation. Incidentally, there has been no

significant inclination to date of them keeping their hands off ICBC.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, that was the direction that had been

announced. Then with a certain degree of repentance, the provincial

government decided to reward safe drivers in this particular age group.

It's sort of a two-way reward: (1) to be a safe driver and (2) if you

don't report an accident. So it works both ways. If in fact that

occurs, either of these two situations occur; then what happens at the

end of the year is that the young driver receives a payment, a grant.

But he doesn't get it from ICBC, where he should get it; he doesn't get

it from the Crown corporation. He gets it right out of our provincial

coffers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that this is nothing much more than

a political payoff directly from the government to this particular age

group. The payoff that should have been given in the first place, Mr.

Speaker, was recognizing a safe driver as being a safe driver until

such time as he proved not to be a safe driver. Here we're paying him

on a retroactive basis.

Mr. Speaker, I think that that's just a little bit illogical and it

indicated to me that there wasn't enough thought given to the direction

of ICBC. But more than anything else, it indicates to me and others

that the government is not keeping its political fingers out of that

Crown corporation either directly, as we discussed this afternoon, or

indirectly, as we're discussing this evening.

So, Mr. Speaker, on that basis I feel this amendment is in the wrong

place. We should have been discussing it this afternoon if, in fact, we

had to discuss it at all. The government should have gone the other way

in the first place, recognized the safe driver for what he was until

such time as he proved himself different. On that basis, I feel this is

certainly the unfair way to go.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Oh, oh!

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Oh, I'll only be a second or two, Mr. Attorney-General.

I was inspired to come from my office where I was working very

diligently on my constituents' affairs, because I heard the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) — I believe he was the

minister who introduced that bill — and he was remarking about a 25 per

cent rebate to young drivers, the 25-and-under age bracket, provided

they had an accident-free record during the current fiscal year, I

suppose.

I would just like to ask the minister, in closing the debate, if he

would indicate the basis upon which he arrived at the 25 per cent

rebate, which still is considerably more for that age group than the

other persons who maybe have had to pay the several hundred per cent

increases at the start of the past fiscal year for the ICBC programme.

I feel that right from the start, as I have said before in this

House, the manner in which the rates were established and the

distinctions that were made among the various people who are licensed

to operate vehicles in the province was discriminatory and perhaps very

u n wisely based on statistical information that was indiscriminate as

far as individual driving habits were concerned. It showed no

consideration for the exception, which I feel doesn't justify the end.

Perhaps the minister and those other officials with ICBC were

attempting to facilitate their programme and perhaps expedite some of

the difficulties that such a large corporation as ICBC would encounter,

but be that as it may, I believe that it would have been a flaw more

indicative of the government's sincere concern for individual

differences. It should have been displayed by the kind of programmes

and options that would have been open to individuals, because there are

many people, I'm sure, under 25 years of age who have accident-free

records. It is of small consolation to them to feel that they will

receive only a 25 per cent rebate at the end of the year when they are,

perhaps, superior drivers to many persons who are over 25 years of

age. I just think that it is not satisfactory to rely entirely on

generalized statistical information where individuals are

[ Page 2972 ]

concerned.

This was my main objection, because I can appreciate the difficulty

that the corporation faces in coping with youngsters who have, perhaps,

been ill-advised and acting out a lot of their emotions et cetera

behind the wheel of an automobile. No matter how many of them are doing

it, they are still individuals. Even if it's only one individual who is

not doing it, that individual should not be required to suffer for what

the masses are doing. That's why I'm hoping the minister will give us

some indication that they are cognizant of this disparity and that they

will do better than the 25 per cent rebate which, as the member from

New Westminster had pointed out, smacks of a kind of a political

payoff. It's sort of like an after-thought. It's something that you

decided perhaps you should do to relieve some of the pressure you were

receiving from so many young people who were being unfairly treated

under your new ICBC rate programme. I think it's important, and it

won't be something, Mr. Minister, that will be forgotten.

Although I don't wish to encourage you to improve to the point that

you're going to be that much more successful at the polls, I think that

justice should prevail. If it means that I'm going to leave you in good

stead with the voters, so be it, because I think in the meantime we

have a duty to the people of this province. This matter is something

that I find difficult to reconcile myself to when I speak to you people

who have legitimately come forward and said: "What's the advantage of

assuming responsibility at an early age and learning the lessons and

taking the driver courses and being responsible when the mere fact...?

Chronologically, by no fault of our own, we are victims of being under

the age of 25 and the only consideration we have been given is that if

we have no accidents within the period of a year, we will receive a

rebate. Why shouldn't we be treated on an even par with those people

who are over 25 who are not subjected to this discriminatory

legislation in the first place?"

Of course, you have regulations as well with male and female, which

again is part of your distinctions in terms of the marrieds and the

singles. You have some very interesting distinctions from various

driver categories that, to me, indicate a rather careless approach

toward individual differences and very dangerous, really, in terms of

people's rights as individuals in this society. Again, I could connect

that very easily with your government reorganization which, of course,

Mr. Speaker, I realize is off the point.

I don't want to belabour that because, as you know, we've had our

troubles with that bill in the past. I'm wondering about the minister's

attitude although now he's speaking on behalf of the Minister of

Education who really has the responsibility for dealing with this bill.

Nonetheless, he should take these notes and see to it that the hon.

member for Point Grey will be advised that as time goes on, I think he

should make every effort to try and rectify some of the disparities

that exist among the driver population in terms of their just dues and

their just treatment so they don't feel categorized indiscriminately

with no regard for their individuality.

I'm sure that there are exceptions to most of these actuarial

programmes that you've set up that are based entirely on statistical

evidence, with no regard for individuals who have very excellent

driving records. It's because of this that I came out to try and give

you some indication of the reactions that I'm getting from people in

the community. I'm not suggesting that they are based on your

statistical information, a large proportion of which is shown as a

basis for establishing the rate structure. But I think that as a

sensitive government, a government that has indicated in the past its

concern for the individual, you would be concerned, as I am, that

individuals are not being overlooked.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: And this will take a little more effort — as you

know, in a democratic society it always is more difficult to deal with

the due process than it is to expedite for administrative purpose. It's

more difficult. It takes more time, more sensitivity and more concern.

I'm sure that this government, if it intends to follow through with

its pronouncements during the six weeks or so prior to December 11 of

last year, will want very much to follow through with some of these

suggestions I'm making. I'm hoping that when the minister closes the

debate he will assure the House that he and the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) will be dealing with these concerns. Thank you.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this bill is the

result of the last-gasp effort of the government over there to attempt

to curry favour with the public after the huge outcry that was heard in

all parts of the province following the announcements made by the

Minister of Education with respect to new ICBC rates. This is just an

attempt to gain a little bit of credibility again and to curry some

favour with the public following these outcries. Those outcries came

from people all over the province; no doubt they came from your riding

as well, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly MLAs in other parts of the province, backbenchers on the

government's side, were making the same outcries of outrage at the new

rates as announced by the minister. The member for Fort George (Mr.

Lloyd) and the member for Omineca

[ Page 2973 ]

(Mr. Kempf) were telling their constituents that they were going to

travel to Victoria in order to set the government straight about ICBC

rates, and request that they don't do away with the territorial

variations, that the rates for the old drivers were far too high and

that generally auto insurance rates were nothing short of outrageous,

Mr. Speaker.

As a result we have this bill in front of us today whereby if a

driver has a good driving record for a year, he will be able to get

some kind of a rebate, Mr. Speaker, this has caused a lot of

difficulties for particularly the young drivers who, as everybody

knows, were the ones who were hardest hit by those enormous ICBC rate

increases.

I would like to relate to the House that one day I was sitting in an

office of a businessman in my constituency who owns a towing company.

While I was there the owner of the company received a phone call from a

driver who was under 25 who had had an accident and had phoned to have

his car towed away in order to have it repaired.

Now what happens here, Mr. Speaker, is that these young drivers are

asking to have their cars towed at their own expense, to have them

repaired at their own expense, after having paid those enormous

premiums for all insurance this year, because they are afraid that if

they don't pay their own expenses for these accidents, their increases

will go up again or they woen't b eligible for this rebate. What they

are assuming is that if they get a rebate this year, they will then

perhaps be eligible for a rebate some time in the future, perhaps won't

be facing the same kind of increases from this heartless government

over there.

So what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is paying enormous amounts for

their car insurance and then they are afraid to go to the company and

say: "I had an accident and I need to have my car towed in; I need to

have it repaired." Instead, they are now at the stage where they are

wanting to pay for their own towing charges as well as repair costs.

Now that's very unfair, and that is a result of the actions by

particularly the Minister of Education with respect to ICBC rates.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The businessman, the owner of the towing company, told me that time

and time again he was receiving calls, particularly from young people

who took this tack. He said that he tries to tell them they are

entitled to have their cars repaired and to have them towed under the

premiums they have paid. But no, Mr. Speaker, they're too afraid to do

it. So this is a hastily-thrown-together amendment in order to attempt

to gain some favour again with the general public during that outcry

throughout the province — that justified outcry, I might add, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): In supporting the member

for Comox, I don't think the government has thought this out, Mr.

Speaker, if I can address you on this subject. In effect, as the member

points out, you are saying to the young driver: "Here's a policy for

your auto insurance protection for, say, $600; we'll give you a quarter

off if you don't use it." What kind of protection is that? — you can

have this policy for $450 if you don't make a claim on it. You're

telling him...like the girl says "Mother, can I go in to swim?" "Yes,

my darling daughter; hang your clothes on a hickory limb, but don't go

near the water." Don't use the policy and it will be cheaper for you.

That's a great break for the young people, isn't it? By gosh, I don't

know where the bottom-line thought that one up.

That will save money for ICBC, won't it? And you've got to remember

that you're dealing with different classes of drivers and you haven't

thought the thing out at all, speaking to you, Mr. Speaker. All you say

here is that you may make regulations. You don't spell out that it's

going to be 25 per cent rebate. You don't spell out that it is as the

minister said that it's going to be — if you have points, you don't get

the rebate — because you haven't figured out what to do with this thing

yet.

Now you can have drivers who have points. All right, if they have

points, you deny them the rebate. I can understand that, and if they

get points they can appeal it. So that's due process and that's what

the minister said in his opening statement. But supposing you're a

young driver who makes a claim after being involved in an accident. Can

he get the rebate even though he makes a claim?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): It's like that free ride that costs $1.30.

MR. MACDONALD: Supposing he's barrelling down the highway, or

she is, and she runs into a telephone pole and there are no points

involved, but there's a damage bill of about $2,200 to repair the

vehicle. Now everybody knows.... Even though there were no points....

There were no witnesses. Nobody knows what happened except the car was

wrecked. Does that young driver get the rebate or not? Nobody knows.

Another case is that a young driver parks his or her car by the curb

and that car is hit be another car. It might be hit and run, or it

might be anything, but the young driver who has parked at the curb has

a big claim against ICBC and they put it in. Does that mean that that

person doesn't get the rebate?

MR. BARNES: No way.

MR. MACDONALD: They were totally innocent in the accident but they've made a claim. They don't

[ Page 2974 ]

get the rebate.

Now what the government has done by bringing in this bill that

simply says that they're going to make regulations to try and solve

this thing is that they haven't been to the think tank themselves. They

have not decided, apart from the point system which is clear and

simple, as to how they should penalize the bad driver who makes a

claim. And how do you determine who is the bad driver and who has the

legitimate claim?

AN HON. MEMBER: This is not that flexible.

MR. MACDONALD: And is it the courts that determine that? Or

is there some kind of adjudication going to be set up in ICBC? Is it

going to matter that the young person is found guilty some months later

after a civil trial and ordered to pay damages? Does that person not

get the rebate?

So what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this is ill-thought-out

legislation and that not enough thought has been given to it. So the

minister brings this bill into the House, because he hasn't thought it

out — a general little amendment to the Motor-Vehicle Act saying we're

going to make regulations and try and figure this thing out.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): They're all sick birds.

MR. MACDONALD: And that's not good enough, surely, in this House.

MR. KING: They're all sick birds.

MR. BARNES: Most unfair.

MR. MACDONALD: That is my submission. You start from the....

You know, as the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) said,

you start with the huge inequity of tremendous rate increases piled

onto young people and then say: "Well, we're going to give them a

break." But you haven't thought out what that break is. You haven't

tried to differentiate between who is a good driver and has to make a

claim and who is a bad driver and makes a claim. It is not thought out,

and we're just asked to pass a power to make regulations while the

government tries to figure out what to do.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): The member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) mentioned that we're quite disturbed up in the north. When the

northern equalization payments came off and when the high premiums for

young people came in, we certainly were quite disturbed. But after

looking at the fantastic costs, not only in dollars but in lives, that

had happened under the NDP no-fault insurance....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LLOYD: After looking at this and after looking at the age

group that was causing over 40 per cent of the claims, we couldn't help

but agree with the minister that there had to be something come along

to restore a sense of responsibility in careful driving, not only to

the young people but to all age groups — but, since they were

accounting for most of the claims, certainly to them at least.

The Take the Car out of Carnage committee, working out of Prince

George, has assimilated very many accurate records on the number of

young lives lost and the terrible accidents on the roads in our area

last year. Things like this just make your blood run cold. We've got to

have more responsibility on the roads. The drivers have to exercise

proper care and attention when they're driving.

