1972 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1972

Night Sitting

[ Page 355 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1972

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, there is one announcement I wish to

make with some regret. I wish to tell you that one of our

attendants who served this House faithfully for many years,

Gerald McIlvenny, died in hospital this morning. I would like, on

your behalf, to express to his family our condolences at his

passing and advise you that he served this House for many years

as a respected attendant. I'm sure I'd be expressing the

sentiments of the House if this fact were recorded in Hansard ,

and a letter to that effect go to his widow.

The other point was raised by the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). We have taken the opportunity to examine

the rules with respect to this question. The Minister gives his

answer. It is not the business of the clerks or of the House,

other than to see that the answer is tabled with the House, and

it's not the business of the House so far as a matter of

privilege is concerned. There is no matter of privilege involved.

It is not a matter of debate except in dealing with the Minister

at some subsequent occasion — therefore there is no point of

privilege at all. I think that is the only ruling to make — and

I could give it to you in more detail if you like.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I would like to bring

to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Chant, the

former Minister of Public Works, is in attendance tonight. He was

a Member in two parliaments, one in Alberta as minister of

Agriculture and again in British Columbia for a number of years

as Minister of Public Works. I would ask the House to welcome Mr.

Chant.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 2, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GIFT TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 2,

An Act to Amend the Gift Tax

Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Sorry, the amendment has not been

sent up from my office.

I move the amendment as it appears in my name on the order

paper, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound, speaking to the amendment standing in the

name of the Hon. Premier.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I wish to

commend the Hon. Premier for introducing this amendment to the

Gift Tax Act. As the Hon. Premier said in debate in this House a

few days ago, he and his government are prepared to welcome the

attitude of giving on the part of the citizens of this province

for those worthwhile community objects which serve the citizens

of this province. And while the legislation, as it stands before

us today, and as it is amended by this bill, does deal in a

specific way with giving and the exemptions which are accorded to

such gifts, the Hon.

[ Page 356 ]

Premier has, in the course of moving this amendment, expanded

the exemptions from the gift tax in respect of all those

worthwhile community projects which may, in their own good time,

devise — purposes which it would be impossible for this or any

other Legislature to divine in advance.

The amendment which we have here today gives the opportunity

for citizens of this province, having determined what worthwhile

gifts they believe should be made, to make the appropriate

representation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for an

exemption and I'm sure, upon the submission of proper material,

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will see fit to grant the

exemption in the proper case.

As I heard the Hon. Member from Comox (Ms. Sanford) speak

today, she mentioned the breath or the wind of change which took

place in this province just two months ago. And when I look back

on the undutiful day in this House a couple of years ago, when

the Minister of Finance of the previous government saw fit to

bring before this House retroactive legislation which had the

most devastating effect upon charitable giving in this province,

I could not help but think of the amendment which we are dealing

with tonight. It certainly is a new wind of change that blows in

this province and this amendment proves it to be the case.

have had my differences, and we on this side of the House have had our

differences, with the Hon. Premier and his party. I'm sure that we will

in the future, and I'm sure the Premier would welcome those

differences, but on a subject such as this — the matter of giving for

good community purposes — I trust that no Member on any side of this

House will ever have reason to differ.

Now as I think of this, I recall that, as a consequence of

what the previous government did a couple of years ago, a

significant charitable act on the part of an individual in this

province was subjected retroactively to the impact of legislation

in this province and of tax. And I speak of the gift that was

made from the Woodward estate to the Woodward Foundation. By

reason of the action of the previous government, and of the

lawsuit that subsequently ensued, the charitable recipient of

that gift was penalised to the amount of $1.6 million.

I hope that as a result of this amendment and of the attitude

which the Premier has displayed in bringing it forward that that

kind of result will never again occur. I hope that, as we discuss

this amendment, the Premier may see in his wisdom to exercise the

power which is his as minister of Finance to redress what I think

was a wrong by the previous government and restore to the

Woodward Foundation the succession duties which they were obliged

to pay as the result of the unthinking action of the previous

government, in order that the Woodward Foundation may continue to

carry out to the fullest extent the wish of the late Mr.

Woodward, those beneficial acts which the late Mr. Woodward had

in his contemplation when he made his will. That would bring to

full circle the change which the past two months has

witnessed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the comments of the Member from

West Vancouver–Howe Sound and I think the House should know that

that Member was partially instrumental in this amendment

appearing in its form on the order paper and now being debated as

part of the bill. It's a custom in the British parliamentary

system that Opposition Members do not appear on the amendments

that the government accepts but there is no question, and the

House should know it, that that Member had an influence in that

amendment appearing in the form it's in.

Also, the Mayor of Oak Bay did phone my office and advised me

of this particular amendment and I said, "Sure, I'll look into

it." I did, and I must say that I was a bit taken aback in her

surprise that she could even get through to talk, let alone have

that kind of fast action.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's unusual.

[ Page 357 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, let me put it this way. It was a darn

good idea. I want to thank the Member and Mayor Elford for

bringing it to my attention.

I appreciate what you have said in terms of going back. I've

given it a great deal of thought. I'm aware of the Woodward case

and the whole situation that brought this around, but we can't go

back now. We just can't. There are too many other matters. It's

not a question of isolating one in terms of history. We must live

with the situation as we found it. All I can say is that as long

as this amendment is here, as long as this government is here, it

will not occur again.

We encourage giving. We have no antipathy, we're not opposed

to anybody's selection of a charity. As long as it's for the

community good we don't care if it's the North Pole or the South

Pole or anywhere else. If people have a good cause and it helps

human beings anywhere in the world — well, let them go to it, as

far as we're concerned.

I have had letters from church groups and I want to let them

know that overseas missions will be excluded, unlike the previous

government. I hesitate to make a comment about the Godless

socialist bit, but let them understand that this group that was

labeled so unfairly has no bias against church groups doing

mission work overseas or anywhere else. We'll see by law that

their right to give in that direction is protected.

As for service clubs, I'm not a member of a service club

myself, but I recognise the work that many of them do in terms of

specific community projects. That's excluded now. We've left it

open enough in the amendment so that, no matter what the cause

is, all they have to do, as the Member says, is lay out what they

hope to do with it. If it is a bona fide case, and it won't take

much to prove that, we're not going to pass judgment on charity.

We say, "O.K. that's fine".

If any individual or any group in this beautiful province of

ours wants to share a little bit of what they've gained out of

their life experience in this province with anyone else in the

world then, if in our own little way that all we can do is

administratively say, "O.K. that's fine too." We want to

encourage it.

Everybody who is listening — if you don't want the government

to get your money through succession duty, give it away to

charity. We won't complain about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Well, I guess as one whose very

livelihood and every cent I've ever earned since university was

from charity and from the church, I'm very glad to speak towards

this proposed amendment to the bill.

I just would like to say that a lot of the most imaginative

things that we've seen in society have come because there has

been seed money. I could think especially of United Community

Services in Vancouver, the Inner City Service Project and many

other very creative groups that have sometimes independently been

funded in a way that allows for creativity that governments and

other groups maybe just aren't that flexible to deal with.

It allows for people over a long period of time to do some

very creative planning and I'm very glad again that there is this

flexibility. I've had many phone calls outside and inside of the

church hoping that we can get back to this kind of

flexibility.

Certainly this brings up the whole fact that as Members, when

we go back to our constituencies, we should let this word be

known, asking for people to feel that freedom again. I don't feel

that this House and this government has any monopoly on new ideas

and planning. We want to hear it from many people in a

constituency. I'm glad that, in a financial way and in a

budgeting way, these groups will be able to hopefully expect a

little more money.

Which brings up the whole fact that, in the church and in many

groups in the community, we've reached a plateau. We're already

sliding as far as savings go. Charity is not all that fantastic

or as large as it was at one

[ Page 358 ]

time per capita. We still hope that people are gracious and

altruistic and that we can rely on independent money without

strings attached to allow new innovative programmes for

people.

Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to speak briefly on this matter and I

hope that the House will give it its support.

Amendment to

section 2 approved.

MR. WILLIAMS: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the

passing of the Premier's amendment I would be pleased to ask

leave to remove the amendment standing in my name.

Leave granted.

Sections 2 to 11 inclusive approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 2,

An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act reported complete

with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting after

today.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): We'll accept

it now, Mr. Speaker, with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Now the bill is before the House for distribution

if the Hon. Members want it in their book at the moment. Do you

want to proceed without distributing it? In that case, Mr.

Premier, we can proceed with third reading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the bill now be read a third time,

Mr. Speaker.

Bill No. 2 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 3, Guaranteed Minimum Income

Assistance Act.

section 1.

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

Chairman, I move the amendment on

section 1 standing in my name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Member for West Vancouver—Howe

Sound.

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

would like to merely pose a question to the Hon. Minister with

respect to the amendment which he has made.

The original definition of income meant income as taken into

account in fixing the guaranteed income supplement payable under

the Old Age Security Act of Canada. The amendment has introduced

other words and those are, "and such other income or financial

resources as are determined under the regulations". Now I have no

objection to the words as they originally stood and I have no

objections to the words "and such other income".

But I would like the minister to indicate to me what he

contemplates by adding the word "or financial resources" because

by the plain meaning of the word, "income" is what comes in, and

"financial resources" of an individual may not necessarily come

in. They may be assets which are never realized — in fact which

may not even be realizable. I'm only concerned

[ Page 359 ]

to know whether or not it is the intention of the Minister

under the regulations to somehow or other draw within the meaning

of "income" and therefore influence the entitlement of any

citizen to the assistance which this bill will give of some

financial resource not of an in-coming nature. Because really

what is important to the prospective recipients of the assistance

under this Act is what comes to them on a regular periodic basis,

and without some explanation from the Minister I would have to

oppose this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation

and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: What we've done in fact is to widen this

definition somewhat in order to bring in some people, not too

many, but there are some people living in the province who are

not getting G.I.S. or old age pension, who would qualify if they

were able to qualify for that. I have in mind for instance people

who have lived here five, six or seven years, in the province, in

Canada, and yet are in need and we are thinking in terms of those

people, some of them have pensions from for instance Great

Britain. We have a number of cases already that people have

contacted us about. So we have in mind to broaden it, to bring

these people into it. There aren't many, I think there are less

than 300 in the province, and we will view each case, but we need

this kind of scope.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing in my name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please confine the discussion to the amendment.

I recognise the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm indebted to the

Minister for his answer, but his answer is not responsive to the

question that I posed. In order for a person to get benefits

under this legislation, we first of all take the old age pension

that he receives and then we take the guaranteed income

supplement that he receives and then we add to that the monthly

income of that person, and if there is any short-fall between

those figures and $200 a month, then the person gets some

additional moneys.

What concerns me is your use of the words "financial

resources". Now if it's a pension that comes from some other

jurisdiction then it's still income because it comes on a regular

periodic basis. But that is not what "financial resource" means,

and I remain unconvinced by the Minister's answer and the example

that he gives is one that I understand. A pension from Great

Britain, or from Australia, or wherever the case maybe is income

and certainly it would be taken into account. Under the

regulations that you have, the regulatory powers that you have,

you might exclude that amount of money, if you so wish. That's

fine, that is a decision which is the Minister's responsibility

to make.

But it is the use of the words "financial resources", and what

I really want to know, I suppose, is whether or not the Minister

may have in mind looking at the assets of any particular

individual and saying, "Well, we appreciate that your income is

insufficient for the purposes of this Act and therefore you

should get some assistance from us but when we have looked at the

other financial resources available to you, we do not believe

that you are entitled to assistance, but that you are entitled to

utilise those additional financial resources and therefore we

will deem them to be income" and if the Minister will indicate

that is not his intention, then perhaps my inquiry will be

satisfied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 360 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Would the Minister be

agreeable to amending the amendment so that it reads "income"

instead of "financial resources"?

HON. MR. LEVI: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, on the same point,

I discussed this at some length with my colleague from West

Vancouver—Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) and perhaps if we deal in

example as the Minister attempted to do, or began doing, we may

get a little further in this inquiry. I would like to know, Sir,

whether other financial resources, or financial resources as

mentioned in this amendment, for example, would include the

possession of real estate. In other words, we may have an example

of a…

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it wouldn't.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …well, if I could just finish my

example, you can repeat that if it's correct with the example as

well. If, for example, you had a person who had $250,000 or

$500,000 worth of Gulf Island property who had lived on it for

many years — a farm with the family perhaps — whose income was

not great, whose income might be indeed the old age pension and

some portion of the guaranteed income supplement. With these

words it would appear to me that you yourself as Minister or your

successors could deem the $500,000 worth of property in some way

as income, because after all "financial resources" could be

interpreted to be resources such as real estate which have a

value on the market.

I'm not a lawyer, perhaps I'm wrong in this understanding, but

I wonder if the Minister would comment as to whether or not under

these circumstances "or financial resources" might not indeed get

us into the means test rather than the income test which he of

course has been promoting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation

and Social improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: I think I said earlier that this dealt really

with very exceptional cases. Very exceptional cases, and relating

to cases of hardship. Somebody that has a legacy of say $100,000

and he would forgo that to qualify.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can see the Minister's point of view, and

I certainly appreciate his intentions. Our problem is, as I have

been making this point time after time, we are here making law,

we are not necessarily examining ministerial intentions. I am

concerned that "other or financial resources" as worded here

might interpret by a succeeding Minister other than yourself in a

way differently than you have given it tonight. The Attorney

General is absent, I see. There are lawyers present, but it is a

point which I feel is fairly important and I see that you now

have the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who

is a lawyer of distinction and perhaps he will be able to in the

few minutes that you have with him, to comment on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver—Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to pursue this

argument at length and I don't want the Minister to think that we

are necessarily critical of the attitude or philosophy that he

may be bringing into the session. I think that in many instances

he may be right, but if I might just be clear on this one

respect. Is the Minister, in fact, indicating that in those

exceptional cases where some person may have very low regular

periodic

[ Page 361 ]

income, but have some readily realizable financial resource — such as the legacy you mentioned — that the Minister believes

that it is appropriate for him to look at the availability of

those additional funds in considering the entitlement of an

applicant to benefit. Well, I'm not quarreling as to whether you

are right or wrong, I'm just asking. As you say, if you have a

legacy of $150,000 or $200,000 available to you and you say, "no

I won't take that, I'll just as soon keep the pension", then you

feel that you should be able to take it into account?

HON. MR. LEVI: Right.

MR. WILLIAMS: …and it would apply to bonds in the bank

where you accept the coupons, and so on? That's fine, thank you

very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper under

section 1, line 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the amendment standing on the order

paper in your name is out of order and that it violates standing

order No. 67. I rule it out of order.

MRS. JORDAN: You're not allowing any debate on this

amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's out of order. I recognise the Hon.

Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment standing on the order

paper in my name to

section 2.

Amendment to

section 2 approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'll have to ask you for

a ruling. There's another amendment of mine standing on the order

paper under my name to

section 3. Is that also…

Section 3. "Section 3 notwithstanding sub-section 1 of

section

8 shall include the payment of a guaranteed minimum income…"

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe you're speaking on

section 8.

MRS. JORDAN: Bill No. 3,

section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule the amendment to

section 3 out of

order as well as No. 2 on the same grounds.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry I'm going to pose a problem for you,

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the

order paper under

section 8

part 3.

"Notwithstanding sub-section 1 of

section 8 no order of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under this Act or any regulations

made by the Minister under the Social Assistance Act shall

preclude the payment of a guaranteed minimum income assistance to

a person over the age of 50 years and who is

[ Page 362 ]

the spouse of a person over the age of 65 years and who is

eligible for the payment of guaranteed minimum income assistance

under this Act."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Out of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Premier please stop influencing the

Chair? I'm prepared to accept the Chair's ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm consulting authorities and I would rule…

MRS. JORDAN: Would you like me to wait for a moment, Mr.

Chairman? Until you consult?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'll rule it out of order on the

grounds that it violates standing order No. 67.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 8, 9 and 10 approved. Title approved.

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

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 3, Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act reported

complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. LEVI: Now, Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House.

Leave granted.

Bill No. 3 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 4, Mr. Speaker.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 4, Handicapped Persons Income

Assistance Act.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver—Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, dealing with regulations under

this bill I recall that the Minister in second reading this

afternoon indicated that instructions had been given by him to

staff within his departmental responsibility…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the Hon. Member if he is speaking to

section 4?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, regulations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That

section has to do with offences in the

revised bill.

[ Page 363 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was looking at the

first bill that came in, pardon me.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver—Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, this

afternoon the Minister indicated that directions had been given

to staff within his jurisdiction to make certain reviews of cases

which are marginal. I assume that the impact of that would deal

with those people who are entitled to assistance under the Social

Assistance Act.

The reason I raise this is I recently had occasion to be

concerned about the granting of pension rights to a person under

the federal Act. And to my dismay, I got a copy of the

regulations and then I got a copy of the

interpretation of

definitions under the regulations. And I must say that it is

almost impossible for me to believe that

interpretations of this

rigidity would have been produced by anyone in 1972.

Therefore, I rise at this time considering the regulatory

section of this bill to ask the Minister if the instructions that

he has already given to his staff with regard to social

assistance will be somehow or other committed to writing so that

staff in considering future applications for assistance under

this Act will have a similar freedom of discretion.

Because the case that I had to concern myself with was a woman

in my constituency who was receiving benefits under the Social

Assistance Act and who applied to get disabled person's

benefits.

Now, it was only a few additional dollars. Miserable — I

think $5 was all that she could possibly get. She went through

the medical examinations, three of them in fact, and then they

were all considered by this medical review board and they applied

the rigid

definitions as to whether the impairment was total and

whether it was permanent and whether it was major. And I happen

to know this woman and there is no question from any ordinary

view of her particular case that she was a handicapped person,

and she needed every possible assistance that should be given. I

just trust that the regulations that the Minister will produce

will ensure that we can obviate some of the problems that are

obviously created by the rigid

interpretations which are given

under the federal Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation

and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to assure the Hon.

Member and the House that the days of the distinction between a

person who is disabled, between crawling and able to walk are

over in this province.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 approved. Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 4, Handicapped Persons Income Assistance Act reported

complete without amendment.

Bill No. 4 read a third time and passed.

[ Page 364 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker. Oh,

sorry…

AN HON. MEMBER: Some Members don't have copies, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, Hon. Members, in deference to the Members

and the rules of the House it would be presumptuous to distribute

those before the House has ruled on the matter. Consequently

they're distributed to you as soon as you've consented. If you

want it the other way by unanimous consent we could distribute

these ahead of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some have been distributed.

MR. SPEAKER: The revised ones have been distributed after the

matter has been dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some have been, and some haven't been.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, some are missing the revised copies?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to see that they

are distributed immediately. Sorry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker.

TOBACCO ADVERTISING RESTRAINT ACT REPEAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 9, Tobacco Advertising

Restraint Act Repeal Act.

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the Members to

relax? Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. And the Attorney General has

suggested that he might accept this amendment, which certainly

pleases me. The impact of the amendment would be that the ban on

cigarette advertising would really not take place — the repeal of

the ban on advertising would really not take place — until such

time as the Attorney General has had the opportunity to bring in

his regulations. And I certainly appreciate, I certainly

appreciate the attitude on the opposite side of the House, I

think that if they agree to this it's pretty nice. That's right.

Because…

HON. MR. BARRETT: We accept them.

MR. PHILLIPS: You accept them? Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, we

appreciate this kind of suggestion from the Opposition. No, we

do. I discussed it with the Leader of the Opposition who is not

in his seat at the present time, and the Hon. Members. And their

proposal was that the repeal of the old tobacco legislation

should not be instanter, and in effect you are giving me another

couple of days in terms of the new regulations so that it all can

be done possibly by Tuesday next. I appreciate that and I know

how difficult it is speaking as a former Opposition Member and

perhaps a future Opposition Member… No, no — never!

(Laughter).

[ Page 365 ]

But I appreciate how hard it is to follow the technicalities

of the legislation and make constructive proposals of this kind.

And I hope the Hon. Member will convey to the Leader of the

Opposition our appreciation of this, and so far as I am concerned

it's a very good amendment and I hope it passes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section I as amended pass? I recognise the

Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will

be very brief. I just have a couple of points I'd like to ask the

Attorney General. One of them has to do with the nature of the

products again as I spoke in the House the other day, and I

wonder whether the Attorney General because of the, way he feels

about this product, and the Health minister, would actively

encourage the prohibition of advertising on a national basis, and

whether the Attorney General and the Health Minister will meet

with our federal Health Minister and perhaps Attorney General and

talk about the problem. Because I think, Mr. Chairman, that we

must not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about a

product that is causing a major health problem in this country.

And I think we must also agree that the principle of the

legislation was right. And I'd also like to thank the government

for going back to the original order of the discussion of these

bills because it makes the Opposition's proposals much easier,

and it makes our position much easier. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just briefly in answer. The answer is

certainly yes, we will press the federal government for a total

ban with respect to cigarettes. And I'm sure, having had many

words with my colleague the Minister of Health, that he's very

concerned with the deleterious effect on human health with

respect to this matter. And that he will be petitioning the

federal government.

Amendment to

section 1 approved.

Section 1 approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 9, Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act Repeal Act

reported complete with amendment.

By leave of the House, Bill No. 9 read a third time and passed

on the following division:

YEAS-40

Lewis

Wallace

Nicolson

Young

Webster

Williams, L.A.

Nunweiler

Lea

Kelly

Anderson, D.A.

Stupich

Lauk

Curtis

McGeer

Nimsick

Gabelmann

Brousson

Dent

Strachan

Skelly

Gardom

Cummings

Dailly

Hartley

Steves

D'Arcy

Barrett

Calder

Barnes

Sanford

Macdonald

King

Anderson, G.H.

Radford

Gorst

Cocke

Rolston

Brown

Lockstead

Levi

[ Page 366 ]

NAYS-10

Schroeder

Phillips

Jordan

Bennett

Morrison

Fraser

Chabot

Richter

McClelland

Smith

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 10, Tobacco Products Act.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 10, Tobacco Products Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tobacco Products Act,

section 3. We're dealing

with an amendment standing on the order paper in the name of the

Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

certainly do not wish to reflect upon the vote but the last one was truly

mirabile dictu. We found Alice on each side of the looking glass and just in one

very, very quick space of time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order right now.

MR. GARDOM: I'm very delighted to see that the government…

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're trying to influence the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the House please extend the courtesy of

allowing the Hon. Member to speak?

MR. GARDOM: Oh, shucks! (Laughter). I'm delighted to see, Mr.

Chairman, that the government agreed to an adjournment concerning

this particular section. Because I think that what we have come

up with this evening will much better state not only the policy

of the government, but also the attitude, I would say, of all of

the Members of the House concerning billboard advertising of

tobacco products. I would like to emphasize one specific thing,

and specifically to the Press with hopes that this will get

across to the general public, that billboard advertising in the

Province of British Columbia insofar as alcoholic products are

concerned has not been permitted under the government liquor Act

for many, many years in this province.

And I would by way of

analogy, Mr. Chairman, because my motion tonight is going to be

much along these lines. I would like to just read to the Hon.

Members just one

section of the government liquor Act concerning

bill-board advertising of alcoholic products. And it's

section

83-2:

"No person shall exhibit or display or permit to be exhibited or displayed

any advertisement or notice of or concerning liquor by any electric, illuminated

or other sign, contrivance or device, or in any building, hoarding, signboard,

bill-board or other place in public view."

So we've had very long-established

precedent in this province for many, many years. I believe even behind 1953

when the Act came in under the former administration, that bill-board advertising

of alcoholic products was not permitted here. And what we're suggesting by virtue

of the amendment tonight is to dispense with the bill-board advertising of tobacco

products. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I did ask leave at the last sitting, which

I think was perhaps inadvertent somewhere along the lines, that the first

[ Page 367 ]

motion in my name on the order paper on page 6 be deleted and

I believe leave was granted but unfortunately it still appears in

the order papers.

So, I would reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that I would ask leave of

the House that the first motion — and I did ask it yesterday — be deleted in the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: And secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave of

the House that the second amendment that I have on the order

paper also be deleted.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Now, Mr. Chairman, with the assistance, and I may

say most cooperative attitude of the legislative counsel and

certain of the professional staff of the office of the Hon.

Attorney General, I have an amendment here which I shall be

reading to the House and one that has been circulated to all

Members a little bit earlier today. And I do hope that we will

have the unanimous approval of all of the representatives that

the bill-board huckstering of tobacco will come to an end in

B.C.

The amendment, Mr. Chairman, reads this way:

section 3 —

"without limiting the generality of

section 2 no persons shall in the

province exhibit or display or permit to be exhibited or displayed any advertisement

or notice of, or concerning, tobacco by any sign, contrivance or device whether

illuminated or not or in any building, hoarding, sign-board, bill-board or other

place in public view except in compliance with the regulations made under this

Act."

and then the second part of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is just straight

house-keeping to renumber sections 3 to 6 as sections 4 to 7 respectively and

it would be appreciated if one of the attendants would take this up to Mr. Chairman.

And the amendment has been seconded by the Hon. member for West Vancouver—Howe

Sound (Mr. Williams).

I think many people in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, have

worked very, very long and very, very hard for a much better way

to indicate to the public of British Columbia that cigarettes and

cigars and pipes and purely and simply tobacco and I would say

cancer, and emphysema and heart disease are awfully close and

awfully deadly relations and I've not heard myself or seen or

read anything that has convinced me to the contrary.

And the purpose of advertising purely and simply is to produce

sales and nothing else. And if these tobacco concerns wish to do

altruistic works in the Province of British Columbia they still

can because there's absolutely nothing in this amendment, or

nothing in the Act, Mr. Chairman, to prevent them from doing

that.

But I would say, Mr. Chairman, that it's plain hypocrisy — or

even worse, deception — in my view to attempt to establish an

image shall we say of rugged, buoyant health on the one hand and

then push a hazardous product as though it was a link with rugged

buoyant health on the other. For they have tried to suggest, the

advertisers, with visual inference via big Stetsons and those

sweeping plains and fine horses and diaphanous ladies that cancer

sticks are comrades-in-arms and they are not.

I think if we are doing something wrong in this Legislature in

suggesting the illogic of that advertising promise I'd very much

like to know what it is.

The second advantage of the amendment that I'm moving, Mr.

Chairman, is this — that hopefully it may also reduce some of

the visual pollution that is being foisted upon us. I think

people in B.C. should be able to look at a lake or a countryside

or a seascape without having to peer through a bunch of garish

bill-boards. And you know, this is a great start along the line

which — what was she called? — Lady Bird, Mrs. Lyndon Baines

Johnson, started in the United States. And I would say this, Mr.

Chairman, that with the acceptance of this very, very fine

amendment the Attorney General may gain in British Columbia the

reputation of being Father Bird as being opposed to Lady Bird.

(Laughter).

[ Page 368 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment that

bill-board signs whether illuminated or not, and any building hoarding and so

forth, sort of the shooting-star amendment of my learned friend, is

acceptable to the government in the form in which it now appears before Hon.

Members.

It was always our intent, and we were going to do it by

regulation, but where you can put this kind of thing into the Act

and fortify the protection of the public against the bombardment

from this particular kind of propaganda and where it can be

worked out constitutionally — as I think it has been in the

amendment proposed by the Hon. Member who says, "hoardings within

the province" I think we're safe within our constitutional

jurisdiction. So far as I'm concerned it's a good amendment and

it should be accepted.

Amendment to

section 3 approved.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I should have stood

earlier you missed me I think as I was getting up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On which section?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it doesn't matter.

Section 4 if I may

speak under that section.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the regulations I'm a little

sorry that the Attorney General for instance is allowing, or

planning to allow, a choice for the warnings under the

regulations. It appears that that's what's being planned. That it

will be displayed on the packages. And one warning I think we

have is a very positive statement, which says that "cigarette

smoking is harmful to you", but the other warning that I

understand will be allowed in place of the first is really only

an addendum "The Department of National Health and Welfare

advises that danger to health increases with the amount of

smoking". And we can't argue with that but I think probably they

should both be on there rather than one or the other. Because one

is a positive statement, and the other is not quite so

positive.

The other question then, Mr. Attorney General, through you,

Mr. Chairman…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the federal warning and we want to

try and improve them and we'll amend the regulations when we can

get a stronger warning put on the packages.

MR. McCLELLAND: Fine, that's very good news then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's why we're taking it this way.

MR. McCLELLAND: O.K. the other question has to do with the

warnings carried in the advertisements on radio. And in

television. The print media apparently has to carry these

warnings, but the media, the electronic media doesn't and I

wonder whether the over-glamorization of cigarette smoking is not

worse on these media and should not those warnings be carried in

the electronic media as well as printed.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, let me finish then. It says "programme"

in the regulations and I don't know where a "programme" could be

but on electronic media.

I noticed that the regulations say at the end that these

warnings shall be carried in the Province . I hope that they will

be carried in the Vancouver Sun and the New Westminster Columbian

and all the rest too.

[ Page 369 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that,

with respect to radio and television, there is some doubt about

our constitutional jurisdiction in that field.

If the Hon. Member will revert back in his reading to

section

2, there is a general prohibition "except such as may be

authorised by regulation". We, in this province, aren't

authorizing any tobacco promotion on either the radio or

television. We are going to the limit of our jurisdiction and, in

practice, these things are not occurring at the present time. I

hope that, by passing this legislation, that practice will be

fortified and it will continue as it is today which means no

advertising whatever on radio or TV.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it's banned right under this Act,

section 2, "…no person shall, in the province,…promote the use

of, tobacco except by compliance with the regulations…" and we don't

authorise anything on radio or TV.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 10, Tobacco Products Act, reported complete with

amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that

the bill be read a third time now.

Leave granted.

Bill No. 10 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 13, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 13, Sessional Allowances Reduction Act,

SESSIONAL ALLOWANCES REDUCTION ACT, 1972

House in committee on Bill No. 13, Sessional Allowances

Reduction Act, 1972.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved. Title and

schedule

approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 13, Sessional Allowances Reduction Act, 1972 reported

complete without amendment.

Bill No. 13 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Whips

have come to an agreement that tomorrow will be spent as private

Members' day and it is my understanding that it is agreed that

the administrator will be called to the House at approximately

4:00 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:51 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1972, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada