1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 2753 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act (Bill No. 43).

Committee, report and third reading — 2753

Sexual Sterilization Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 45).

Committee, report and third reading — 2753

Ambulance Service Act (Bill No. 106). Committee stage.

Mr. McClelland — 2753

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2753

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2754

Mr. Gardom — 2754

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2754

Mr. Wallace — 2754

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2754

Mrs. Jordan — 2755

Mr. McClelland — 2755 2769

Report and third reading — 2755

An Act to Amend the Medical Act (Bill No. 110).

Committee, report and third reading — 2756

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act (Bill No. 118).

Committee, report and third reading — 2756

An Act to Amend the Health Act (Bill No. 122).

Committee and report — 2756

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill No. 134). Committee

stage.

Mr. McClelland — 2756

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2756

Report and third reading — 2756

An Act to Amend the Hearing-Aid Regulation Act (Bill No.

137). Committee stage.

Mr. McClelland — 2757

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2757

Report and third reading — 2757

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act

(Bill No. 168).

Committee, report and third reading — 2757

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act (Bill No. 33).

Committee stage.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2757

Mr. Chabot — 2757

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2758

Mr. Wallace — 2759

Mrs. Jordan — 2759

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2760

Report stage — 2760

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act (Bill No. 40).

Committee, report and third reading — 2760

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act (Bill No.

111). Committee stage.

Mrs. Jordan — 2761

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2762

Mrs. Jordan — 2762

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2763

Mr. Wallace — 2763

Report and third reading — 2763

Alcohol and Drug Commission Act (Bill No. 173). Committee

stage.

Mr. Wallace — 2763

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2763

Mrs. Jordan — 2764

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2764

Mr. McClelland — 2764

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2764

Mrs. Jordan — 2764

Mr. McClelland — 2764

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2765

Mrs. Jordan — 2765

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2765

Mrs. Jordan — 2765

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2766

Mrs. Jordan — 2766

Mr. Chabot — 2767

Mr. Gardom — 2767

Mrs. Jordan — 2768

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2768

Mr. Chabot — 2768

Mrs. Jordan — 2768

Mr. Chabot — 2769

Report stage — 2769

Development Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No.

102). Committee stage.

Mrs. Jordan — 2769

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2770

Mrs. Jordan — 2770

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2771

Division on amendment — 2771

Mrs. Jordan — 2772

Mr. Chabot — 2772

Mr. Schroeder — 2772

Mr. Cummings — 2773

Mrs. Jordan — 2773

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2774

Mr. Cummings — 2774

Mr. Phillips — 2774

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2776

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2776

Mr. Chabot — 2777

Mr. McClelland — 2777

Division on amendment — 2777

Mr. Chabot — 2778

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2778

Mr. Cummings — 2778

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2778

Mrs. Jordan — 2779

Mr. Phillips — 2779

Mr. Wallace — 2780

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2780

Mr. Wallace — 2780

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2780

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2781

Mr. Gardom — 2782

Division on amendment — 2782

Mr. Chabot — 2782

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2782

Mr. Chabot — 2783

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2783

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2783

Mr. Chabot — 2783

Mr. Schroeder — 2784

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2784

Mrs. Jordan — 2784

Mr. Phillips — 2785

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2786

Mr. Phillips — 2786

Mr. Rolston — 2787

Mr. Gardom — 2787

Mr. Phillips — 2788

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2788

Mr. Phillips — 2788

Mr. Cummings — 2788

Mr. Chabot — 2788

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2788

Mr. Smith — 2789

Mr. Wallace — 2789

Mr. Chabot — 2789

Division on amendment — 2789

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2790

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2790

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2790

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2790

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2790

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2791

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2791

Mr. Chabot — 2792

Division on motion that the committee

rise — 2792

Mr. Chabot — 2792

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2792

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2792

Mrs. Jordan — 2792

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2794

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2794

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2795

Report stage — 2795

Division on adjournment to Saturday morning — 2796

FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1973

The House met at 7:15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we start I want to apologize for being

delayed a few minutes while the Queen's Printer got the

proceedings in the book. He must be congratulated for the speed

with which he did it.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

committee stage on bills.

Motion approved.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Before we do,

could I perhaps assist the House for one second? I would ask

the leave of the House, in the spirit of moving along with this

session, to withdraw under item 3, introduction of bills, the

notice of bill standing in my name.

Leave granted.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CHANGE OF NAME ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 43; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Ms. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 43,

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

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

SEXUAL STERILIZATION ACT

REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 45; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Ms. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 45, Sexual Sterilization Act Repeal Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: It's all right, Hon. Member. They are not

repealing any sterilizations. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 106, Mr.

Speaker.

AMBULANCE SERVICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 106; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Madam Chairman, I would just

like to ask the Minister if I could under this section, because

this is a brand new Act and because many of the people who are

now operating ambulances probably won't fit into the necessary

qualifications at the moment, will there be a period of grace

allowed for these kinds of regulations?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Madam Chairman, the reason that this is a

permissive piece of legislation is for that very purpose the

Member suggested, and that is that we realize there is going to

be a phasing-in process and it's going to take some time for

some areas, particularly without some help, to get up to a

standard. Therefore, we felt that this was the way to go.

[ Page 2754 ]

Some areas are way ahead right now and other areas are

somewhat behind. I have had a lot of correspondence with areas

in Peace River and in the Fraser Valley, for example,

indicating that they just couldn't go for the level that is

being produced elsewhere. We certainly recognize that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Will there be a requirement

for a register of the people who are approved? It appears that

this is not clear in the Act.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. That definitely will be required, that

all ambulance services must be registered.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to ask the Minister one question

on this point. Has he any information as to the success or

otherwise of having some of the ambulance Personnel being

interns or fledgling nurses? I understand this has been tried

in other areas and I just wondered if he had received any

information as to whether it's been a useful or successful

project.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, many methods have been tried and many

methods have been quite successful. A very successful method,

for example, is to give rather intensive training to those

people that are motivated in that direction in fire

departments, to train them in defibrillation and all sorts of

techniques that they must know in order to be good ambulance

attendants.

MR. GARDOM: I'm talking about an intern.

HON. MR. COCKE: As far as interns and nurses are concerned,

certainly there is a place in this kind of, system for them.

What we want to do is create a system where people …

MR. GARDOM: Have you got any information in other areas that

they have interns?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, there are some areas where they use

interns — for example in Europe and in Great Britain. As

far as we're concerned what we want to do is produce the kind

of service that will give a person medical care right from the

time the ambulance gets there. Up to now in many areas the real

intensive care starts at the time it gets to the hospital and

then it's sometimes too late. So what we're trying to do is

upgrade.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't filibuster.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Madam Chairman, I would like to

ask the Minister, in light of the remarks he has just made,

whether it would be reasonable to say that the ultimate goal is

to copy the American Medic One idea, because they have shown

that people — not necessarily interns with all the full

medical training they have had — can function very well

in this capacity.

I realize you can't bring this in overnight or over a short

period of time. As I said earlier in second reading on this

bill what we are really trying to do is make the ambulance an

extension of the hospital. As the Minister pointed out, it is

vital care where literally minutes can make the difference

between life and death. If the ambulance attendant gets to the

person with a cardiac arrest and can resuscitate them until

they get them to the hospital, then all the more complicated

supervision and treatment can begin. But, of course, if the

patient is dead by the time you get to the hospital, obviously

the battle's lost.

Someone asked a question about experience elsewhere. It does

seem as though the kind of very intensive training in a

relatively limited scope with relation to the type of emergency

is quite feasible. Now there have been many municipalities, I

gather, where the fire department is responsible also for the

ambulance service. I would like the Minister, if he wouldn't

mind, to express some view as to whether this is the kind of

policy he encourages.

Thirdly, the Victoria area has decided to base its ambulance

service on one of the hospitals in the city and to have

round-the-clock coverage by ambulance personnel. I wonder if

the Minister could give us just a brief comment on how he

thinks the service should be based and the kind of ultimate

goal that we have in this whole question of ambulance

service.

HON. MR. COCKE: Ms. Chairman, on the ultimate goal let me

say that naturally we have to be guided by the area itself. Our

ultimate goal is to save lives with ambulance service.

Now as far as encouraging the fire departments, we'll

encourage any group of people. One of the reasons that the fire

departments have been so successful is the fact that there are

a group of people within the fire departments who are career

people and their whole life is aimed at saving lives.

Just to talk for one second about Medic One. In Seattle, for

example, after cardiac arrest, I believe they have within the

last couple of years resuscitated 220 people. Now that's a

pretty good record. So we have to aim at that kind of

programme.

I might say I was very pleased with the Saanich programme.

They are moving in that direction and I

[ Page 2755 ]

would like to see this

whole province move in that direction, Ms. Chairman.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Madam Chairman, I don't

have any wish to detract from the seriousness of the debate;

I'm not being facetious; and I am not quite up to date in my

information. But, when I was a student nurse, which was more

than a day or two ago, we used to have the opportunity of

taking courses and working on the ambulances — it was the

only real way that student nurses could earn a little pocket

money.

When the Minister is overviewing this whole situation, I

would ask that he would look into the feasibility for the

opportunity for the training of a student nurse for this type

of companion position in the ambulance with a view to their

receiving some remuneration for it.

They are still not overpaid by any means, and as long as

they are in the hospitals in their training programme where

they are regulated to unusual hours — shift systems and

really no opportunity to supplement their income, it is an

avenue that is in keeping with their training. If they had

special training in the beginning, as I say, as an assistant,

certainly not as a major attendant, it keeps an avenue open for

them that is compatible with their training and also helps them

financially.

I hope the Minister will keep this in mind when he is doing

this in Kamloops, and in the major areas.

HON. MR. COCKE: Thank you very much. It's a good idea.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, just a couple of questions,

if I may. I would ask the Minister another question that

relates to another

section because we may be able to get

through quicker that way.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Which section?

MR. McCLELLAND:

Section 3 to begin with, and I would like to

ask the Minister if there is any criticism of this Act, it

might be that it is a sort of a cart before the horse Act in

that the on-going programme is coming after the Act is already

passed. I would like the Minister, if he will, to explain what

the training programme will be for these people; how quickly

that will be implemented and whether the training will take

place before this period of grace expires, for instance.

The second thing has to do with

section 3 and with

section

6, probably. What kind of financial aid are the small

municipalities and the small unorganized areas going to have to

allow them to be able to provide the kind of service that is

going to be demanded, and rightly so, by the regulations and

the Act itself?

HON. MR. COCKE: First let's talk about the training. What

we've done here, is we've given ourselves an opportunity. This

is the first time that we have ever had an ambulance Act in the

province or in a number of provinces, and therefore you first

have to set the standards. As far as we are concerned, we feel

that we have to build those standards, and we have to watch

that we don't opt some areas out completely. So the training

programme will be based on the needs of the different areas,

and building on that to an optimum. So far as financial help is

concerned, Mr. Member, through you Madam Chairman, I would say

that that will be part of the negotiation that will go on

between the regional hospital districts and the government at

that time. Agreed, they are going to need some help.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's going to be much more expensive, and

some of them cannot afford it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

Sections 3 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 106, Ambulance Service Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 110, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MEDICAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 110; Ms. Young in the

chair.

[ Page 2756 ]

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 110,

An Act to Amend the Medical Act

reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 118, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MEDICAL GRANT ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 118; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 118,

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 122, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HEALTH ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 122; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 122,

An Act to Amend the Health Act ,

reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 134, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HOSPITAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 134; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: No opposition to this bill, but I just asked

the Minister if he received the submission from the Canadian

Bar Association in which they submit that perhaps this

section

2(5) is too broad. They have submitted a suggested amendment. I

would just ask the Minister if he has considered that

submission.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Madam Chairman, I have. I received a

copy of it, and I am advised by our legal counsel that the Bar

Association were a little bit uptight, and that this

section

will be quite adequate. Now if it proves not to be, that's a

harmless state, but I would suggest that it's right on.

MR. McCLELLAND: You'll consider it though?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. Oh, of course. We have it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 2757 ]

Bill No. 134,

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 137, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

HEARING-AID REGULATION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 137; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just briefly again, and pretty well on the

same question. There was a submission from the Bar Association

which seems to me to have a great deal of merit to it, In

section 2(1)(

a) and (b), there are quite wide powers given to

the matter of entering the business premises of any hearing-aid

dealer for the purposes of investigation and access to and

examination of the books and things. Perhaps it would be a good

idea if there were some guarantee that all of that information

would be kept strictly confidential, because under the terms of

the Act at the moment that guarantee isn't given.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. I recognize it's an informal

investigation. It's really to strengthen the board's power, I

certainly can give you that kind of guarantee. We have no

intention of hassling people but we do have to provide the

assurance…. Certainly anything that's learned will not be

made public knowledge.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 137,

An Act to Amend the Hearing-aid Regulations

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No 168, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES

LICENSING ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 168; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Ms. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment, Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 168,

An Act to Amend the Community Care

Facilities Licensing Act , reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 33, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 33; Ms. Young in the

chair.

section 1.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Ms.

Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Bill 33,

section 1 is a

piece of legislation that makes provisions to take into

consideration the public interest in labour disputes. It'll

bring harmony, I'm sure, between labour and management.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're on the wrong one.

[ Page 2758 ]

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'm on the wrong bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I think you're out about four

years.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I thought Bill 33…(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on, Jim. Don't ruin a good speech.

(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a good speech, Jim. Carry on.

(Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: Really it's a bill that gives blanket authority

to the Minister. We vote a lump sum into the Legislature and

then the Minister has the authority to adjust and readjust

through the regulations as to how that money is going to be

dispensed.

I'm not so particularly concerned as to whom it's going to

be dispensed to, because I think that's clearly spelled out in

Section 1 of the amended

section which we're discussing at this

particular time. But it's that awesome power that is being put

in the hands of the Minister to adjust the rates and the means

by which money shall be dispensed by regulation without

authority of the power of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia. We're all sent here to pass laws for which the

Legislature must answer and for which we must vote money

— but not blanket, blank cheque laws, which is what

you're asking us to endorse here.

So we give you a bundle of money so that you can go out and

adjust it through order-in-council by regulation. Today you

think it meets the needs; tomorrow you might have to bring in

another order-in-council to adjust the regulations, I think

that's bad legislation, because you can constantly change the

goal posts. I don't think that that's in the best interests of

the objectives of having this assembly here, of voting money

for specific proposals without its being voted in a lump sum to

be dispensed at the whim and at the wish of the Minister.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, I think that the previous

speaker had some interesting remarks probably a few years out

of date, in that I think they were addressed to the original

provision in the bill.

The fact of the matter is that he is not that far off after

all. Had he said the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who of

course is advised by the Minister, he would have been right on.

There really isn't a great deal of change in this

legislation.

In my mind, one of the problems of welfare is that it's a

paternalistic system whereby the social worker becomes, if you

like, the father, or the godfather…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …and the recipient really has no

rights. This was the big problem with the previous legislation

— the recipient had no rights at all. The former Minister

(Mr. Gaglardi) — thank goodness now changed — was

in the position of handing out the money as he saw fit. It was

far too discretionary.

Now there's been a very minor change in that the Minister

has to go through the cabinet and there is this right to appeal

which, I believe, was forced upon the government by the

provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan. The Minister nods his

head in agreement. Well thank goodness the federal Act did at

least give this minor right to recipients of welfare.

We think this is really a step forward, but a step about two

inches long. It really does very little for the welfare

recipient. I am distressed about that although, as I said, as

it is a step forward we will be supporting it.

Perhaps the Minister might comment on this, because in my

mind I really wonder why he brought in the legislation. It

really does very, very little. The recipient is left in the

same state as he's always been in, namely accepting largesse

without any legal rights to it, without any real framework; and

the Minister working through the cabinet retains virtually full

powers. Now surely some of his cabinet colleagues — and

there are other social workers in the cabinet who are obviously

interested — may add to his decision, or subtract from

it.

Regardless of that, it's exactly the same system as before

with a few more people involved than originally. I just wonder

at this stage whether we have moved very far forward. The

rights that I think exist are not there. It's still

paternalistic. It's still discretionary. It's still entirely by

way of regulation. And bearing in mind the difficulty of

handling the whole problem of granting welfare, I still think

that if it's a step in the right direction it's so small as to

be insignificant.

Many of the comments that the present government made when

the other Minister was in that portfolio are still valid. You

haven't got around the problem. You haven't dealt with the

points that you raised so eloquently when the Hon. P.A.

Gaglardi held this portfolio.

I find it awfully curious that you've got such a minuscule

Act, which may repeal the Gaglardi provisions, but nevertheless

does not much more than that and doesn't change the basically

unsatisfactory nature of the whole question of granting

welfare.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

[ Page 2759 ]

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would agree that

we would like a little more detail in the bill as to the

specific authority of the Minister. It's rather a short bill

giving him a great deal of power.

Really, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) must be

speaking with tongue in cheek or with forked tongue or some

kind of odd tongue. I well remember the fierce debate which

raged in this House over two words in a certain bill when the

Socreds were the government. That gave total discretion to the

Minister of Rehabilitation. There was a very fierce debate on

this very principle.

Today must be Gaglardi day in the Legislature, I think. The

same names come up on several references. I agree with the

Liberal leader that there isn't …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, no, I'm not going to knife anybody. I'm

just….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, I agree with the Liberal

leader's comment that there hasn't been much improvement. With

respect, I think we should be fair and judge this Minister on

his merits, as we obviously have been doing all day judging the

former Minister on his lack of merits. I think that the

Minister, by his action in raising welfare payments and trying

to give better justice to the recipients of welfare, his whole

philosophy and his attitude to the drug problem and the fact

that we obviously have a Minister who has acted with great

discretion…we should judge people by their example. We

certainly criticize them on the basis of their example.

Although I agree with the Liberal leader that we would like

to see a little more detail in the authority and the manner in

which that authority and discretion should be exercised —

I would like to see that — I rather feel that with this

particular Minister we will gain that kind of improvement. It

isn't in the legislation. On this side of the House we're

always harping about the amount of power given by regulation

which is spelled out after we all go home. I agree with

that.

But in this particular instance I think, as I say, that we

should be fair and respect the present Minister for the actions

he has already taken and the philosophy he has spelled out.

In being fair to him — and we'll talk about this a

little later — the appeal mechanism has been put in the

bill. This is something which I recall was bitterly debated in

the former government when we debated Bill 68 or whatever

number it was. There was absolutely no appeal by the individual

concerned. So I think that it's so easy always to grumble that

we're not going far enough fast enough. I think we could do

better than the bill we have here tonight. But in the context

of the statements I've made, I'm certainly supporting this

bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I was just going to answer a couple of

questions the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) asked — why did the Minister bring in such a

bill on a piece of paper? I was going to say that we all know

why — he's the Minister of Rehabilitation and he's got a

welfare paper company on his hands. He's a good British

Columbian and he just wants to promote the paper.

Mr. Minister, I think that in all due kindness, one could

really only call this a flip-flop piece of legislation. The

amendment as it stands really doesn't carry any weight at all.

It's a bit of a phony. I believe it was introduced and intended

to leave the impression that the former Minister did have

absolute, dictatorial powers and that he could control and had

control over the people who would receive social assistance and

the rates that would apply at that time.

Mr. Minister, in examining this bill, the key word is still

"regulation" and the rates must be set by regulation in the

bill. Who really sets the regulations but the Minister? So

we're going all the way around the mulberry bush. We're

flipping and flopping and we're right back to the fact that the

Minister does have strong powers and that it's the regulations

that will set the rates and that it's the Minister who will set

those regulations.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member. You're not talking on the

amendment, as I read it.

MRS. JORDAN: The Act is

An Act to Amend the Social

Assistance Act . I'm speaking to

section 1. I'm not speaking

to the amendment that the Minister brought in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what we're dealing with.

MRS. JORDAN: No, the amendment he brought in was appeal, if

I'm correct, I'm not talking about an appeal to the Minister's

decision.

MS. CHAIRMAN:

Section 1 is amended on the order paper and

we're speaking to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: No, we passed the amendment. We're speaking to

the bill. It's called

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance

Act . It still leaves the same powers. Anyway, it's all

right, Madam Chairman I'll try not to cause you any

concern.

Quite honestly, Mr. Minister, I really don't contest

[ Page 2760 ]

the

bill. We as a party support it. Like the other Member, I think

that you as Minister do have a responsibility for the rates and

to set them. While the previous bill was debated hotly in this

House and the Minister was called all sorts of uncomplimentary

names, I don't want to live in the past.

I have the feeling that you as Minister are responsible. We

feel that you're responsible and that you should answer to this

House in that capacity. Everybody wants to do the very best

they can for those in need; but it is public funds and there

are abuses that take place. There are reasons why the rates

can't be as high as everybody would like them to be.

Notwithstanding the fact that the bill itself is window

dressing, we feel that the Minister should have a strong degree

of responsibility in this matter, and should be answerable to

the public and to the people. He has brought in an amendment to

make an appeal and be answerable to us in this Legislature. As

I say, notwithstanding the fact that you could have done all

this without promoting the paper industry in British Columbia

— and I wouldn't want…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

MRS. JORDAN …you to use the Act to try and discredit the former Minister.

We're here to judge you and what you do for the people of British Columbia.

As I say, we feel that it's a lot of power. It must be used

judiciously. It's quite obvious that it's the policy of your

government to centralize power. We've been through a whole

afternoon of debate where massive sums of money have been

centralized in the hands of one Minister and where there's the

opportunity for government to enter into premises under a very,

very unacceptable way democratically. So I think that the

Minister's position in this is not out of keeping with the

policy of his government. In this particular instance, we

accept it on the basis of the job the Minister has to do and

his sense of responsibility, not only to those in need but

those who are providing the funds.

We will support the bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, we don't consider this window

dressing. This side took a very strong position in respect to

the previous Act and we've moved on that. But we also have to

move on the fact that we don't have an appeal system, as a

result of a recent case in the appeal court.

I also said on February 16 that it was our intention to

attempt to rewrite the whole of the Social Assistance

Act so that we can build into it a little bit of philosophy

about what we feel about social security and social assistance;

and that we intend to do. As soon as the session is over, we'll

put together a committee and we will attempt to rewrite this

Act. That's the way we have to do it.

But I don't accept the argument that it's window dressing.

We fought an election on this small issue of the power of a

Minister. I don't have absolute jurisdiction. We've introduced

in here an appeal system which did not exist before like

that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I have power and responsibility. I'm

the Minister.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 1 as amended pass?

Sections 1 and 2 approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 33,

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance

Act , reported complete with amendment to be considered at

the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 40, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

ADOPTION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 40; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 40,

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

[ Page 2761 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 111, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 111; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I've made it known

in previous debates that while we acknowledge the Minister's

right as a new Minister and a new government to change policies

and to bring in new ideas, we've made it very clear also that

we feel he has to, when he cancels programmes, offer an

alternative. This has not been done in the past. The Minister

has made it very clear on occasions both at public meetings and

through the media that he's going to axe the societies. Whether

or not this is the impression he intended to create, it's the

impression that has been created by his statements and by the

media.

We feel, Mr. Minister, while there very well may need to be

a shake-up in some social services and some volunteer

organizations, that setting out to axe them with a club is

hardly the way to go about it. This involves the Children's Aid

Society in Vancouver and the Catholic Children's Aid

Society.

I would hope that the Minister would state, when he's

summing up the bill or when I sit down, whether or not he has

been in touch with all three of the major societies that would

be affected by this bill. Would he advise as to whether he

discussed the matter with them — not with a club, but

with a view to exchanging ideas; and that he's not going to axe

them, if he feels this is necessary, without having sound and

well planned alternatives for the children who do fall in the

care of these various groups now.

I would ask the Minister, because this is a bone of

contention on the floor of the House at this time, that when he

axes these people and if it's in his wisdom to axe the Catholic

Children's Aid Society, that he do take into consideration the

religious views of young children or older children who will

fall within the purview of new community organizations or

whatever alternate he has.

I think this is an extremely important thing that we

preserve the right of a child who is, for one reason or

another, out of its home; that at least until it's of an age of

decision and can think for himself, that the family religious

views be honoured. I don't suggest they be rammed down the

child's throat, but there should be this foundation kept up in

the placing of these children until such time as they can make

their own decisions. This may not necessarily be the age of

majority.

Frankly, Mr. Minister, our view is that instead of axing all

these people, it might well be better, if you're not happy with

the way they're carrying on, that you sit down and discuss with

them many of the changes that you would like to see made. And

rather than completely disbanding them, you give them an annual

budget and a commitment from the province on the basis of what

they do, and let them continue to function. In giving them a

budget, you then have the right to make certain requests of

them so that they can qualify.

There are, particularly with the Catholic Aid Society,

hundreds of volunteer people who put a tremendous input into

this group.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh why don't you pipe down? I'm talking to the

Minister. If you want to be the Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement, take the portfolio. Well, get up on your

feet and ask me the question. I'm talking to the Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking him questions and if I don't know

what I'm talking about, it's because this hasn't been explained

on the floor of this House, Mr. Premier. If you want to

bludgeon legislation through this House, then you've got to be

prepared to answer some of the questions on the floor of this

House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: You sit over there quacking away like a little

duck. You don't want the public to know what's going on. You're

ramming legislation through here so fast you can't even find

the amendments on the order paper. You're even going so far as

attempting to influence the Chair, Mr. Premier, through you

Madam Chairman, by saying, "let's get on, let's get on, let's

get on."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MRS. JORDAN: Now, Mr. Minister, Mr. Premier, through you

Madam Chairman, we are here to be concerned about the business

of the people of this province. You insist on keeping everyone

in this House from nine in the morning until midnight. You

insist on having committee meetings at the same time.

[ Page 2762 ]

Now just sit down and let us get the information that we

would otherwise get….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly confine your remarks to the

section under debate?

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I would ask the Minister,

are these Press reports true? Are you really setting gut to axe

all these people? What have you done in the way of dialogue

with them? What are your future plans? What type of financing

programme are you going to bring in? If you're going to let

them carry on, what demands will you be making on them in

return for government consideration?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: You know, I'm really amazed. The Member is

really not so well informed about this thing. February 16, I

made a very lengthy statement in this House on the reasons why

we were doing this kind of thing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, February 16 — you know, you go to

the clippings or you go to Hansard , but it's all in

there in detail. On that day, I introduced to the House the

three presidents of the Children's Aid Society and the three

executive directors. I invited them over, they were sitting up

in the gallery.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I'm very sorry. I had lunch with them.

We had a long….

MRS. JORDAN: Yeah, but I didn't have lunch with them.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! You have asked the question, now

allow the Minister to answer.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I don't want any lunch, I want some information

on what this Minister's going to do.

MS. CHAIRMAN: That is no point of order. You have asked

questions of the Minister. The Minister is responding to your

questions. Kindly keep quiet.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: It was addressed to every Member of this

assembly who was abusing the privileges of this House.

HON. MR. LEVI: Let me just finish, Madam Chairman, We have

consulted at great length with the people. We're not axing

anybody. What we're attempting to do is to integrate and

rationalize this system. They are financed by the government

100 cents on the dollar. And the important thing for us is that

we want to be able, in the greater Victoria area, to spread

that kind of good system that is available throughout the whole

capital regional district. Nothing wrong with that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: You want to know? The point is that I've

discussed this in the House before, all of the….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, if you're going to be the welfare

critic, you're just going to have to be around. We've had a

great deal of consultation….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, you know, I don't have to stand here

and give you the information that you're supposed to elicit as

the opposition critic. You know I'm pretty busy, I have to keep

going out to my office. The point is this, that there's been a

great deal of discussion. Certainly, there's not all sweetness

and light out there because we're attempting to do something

that the profession has talked about for years, and nobody's

moved on, As a government, we feel that we have an obligation

to the taxpayer to deliver the best possible service to the

children and families of this province, and that's the way

we're going to go.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Going to do? I've already stated what we are

going to do.

MRS. JORDAN: Well what is your view on the religious aspects

of children who may not be with a society of their own

religion? Will you honour this, as I asked you when we were

discussing it?

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Member, there's no question that the

religion of a child is always respected regardless of which

agency they're under or if they're under the government. We

don't make any bones about that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

[ Page 2763 ]

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, I'm a little confused on

what happens to the assets — the physical assets —

of, say, the Catholic Children's Aid Society. Does this go to

the Crown, or does it go back to the church, or whatever group

happens to be sponsoring the Children's Aid Society?

I quite appreciate that the operating budget is from the

Crown, but I am not sure of what happens in cases where you

have land or housing or other things which may or may not in

the past have been the gift to the Crown. It may have been

purchased by a local church or religious group.

As I read

section 9 24A(

l) and 24A(6)(b), I get the

impression that the Public Trustee and the Crown will be

picking up all the value of the fixed assets. I just wonder if

he could give us some information on his discussions at the

famous lunch that he had on this particular of the problem. I

wasn't at the lunch either and I would have been delighted to

have come.

HON. MR. LEVI: We did discuss this question and I we agreed

that there is nothing hard and fast about what we say here.

This thing is open for discussion.

I have indicated to them that where there are appropriate

agencies or bodies that should receive some of the money from

the agency, we will certainly see that is done. At the moment

we are only considering one agency, we're not considering

three. We're dealing primarily with one agency over here.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 9 pass?

Section 9 approved.

Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very brief, Madam Chairman. It's just

that in previous. debates in this House when the government was

in opposition the question was often raised of a child beyond

the control of the parent or guardian being placed in very

unsuitable surroundings, exposed to the criminal element.

I think it shouldn't go unnoticed that one of the first

things this government has done is to correct what was pointed

out for many years to be a very undesirable practice in our

society.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 111,

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 173, Mr.

Speaker.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG COMMISSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 173; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Could I point out that we have the same problem

as we had with Bill No. 42 which the government has amended.

Section 2(3) states: "A majority of the Members present at any

meeting of the commission constitutes a quorum." If read in its

literal context it means that if there were two people that

would constitute a quorum — even if one left. It's just

that the word "present" is unnecessary. I think it would tidy

up the legislation to make it precise. It leaves it open to the

interpretation that a very small number of the commission, if

present at a meeting, would constitute a quorum.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I did discuss this with the

Attorney General's department. The amendment in respect to the

other bills is because they were near judicial functions. It is

not the case here. We discussed it and decided to have it stay

judicial functions. It is not the case here. We discussed it

and decided to have it stay as it is.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask the Minister a question? In

other words, no matter how few members of the commission might

be at a meeting, it could constitute a quorum. Do you feel this

is reasonable?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I would certainly think there would be

at least two people there anyway, We're talking about the

practice of the commission. There would be a full-time

commissioner and a deputy.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, with respect, I don't feel that

that is a satisfactory answer. I think it

[ Page 2764 ]

is such a simple

thing if the Minister could amend it because it does leave the

impression that a very small number…I attach a great deal

of significance to this commission. As the Minister well knows,

I thoroughly approve of the effort that is being made but I

think we must keep the situation very clearly before the public

as not being just the purview of one or two people out of a

commission of not less than five members.

With respect, I would hope that the Minister would reconsider and amend it,

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan,

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you Madam Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister,

in light of what the Member for Oak Bay said regarding the specialization of

power within the commission, if this would have any effect on why he has

section

4 in here, which would allow the commission to hold and acquire properties.

Is he thinking in terms of buildings and having the commission establish offices

all around the province, or even acquire land in its own name with a view to

providing or leasing out its own office space? Or is this just in relation to

films and office equipment?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's basically the wherewithal you need to

operate whatever service you're going to give. We're not going

into the land business. It's the normal procedure when you set

up an operation and have to have office space and machinery

very much as the Member said. But it has got nothing to do with

Bill 42.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley

MR. McCLELLAND: In light of the comments I made earlier in the debate,

I would like to ask the Minister to assure us that this

section will be used

to its greatest degree. As I said before, you can't isolate this problem in

British Columbia. We must have this committee relating all of the time to the

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, certainly. During the second reading I

made a statement on that and gave that assurance that we would

certainly have to cooperate not only with the Government of

Canada but with all the other provinces. And you have that

assurance.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to ask the Minister if I am correct in

assuming that the only report that this commission has to give

is to the Minister himself and there is no provision in this

section of the bill — unless I've missed it — for a

report to this Legislature.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No. "All moneys required to be expended…"

et cetera, "shall be paid out of the…" Legislature, but it

doesn't call for an accounting by the commission to the

Legislature, does it?

HON. MR. LEVI: The Member has my assurance, the House has

my assurance, the report will be tabled in this House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: I hope that the Minister isn't anticipating

the business of the House, but I notice that in this

section it

refers to the report being to the Minister of Human Resources.

We don't have such a thing at this time, I don't think.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, you had to look for that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps he's jumping the gun a bit there.

The

Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On

section 12, Madam….

MS. CHAIRMAN: We haven't done that one yet. Shall

section 11

pass?

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

[ Page 2765 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's the famous Drugs, Alcohol and

Tobacco Fund which I spent much of the last three months trying

to track down. Is that going to wind up in the hands of the

commission or is it not? Is it going to remain in the hands of

the Minister of Education, in your own hands, that of the

Minister of Health's? You've all shown interest in this area

and we have $25 million in limbo. I just think for tidiness'

sake we should nail it down and perhaps put it in this

commission.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the fund will continue and we will have

access to it. As we see it, it will have the special function

of prevention and education.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My question is: which Minister will

administer it? Will you continue to administer it?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, no. The Minister of Finance.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's under his….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In terms of handing out money of the $2

million-odd in interest, I trust it is not the Minister of

Finance because many others of you over there are more directly

concerned with this particular problem.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's a perpetual fund; it's under the

Minister of Finance.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I get an indication from the

government as to whether this special fund now under the

Minister of Finance will go elsewhere, at least in terms of

handing out money?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: In listening to your debate I must concur with

the Hon. Second Member for Victoria that we have not in any way

really been able to debate these funds during this sitting of

the Legislature. We really have had no accounting for these

funds.

Now, under the

section I asked you about —

section 12

— you gave us your word that you would put the report in

the House. I wouldn't want to doubt the Minister's word for a

moment, but would you not hold the bill over until Monday, and

bring in an amendment that would specifically outline the

intention that a report should be tabled with the House. It is

just a little bit nebulous to know that there are a few million

dollars floating around in a special fund, and then we have a

commission which has the right to draw funds.

The Minister himself is of course above reproach, but there

might be another Minister in that portfolio one day. I wonder,

in all seriousness, if the Minister would consider amending the

bill himself in order that this would be made perfectly clear

to the House. We would give him our assurance that if he could

do this it would be very acceptable, and there would be no

delay in the bill.

But I think we would be remiss in allowing this to pass

without something more than the Minister's word that a report

would be tabled in the House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take the word of the Minister and

assurances from him. Because on February 16, when the Member

said she wasn't in the House, Hansard shows she was

indeed in the House and heard the whole speech given by the

Minister. Her name is on record in Hansard asking a

question. So if you are asking the Member to give assurances to

you, in response to you, Madam Chairman, I'll take his

assurance any time.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I think that is just a classic

example of what a petty puny boy Premier we've got.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: This is an absolute disgrace. You bludgeon your

legislation through. You've worked these Members day after day,

night after night. You want reasonable debate and then you, as

a figure of authority in this province, stand up and make a

boyish statement like that. I said I believe I was ill, and I

don't know where I was on February 12. know where I was on

February 16.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I would ask the Premier of.

this province to withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Were you in the House on February 16 or

weren't you?

MRS. JORDAN: Read Hansard . I don't know where I was.

I said I believe I might have been ill.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, if that Premier has any hope of

trying to get his bludgeoned public-hidden legislation through

this Legislature, he

[ Page 2766 ]

had better stop these stupid little

antics. I would ask him, as a Member of this House, to

withdraw that t statement that I lied to the House, because I

did not.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I withdraw any statement

that she wishes to be withdrawn. All statements and any

statement. s Unconditionally, all statements. Everything. I

don't want any association with it at all.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't really care, speaking to

section 12,

Madam Chairman, what this less-than-credible Premier thinks of

me. But I do care what is in the legislation of the Province of

British Columbia, and the assurance from that boy that the

Minister's word is better than mine carries no weight at

all.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you are not speaking to the

motion.

MRS. JORDAN: On

section 12 we would like to see it spelled

out quite clearly for the Minister's own benefit, for the

benefit of the legislation and for the benefit of the future of

this Legislature, and the public, that there will be a report

brought into this House which will clearly indicate what the

activities of this commission are and what its finances are.

The Premier, who has been flapping up and down, told me it was

section 12.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): All I tried to point

out…to reopen

section 11 is one thing, but

section 12 just

simply says that all the expenses of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission Act should come out of consolidated revenue.

Really, I don't know how we can flog that much longer. If you

want to talk about the report, it should have been done in

section 11.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I

appreciate that, but it was the Premier himself, when I raised

this question under

section 11, who said it was in

section 12.

Now did that Premier deliberately try to mislead this poor

innocent Member? I wouldn't dare to use the words that he uses,

but the Premier himself said, "Refer to

section 12; that is

where the public disclosure before this Legislature would take

place — that it was written in." So I must be in order,

Madam Chairman, if the Premier himself said so. Unless he

doesn't know what he is doing.

So I would ask again through you, the Minister, would he

amend this

section next week to make it very clear in the

legislation that there will be a report of this commission's

activities brought before this House on an annual basis. This

is no reflection against the Minister or his character. I don't

want to get involved. But I think he himself, if he were

sitting on his side of the House, would not only suggest that

his is a rightful part of his legislation, but that he would

demand that it be made part of the legislation.

So again, I would ask, Madam Chairman, if he would do this.

I won't bring in an amendment. If he will do it himself, it

will be his good judgment. I am sure it would be much

appreciated by all Members of he House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 12 pass?

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister not going to answer, Madam

Chairman?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thanks, I appreciate the Hon. Minister's

help, and I will yield to this, Madam Chairman, But I find it

most distressing that the Premier directed me, when I was under

section 11, to

section 12. In view of the fact that this can

only leave us with the impression that the Premier doesn't know

what he is doing, could we reopen

section 11 please for the

purpose of this discussion?

MS. CHAIRMAN: No. I don't think so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted that

section 11 be

reopened?

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I would

like to speak through you to the Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement. Would he please undertake to bring into

this House an amendment to his Act, that would make it very

clear in the legislation that there will be an annual report of

the activities of the Alcohol and Drug Commission brought

before this Legislature? Is the Minister prepared to give us

some assurance on this?

Well, I take it the blank stare, Madam Chairman, that I am

getting across the floor means "No." This, Madam Chairman,

gives us cause for even more concern. The Hon. Member for

Victoria has questioned about the alcohol and drug and tobacco

education fund. We have had no accounting of that before this

Legislature. Each Minister we touch on, we find it is under

another Minister. The Minister of Rehabilitation says it is

under the Minister of Finance.

We find that this commission is trying to make its financial

statement to the Minister, but we'd like to know where the

money is coming from for this commission. I don't recall

anything in the estimates, and it seems to be coming out of

general revenue, but

[ Page 2767 ]

is some of the Alcohol and Drug and Tobacco Education Fund

going to be used, or is it a separate fund?

Well, consolidated revenue…just how much is involved in

all this. If we don't have a report before the Legislature, how

are we to know what money was spent and where it was spent. If

we don't have a report before the Legislature how are we to

know what activities this commission is embarking on.

The matter of drug usage, alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse is

serious, particularly this matter of drug usage, and is what

the Minister himself has described as a crisis in the Province

of British Columbia. If the Minister had given me his assurance

that it was coming in, and then he had accepted an amendment, I

could have accepted it.

But, Mr. Minister, it just isn't good enough for us to stand

here and have a wrangle such as we had before, and then take

your word that there will be a report placed before this House.

There's just no way that this House can vote for an "Open

Sesame" on all sorts of pilot programmes which we well need,

and which we want to see, and some of the stable programmes

without the assurance that there will be a report made before

this Legislature.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development,

the Premier himself told me that I couldn't raise this under

section 11; it was under 12. But I went to 12 and it wasn't

that.

HON. MR. COCKE: There are two reports.

MRS. JORDAN: If the Minister of Health Services would like

to clarify the situation, perhaps this would be helpful. Madam

Chairman, we have no recourse if the Minister is not going to

amend this section, so that the people of British Columbia and

this Legislature will be assured of a report …

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't gamble with people's democratic

rights, Mr. Member. We want an assurance from the Minister, in

writing, properly drafted legislation, that there will be a

report brought before this Legislature or we'll have no course

but to vote against it. And we don't want to. We support the

bill. We think the Minister has every opportunity to got down

and perhaps really do something about this very serious

problem.

For him to sit on false pride over whether he is going to

bring in a report or not, when it is our responsibility to see

that hastily drafted legislation is corrected before we support

it, is completely incompatible with the impression and the work

that he's trying to do and create in this Legislature.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member has the right to move an

amendment to the

section if she so chooses.

MRS. JORDAN: With leave of the House, Madam Chairman, just

for a few minutes to draft the amendment, I would like to do

so.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 11 pass?

MRS. JORDAN: No, no! I'm on the floor. This is just another

reason. Why is the Premier trying to push this through —

push, push, push? What are you trying to hide? It's our

responsibility, when you start doing these little fancy tricks

to hide and cover up the legislation, Madam Chairman, to do

it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: It's all right. We're quite capable of drawing

our own. We are sincerely most concerned as to why there is not

this provision within this bill. We know that there is $2

million in the alcohol drug education fund for which there's

been no accounting before this House. I would assume if this

commission is to do its work that it indeed is going to need

more funds, which may be very justifiable.

We're finding ourselves in a position where much of the

information from the Ministers is coming not on the floor of

this House but out in the corridor through the Press. We must

have this assurance.

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order, Hon. Member for

Columbia River?

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that I just, on behalf of

the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)….

AN HON. MEMBER: Has she lost her voice?

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm going to come to it if you'll give me

a chance. I sought a piece of paper for her for a proposed

amendment to a bill and then I find that the piece of paper

says "Mr. So-and-So to move in committee of the whole House on

Bill No. so-and-so intituled

An Act…" Now I don't know how

"Mr. So-and-So from North Okanagan" is going to be able to

propose an amendment to a bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's a point of order, Hon.

Member.

MR. GARDOM: On the point about the Hon. Member's statement,

if he'd take a look at the

Interpretation Act , "his"

includes "hers."

[ Page 2768 ]

MR. CHABOT: The Member for North Okanagan wants to propose

an amendment here….

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is the amendment, please?

MR. CHABOT: The amendment is being drafted at the moment. It

will be just a few minutes, if the House just wants to wait for

a few moments for the amendment to be ready.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: I notice the "Fifth" Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey is anxious to go home. Those clients

won't wait.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Member must speak to the

section or take

his seat.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I wish you could control the

impatience of the Premier. I know he's tired. I know that

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member get on with the business

of the House and read the amendment?

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I would like to move an

amendment to

section 11 of the Alcohol and Drug Commission

Act which would read, subsection c, "that an annual report

and financial statement be presented to the Legislature within

15 days of commencement of sitting."

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass? The Hon.

Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I'm opposed to the

amendment.

MR. CHABOT: Aah….

HON. MR. LEVI: We spent four months putting this thing

together with a great deal of sincerity and with a great deal

of interest from thousands of people in this province and we

have the Member standing there chipping away at

an Act with all

good faith that you've had from us that we will table the

report. You're making a big issue about this.

MRS. JORDAN: This is legislation.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's what?

MRS. JORDAN: It's legislation.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's legislation that we're bringing in that

you didn't bring in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: Talk about being chippy.

HON. MR. LEVI: You stand there and you start talking about

little items like this. You have no consideration about the

problem out there. What we want to do is move on the

problem.

MR. CHABOT: You used to say you'd accept amendments if

they're reasonable amendments. What's unreasonable about

that?

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I think that Minister's

attitude is a typical reason why we have to scrutinize this

legislation so closely. I'm not condemning him in any way for

anything he has in mind to do under this bill. To suggest that

this opposition is not as concerned about the drug problem in

British Columbia as anyone else is pure hypocrisy.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please speak to the

amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Every time, in speaking to this amendment

asking for an annual report to this Legislature, you dare to

question this Minister, he gets his hackles up. He certainly is

more holier-than-thou. He speaks as if he's the only person in

British Columbia who has any concern about anybody else. I

suggest that simply is not true. Every Member in this

Legislature is concerned about people, concerned about British

Columbia and concerned about the legislation.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly speak to the amendment,

please?

MRS. JORDAN: This amendment is necessary, Madam Chairman,

because of the very attitude of this Member. Just because we

would like to have properly drafted legislation before the

House…. I asked him in a very, very quiet debatable manner,

until the Premier got into it, about this. We were quite

prepared to accept the fact that it may have been omitted in

the printing. These things can happen. But when a Minister of

the Crown stands up and gives you his word he will bring in an

annual report and then when you ask to have it legally

enshrined, as is our duty, he becomes so, in his own words,

"chippy" and defensive, one indeed feels there's every

necessity for the acceptance of this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I suggest that it be accepted; that the Minister is not always

going to be the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement

[ Page

2769 ]

or, as he put in this Act illegally, the "Minister of Human Resources." You

can't sit there, Mr. Minister, and say one thing and then do another and get

uptight because you've used the wrong term in the Act. We're quite willing to

accept that, that's fine. But not when we ask you to put in proper wording that

an annual report will be put in and then get all uptight and defensive about

that. It just isn't consistent and it certainly doesn't do anything to attract

the confidence of any Members in this House.

I hope, Madam Chairman, that this amendment will be

accepted. It's a very simple one. It's a very legitimate

amendment. It merely asks for the annual report of this

commission and the annual financial statement of this

commission to be presented before this Legislature so that we

needn't get into this sort of hassle if it doesn't appear next

year. The Members can carry out their duty and debate properly

what in fact is the business of this House and the business of

the people of British Columbia.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Speaking on the amendment, Madam Chairman, I'm

really appalled. This is a reasonable amendment that has been

proposed and it has been proposed in good faith. The Premier

used to say not too many months ago in the fall session: "If

there are good ideas from the opposition, if you have

amendments bring your amendments forward." I think the

amendment is a reasonable one, given in good faith. If you are

really going to be willing….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Speak to the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: In speaking to the amendment, the government has

indicated that we will…something comes from the opposition

that they will give consideration. I'm asking him at this time

to give consideration to this very simple, logical, reasoned

type of amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 11 approved with amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: We've already passed

section 12. We've been

through that.

Section 13 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 173, Alcohol and Drug Commission Act ,

reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 102, Mr.

Speaker.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 102; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, through you to the Minister, I

would like to ask him why he wouldn't consider raising the

initial capital to $50 million.

There's a big job to be done in British Columbia in the area

of loans and incentives to secondary industry. This whole

programme has been talked about for nearly a year now. I'm sure

the Minister's aware that in the constituency that I represent

there are many, many people who want to come before this

corporation with a view to taking

part in the benefits from it,

particularly in the incentive loans.

If we are to maintain the balance that we would like to see

between bigger companies and government and the smaller

individual enterprises, it is the individual enterprises that

are going to need the money. A big company can generally get

its capital financing but a small company has the difficulty.

It's they who can't get the better interest rate. It's the

individual, who has an idea and can put this together with the

help of this corporation, who needs this money. I just feel

that with $25 million you hardly get enough to get started. If

you get two or three big ones in there with $1 million apiece,

it won't be any

[ Page 2770 ]

time before that's whittled away and the directors are going

to look at that and say, "Well, it is a good idea, but after

all, this bigger one is proven."

I know that the Minister feels that this won't happen. I

think we would all like to feel that. But these things do

happen. If you had $50 million, the corporation has a better

chance to get on its feet and remain independent, to get more

money out to cover its overhead when the interest rates start

coming in — the benefits to it. It's got a bigger base

from which it would work; $25 million just isn't that much.

Also, with the $50 million, you could get a better dispersement

around the province.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I appreciate what

the Hon. Member has said because it is the intention of this to

help small business, although they must make a case that they

could live. I wish the Hon. Member would bear in mind two

things.

First, we can always come back to the Legislature. Secondly,

under

section 11 of the Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

can advance to the corporation by way of, loan to increase its

lending power further, sums up to $100 million. That really is

a lot.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 3 approved with amendment.

section 4.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. While there is much

in this Act that we feel is good and has the potential for

good, we just simply cannot support the government in any way,

shape or form using taxpayers' money on a share basis in any

private corporation in British Columbia.

It boils down to too much risk on the part of the taxpayers'

money. If the industry goes defunct, even though there may well

be assets, in the end it's the taxpayer who is going to have to

make it up. The bill provides for the backing of money through

other banks rather than the low-interest loan concept from the

corporation itself. So it's not going to be generating the

revenues that it could generate.

We feel very strongly that if taxpayers want to become

partners in companies, then they should do it on their own.

We've listened to the Liberals talk about our concern and what

their position is. They've talked about selective investing.

But, Mr. Minister, you must know as well as I do the track

record of the federal Liberal government in putting taxpayers'

money into private businesses.

The incentive programme that they brought into British

Columbia a few years ago, which gave a one-third capital grant

to the companies, has resulted in the area that I represent in

a 40 per cent failure. The incentive really is taken out. In

some of these cases, the stimulation and the incentive was to

go into failure. I suggest that this may well happen when the

government is a partner. As that business gets on its feet….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It could happen with a loan too, you

know.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Minister, but with a loan the

incentive is to pay it off as soon as the interest rate gets to

a conventional rate. And when it's paid off, there is the

incentive of profit, if they're on their own. As long as

government is a partner, then government is going to have an

inhibiting effect on profit. Management isn't going to be free

to pursue matters as aggressively as they would like to.

If the corporation is depending upon its shares and its

value being returned in dividends, really most of the companies

in Canada today only pay anywhere from 2.5 to 4 per cent a year

in their dividend. So it really isn't a good investment for the

people of British Columbia. If you're getting a 10 per cent

dividend, the Minister knows as well as I know that it's a

very, very high-risk venture.

Mr. Minister, through you Madam Chairman, any government

does have an inhibiting effect on business. If you left the

incentive there, gave them the encouragement through

low-interest loans, take the assets of the company — if

they want to mortgage their homes, Mr. Minister, that is part

of being an independent businessman. You put up the collateral.

That's part of the incentive for making a success. Leave that

incentive there. You can get a better return for the people of

British Columbia on their money by investing it in much more

secure things than a partnership of small businesses.

The limit is $1 million, Mr. Minister, in this investment.

Really, you're elbowing your way in through the small

businessman. The small businessman has enough problems without

having any type of big partner. I would imagine that many

people will want to take advantage of this development

corporation for the simple reason that they want to be

independent and they don't want any partners at all. This would

be inhibiting in that area.

Mr. Minister, we feel that the role of government is to

stimulate secondary industry under all the conditions that

we've previously discussed; to create an economic climate in

which such an industry can survive and do well and bring a

return to the Crown through taxes on the wages that are paid,

through

[ Page 2771 ]

taxes on the corporation itself, through taxes on the

machinery — all the legitimate avenues that bring a

guaranteed return to the people of British Columbia without any

of the risk.

It's almost like making British Columbia a casino with the

taxpayers' money, Mr. Minister. We believe in incentive, yes

— but participation by government, no. Individual

enterprise, yes, Mr. Minister, but compulsory government

elbowing-in or taking over, which this will be — no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's not compulsory.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, there are going to be

instances where the commission or the corporation will say, "If

you want this loan, then we want so much of the action." The

Minister is aware of this. There will be certain things that

will be attractive to this corporation as an investment. This

will influence their decision on where that money goes, so it

will lead, at times, to compulsory invasion by government on

the basis of the loan. That is a very bad policy, Mr.

Minister.

The other thing is that in doing this, you are using the

small businessman's tax dollars and the citizens' tax dollars

to set up small business in competition to the fellow who is

providing the money. If the Crown is a partner in the business,

then quite obviously the Crown is going to lean towards that

business. Intentionally or unintentionally you are going to

create an unequal situation — an unfair situation where

the business that is associated with the Crown through the

development corporation, having the government as a partner, is

going to get concessions that the average small businessman,

who is providing the money in the first place, isn't going to

get.

The Minister must realize that he's not always going to be

Minister, and the people who are appointed here are not always

going to be there. He has the responsibility to guard against

this type of encroachment by government in the private

sector.

Mr. Minister, it has been a stated policy of your party and

the Members, including yourself, who signed the Waffle

manifesto that public ownership is an essential recognition for

true industrial democracy. This Act, instead of doing what it

should do, and being what it should be — which is an

incentive to secondary industry and assistance to secondary

industry and the development of a good strong individual

enterprise

section of our society — this Act is in fact

going to be an erosion by government into the private sector

and they are providing the money and that gives them the

club.

Mr. Minister, we have said all day and consistently that we

cannot accept the risk that goes with putting taxpayers' money

into risky business ventures — into any type of private

business ventures. We do not believe that government should be

elbowing its way in and taking over small business and other

industries in British Columbia. We do not believe that

government should use a carrot like this; use the powers that

it gives it to feed its way into a little industry which

couldn't survive or couldn't get started without this help.

That industry is put at a disadvantage. Therefore, Madam

Chairman, I would move an amendment to the bill —

section

4(a): delete in the first line "or purchase of shares."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, speaking to the

amendment, there is a difference of philosophy here. There is

no doubt about it. We think, that the corporation should be

flexible and we think there will be occasions when there should

be a partnership concept invoked, with the consent of the other

side, where the public will have equity. It might be starting a

new industry — you say in unfair competition with others.

It might be starting the only industry we will have to produce

a certain thing we need in this province. That's one

example.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, look at the doughnut situation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't say that all of the public

enterprises have been unsuccessful either, because you've got

some that are very successful ones — Polymer Corporation

or Pan-Arctic — that's a great success and it's strictly

partnership — 49 per cent federal and 51 per cent the

consortium. It's been a tremendous success. But anyway we have

this difference.

We can't accept the amendment, We want to be flexible, look

at everything, but have the tools to do a different thing for a

different situation as that situation may demand it. So we

reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 26

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Cocke

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Lea

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

PAIRED

McGeer

Strachan

Brousson

Stupich

Morrison

Nimsick

Williams, L.A.

Williams, R.A.

[ Page 2772 ]

Section 4 approved, On

section 5.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the same point.

MRS. JORDAN: It is indeed, Madam Chairman. We cannot be part

of a bill that uses taxpayers' money to take over their own

businesses. This is a philosophical aspect of the government

that is unacceptable to the people of British Columbia and to

this party. Taxpayers' money is not for investment in private

business. With this in mind I move an amendment to delete

section 5(

b) and renumber.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, the Member has made

basically the same point, and we make basically the same point:

we cannot accept this amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: We look at this

section 5 and there is a lot of

power and ability to invest without necessity of acquiring

shares in the corporation. There are lots of other ways of

securing the money which you might loan. I would hope that when

you do loan money to a corporation that it will be at an

attractive rate in order for it to be an inducement for them to

set up a manufacturing plant which will in turn create jobs in

British Columbia.

When one looks at the rate of unemployment we have in

British Columbia at this time, it is most important that we

have attractive interest rates for loans.

You can "lend money to any person on such security and upon

corporation may consider advisable." That's ample, really,

without the necessity of constantly wanting to get in there and

control the action.

[Mr. Lea in the chair.]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: You can. You can by

section 5. Without the

necessity of having

section 5(

b) you can encourage and induce

people to establish manufacturing plants in the Province of

British Columbia. You go on to other subsections in

section 5.

Subsection (

c) says: "guarantee the payment of a loan or part

thereof or all or part of the interest thereon, made by another

lender to any person."

section 5(d): "take security by way of

mortgage, charge, hypothecation, or assignment of, or on, real

or personal property or otherwise."

There's a lot of ability for the government to encourage

investment in British Columbia without the necessity of the

government having that control which they constantly want. Each

and every other bill we've looked at — there's always

this control that's wanted, through either a minority share

position or a majority share position. Really, Mr. Chairman, I

don't think that it's necessary to have this particular

subsection which we're asking to delete.

We're not asking to delete a major part of that section,

just a small part. You can still invest and encourage

industrial development in British Columbia without the need of

purchasing shares within that company, You can encourage and

you can induce through investments and loans. It's that old

philosophical hang-up you have of control of the industry that

we're attempting to delete. We're not asking for much. We'll

give you the rest of the section, which gives you ample

opportunity to do at least what your prime objective would

be.

I hope that you'll give this serious consideration because I

really think that it's worthy of consideration. I'm sure that

it's a point which the government will accept tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack):

Section 5(b), when you put

it together, reads like this: "Notwithstanding any other Act,

the corporation has all the powers necessary to carry out its

objects and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

may, for the purposes of this Act…purchase shares in any

company."

Now what are they going to use for purchasing? They're going

to use the funds that are not necessarily surplus funds, but

funds that are tax dollars paid by well-meaning people to, we

trust, a wellmeaning administration. These funds are to be used

at the discretion of the corporation.

We might not have an objection if we knew who the

corporation was and if we knew what their credits were. But we

have to take a blindfolded approach. We

[ Page 2773 ]

have to accept a

corporation that's nameless and guess what we have to do? We

give to this corporation the power to purchase shares in a

company. These are the things that we do not have: we have no

selection. We have no selection as far as company is concerned.

We have no selection as far as the type of shares are

concerned.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Who is "we"?

MR. SCHROEDER: We here in the Legislature; the people of

British Columbia; the people I'm talking for.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SCHROEDER: May I continue, Mr. Chairman? Bless your

socks, here we go.

Among the other things that we do not have: we have no

guarantee of a return. Not under this legislation, We are not

going to invest in a corporation or in shares in a company that

will guarantee a return. We have no guaranteed profit. Just

listen to me. These are things that we don't have, Mr.

Provincial Secretary.

We have no dividends that are guaranteed. We have no promise

that we are going to recoup even the investment that we're

going to make. Not only that….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's speaking against the Kelowna

Charter. Flag him down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Kelowna Charter is a wayward son.

(Laughter).

MR. SCHROEDER: Are you having trouble controlling the House,

Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, only some.

MR. SCHROEDER: Among the other things we have: we have no

limits established for us. It just says "purchase shares in any

company." It doesn't say purchase 30 per cent or purchase 49

per cent or 51 per cent, which are some very common figures. It

doesn't say 80 or 100 per cent. It doesn't say.

So guess what you're doing. You're asking the people of

British Columbia to give you the authority to go ahead with

this corporation with no selection of company, no selection of

type of shares, no guarantee, no profit, no dividends, no

recoup and no limitations. You're asking us this. I'm sorry, we

can't do it, In all good faith and for the people who we

represent out there on the flood plains, there's no way we can

do it. I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr.

Chairman, I'm very, very upset with the lousy businessmen over

there. A businessman sometimes will be seeking equity because

with that equity he can borrow money from the Royal Bank or

from other banking sources. He can get more spin-off with a

partner than he can ever get with a bond because the same

bondholder will hold it again. Therefore, it is to his

advantage to take equity. I feel that you're utter failures as

businessmen to not understand this.

We don't want control. This is to develop small secondary

businessmen. We're going to make a lot of Liberals very, very

happy with this bill if you'd only move on.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Through you, Mr. Chairman, let me read to you

the industrial philosophy of the Minister of Industrial

Development of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who is

introducing this bill. "A socialist society can only emerge

through popular struggle. In immediate terms we will probably

find that ordinary men and women will be a lot more sympathetic

to our proposals for radical change…"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: "…if we are there with them in their

day-to-day struggles in the workplace and schools and

communities."

The Minister endorses the statement "public ownership is an

essential recognition for true industrial democracy…"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, order! Order, Hon. Member! Would

you speak to the amendment, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to

disturb you at all. But I would like to point out to you, Mr.

Chairman, that this was the Waffle manifesto that I was quoting

from….

MR. CHABOT: The acquisition of shares, that's what it's all

about.

MRS. JORDAN: The acquisition of shares in

[ Page 2774 ]

private corporations, new little fledgling companies —

doughnut companies. It's signed by one Alex Macdonald, Attorney

General….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you're allowed to talk with great

latitude during the second reading. But in the committee stage

you must speak to the section.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your

concern, and I wouldn't want to upset you at all. I am speaking

to the amendment, which deletes in

section 5, subsection….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Member, it's not a matter of bothering

me, it's a matter of speaking to the amendment, and observing

the rules.

MRS. JORDAN: In speaking to the amendment, I'm suggesting

that the reason we have to make this amendment is because this

government is utilizing taxpayers' money to force a philosophy

upon the little people of British Columbia. We cannot support

this, and this is why we have moved the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Health.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you know, it's been quite a

day. We've sat here, and we've listened to insults from across

the floor. And this isn't the first time, it goes on and on….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, don't give us that stuff.

But speaking to the amendment, the fact of the matter is the

people of British Columbia want this — a capital

development corporation with opportunities in all directions.

Let's not emasculate this bill. We want the bill, the people

want the bill, and little businessmen in this province want the

bill. There's a good indication of one right there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Little

Mountain.

MR. CUMMINGS: I would like to make one small point. The

banks are forbidden by the federal government to purchase

shares, so they conveniently started a new outfit called Royal

Nat. to purchase equity shares to help businessmen. And here

are these so-called businessmen trying to deny the help that

small businessmen need.

MRS. JORDAN: You just want to sell your ice-cream

company to the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I just want to make a

couple of short, quick points on this particular

section of

this Act here this Friday evening.

Now the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) while introducing the Act says that Ottawa does this

— because look at Pan Arctic. Pan Arctic is a very large

corporation set up by Act of parliament to do something the

independent oil companies did not feel they were prepared to do

because of the high risk involved.

This British Columbia government has gone into individual

enterprises by

an Act of this Legislature. So you can be

flexible. If you want to go into this type of deal, bring it in

to this Legislature, and let us have a look at it….

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you support it?

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say we'd support it. I said we will

take a look at it. You have the legislative programme open to

you to do anything you want to do. All we're saying is that we

want to know what you're going to do. By passing this bill, we

just pass you a carte blanche for all the dough you want up to

$50 million, that is. You can go around and you can invest in

any company in British Columbia.

Now the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings) says that if you have Big Brother as a partner, and

an equity, you can go to the bank. Well if you have Big Brother

as a partner, you don't need to go to the bank. What's the

Member thinking about? It's right here in the Act. The

government can loan the company money. Why is he going to need

to go to the bank, unless the government is planning on going

broke, or something?

It's written right in the Act that you can loan….

AN HON. MEMBER: You ever heard of cheap money?

MR. PHILLIPS: Cheap money? Social Credit knows a lot about

cheap money.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Bank loans

are not cheap money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. PHILLIPS: This is the problem with this legislation. I explained

this to you in the House the other night, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, this is a matter for discussion

in second reading. It was well discussed, fully discussed, and

I wish you would keep your comments relative to the

amendment.

[ Page 2775 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly am, because I am discussing

whether the government should become partners in this business

or not, under this particular Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, this was fully discussed during

second reading….

MR. PHILLIPS: Not the point I am going to bring up, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are to stick to the amendment, Hon.

Member. Relative points to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: The point I am going to bring up is this:l

don't know who it was, but somebody just said here on the floor

of the Legislature that businessmen wanted this. Now I want to

tell you something….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I've asked you to stick to the

amendment….

MR. PHILLIPS: I am sticking to the amendment. Great

Scott!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, would you stick a little closer?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am! What I'm saying is you say small

businessmen want this. So I'm a doughnut manufacturer….

(Laughter). I'm doing reasonably well, but then a couple of

young fellows come along….

AN HON. MEMBER : Come along and spoil the holes, maybe?

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Then a couple of young fellows who've just

graduated from BCIT come along, and while they were at BCIT,

they learned how to make doughnuts. So they go over to my

friend over here, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce, and they say: "Mr. Minister, the two of us want

to start up a doughnut manufacturing company with real live

holes in these doughnuts…"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I'm sure that it's amusing, but

it's not relative to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a good point. You bet it is the crux of

this amendment right here. You better believe it, yes sir! I

want to tell you, this is it right here. I hit home. I hit home

with the point here.

So Big Brother….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I'm asking you to stick to the

amendment….

MR. PHILLIPS: I am sticking to the amendment! The objects of

the corporation, or the powers of the corporation, are to help

little companies get started. Right? I am on the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I would ask you to stick to the

amendment or resume your seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: The amendment says, if I'm not mistaken, that

you shouldn't be able to go and buy shares in this deal,

eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is to delete the section.

MR. PHILLIPS Well, all right. If you delete the

section you won't be

able to buy shares, right? Now the point I'm making is that the government comes

along and buys shares in this new company with these two young fellows, and

they're in business, and they've got the government as their partners.

They haven't borrowed the money, they're not responsible

now. They've got Big Brother government as their partner.

Whether the doughnuts are big or small, or if they lose money,

Big Brother government's in the business with them, and Big

Brother government's the one that's going to suffer the

loss.

So they get into business, and they're relying on Big

Brother government's unlimited money. Maybe by having Big

Brother interested in this business, they're going to be able

to sell doughnuts to the government. Maybe the ferries, or

something.

Now, what kind of position does this put the other doughnut

company in? Maybe these fellows have been working for 20 years,

they've got a nice business built up, but these two young

fellows come along here, and they take on Big Brother

government as a partner, and they get all the government

business. This established business here, where does it go?

It's caught up in the rush of socialism, the floodgates are

open, and this is exactly what this is. Absolutely. Small

businessmen don't want Big Brother government for competition.

No way do they! No way! You can shove that down my

throat all you want. Small businessmen don't want Big Brother

government for competition. They pay their taxes to Big Brother

government, and Big Brother government comes round and puts

them out of business. No way!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we're not talking about paying

taxes, we're talking about whether or not….

[ Page 2776 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, where are you going to get the money to

buy the shares?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the amendment is to delete

section 5(

b) and renumber, and the

section that is applicable

here is "purchase shares in any company." Would you keep your

remarks as to whether or not that should be allowed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what I'm saying,

that the government shouldn't buy shares, because as soon as

the government buys shares in any of these small companies,

they are in competition with already established companies and

that is unfair competition. Now, do you understand that?

The first thing you know, we're starting up….

AN HON. MEMBER: O.K. You've made your point.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've made my point? Will you accept the

amendment then?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. PHILLIPS: What I'm saying is that this is unfair

competition, Now we're going into the insurance business, and

what's going to happen to the body shops that are already

established. There are going to be a whole group of new body

shops start up, and they are going to have Big Brother government carry them by the arm right down the road to

success.

That's the way it's going to be. What's going to happen to

all the already established body shops and all the people who

are trained? What's going to happen to them? That's why this is

poor legislation. And it's socialist legislation, and it's

horrible legislation.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is, and you know it. It's Waffle

legislation, and it's not even fair. If you want to go into

partnership with companies and buy shares in them, you set the

legislation up and bring it before the people who come down to

represent those people. We'll take a look at it then.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Bring it down for one specific purpose and

let's debate it then.

MR. PHILLIPS: This way you can go around, and my heavens,

you've got the right to buy shares and manufacture baby

carriages — anything at all. That's why it's unfair, and

you know it's unfair, Mr. Attorney General. You loan them the

money like we're suggesting, and then they're responsible. They

don't have Big Brother government — it's just the same as

getting it from the bank, except they get it from the

government at a lower interest rate, that's all. They have to

pay it back.

It hasn't worked in other jurisdictions — I pointed

this out the other night — and it will not work here. I

ask you in all sincerity, Mr. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce, to accept this amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to

prolong the debate which has gone on in different forms all

day. It has been a good debate. We take our stand in opposition

to what the Members opposite are saying. We are prepared to

fight on that position, and to win on that position.

We believe we must have flexible tools, flexible modern

tools to aid secondary industry in this province — this

should be of interest to that Hon. Member — including

agricultural processing industries.

Now on the question of purchase of shares, let me just …

You know, the Government of Ontario has been Conservative for

how many years? Almost since Confederation. The Ontario

Development Corporation Act,

section 7, the objects of the

corporation:

"(

a) The provision of financial assistance by loan,

guarantee or purchase of shares or other securities…"

That's the Conservative Government of Ontario. And all we're

asking is that we be modern and have different ways to meet

different situations in the economy, as the Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) has said. There

are occasions when partnership is the best way to start a new

industry or to help an existing one. In other cases it will be

loans, in other cases it will be acquisition of a plant.

Don't knock it, You're knocking Premier William Davis of

Ontario, who is a true-blue Tory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stick to the amendment!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I see now there's no difference between

the socialist and the Conservatives. We see another example of

this tonight. They agree the same, and that kind of legislation

in Ontario….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, Hon. Member…. The Hon. Member

for Columbia River.

[ Page 2777 ]

MR. CHABOT: You're interrupting a Member who is trying to

make a statement….

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is my prerogative as Chairman….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's going on here? Now you're taking over

the House. Did you buy shares in it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn his mike on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would someone turn the Hon. Member's

microphone on?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, the government says to turn it

off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure, closure!

MR. CHABOT: I'll be heard, I guess. But I never thought I'd

see the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings) stand up here and say that the small businessmen of

British Columbia want the government to take part ownership of

their businesses. That is not true. I would say that …

AN HON. MEMBER: We haven't said that.

MR. CHABOT: You certainly have, because the amendment here

is dealing with the purchase of shares in any company. That's

what your amendment is all about, Mr. Chairman. Isn't that what

the amendment's about?

MR . JORDAN: He doesn't know, he hasn't read it.

MR. CHABOT: There's sufficient incentive in

section 5 for

the government to encourage secondary industry or any other

kind of industry in British Columbia without the necessity of

putting the stranglehold on small or big industry in British

Columbia. That Member, quite obviously to me and to everyone

else in this assembly that wants to be honest, doesn't

understand this section. He doesn't understand it at all,

because it's perfectly clear it's your philosophy that you're

instituting under this

section (b), "purchase shares in any

company." Because the Waffle manifesto says the NDP is

committed to large-scale public ownership.

This is where you are attempting to infuse that policy

statement of the manifesto into the Industrial Development

Act . That's what you're trying to do, and I want to say

that that particular subsection is not in the best interest of

business and the economy, and the taxpayers of British

Columbia. We will support the amendment.

HON. MR. HALL: Gotcha!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Supporting that amendment!

HON. MR. HALL: Just can't believe it.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just wanted to say that I don't understand

what the government is so afraid of. If they want to get into a

partnership situation with the government, I really don't see

why they can't bring it before this House and have it pass for

specific companies.

You want to get into that partnership situation, bring it

here and let us talk about it. We may even agree with you, for

all you know. This offensive piece of legislation has been

included in so many Acts before this House that we've had to

debate this over and over again.

I agree with the Attorney General that it's all been said

and that the principle has been fully debated. I would just

like to refer the House to my speech No. 7, standing in

Hansard in my name (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 27

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

PAIRED

Strachan

McGeer

Williams, R.A.

Williams, L.A.

Stupich

Brousson

[ Page 2778 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you

report that so that it can be recorded.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River,

MR. CHABOT: I move an amendment to

section 6(1), line 1. Delete the

word "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" and add in lieu of that "the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we're talking abut taxpayers' dollars.

We're talking about the investment of $1 million or more of

taxpayers' dollars. I think that that kind of a decision should

be made in the Legislative Assembly rather than in the

cabinet chambers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But look at your own bill.

MR. CHABOT: We move the amendment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. We're talking about loans or

investments or share participation. I move the amendments. This

is where those kinds of decisions — where we're

attempting to gamble with the dollars of the taxpayers of

British Columbia — at least we should do it out in the

open, in the Legislative Assembly where people can listen to

the pros and cons of the investment or the possible flushing

down the drain of their tax dollars.

This is where it should be done and I move the

amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we can't accept that

amendment. In spite of the brave words of the Kelowna Charter,

this little group opposite are doing everything in their power

to cripple and emasculate this Act. The people in all of the

ridings of British Columbia, and particularly the small

enterprises that might be helped, including the agricultural

areas, ought to be told about this night And they ought to be

told about yesterday morning And they ought to be told in no

uncertain terms that all of these amendments are not to improve

the Act but to cripple it and to prevent secondary industry

That's the message.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

I say to them: if you're determined to emasculate the Act,

have the courage to go back to your ridings and tell the people

there that contrary to what you've said in the Kelowna Charter,

you really have nothing in your hearts to offer whatsoever in

the way of help to small business.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll accept the challenge of the Attorney

General. I'll go home to my riding and I'll tell them tomorrow

night. You bet I will.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Good.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Provincial

Secretary to withdraw his words.

HON. MR. HALL: "Hell?" Certainly I'll withdraw it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. CUMMINGS: At this time I would like to point out that

for a month I heard the Social Credit talk about unemployment.

The first positive step to solve it and they try to sabotage an

effort to help every businessman in British Columbia.

I would also like to point out at this time that a small

businessman doesn't fear government or unions but big

businessmen who will wipe him out at any chance they get. Those

big businesses are in Ontario, so you're even against British

Columbia if you vote against this bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just want to say that the demonstration

on this particular amendment means that the opposition has

taken a position as of today that they will do anything and say

anything for political power. They'll say anything they want

against British Columbia. They'll do anything they can in this

House, even if it contradicts their own positions in the past,

their own opposition bill on the order paper, and their own

performance in the past.

I want people to understand very clearly that they hunger for power so badly

that in this

section

[ Page

2779 ]

they wish to emasculate the bill for nothing more than just straight political

power. We refuse this amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, if that Premier has said

anything worth commenting on, I would. But I the point here is that the real truth comes out in these

debates. The one thing that we're asking to delete is

government buying shares in little companies, and we are asking

for an annual report to be brought before this Legislature.

On both these points the Minister says, "If you take out

the right of a government to buy shares in the little man's

business, you emasculate the bill." That's what this bill is

all about. It's a takeover. It's a Marxian philosophy. They

don't care to stimulate industry. All they want to do is get

their sticky fingers into every little business in British

Columbia. That's why the Minister says that if you delete that,

then we emasculate the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've sunk to a low tonight. A real low.

Shame on you, shame on you. You know better.

MRS. JORDAN: Why, Madam Chairman, is the Attorney General

and the industrial development officer of this province afraid

to have the annual report of this British Columbia Industrial

Development Corporation laid before this Legislature for

debate?

As the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings) says — and he's right — this is the first

thing the socialist government has tried to do to create jobs

in British Columbia. With that statement we agree. This

government has done nothing to create jobs in British Columbia,

When you put these statements together, the only thing that is

proved is that this government knows of no other way to create

jobs in British Columbia other than by taking taxpayers' money

and putting it into small businesses in this province in a

risky manner, putting other private businesses out of business

and being afraid to lay an annual report before this

Legislature.

Emasculate the bill, Mr. Minister? There's ample flexibility

in this bill without getting your sticky fingers into this

little business and risking taxpayers' dollars, and no return

to the taxpayer. There are all kinds of ways to create jobs and

all kinds of ways to get a good return for that development

corporation for the people of British Columbia and all kinds of

ways to stimulate secondary industry without ramming your

Marxian philosophy down the throats of the people of British

Columbia with their own money.

We support the amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Members to stick to the

amendment and not wander so far afield. The amendment is to

amend

section 6, line 2, to delete

"Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" and add in lieu "the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia." Would you confine

your remarks to that amendment, please.

I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think that after

that attack, the Attorney General is more to be pitied than

censured so I'll just carry on.

I certainly want to support this amendment. As I say, this Legislature should be making the decisions in

expenditures of this type. We've seen series come to power

before, all under the guise of motherhood. If you really want

to do something for business in this province, first of all you

create an atmosphere in which they can flourish. You've ruined

that atmosphere since you came to power. That's number one.

Number two, get rid of this threat you're holding over the

already established businesses by being their partner —

unfair competition.

Make the decisions here in the Legislature. Why do you want

carte blanche powers of anything over $1 million?

MR. CHABOT: $50 million, $100 million?

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that the Legislature should certainly

have some input where you're establishing these large

corporations. There's nothing wrong with accepting this

amendment. We're not talking about peanuts. We're talking about

$1 million. You're still going to have the powers under $1

million. The small businesses that you're talking about

establishing are certainly going to be under $1 million.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why didn't you put this restriction into

your own bill if you're sincere?

MR. PHILLIPS: We were loaning people money. You are

investing. There's a big difference. We were going to loan

money to people. We have security the same as a bank. You are

going to invest, Mr. Attorney General, and you know that. It is

not too much to ask that you come back to this Legislature in

expenditures over $1 million. If it's over $1 million, it's

going to be a fairly large corporation. I think the people of

British Columbia have a right to know.

We'll come back to the Legislature in a couple of years and

you'll have shares in corporations all over the place and the

Legislature won't even know it. Now is that too much to ask?

No, it's not. You said you would listen. I've been sincere. I

know that we need a British Columbia development corporation to

[ Page 2780 ]

help small industry and to help farm processing.

This has got nothing to do with it. For you and the Premier

to stand up and start accusing the Members from the north who

need this in their area that they're not going to process

agriculture plants, that is complete trash and I won't take any

more of it in this Legislature. (Laughter).

After 46 hours of it this week and sitting overtime and

daytime and nighttime — and then you try and ram it down

our throats and threaten us. I've had enough threats in this

Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go home then.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly support it. I think you should

accept it, Mr. Attorney General. If you're wise at all, you'll

accept it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, while we supported the

amendment regarding government corporation investment, I think

that in assisting the kind of endeavours which we hope that

this bill will assist, it really isn't practical with the House

not in session for such a corporation to function. While $1

million is a very substantial sum of money, I could certainly

foresee that timing could be very important In the case of the artificial kidney, for example, if the

industry had to wait several months to obtain approval for the

financing, this might well jeopardize the project. With

respect, I think that the former government held authority of

this nature to spend this kind of money under other Acts.

After all, while I certainly am apprehensive about

government participating in the private sector, as I've stated

earlier today, I think that in this instance — and this

is one of the reasons that we supported the bill in second

reading — one of the ways in which this government can

function through a corporation is to have a reasonable degree

of flexibility. But to have that flexibility they must also

have responsibility.

It is our feeling that in this particular area of

responsibility it would not be practi