As far as any claims that they were penalizing all of the drivers —

yes, they had to penalize all the drivers because there was a sloppy

ICBC insurance set-up, the records they had. There were no records to

show who the safe drivers were.

In our area, we had one young fellow under 25 who totalled three cars off.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, Hon. Member?

MR. BARNES: The member is misleading the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you please take your seat?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to point out that the member is misleading the House by suggesting that there were no records.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member..

MR. BARNES: I should point out the records were taken by the

previous government before we came in. That's why we didn't have any

records. We had to start from scratch.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I must ask you to withdraw unconditionally that remark "misleading the House." Would you kindly withdraw?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, perhaps he wasn't informed. But I am sure that if you would check your records you would find that....

[ Page 2975 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: Before, when we came in in 1972, we could not

find any records about what had happened in the insurance industry.

Everything dried up. Now he suggested that it was our fault.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: We asked politely of the opposition at the time to provide us with some assistance, but they wouldn't give us any assistance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: We had to start from scratch.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, order, please. Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: But I am certainly more than pleased to withdraw

if I indicated that that member was misleading the House deliberately.

Let us say he was not informed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member. Would you kindly

take your seat, please? First of all, Hon. Member, you were not on a

point of order. Secondly, thank you for the withdrawal.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, a typical point of order from the other side — just filibustering debate.

I was getting onto some of the statistics that the member mentioned

we didn't have. We had a young fellow under 25 in the Prince George

area who totalled three cars last year, had two cars stripped — and he

is still paying the same insurance as any other driver on the road. I

ask you, is that fair? We have drivers with over 40 points still going

down, picking up a new car and taking it out and getting it wiped off.

Is that the responsible records that that member over there is talking

about, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill...

Interjections.

MR.LLOYD: ...this Bill 66...

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member has the floor.

MR.LLOYD: ...is a very worthwhile amendment.

I certainly hope that it achieves the purpose it is designed for

because I think we have to remember not only the cost in dollars of

repairing the automobiles, but also the cost in lives, the cost in

injuries and the costs in our hospitals. So I certainly welcome and

support this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, not to delay this debate, but it

is rather ironic when that member gets up and talks about a sense of

responsibility. His priorities, in terms of driver safety and the young

people, were that when concerned citizens in his riding, to which I

travelled from here — that is, all the way up to Prince George — to

address a non-partisan group of concerned citizens, concerned about the

prices of ICBC insurance rates in the north.... The meeting was held

there — there were representatives of three political parties: the

Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP. There was one person who

didn't show up, a person who felt that snow golf was more important.

I'd like to tell this House I gave up a game of grass golf to go up to

that riding of his.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Snow-golf!

MR. NICOLSON: I think that people will not forget that; they won't forget that, Mr. Speaker, and what that member's priorities are.

He talked about the Take the Car out of Carnage committee. Now I

think that is a very responsible group that was certainly active when

we were government. They made an excellent presentation to the cabinet

of that time, in October, 1975. It was a positive programme. I have

informed people in my riding — I have informed doctors in my riding who

are concerned about the problem particularly of young drivers and

positive education programmes that can take place. I have tried to

encourage something like the Take the Car out of Carnage committee of

Prince George because I think that is the best way of reducing not just

premium rates, but the needless loss of life. But for the minister to

get up — or I should say, for that ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Member.

MR. NICOLSON: ...that hopeful minister...

MS. BROWN: He'll never make it. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: ...that rookie who is aspiring to the cabinet,

who gets up at every turn to say "me too" with the government

legislation, and to defend when it is quite indefensible, for him to

get up and say the sort of thing.... I would hope that if he is going

to get up and make responsible remarks like the portion of his speech

which related to the Take the Car out of Carnage committee, then he

should stick

[ Page 2976 ]

to that, because it demeans the very good work being done by that

committee when that member gets up and gives the kind of prologue to

his remarks such as he made tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, think that the government is kind of ad-hocking

this thing. It'd obvious they still haven't figured out what

they are going to do and under what terms they are going to offer some

form of relief to students and to young people who are hit very hard by

these insurance rates. He said that we didn't use the records. Well,

the insurance industry didn't publish the blue book. There were no

records for us to go by.

MR. BARNES: Right on!

MR. NICOLSON: Those records which were free for the use of

all insurance companies in the province...the

section on British

Columbia was not published in 1973.

MR. BARNES: It dried up.

MR. NICOLSON: So now that records have been kept by ICBC, and

they have a basis upon which to go, there is room for improvement of

the way of penalizing driver records.

So, Mr. Speaker, certainly the young people do deserve some form of

relief, any form of relief from the oppression of this government,

particularly as they have been very oppressive with respect to ICBC.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): You left the mess.

MR. NICOLSON: But the Minister of Economic Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) and that minister of hot gas takes a very cavalier

attitude towards persons not perhaps as financially fortunate as

himself who find a great deal of difficulty paying those rates. We can

only hope that when the government will, I am sure, pass this bill that

they finally take some time then to come up with some well-thought-out

plan to at least ameliorate the inequity of the actions which they have

taken to date and show a lot more consideration than they have taken to

date.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): You want to continue the ebb and flow, Mr. Speaker. I'll traditionally defer to the backbencher for....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition defers to the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt).

AN HON. MEMBER: Beautiful!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, that's fine. Mr. Speaker, what this really

demonstrates is a basic difference in philosophy between us and the

government of the day. The difference is that we trust people and they

don't. Now I want to demonstrate to you what I mean by that statement.

What they are doing is saying that all young drivers under the age

of 25, because they are young, are bad, but if they prove to us that

they were good, we will give you some rebate. It's like a Mexican court

system versus the British court system that says you are good until you

are proven bad. But under Social Credit you are bad until you can prove

you are good. And that is the attitude towards young people throughout

this province.

Everybody under the age of 25 is bad, is a bad driver and will be

punished, but if you prove that you are good, we may give you a rebate

— maybe. We said that all people regardless of age should be trusted.

If they prove they are poor drivers, then on that basis their premiums

should be measured on their individual record, not on the basis of

their age.

There were examples, Mr. Speaker, that we were compiling to show

that people over the age of 25 who had convictions for drunken driving

were actually paying less after that conviction for drunken driving

than a young person under the age of 25 was paying before they even had

a chance to establish a driving record. That parallel demonstrates the

attitude that they don't trust people by age groups, or generally they

don't trust people.

Another demonstration of that same philosophy, by way of example,

Mr. Speaker, is the attitude towards customers of other government

services. On the ferry system, when you go and buy one cup of coffee

and you are supposed to pay 10 cents for the second cup of coffee, they

don't trust you. They give you a chit to show up with your little chit

and get a cup of coffee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR. BARRETT: That's right. But people are smarter than the

government. Some people went around and collected and got it for a

dime! You know, Mr. Speaker, that's the cheap attitude of the

government that frankly doesn't trust people — not a second cup of

coffee without a chit and a dime, and no rebate on your car insurance

unless you prove you are good.

You are guilty until you prove that you're innocent. It's Mexican

law in the insurance system in British Columbia, and we all know what

happens in Mexico. I warn cabinet ministers not to go down there with

their understanding of Mexican law — or maybe it would be a good idea

if they did visit Mexico, Mr. Speaker.

Nonetheless....

[ Page 2977 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't be back for a while!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, it is a demonstration

of a basic philosophy. You don't trust people. You don't trust anybody

over there. You think everybody is out to cheat the government. Senior

citizens can't get involved in this. You think that somehow people sit

down and plot out a scheme to get back at Social Credit. Well, you have

every reason to be paranoid, but people are not going that far.

Really what evidence do you have to say that all young drivers are

bad; "you prove to us that you are good and you'll get a rebate"? It

should be the other way around. We trust people to begin with. We have

faith in human beings. There are individuals who cannot measure up to

that standard and they're the ones who pay more — not everybody getting

hoisted 300 per cent and somebody getting 25 per cent back because you

think they are good.

MR. BARNES: You should set an example.

MR. BARRETT: I've run across in the by-election.... Mr.

Speaker, one of the major issues was this question of rebates. I ran

across the other man who had campaigned for Social Credit and he was

wearing a black armband all during the by-election. He came into our

office and showed us that under the former insurance scheme he was

paying $338 a year. He went and campaigned for Social Credit because he

believed they were going to bring back free enterprise and reduce the

car insurance rates.

He won his point, he got his insurance bill and it went from $338 up

to $1,040. Now, Mr. Speaker, is that the kind of commitment and promise

that was given during the election campaign when they went around this

province saying: "Free enterprise will even it out "?

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), during the general

election, hired a helicopter, put a car from Wolfe Chevrolet on the

bottom of that helicopter and they raised it up by the Holiday Inn,

right outside a hotline show — one who wasn't running for the Socreds,

just speaking for them. They raised up this car from Wolfe Chevrolet

and the sign said: "Higher car insurance prices if you vote NDP." What

a fraud! What a fraud!

Instead of that, what happened? They said to all the young people of

this province: "You're young; you're bad; you're guilty — up goes your

car insurance." Then after, under some pressure, they bring in this

legislation and say: "Well, we still maintain our original position —

you're young; you're guilty; you're bad. But if you show us that you

can behave yourselves, we'll give you 25 per cent off the 300 per cent

increase." Mr. Speaker, that smacks of politics. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Oh, terrible! Shame!

MR. BARRETT: It panders to redneck attitudes that somehow

young people are bad as a group, rather than looking at individuals

regardless of their age. There are some young people who are bad

drivers; there are some middle-aged people who are bad drivers; there

are some older people who are bad drivers. But you cannot pick on a

group and say that they are bad drivers because of their age, period.

Now if you want to go out to your constituency and say that, go

ahead and do it. But don't come down here and give us the story,

through you, Mr. Speaker, that because one young driver is bad, all of

them should suffer until they individually prove that they are bad.

Mr. Speaker, if 99 per cent of them were bad, the standard is the

one who is good, and he should not be punished by the behaviour of the

other 99.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: They don't feel that way about individual

responsibility. They have a view that the state should judge groups.

They view that the state knows best through statistics how people

behave. They don't see people as individuals in a free society; they

see them as groups of numbers related to a balance sheet.

MR. BARNES: No feelings.

MR. BARRETT: When you look at a group of numbers on a balance

sheet, you even say such things as: "People over the age of 65 can have

a free ferry ride if they carry the bus on the ferry." (Laughter.)

However, if it's the bus carrying them on the ferry, then they have to

pay for the bus.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: That's what we were told today: now if all those

people can only carry the bus on, they'll get it free; if all the young

people will only behave according to their mode of guilt, then they'll

get 25 per cent off the 300 per cent increase. Now what kind of game is

that?

The people of this province are the ones who elect government, and

who should control government, not government controlling the people

and having paternalistic attitudes to them by age groups.

Isn't it interesting that if you are under the age of 19 you can't

vote? Therefore, if you can't vote, the group that is no threat under

the age of 19 are those who buy car insurance. Whup them good with the

[ Page 2978 ]

redneck attitude that somehow if you are a young driver, you are a

bad driver and irresponsible. I don't understand why you take this

attitude, except for one basic reason: you have a philosophy that you

don't trust people. You transfer the whole concept of original sin to

every single act by an individual, and you act as the judges rather

than adopting the attitude "Let those without sin cast the first

stone." You throw rocks at young people. Mr. Speaker, the government

throws rocks at young people because it judges them by age not by

individuals.

If you really want to trust your people in this province, or trust

people everywhere, you say: "Yes, show us." then you make a decision on

the individual's behaviour, but not condemn the whole group. Mr.

Speaker, as much as you try and talk to that group they don't get it

through the head; they prefer the snow-job golf or the snow-golf job,

whatever it was.

Why didn't that member stand up in front of his own constituents at

a rally in Prince George and explain what he said here tonight? It's

pretty safe down here — he knows very well no one is going to report

his remarks. (Laugher.) So he can say anything he wants; he is not

going to get any coverage anyway. He's just a backbencher in the corner

with a rubber stamp in his hand, hoping to be named to the cabinet. And

if he conforms like the rest of them, then he might get a look in, a

look-see.

But they're being judged as a group too. That whole back bench is

being judged the same way young people are; they are all incompetent

until they prove otherwise, and they haven't had an opportunity to

prove otherwise — at least the evidence hasn't been very conclusive. So

that's what happens, Mr. Speaker, when you condemn a whole group, they

suffer too.

I don't think it's fair to measure the back bench by the lowest

incompetent denominator. (Laughter.) I don't think that they should be

attacked on that basis, and yet that's how they're going to be viewed

to get in the cabinet. Now the same philosophy relates to young people.

It simply touches on paranoia. It is negative in terms of building

trust up in citizens of this province. It is counter- productive in

getting people to understand their role and their relationship with

government. It is punitive, it is judgmental and, frankly, worst of

all, it is patronizing — patronizing. When we want to develop

individual responsibility in a society, they are talking about group

responsibility and they're conditioning their legislation that way. In

our society, that's the wrong way to go, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J.J. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must admit that as

a new member in this House, I do enjoy the performance by the hon.

Leader of the Opposition. He's a very able speaker.

I would like to say, Hon. Member, that we all started in the back

bench and we all have to learn. I would just say that we will all learn

pretty well over here and be able to take our place in debate equal to

the members of the opposition who have had more experience.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Aim higher than that!

MR. HEWITT: Well, I'm trying to be nice to him.

Mr. Speaker, I think Bill 66, the Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, has

considerable merit. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition would

agree that statistics are something that are used in any type of

insurance, and in order to start somewhere, you have to look at what

statistics point out to you. One of the things that become very clear,

and I'm sure the hon. leader would recognize it, is that the claims

experience on that group of people under age 25 is considerably higher

than those over age 25. Now granted we could go down to age 24, 23, 22,

21 and on down, and we could break that class down into a smaller group

and then possibly get a better idea, a more definitive idea, of where

most of the problem lies. We could break it into married and unmarried,

and people who live in one spot as opposed to another.

Mr. Speaker, this is a start, a start on the corporation that was

poorly mismanaged for the last two years. I don't think anybody here

wants to hear how much they lost in 1974 and 1975. We had to make a

start and I think we made an excellent start. I think this bill does

one thing: it is a form of encouragement to young people to recognize

that they have the ability to prove that they can drive as safely as

those over age 25, and their record will give them the benefit of this

rebate of premium. If you take this as year one, but move on past this

year to years in the future, those drivers will be based on experience.

The good drivers will be rewarded and the bad drivers will not.

Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is a good bill, and I think the young

people in this province, as well as the people over age 25, will be

pleased to see this government bring this bill in. I would support the

bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARNES: Do you want to do a poll on that?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I stated in the

budget discussion that certainly the whole principle of insurance is

that you should pay the premium that relates to the risk, but in the

area of insurance that I have had any experience with, in the area of

health and disease, you have to demonstrate that the risk exists before

you're charged with an extra premium in relation to examinations that

can be carried out. It does seem to me unfair

[ Page 2979 ]

that a young person, perhaps who becomes 16 and who goes to a driver

training school and, to all intents and purposes, appears to be a

responsible, well-trained young driver, should be penalized right off

the bat with the kind of premium that might or might not apply to some

much less responsible person under the age of 25.

It does seem odd to me that the point has not been made that it is a

contravention of our usual approach that a person should be judged

innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, they should not be penalized

by the obvious shortcomings of people in their own age group for whom

they have no responsibility. Certainly the consequences of their

actions should not be placed upon the shoulders of the responsible

young person. Speakers have said tonight that our young people should

be encouraged to be responsible, and that is absolutely true, but they

should also be shown that there is fair play in our society.

MR. BARNES: By the leadership of the government.

MR. WALLACE: The fact that because a small, or relatively

small, percentage of people between 16 and 25 cause an inordinate

amount of expense to the insurance company makes it very unfair that

that demonstrated irresponsibility and public cost should be taken into

account and applied against younger individuals who either because

their record is not documented, as the minister has said repeatedly in

this House, or because they've become age 16 and are entitled to drive

and have got a completely clean record from the word go, and in many

cases have taken driver training and are responsible young people.

I dispute this all too simplistic approach that all our young people

are pretty flighty and selfish and irresponsible. On that basis, Mr.

Speaker, I think it would surely be reasonable that some kind of

regulation could be worked into the Act to give some cognizance and

some recognition to the fact that those who are driving over age 16

could be given the opportunity to document the fact that they do have

no points or have no record of accidents.

It seems to me this is a very unfair, blanket approach of the

government that until the government has had time to collect certain

records, anybody over the age of 16 who starts to drive'a vehicle will

be regarded as irresponsible as many others in that age bracket who

have caused the high cost of accidents to be what it is today.

God knows we're living in an age where we have all kinds of

computers and all other kinds of documentation. When we think, for

example, of the incredible complexity of the machinery that records the

income tax returns of millions of citizens, it seems to me it should

not be too difficult for the government to show some leadership and

initiative — in short order, being able to acquire records of drivers

between the ages of 16 and 25.

If these records are not available, again it would seem to me to

exhibit the kind of initiatives and spirits of independence which this

government espouses by giving the young people at least their

opportunity to send the government the very documentation that's needed

to show that they do have a clean record.

The government is placing the onus on the young driver as of — I'm

not sure what the date the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

mentioned in the budget debate — but it seems to me that there are many

young people who, given an opportunity, could show this department and

this minister very quickly that they have a clean record. It should be

based on that clean record, not on the shortcomings of many other young

people in the same age group I wonder if even at this date the minister

would reconsider, in the light of the points that have been raised.

I raise this in a non-partisan, non-political way. I'm just pleading

for the young people. Some of them happen to be in my family, and

therefore I'm expressing my conflict of interest, which I've been told

I should do when there is the slightest possible chance of conflict of

interest. I have two teenage drivers and a 22-year-old driver in my

family, without accidents, paying a higher rate. Regardless of that

personal blatant family interest that I'm espousing, Mr. Speaker, I do

believe that the whole group of young people between 16 and 95....

(Laughter.) I mean 25....

MR. BARNES: You've covered the whole spectrum.

MR. WALLACE: No, that's what the state tries to do. I'm just

trying to justify the legitimate rights of young people between 16 and

25 who should not be condemned as bad drivers simply because the

government says it doesn't have records on their driving capacity. I

think that if that is the only reason on which the government is

defending this bill, then it is very unfair. I would suggest that even

at this late date it should not be too difficult for the government to

take initiative and show some leadership by giving the young people the

opportunity to submit to the government evidence of the fact that they

do not have any record of points or accidents and that their premiums

should be adjusted accordingly.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a few

observations on Bill 66. I don't want to cover the basic inherent

discrimination that is contained in this approach to insurance rating,

as I think that's

[ Page 2980 ]

been amply covered by other speakers. I would like to point out,

particularly to some members of the government, Mr. Speaker, the

significance of this approach with respect to obligations held by other

ministries. I'm looking at the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams),

who is the custodian of the Human Rights Code of British Columbia. I

want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I recognize there are inherent problems

in terms of arriving at systems of rating. I'm certainly aware that

over the years there's been a class approach in terms of rating in the

general insurance field.

I'm aware that there are problems in terms of eliminating that

system. There certainly are, so it might be compatible with the

provisions of the Human Rights Code, which generally would prohibit

that kind of discriminatory approach in terms of people's right to

equal access to public services and public access to buildings and so

on, and this is a public service.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a case could be made for other

groupings in society that would indicate a higher accident ratio and

hence indicate a punitive rate, a discriminatory rate be applied. That

might be done not only on the basis of age, Mr. Speaker, but it might

be done on the basis of race.

MR. BARNES: It was, for years.

MR. KING: Yes, indeed it was, with respect to race.

MR. BARNES: You're right!

MR. KING: The philosophy and the principle is the same, and it is an extremely dangerous one.

I am aware, as I said, Mr. Speaker, that the method of resolving

this thing, by coming up with an equitable system to replace the group

rating or the class rating system, is a difficult one. It's going to

take some time to work out. There's no question about that.

But what I regret here, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we are digging

in deeper to that principle rather than attempting to move away from

it, and that is a crass and blatant conflict with the Human Rights Code

which the Minister of Labour administers for the executive branch of

the government, and it's a denial and departure from the other

legislation which the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has brought in

providing for a provincial ombudsman to ensure that equal and open

treatment is afforded to all citizens of the province. It's a complete

conflict. Yet we find the Attorney-General lending his support to

cabinet to a bill of this nature which is retrogressive in terms of

applying and entrenching the principle of discriminatory group action

against young drivers in the province of British Columbia, and I think

that is regrettable.

I'm not suggesting that the government might have been able to solve

this problem this quickly, but I am suggesting that to entrench and

regress is a very regrettable and a dangerous principle in conflict

with all of the forward-looking progressive statutes which this

government claims they stand for, and statutes which are on the books

and have been for the past couple of years.

I said it would be possible to set up statistical groupings on other

premises: perhaps racial, perhaps geographic. We already have it to

some extent on the geographical basis, and I'm not sure there is a

sound basis for that either. I think without question, though, there

still are minority cultural groups in our society who lack the access

to education and to personal development that most people in the

mainstream of society are afforded. It's beyond question.

Certainly if you were to apply a statistical test in terms of safety

on the highway to those people you would generally find a lower

performance rate. Would we then be morally entitled to impose a higher

class rating in our public insurance system on that group? I suggest

that would be racist. It would be highly discriminatory. The principle

is not far from the one we find in this bill. It's not far away. It's

the same kind of principle — a principle we should indeed be moving

away from.

Mr. Speaker, at the danger of being a bit cynical, I would suggest

that it might be possible to set up another kind of statistical

grouping — a political one. It would be very interesting to see what

the accident ratio of one former Social Credit cabinet minister, who

was well known in this province, might have done to the overall

accident performance rating of that cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flying Phil?

MR. KING: Flying who? The man that used to test the highways.

He was an accident that didn't occur in the Social Credit Party again

in the last election. The new Premier made sure of that, Mr. Speaker.

This is the kind of thing that is called to mind. I think we have no

more right to assume guilt on the part of all young people, despite the

fact that they may well have taken safe driving courses and may have a

completely accident-free record, and that their visual acuity is

usually much better than a senior person and their reflexes usually

much keener. The only question in terms of the ability to control and

operate that vehicle safely is the responsibility and the maturity of

the individual.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, to the government that it is grossly improper

and totally impossible to try to judge those qualities and those

characteristics in a

[ Page 2981 ]

blanket way in a statute of this nature. I could not let the

opportunity pass without pointing out this conflict to the government.

While I emphasize with some of the problems in solving this general

classification approach in insurance, I hope that we will see some

progress made and I hope the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who

is the custodian of human rights....

Interjection.

MR. KING: I wish the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr.

Mair) wouldn't point him out in that way. I wouldn't call the Minister

of Labour "the man from Glad."

A couple of people have told me, Mr. Speaker, that they do get it

confused. The way the Minister of Consumer Services was gesturing at

him, I think he had in mind that perhaps the garbage bag was going to

break too.

But I think the Minister of Labour should take his responsibility in

this regard very seriously and counsel his cabinet colleagues in terms

of the conflict that does lie between the statutory approach taken in

this bill and one of the primary statutes which the minister is

responsible for administering in this province, namely the Human Rights

Code of British Columbia which does seek, albeit imperfectly, as a

general approach to set out equality of opportunity for all citizens in

the province of British Columbia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transport and Communications closes debate.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank a number

of hon. members for their comments. I would like to make one or two

points in closing. First, this particular bill — this legislation —

gives the government, more specifically the Department of Transport and

Communications, the authority to make grants to a class of driver, the

under-25s, as an incentive to improve their driving performance.

The moneys involved — $12 million estimated for the current fiscal

year — come out of the revenue to ICBC. In other words, the moneys

which are paid out as grants do not come from the premiums. Strictly

speaking, a payment — for example, to an under-25-age driver for a

clean driving record — at the end of the current fiscal year is not a

repayment of part of the premium. It is a grant; it is a reward for

performance. It is a reward for having a clean driving record. So it is

a programme which is separate and distinct, certainly financially, from

ICBC.

A number of speakers have made the point that in the ideal system

every one of us would be judged according to our actual driving record.

It would only be our accident record or our faults-on-the-highway

record which would determine the premium we individually pay. This

programme goes some distance towards that because the grants are paid

on an individual basis. Therefore this particular piece of legislation

is individualistic in that sense.

But I want to point out a basic conflict in most of the remarks of

every one of the speakers in the opposition. It is this. While they

desire.... I am sure that many of us really wish that we could develop,

would like to see us develop a system whereby we paid a premium which

actually reflected our own particular driving experience, our own

particular driving record; but the nature of insurance is quite the

opposite. It generalizes; it averages. We want our risks to be averaged

out over time and averaged out over a large group of drivers.

The private insurance companies had more than 30 categories of drivers. They

didn't have one great mass of drivers in the province paying one level of

premiums; they had 30 or 40 different categories.

The previous government introduced a system which only had four

categories of drivers. We have added a few more categories. But you

have to divide the system down into a million or more different

categories to get down to the individual. So those who would like to

see a system based on the individual exclusively are running counter to

the general concept of insurance.

As the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) said, there is a balance

here somewhere between grouping and rewarding the individual for the kind of

driving performance that they actually achieve. This legislation, I contend,

Mr. Speaker, does — at least in respect to grants and in respect to rewards

for safe driving for this year anyway — focus on the individual, provide an

incentive for the individual under 25 to improve his driving performance in

this year. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move that the bill now be read a second

time.

Motion approved.

Bill 66, Motor-Vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 2) read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 78, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, this is a little old wind-up bill and I think, perhaps, a sure sign that the end is in sight.

We have some 25 sections encompassing amendments to some 24 specific statutes, and I think

[ Page 2982 ]

this can be much better handled in committee than in second reading, Mr. Speaker. I so move second reading.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this statute, as the Attorney-General

has pointed out, does cover a whole variety of departments, various

authorities and jurisdictions, and I think it would be totally

impossible to discuss any principle in this statute. Rather, we can

only zero in on those particular amendments and particular sections

during the committee-stage consideration, so we'll be reserving our

discussion for that point.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm just a little bit curious about

some of the things missing from this piece of legislation. I'm

wondering if when winding up debate, the Attorney-General would explain

why, for example, the amendment to the Change of Name Act is not

included in this, because when the issue was raised earlier in his

estimates, and in the estimates of the Minister of Health, the

Attorney-General gave his assurance that he would look into it. I

assumed that when the Attorney-General looks into anything, the wrong

is set right immediately.

I must confess a grave sense of disappointment in the

Attorney-General at the fact that that little amendment, which we've

been waiting for since he became Attorney-General seven months ago, is

still not included in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It's a

one-liner, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Right. The Premier is so exercised about that that

he's crossed the floor — that's how bad things are. (Laughter.) So I

hope you'll set that traditional wrong right, Mr. Attorney-General,

please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll bring him back immediately; we'll obviously offend immediately. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As stated, Mr. Speaker, it's much better

that this be attended to during committee, and notwithstanding that the

hon. member's remarks were clearly out of order. I did indicate to her

at one stage — as a matter of fact, during one of her longer

dissertations, and we've had a few of those this year.... I thought

maybe if someone said yes to you, you might stop to get a good breath

of air, which I think you perhaps did that night. But I told the hon.

member that I'll be looking into that point, and I shall.

I moved second reading when I started, but I'll move it again if it makes everyone happier, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 78, Miscellaneous Statutes Act, 1976, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 (No. 3)

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on second reading of

Bill 80, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1976, I would have to begin

by saying these numerous amendments are in large part what I would

refer to as housekeeping in nature. They've been prepared by the very

able staff of the motor vehicle branch. I will, however, touch on some

of the more significant changes which are recommended in this bill.

For example,

section 2 makes it possible to bill motorists for their

driver's licences — and, hopefully in the longer run, for their

insurance premiums — on what is referred to as a cyclical, or a

year-round licensing system. In other words, the licence, when bought

for the first time — for example, for a new vehicle — in the middle of

the summer would then have to be renewed 12 months later in the middle

of the summer. This would largely eliminate the early spring rush to

obtain licence plates at one point of time, would distribute that

administrative workload around the year and would also, I think, be

more convenient from the point of view of the user of automobiles as

well. So cyclical licensing is one of the concepts incorporated in the

new legislation.

Skimming on through — at the present time there is no minimum age

limit for bus and taxi drivers. The provision in

section 4 requires

that bus or taxi drivers have at least attained the age of 19.

Single licence plates rather than dual licence plates for

vehicles owned by companies, individuals, who are demonstrating,

transporting, manufacturing or selling motor vehicles — there has been

some abuse of the dual licence plates. In other words, the plates have

been split: one plate which was really designated for, say, the front

of the vehicle used on a separate vehicle, an abuse of the system, a

single licence plate therefore being issued in the future for

demonstrator vehicles, vehicles which are up for sale.

Another provision would require that police officers be responsible

for the filling out of reports at scenes of accidents. While the driver

or others involved or at the scene of the accident would give

[ Page 2983 ]

evidence and would provide the information — indeed, may write it in

— the basic responsibility would rest with the police officer at the

scene rather than the individuals themselves. Certainly the police

officer would be responsible for the proper filling out of these

accident report forms.

A further provision is to the effect that suspensions of drivers

would take effect immediately — that is, at the court and before the

offender leaves the court. This would eliminate the difficulty of

trying to trace those who had committed an offence with the purpose of

trying to retrieve the driver's licence if a suspension of the licence

was the penalty involved in that case. The suspension of the driver's

licence would be immediate and the driver's licence would have to be

surrendered at the court itself.

Th ere is another provision which would give discretion which would

enable individuals to regain their driver's licence regardless of the

penalty if they or their families were to suffer some undue hurt. For

example, if the accused depended on the vehicle for earning a

livelihood, there would be an opportunity for discretion and a return

of the driver's licence.

Another provision would enable peace officers to cruise areas

without using their siren. Apparently they are required to under

certain circumstances now. Instead they could use a silent but flashing

red light, for example. That again is more of the category of

housekeeping, but it's the kind of recommendation which the

Motor-vehicle Branch, in close consultation with the police, has been

making to this ministry and to the government.

Tow-aways at owner's expense. If a vehicle is left in a prohibited

area for more than 72 hours, charges of fees will be assessed in an

amount easily divisible by 12 so that rebates can be made on a monthly

basis rather than some other figure which is more difficult to divide

by 12.

This is the general nature of the numerous amendments to the

Motor-vehicle Act. Few of them are really very consequential, but I

think individually they are quite important to the best administration

of motor-vehicle operations in the province.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the

provincial government is economizing. They don't need to buy

calculators when they can divide the rates by 12. We are probably

saving a good deal of money on that very progressive step. Mr. Speaker,

I am also pleased about the suspension aspect in that you are giving

more flexibility in the area of people who have to earn a livelihood,

and I recognize that many of the people who do have to earn a

livelihood should also lose their licence from time to time because of

their driving habits, but there are many who are rather borderline now.

I, as an MLA, and I am sure every MLA in the House, has been

presented with this problem over the last number of years, and that is

the person who loses a job as a result of not being able to get to

work. I am very pleased that while suspension can be immediate, which I

think is important under certain circumstances, there is also the

leeway there for affording the kind of discretion that the minister

outlined.

The D-plate also is something I think had to be looked into. It got

to a point in time, I believe, where there was a real feeling out there

that automobile agencies.... And certainly I am not trying to say

anything of a derogatory nature to a number of those backbenchers, but

it struck us and other people that seeing the number of D-plates on the

road there was a strong possibility that employees were using cars with

D-plates as opposed to having proper plates. Not only would they save

money here, but they would also save money on their ICBC insurance.

If they are not properly insured, as any other normal situation

would demand, then naturally not only do they recover the reduction of

automobile licence plates, but also the reduction as a result of not

having to pay for their insurance, other than the blanket insurance

that's purchased by the agency. So it is a matter that could very well

be abused, and I do hope that your system of endeavouring to cope with

that does so. I would say, however, that we would suggest that an eye

is kept on this area, because it is an area that could very easily be

abused.

Now, Mr. Speaker, beyond this, one of the things that would concern

me is how you police this cyclical licensing. How do you change the

colour? How is it evident to a police officer that a car that's being

driven along the street, let's say, was licensed in the middle of the

year as opposed to the car we all now have that's licensed at the

beginning of the year and, of course, it has to be relicensed next

year? It's very evident that if it isn't by virtue of colour or decal,

Mr. Speaker, I think we have a bit of a problem.

Now mind you, I can understand why you want to do that. You want to

do it so it complements the ICBC situation and ICBC in order to

complement the private insurers. But anyway, I would ask the question

of the minister when he closes debate: how do you intend to implement

cyclical licensing?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: And the Minister of Health — I shouldn't sell his

cyclical. He should sell his scalpel, because I'm afraid he's going to

cut somebody's head off. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transport and Communications closes debate.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for New Westminster, his question was

[ Page 2984 ]

how we could implement all of the aspects of cyclical billing. I

certainly can't spell that out to him here tonight, but this

legislation does enable cyclical billing, for example, to be introduced

if it proves to be feasible.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I recall...

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Minister of Labour....

HON. MR. DAVIS: ...at one time, when I owned a vehicle in the

United Kingdom, that they had decals. In fact, they had a small plate

which was affixed to the inside of the front window which indicated the

exact date when the licence was purchased, and that could easily be

seen by a police officer, at least walking along a sidewalk beside the

vehicle. It was on the sidewalk side. The date, in other words, was

printed on this large decal on the right-hand side of the vehicle

windshield. But there are numerous details there that will have to be

worked out, and I don't want to pretend that they're all known as of

this moment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 80, Motor-Vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 3), read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 59, Mr. Speaker.

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As the hon. Liberal leader is not in his place, I'd like to speak on the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: By calling another speaker, is the hon. Liberal leader losing his place to speak in this debate?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: He's not in the House.

MR. BARRETT: Sorry. Well, there was no Whip warning that we were going to have this bill tonight.

That's the usual courtesy. So don't give me a line that.... Well, how much time? How much notice? A 10-minute notice.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: He hasn't been in the House.

MR. BARRETT: Well, now, look. On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, the fragile Whip thing is just getting back together again.

Now it's blown all apart. Come on now, Garde — you above all people. If

he's going to lose his place, that's nonsense.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm on my feet on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. opposition leader

has made mention that the Liberal leader who is not in his place and

has not been all evening may lose his place in this debate. I can

assure you that if the hon. Liberal leader returns to the House,

there'll be no dissatisfaction from our side of the House. I don't

think that he loses his debate on an amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. members, I could clarify the point

for you. As I understand the proceedings, the hon. leader of the

Liberal Party — the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano — does not

in any way lose his right to further debate on this amendment. The only

thing that will be taken into consideration at such time as he wants to

participate in the debate, assuming that it is still on the floor, will

be the number of minutes that he consumed originally in debate, which I

am sure Hansard will have a record of. He does not lose his place to

further speak on the amendment.

There is a point of order by the hon. member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the record.

Statements were made that the Liberal leader had not been in the House

tonight. He has been in his chair at least twice since we resumed at

8:30. I just want to correct the record.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, on the discussion on the

amendment of this Act, the Government Reorganization Act, the amendment

is to hoist the Act for six months. As I have listened to the debate on

the Act over these past few days, it appears to me that the one thing

that every member of the opposition seems to have been caught on are

[ Page 2985 ]

the words in

section 12B at the very end of the clause: "...and

shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature

to be so paid and applied."

I would like to inform the House that in this sitting I have filed

with the Clerk an amendment to delete that clause for this reason, Mr.

Speaker. In presenting this bill to the House the government's only....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. members please give the Provincial Secretary the courtesy of the House?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I draw

that to the members' attention this evening because I think that it

probably would hasten the debate on the bill and also explain something

of the attitude of the government in presenting this bill in the first

place.

When the government put this bill before this House, it was to

facilitate the reorganization of government departments and to make it

possible, Mr. Speaker, to move with flexibility within votes or within

departments within the government. As I explained in the introduction

of the bill, there was absolutely no suggestion at all to go around the

authority of this Legislature at any time. At no time, although the

debate has raged very far afield from the actual principle of the bill,

did the government ever suggest that money votes — the principle of the

dollars tied to votes — by this Legislature would be at any time

superseded by order-in-council or cabinet decision. This bill does not

allow the cabinet to determine any powers or any duties or any

functions, but only to change those from one department to another —

that's all it does.

The votes have always been changed in this House, without explicit

authority, from one department to another. This bill simply gives that

flexibility.

I am not answering the charges in this debate on the amendment. I am

simply addressing myself to the hoist question, Mr. Speaker, as I know

that you would wish me to. So I am not going to enter the debate and

the answers to the questions which have been raised earlier. I would be

pleased, though, to do that in further debate on second reading of the

main motion. But I do want to make it clear that when these words were

placed in the Act, they were part of legislative counsel's wording.

They assured me that it makes no difference to the intent that the

government had in placing this bill before the Legislature. So I am

pleased to delete that phrase.

I think that that will probably assure the members of this House of

the full intent of the government — that is, simply

an Act that will

give the two powers that I have explained. It will not allow the

cabinet to determine any other powers or any other duties or any other

functions than we already have designated by the Legislature by vote

and by dollars. It would only change those from one department to

another. It certainly doesn't change the dollars to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, with those words, I hope that we can soon bring this

particular amendment to a vote and get on with the debate on the main

motion.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, whenever the powers of the

Legislature are being watered down, as they have been by this bill, of

course any change in the wording that restores the rule of law is

welcome. But I still look at

section 12A and I wonder at the

draftsmanship of that. We're setting a precedent here that says that

notwithstanding any Act, the Lieutenant-Governor may do something. Now

what it's saying plainly is that the cabinet can ignore a statute

passed by the Legislature. I think that's an absolutely abominable

piece of legislation. I don't read it any other way.

MR. BARRETT: And he's a lawyer.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm a lawyer.

MR. BARRETT: He's not a flower child, he's a lawyer.

MR. MACDONALD: I would think that's very objectionable. I doubt

very much if you could turn that up in any statute anywhere. Maybe you can —

I don't know — but if you can, then you're pointing at an example of

despotism. If the Legislature passes a departmental Act, like the Department

of Health Act, and the cabinet can actually amend, repeal or ignore that Act

that was passed by the Legislature by order-in-council, then you're setting

a precedent that's right on the way to despotism. I don't think there's

anything unclear about those words. The Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, should

take those words out of the Act. Then we would have a chance to consider the

amendment of that kind if we have that kind of an indication.

In the meantime, so that we will have a chance to consider what the

Provincial Secretary has now said — and I hope she will take into

account what I am now saying — I move adjournment of this debate until

the next sitting of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Give us a chance to see it, because we had no notice of the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: It'll give you a chance to put them on the order paper and see what they look like.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 2986 ]

YEAS — 12

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

NAYS — 30

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Jordan

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Hewitt

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Veitch

Strongman

Wallace, G.S.

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

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

speaking to the amendment, it seems to me quite obvious why my friends

opposite would find it necessary to oppose anything which has to do

with efficiency in government. They apparently have a great deal of

difficulty, even at this moment, understanding seven or eight plain

to withdraw them by amendment.

It seems to me that's reason enough to stand in this House against

the hoisting amendment and vote in favour of a bill which will, of

course, Mr. Speaker, in due course, given a little time, clean up the

mess of three and a half years and caused by those who now jump up and

down, with one exception, unable to understand a simple amendment which

would cure the ills they have bellyached about for the last four or

five days.

Hon. Mr. Mair moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada