1973 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

CONTENTS

Wednesday, November 7, 1973

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Restart date for Can-Cel sulphite operation. Mr. Curtis

— 1377

BCR safety measures. Mr. Phillips — 1377

Steel price increase. Mt. Wallace — 1378

Capital cost expenditures of Insurance Corporation of

B.C. Mr.

Gardom — 1378

Competition for ferry contracts. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1378

Probable closure of Evans plywood plant. Mr. Wallace — 1379

By-election in Cowichan-Malahat. Mr. Phillips — 1379

Education studies — 1379

Curtailment of the use of federal LIP Grants for

teacher-aides. Mr.

Schroeder — 1380

"Insider" trades in stock market. Mr. Gardom — 1380

Reports

Report of Special Committee on Privileges. Mr. Liden — 1380

Mr. Richter — 1380

Mr. Speaker — 1380

Mr. Chabot — 1380

Mr. Speaker — 1381

An Act to Amend the Milk Industry Act (Bill 7).

Third reading — 1381

Labour Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 11).

Third reading — 1381

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act (Bill 40).

Third reading — 1381

Department of Consumer Services Act (Bill 48).

Third reading — 1382

Petroleum Corporation Act (Bill 70).

Division and third reading — 1382

Weed Control Act (Bill 71).

Third reading — 1382

Public Service Labour Relations Act (Bill 75).

Third reading — 1382

An Act to Amend the Mines Regulation Act (Bill 80).

Third reading — 1382

Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81).

Third reading — 1382

An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964 (Bill 82).

Third reading — 1382

An Act to Amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act (Bill 95).

Third reading — 1382

Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 100).

Third reading — 1382

An Act to Amend the Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill 107).

Third reading — 1382

An Act to Amend the Motor-Vehicle Act (Bill 99).

Committee, report and third reading — 1382

An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act (Bill 113).

Committee, report and third reading — 1383

An Act to Amend the Companies Act (Bill 115).

Committee, report and third reading — 1383

Public Service Act (Bill 116). Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1383

section 4.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1383

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1383

section 15.

Mr. D.A, Anderson — 1384

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1384

section 49.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1384

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1385

section 61.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1385

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1385

Amendment to

section 68.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1386

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1386

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1387

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1387

Amendment to

section 70.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1387

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1388

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1388

Report and third reading — 1388

Community Recreational Facilities Fund Appropriation

Act

(Bill 117). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Wallace — 1389

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1389

Mr. McClelland — 1389

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1389

Mr. Richter — 1390

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1390

Mr. Curtis — 1390

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1390

Report and third reading — 1390

Weather Modification Activity Act (Bill 118).

Committee, report and third reading — 1390

Vancouver Enabling Act, 1973 (Bill 119).

Committee, report and third reading — 1391

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973 (Second Session) (Bill

120). Committee Stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 1391

section 2.

Mr. Gardom — 1391

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1391

section 3.

Mr. Gardom — 1391

Mr. Macdonald — 1391

section 5.

Mr. Chabot — 1392

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1392

Mr. Chabot — 1393

Division on

section 5.

Report and third reading — 1393

Department of Transport and Communications Act (Bill

64).

Second reading.

Mr. McClelland — 1393

Mr. Gardom — 1397

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1398

Mr. Phillips — 1402

Motion to postpone second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 1404

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1405

Mr. Smith — 1405

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1407

Mr. Wallace — 1407

Division on motion to postpone second reading — 1407

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1408

Division on second reading — 1408

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1409

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1409

section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 1409

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1409

section 6.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1409

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1409

Mr. Wallace — 1409

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1410

section 7.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1410

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1410

Mr. McClelland — 1410

Amendment to

section 9.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1410

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1410

Report stage — 1410

Division on third reading — 1411

Motions

Motion 25.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1411

Mr. Phillips — 1411

Full indemnity for Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1412

Statement

Tribute to Hansard . Mr. Curtis — 1413

Routine proceedings

Royal assent to bills — 1413

Prorogation — 1414

[ Page 1377 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members

to join with me in welcoming a class of students from the North

Delta Senior High School, along with their teacher, Miss

Barker.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I understand that at lunch you had the

pleasure of entertaining some of our Pages in the House. They have been

very hard-working this session and they have done their duty far beyond

what was expected of them.

I have a note from Leona, Laurie, Louise and Keith who are

presently in the gallery with some of the Tuesday shift. I

thought that this would be an opportunity for the House to

thank the Pages for a job well done.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you

will be pleased to know that we have a young couple, Mr. and

Mrs. Cayford, in the gallery this afternoon who are visiting

from Armstrong. They are dairy farmers and I think they are an

example of the fine young people we have in British Columbia

that are starting out in an exciting industry. I wish the House

would all join with me in welcoming them.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

I notice two people in the gallery today who have connections

with the Nelson-Creston riding, Mr. David Tees, graduate of

L.V. Rogers Senior Secondary School, and Alderman Mike Jesson,

City of Nelson. I wish the Members would join me in welcoming

them here today.

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

like to ask all Members to extend a most cordial welcome to the

Liberal Party's loss and the press gallery's gain, Mr. Barrie

Clark.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): I draw the attention of the

House today to students in the gallery from Belmont Fisher

Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher, Jim London.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like

the House to join me in welcoming a member of our gallery — not the

press gallery — who has been in attendance constantly throughout this

session. She probably has as perfect a record as any Member in this

House: Mrs. Ruth Johnson.

Oral questions.

RESTART DATE FOR

CAN-CEL SULPHITE OPERATION

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

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with

respect to the Can-Cel operation at Prince Rupert: I wonder if

he could indicate to the House the tentative date by which the

recovery plant for the Can-Cel sulphite operation will be

operative.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): I'm afraid I don't have any detailed information with

respect to the question, and I take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary: could the Minister perhaps

undertake to notify me by memorandum on this matter within the

next few days — a week?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I certainly will follow it up with

the Member, Mr. Speaker.

BCR SAFETY MEASURES

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to address a question to the president of the British

Columbia Railway. In achieving the headlines regarding the

British Columbia Railway, with regard to its safety, does the

Premier realize that the railway may be open for great

liability claims if the safety factor is brought into question,

leads to employee injury? What has he ordered the railway to do

by way of…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are no two questions at

the same time in this House, or in any House. What is your

first question? Which one do you want the Minister to

answer?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want the Minister to answer the

question: what instructions has he given in regards to precautions on

the railway, with regard to the safety factor — that he has brought up

himself?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I've asked the

railway to use all necessary safety caution. In considering the

information that's available — in some instances the traffic on

some parts of the track is down to below 15 miles an hour.

It's necessary to observe all the safety precautions because

of the situation we found the railway in. If there is a court

case, that's a matter for the court to decide. But certainly

the railroad is exercising all caution, especially with the

information we have.

[ Page 1378 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the

Premier. and the president of the railway double-talking? He

said in the House the other night that he issued no orders with

regard to safety on the railway. He said that in the House. But

now he tells me he has issued orders. Would the Premier please

make it straight what's going on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The question is argumentative and is

therefore not….

MR. PHILLIPS: Argumentative? The Premier said in the House

one thing, and now he says today another thing. I would like to

know what's going on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I

recall, when the question was asked by the Member, saying that

I had urged the railway to take all safety precautions. That's

the recall of my statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Let's get things straight here.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's not engage in a debate, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier said clearly that he had issued no

orders with regard to safety on the railway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. These matters are on record in

the House and are not subject, therefore, to debate at this

time in question period. Would the Hon. Member please be

seated?

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker; a supplementary

question. I would like to know if the Premier has issued

specific orders with regard to safety on the railway so that

the employees…. I'm concerned for the employees of the

railway, and I'm also concerned for the shippers of goods on

that railway. Has he issued specific orders?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have requested that the

railway take all safety precautions at all times.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The answers have been given to

those statements. Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: There must be another full moon.

(Laughter.)

STEEL PRICE INCREASE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Premier if he has any plans to deal with the serious situation

arising out of the unilateral action of Western Canada Steel in

increasing the price of steel to contractors, who are now

finding themselves in severe financial difficulties because of

the unilateral raise in price during the life of a

contract?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question.

There is an intensive report being prepared for the Minister of

Trade and Industry. I find it difficult to understand, since we

have had the great new awareness about the sanctity of contract

in free enterprise in British Columbia, that a free enterprise

firm would enter into such actions. I thought that the

sanctitive contract meant a great deal to free

enterprisers.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I'm anticipating the report from

the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Lauk). I hope that they don't destroy contracts

because that may upset free enterprise.

CAPITAL COST EXPENDITURES

OF INSURANCE CORPORATION OF B.C.

MR. GARDOM: To the Minister of Transport and Communications,

Mr. Speaker. Has the Hon. Minister instructed anyone or

authorized anyone to determine the capital cost expenditures of

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to date?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

There's a question on the order paper by the same Member referring to

that particular topic.

MR. GARDOM: For six weeks! Still no answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the question is out of order in oral

questions.

COMPETITION FOR

FERRY CONTRACTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the

Minister of Transport and Communications perhaps for the last

time whether or not Canadian firms were given the same

opportunity of competing on the same ferry contracts as was

awarded to Nickum Spaulding of Seattle on October 23 of this

year?

MR. SPEAKER: That has been asked before in this House has

it?

[ Page 1379 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as you have pointed out

to me on numerous occasions when I asked this question

previously. If I don't get an answer, I have to keep asking the

question.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you understand the rules better than

that, Hon. Member. You know that once a question has been asked

you can't keep repeating it in an infinite variety of forms — under

Beauchesne at page 147. Now is

the rule right or are you

right?

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's up to the Minister. He wants

to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Minister want to reply?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I have made a cursory

examination this morning of the two documents the Member tabled

in the House yesterday. My initial reaction is that they

justify the decision I made. I want to compare them very

carefully and I will take this as notice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this question, as you

correctly point out, was first raised by me the day after the

contracts were let on October 24 — page 909 of Hansard repeated

by me on page 1061 of Hansard

on October 30; repeated again

November 1, on page 1159 of Hansard ;

repeated since then in

November a number of times. In view of the fact that this goes

to the very heart of the accuracy of the Minister's statement

which he made in this House on September 24, when he stated

flatly that the same thing was asked…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would draw the attention of

the Hon. Member to Beauchesne ,

page 148, the item shown there,

number T: "The Member must not impugn the accuracy of

information conveyed to the House by a Minister." Now that

offends against the rule and I ask the Member to desist.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: It can't be a point or privilege on the

question of a rule. Maybe a point or order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, take it as a point of order if you

wish, but on a continued refusal of requests of this House to

be provided with information on public contracts and public

tendering, which has extended over many months, and in view of

this continued refusal and since the evidence tabled in this

House furnished by the Minister….

MR. SPEAKER: Your answer is not by debate in question period.

You know the alternative, which is that you file a motion. You should

do it by motion; the House is otherwise not aware of what you're doing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll be happy to put it by motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you please do so?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, been

forced to this position by your ruling and by the continued

obstinacy of the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. It's not a question of the

rules.

PROBABLE CLOSURE OF

EVANS PLYWOOD PLANT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, in view of the

obvious concern expressed by the Vancouver District Labour

Council regarding the Evans plywood plant which is liable to

close down? I know I did ask this question earlier, Mr.

Minister, but I keep receiving telegrams. I wonder if the

Minister has any more up-to-date information he could give in

his dealings or his plans to keep the plant open.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): I don't think I can provide the House with any

further information at this stage, except that I would like to

make the point, Mr. Speaker, that this company did have cutting

rights in the coast area of the province, a tree farm licence,

and they chose to sell those cutting rights. I think that

obviously that's caused some complications for them.

BY-ELECTION IN

COWICHAN-MALAHAT

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier

if the by-election in Cowichan-Malahat is going to be on the

same date as the one in North Vancouver–Capilano?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't hear him. Did he say Langley?

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that ironical questions are the

subject of oral question period. I think the Member knows

that.

EDUCATION STUDIES

[ Page 1380 ]

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Education, with

regard to the various studies being done and particularly the

working paper on university governments just issued, whether

there are plans that these studies should go before the

committee on education prior to legislation.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): There are not any

plans for that procedure for dealing with those studies. The

basic idea behind those commissioned studies is to take them

before the public, and you are certainly a member of the

public.

MR. WALLACE: A quick supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Could I ask the Minister then if it is more than likely in her

view that it is not necessary to go to committee, or has any

decision for or against going to committee been taken?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No decision for or against has been

taken.

CURTAILMENT OF THE USE OF

FEDERAL LIP GRANTS FOR TEACHER-AIDES

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): This question is for the

Minister of Education. Was there any consultation with any of

the school boards or with the B.C. School Trustees Association

before the imposition of the curtailment of the use of federal

LIP grants for teacher-aides?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, there was no consultation on that

particular letter prior to its being sent out. We believe that

consultation should be a two-way street. In this particular

issue we had school boards which had been entering into

agreements through LIP grant projects without our knowledge of

the amount of money concerned or the number of projects, which

put us in a very untenable position in the department.

"INSIDER" TRADES IN STOCK MARKET

MR. GARDOM: I'd ask the Attorney General, if I could catch

his ear — he's approaching his seat now — whether or not he has

now determined if there were any "insider trades" in the stock

Geostar Resources Ltd. after it went bankrupt and traded for 16

days on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

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

following the Member's question of two days ago….

MR. GARDOM: No.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yesterday?

MR. GARDOM: It was five weeks ago, and again yesterday.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the original one. On each occasion

I've sent the message over. Today I inquired again as to

whether they had a report on any inside trading and the answer

was that they had no such report but they were still examining

the situation. So I'll be glad to receive the same question in

two or three months' time.

MR. GARDOM: Do you think you'll find out by then?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We don't want to rush the Securities

Commission. (Laughter.)

Presenting reports.

Mr. Liden from the Special Committee on Privileges presented

the committee's report, which was read as follows and

received:

The Legislative Committee Room, November 7, 1973.

Mr. Speaker:

Your Special Committee on Privileges, appointed November 5,

1973, begs leave to report as follows:

The committee met on November 6, 1973 at 11 a. m. and

heard several witnesses, considered documents filed and excerpts from Hansard .

All evidence presented was considered by the committee and your

committee concluded that the Minister, the Hon. R.M. Strachan, did not

lie to the House.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Carl Liden, Chairman.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of privilege, will transcripts of the hearing be made

available to the members of that committee?

MR. SPEAKER: I would understand so. It's my understanding

that under our standing order, on the request of members of the

committee — that

section which deals with Hansard transcripts

in our standing orders — any member of the committee may

request a transcript and the Speaker will order one. So that,

of course, is so.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, on the same

point, I'm wondering. I was presented here a few moments ago

with the minutes of the Special Committee on Privileges,

established November 5 in the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Were you a member of the

committee?

[ Page 1381 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I am trying to find that out.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I was. I'm wondering if these minutes have

been tabled along with the report to the House. If not, I think

they should….

MR. SPEAKER: We know nothing of what happens in committee.

All this House can do is receive a report. That report has been

received by motion of the House and that's all there is to it.

There's no further point that I can see….

MR. CHABOT: Maybe the chairman would like to table the

minutes as well. I'm sure the House would give him leave, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sure….

MR. CHABOT: I am sure the House would give him leave, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I'm sure the House would.

May I point out to the Hon. Member that where a report has

been presented by the chairman, if there are any minutes to be

entered in the House, that must be done in the report by

resolution of the committee in the committee itself. We know

nothing of what happens in the committee and it should be

contained in the report.

I would refer you to Speakers'

Decisions in that regard.

Speaker Whittaker — now Mr. Justice Whittaker — in the

Journals , 1943, at page 56,

his decision is found in Vol. 3 of

our Speakers' Decisions at

page 39. If you look at that you'll

see that the committee must….

MR. CHABOT: Page?

MR. SPEAKER: Page 39 of Vol. 3 of our Speakers'

Decisions .

I point out that before this House can deal with the

question of any minutes of evidence, you must include it in

your report, and it must be appended to your report with a

resolution showing that any minutes of evidence were to be

submitted to the House.

That has not been done. That not being done, there is no

further business before the House.

MR. CHABOT: Speaking to the presentation of the report….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There's nothing to speak to.

MR. CHABOT: I'd like to ask leave to table the minutes of

the committee on privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It would be irregular to do it

unless the committee resolved to do it and the committee

included it in the report which is read and received by this

House on a motion. Now, can you say that that is so?

MR. CHABOT: Shall leave be granted?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member inform the

House, who were not present in the committee? (Laughter.) Would

the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: I'm sure it would be very informative to the

House to have these minutes, and I'm sure someone will make the

necessary move to ensure that there's enlightenment in this

House of what took place in that committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move we proceed to orders of the

day.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, report on public

bills and orders. Report on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT

Bill 7 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 11 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

Bill 40 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 48, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1382 ]

DEPARTMENT OF

CONSUMER SERVICES ACT

Bill 48 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM CORPORATION ACT

Bill 70 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 33

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Curtis

Wallace

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

WEED CONTROL ACT

Bill 71 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

Bill 75 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MINES REGULATION ACT

Bill 80 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

MEDICAL CENTRE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 81 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT, 1964

Bill 82 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 95, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE COAL MINES REGULATION ACT

Bill 95 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 100, Mr. Speaker.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 100 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 107, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MINERAL LAND TAX ACT

Bill 107 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 99, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

House in committee on Bill 99; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive, approved.

Title approved.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

[ Page 1383 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 99,

An Act to Amend the

Motor-Vehicle Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 113, Mr. Speaker.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): A point of

order,

Mr. Speaker. Is it not usual to ask leave of the House to go

through two steps of a bill within the one day?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if we do, but this was not on report.

Rather, this was not an amendment to this bill today. It's

actually one step. If we come across that, I would certainly

ask leave of the House, and if the Members will refer it to me,

I will do so at the time if there's any problem of going

through two stages in the same day.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT

House in committee on Bill 113; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Insurance): 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 113,

An Act to Amend the

Vital Statistics Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time, and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 115, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE COMPANIES ACT

House in committee on Bill 115; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I move that the

committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 115,

An Act to Amend the

Companies Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 116, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

House in committee on Bill 116; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria):

Section 2 (a). This is a

curious

section in light of the argument put forward by the

government yesterday dealing with confidential relationships.

May I ask whether "two-way" would apply to caucus employees of

the NDP backbench?

Interjection.

Section 2 approved.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The previous Act called for the

commissioners to have experience within the public service for

10 years. I wonder whether the Minister would like to indicate

the reason for the change — whether there's been some

dissatisfaction with the previous practice. What are his plans

in terms of continuing to have people on the commission who

have had experience of actually operating as civil

servants?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): The fact of the matter

at the moment, Mr. Chairman, is that the Civil Service

Commission is a three-man commission of which we have lost

two; and at the moment it is operating under some severe

restrictions. Namely, we have lost the services of Mr. J.

Edward Brown upon his retirement, and we've lost the services

of Mr.

[ Page 1384 ]

Rickenson on his retirement. They were the two

commissioners, and Mr. Art Richardson is the commissioner.

It is our intention, as you know, to have five — and we are

opening it up to people who do not necessarily just have 10

years' experience in the civil service or in the service of the

province. We are hoping to certainly make sure that the

majority of the five members are indeed time-serving,

experienced people, but I'm hoping to have at least one who has

got some experience from outside, some experience with some of

the more determined and hard-nosed bargaining tactics and

procedures that we know they are going to have to face in the

coming years.

I think that somebody who has had some experience in dealing

with the trade union movement, particularly in the public

sector, such as CUPE or some other association which is not a

public element would be useful addition to that commission. I

have no particular people in mind. That, I think, would be up

to the…. That's the best answer I can give to the Member at

this point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then it's three-two; three with

experience and two from outside.

HON. MR. HALL: Oh, it's certainly not less than three from

inside. It will more likely be four-to-one — much more likely

four-and-one.

Section 4 approved.

Sections 5 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I don't quite understand

section 15. It

appears to me that if someone is put on the redundant list, or

if there is not a job for them at the moment, they go into some

pool or other. What I want to know is whether they continue to

remain as civil servants during such time as they are awaiting

reassignment. It might mean that they are simply left without

pay, for example. I doubt it, but it might mean that they were

left without pay during that period when you are searching for

another slot to slip them in. I wonder whether the Minister

will comment on 15.

HON. MR. HALL: They will remain in the service. They will be

so classified and of course will have to be reported by

departmental paper to the Treasury Board, for one thing. I know

it's a little bit bureaucratic, but we have to make sure that

these people surface in some way or another.

It is very important that the organizational plans of any

department, once accepted by Treasury Board, are adhered to, and

shifting of plans, which may cause the creation of supernumeraries, are

dealt with in as speedy a fashion as possible. This ensures

notification, they're kept on strength with a transfer as and when

vacancies occur. But that shoulders a monthly charge — probably against

about 81, I think it is, in the Finance department. That little extra

piece of change…. We have about 81 in the Finance department — which

is some millions of dollars.

Sections 15 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I noticed in the copy of

The Provincial , dated

September, 1973, an

article which said

that there is going to be…. And this article's entitled

"Sorry, Canadians Only Need Apply."

"Provincial employees who aren't Canadian citizens

have two

months to obtain citizenship or face dismissal from the

government service." And there have been instances during the

last year of people in the Highways department having been

released because they were not Canadian citizens. It goes on to

say:

"That's the word from the civil service commission in

its September 7 letter to the union, and it

says, 'The commission's policy with respect to non-citizens

already employed is that they be given two months' notice to

obtain citizenship and if they do not obtain it in this time,

they be released.'"

This

section here continues along that line, as it goes for

preference for Canadian citizens, and it goes on to talk about

"no qualified Canadian citizens applying for the position…the

commission may appoint another person as a temporary

appointment."

As I understand the

section it would mean that just as soon

as a Canadian turned up with the qualifications, the previous

person, who might well be a landed immigrant — he might be

approaching citizenship — would be released. Yesterday we

discussed at some length the human rights code which prohibited

discrimination on the grounds of place of origin. I wonder

whether we're not in a conflict here in a situation where a

person has been employed because of failure to find a Canadian

qualified; then they're employed by the civil service, they

have every intention of becoming a Canadian citizen, but they

cannot become one until their time is up, and they would then

be released if a Canadian turned up.

I would think that under the human rights code, they might

well have cause for complaint. In light of the fact that we

passed that bill in this Legislature only yesterday, I wonder

whether the Minister would like to comment on the difficulties

that are going to be faced.

[ Page 1385 ]

While he's on his feet, perhaps he'd comment upon the people

who are British subjects — in the previous Act we had British

subjects or Canadian citizens — who maybe have been employed by

the government for many years but for emotional reasons or any

other have failed to give up their British subject status and

have failed to take out Canadian papers. Will those people be

required to take out papers, even though they may have 20, 25

or 35 years service with the British Columbia provincial civil

service?

HON. MR. HALL: I think there are three parts to the

question. May I say, first of all, that we've moved a bit more

speedily than I thought we would have done this morning and

I've only just got the note that the civil service

commissioner, who I thought should be on the floor of the

chamber today, has just arrived — in case I need any help.

His question No. 1 dealt with a newspaper story or a

magazine story in the official journal of the B.C. Government

Employees Union. I'm advised that that story is incorrect. It's

not a correct translation of the policy. I'm assured that it's

not really a correct translation of the letter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There was a quotation from the

letter.

HON. MR. HALL: Yes. However, let's leave that to one side

for a moment. I don't think I should be brought to task in a

way about what a union newspaper says about something when

we've got the Act in front of us. We'll clear that up some

other way, but I'm having it investigated in case there was an

ambiguity in the letter from the civil service commission to

the union.

The second question was: does

section 49 mean that a person,

who has some particular qualifications that cannot be found

among the Canadian citizens in British Columbia, once employed,

may lose his or her job because somebody comes along who has

the capabilities? The answer to that is no. I think there are

two meanings to the word "temporary." There's permanent

temporary in the sense of the classification, and there's

temporary in the sense of time.

I think you're reading it in the sense of time, that the

person's only there as a temporary affair — temporary in the

sense of one day, two days, three days. Is he or she there in

the case of "not permanent," which is a classification?

However, there would be no vacancy and they would not lose

their job because somebody suddenly turned up brandishing a

sheaf of qualifications. Once the competition is finalized, the

competition is finalized. They must have some security of

tenure, so the answer is no.

Thirdly, is there any discrimination in terms of the Human Rights

Act? I think not. There's a preference here. Now that may be

discrimination on the positive side. I don't want to get into semantic

debates with the Member, who has shown himself rather adept at semantic

debates. But it seems to me that if we can't expect that the service of

this province and this country be staffed by members, citizens of this

province and this country, I really don't…. I think that that's the

first call on the public purse. If that's discrimination, all right, so

be it.

The last question is: will somebody who now is simply a

British subject and not a Canadian citizen lose their job by

virtue of the fact of that? The answer is no. But in future,

all employment will be based on Canadian citizens

preference.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No retroactivity?

HON. MR. HALL: No retroactivity whatsoever.

Sections 49 to 60 inclusive approved.

section 61.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 61 deals with suspension. In this

section, the Minister and, in his absence, the Deputy

Minister:

"may suspend from the performance of his duty any

employee

who is guilty of misconduct, negligence, or incompetence in the

performance of his duty, or who is charged with a criminal

offence that would render him unsuitable to perform his

duty."

I realize it's a very difficult thing, but I wonder whether

or not this violates the principle that a person remains

innocent until proven guilty and whether or not this type of

decision for a man to be pulled out of his job at the time he's

charged — maybe quite incorrectly charged — would not again be

an attack upon the person and a denial of natural justice. I

don't know whether it's a standard provision in the previous

Act; I didn't notice it when I looked at the previous Act. I

wonder whether the Minister would comment upon that.

HON. MR. HALL: I think, Mr. Member, that this is taken from

the kind of language that was used in the Public Schools Act ,

whereby we felt that if a person was charged with a serious

offence, we should render to that person some protection until

the disposition of the case. There's no suggestion here that if

found innocent there wouldn't be full restitution in every

sense of the word plus retroactivity. I think that's the

genesis of the suspension section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But the immediately following paragraph,

Mr. Minister, points out that

[ Page 1386 ]

he'll lose his pay when charged, as of the time of

being

charged, not as of the time of being convicted. While I agree

that if he's innocent he'll get the money that's owed to him,

it seems a little unjust to go after a fellow when charged but

not convicted to have his pay stopped as of the time that he is

charged. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I'm on 62, but the two

sections really must be taken together.

HON. MR. HALL: I think

section 61 deals with the salary that

can be paid even if the person is found guilty. But I think if

the person is found innocent, there's no suggestion is there,

in 62, that anything other than full restitution take

place?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What point, in finding he isn't guilty,

would…?

HON. MR. HALL: It's the Minister, Deputy Minister or the

public service grievance board and that means that it's got

full collective bargaining for those members of the public

service. They would come under the public service grievance

board, as indeed would members not on collective bargaining. So

you've got the grievance board, which is comprised of one

person representing the employee, one the employer and then the

chairman.

Sections 61 to 67 inclusive approved.

section 68.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have an amendment to put in after

section 67 with consistent renumbering. It's in my name on the

order paper and I'll give it to you here. The purpose of this,

Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that in no way an employee, a

civil servant, is denied his right to take

part in an election,

to become a candidate, to work for someone and to contribute

money to someone.

The only restrictions I place on this in my amendment is

that the candidate for election doesn't do these things at the

time he is on the public payroll, and that he doesn't make use

of his position in the civil service to canvass for votes.

This

section is a particularly important one because while

the Human Rights Act grants

people rights in terms of political

belief, this

section deals with political activity and there's

a distinction there.

The Hon. Premier has often mentioned that he got fired for

political beliefs. I think he's wrong; he got fired for

political activity.

It is that point that I wish to raise in this amendment. I

am delighted to see that cheerful smile on the Provincial

Secretary's face which indicates that he is going to accept

this.

It is a good provision, granting full political rights to civil

servants. I trust that this amendment, and with your indulgence, the

consequent amendment in 69, which simply declares that an employee who

is declared elected as a Member of the Legislature or Member of

Parliament simply ceases to become an employee as of the time that he

is declared elected.

I would, therefore, move this amendment.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all assure

the Member that we are in total agreement with the principle

underlying his amendment. In fact, that is already policy as

announced by the Treasury Board to the Civil Service Commission

immediately we took over this office — in case there was any

misunderstanding left or any doubt in anybody's mind.

It is our view that this is covered by the Human Rights Act ,

as mentioned by the Member. But more specifically, we believe

this kind of amendment or statement should indeed cover all the

workers of the province, not just the civil service. It is our

intention to incorporate the body, the principle, which is well

enunciated by the Member for Victoria in the elections Act

which we think is the proper statute for that to find itself

in. Therefore, giving that Member that assurance, I will not

accept, on behalf of the government, the amendment at this

time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Hon.

Provincial Secretary's words. In my view the Human Rights Act

deals more with political belief than it does with political

activity.

AN HON. MEMBER: The elections Act.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, no. He mentioned the Human Rights Act

as well as the elections Act. It is this point which is

important. The Hon. Premier has often talked about political

belief. In actual fact, his political beliefs, had he kept them

to himself, would never have worried the previous

administration or his immediate employer, had he kept them to

himself. It was political activity that he found himself in

difficulty over.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who said that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: According to your own statements.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. You don't know the case.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, had you kept your views to

yourself, then obviously no one was going to catch you on

political activity.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I don't want

[ Page 1387 ]

to take the House's time, but I will show you how

unfair

they were with me — and I'll stake this job on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we realize, Mr. Chairman, that the

Premier often regrets this job. He's always talking about his

previous profession and we are going to do our best to put him

back into it. (Laughter.)

As far as the statement….

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've never left it, although you're a more

difficult caseload.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As far as the suggestion by the

Provincial Secretary that it should be in the elections Act,

and this Act only deals with civil servants, well that's

perfectly correct; it is only the Civil

Service Act . Why

shouldn't we put it in here now? When the elections Act comes

up — God knows when it is coming up, I don't know. Perhaps I

shouldn't say God. Perhaps He knows as well as some Members of

the government. I don't know when it is coming up. Perhaps we

could put this in, and if there happens to be a civil servant

who wishes to be a candidate in a by-election — who knows? — it

might come up in the next few months. That person will then be

protected by this amendment well before the elections Act is

amended — unless the Minister wishes to suggest that the

elections Act is coming up right away. I would think this would

be a useful thing. It would do no harm. I am glad to see you

now looking much more agreeable to this suggestion.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I raised this with the

Provincial Secretary myself because I do have a peculiar

interest. And I want to thank the Hon. Member for Victoria for

bringing this amendment forward.

The answer I got from the Provincial Secretary, which I

accept as valid, is that this same protection should be given

to all employees — that no one, regardless of where they work,

should they wish to run, should be discriminated against. We

should encourage people from the private sector and from the

public sector to stand for office. That protection should be

for all people.

In the instance between now and the elections Act if there is a

by-election and there is a civil servant who is caught in this squeeze,

I want to announce publicly that it will be government policy to ensure

that that civil servant is protected. If that affects your potential

candidate in North Vancouver–Capilano, please convey to him or her that

they will be given leave of absence without pay. I would hope the

private sector would follow the same policy, and we will write it in

the elections Act. To put it just in this Act alone doesn't go far

enough. So I accept the Provincial Secretary's assurance; I thank the

Member for his amendment. I am looking forward to the action from the

Provincial Secretary.

Amendment negatived.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I withdraw the amendment standing in my

name on the order paper which I believe I sent to you — 69

makes no sense without 68.

Sections 68 and 69 approved.

section 70.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to add another

section

between

section 69 and 70, which you will find on the order

paper. This deals with a problem that we face from time to

time, in particular when governments change. That is: you have

people who have been employed in a confidential capacity by a

Minister, or indeed by the Leader of the Opposition or some

other person who is considered to be political. The person may

have been employed for many years in this capacity. Suddenly,

despite the fact that they have been operating as a somewhat

glorified civil servant, they get turfed out on their ear.

I am not suggesting anybody who has taken a political

appointment should not recognize the fact that there are risks

involved. I do feel there are people who are perfectly

qualified who have been working in Ministers' offices — I can

think of people working for the present cabinet who are

excellent people, good choices, who, if the cabinet and

government were defeated, might well be thrown out on their

ear. This should not happen.

In my view they should be given the option if they are

qualified, to come into the provincial service at a level

equivalent to what they had before. Obviously, if they are not

qualified, simply got their job because they were a friend of

the Minister or had known him for a number of years, or because

they do his constituency work, you are dealing with something

else.

But where you are dealing with a particularly competent and

capable person, and the Civil Service Commission feels that the

person could be usefully employed to the benefit of the public

of British Columbia in the civil service, despite the change of

government, in my view, that person should have some

opportunity of getting into the provincial service.

I would like to add a new

section 70 which points out that a

Minister may appoint his executive assistant and other persons

required in his office, and a person who is so hired ceases to

be an employee 30

[ Page 1388 ]

days after the Minister is defeated but they can,

within a

year, be appointed without competition and in priority to other

people who have had none of this government experience to a

position in the public service for which in the opinion of the

commission that person is qualified.

The reasons for this, of course, are that the Civil Service

Commission has the control over who comes in. It's not an

automatic right. We, therefore, will gain, I believe, competent

people in the civil service who might otherwise simply be lost

to the government.

I might also add that this would apply to a person working

for an opposition party as well as the government party.

HON. MR. HALL: This sums up the difference of viewpoint, I

guess, Mr. Chairman. The government doesn't find this amendment

acceptable. We believe that those good people who will become

cabinet Ministers' executive assistants, who become caucus

assistants or research officers….

MR. GARDOM: Or the hacks.

HON. MR. HALL: Or the hacks, if you like — the ones you've

been catcalling about, the ones you've been raising questions

about, about the salaries and all that sort of thing. We

believe they are political animals, Mr. Chairman, and they live

and die with their Ministers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You are not supposed to swear in this

House. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. HALL: As far as I am concerned the philosophies of

this government are different from the last one. It's different

from the mandarins that hung around Ottawa for 40 and 50 years.

We believe this government should be served by the best

possible people it can get — identified as good people, as

political people and they live and die with this

government.

That's why we have been open about it. That's why we have

put up with some of the rubbish that's come over from the other

side of the House. If we wanted to waste the time of the House,

we'd go through the Acts, we'd go through the lists, and we'd

find all the people who have been buried, all the people that

are still hanging on to bits of jobs because we decided that we

would start the way right and not go on a punitive course

that's already been threatened by people on the other side to

the people who are in this category that is referred to.

It is a difference of philosophy and we don't accept it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One speaker at a time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the reference to "hacks" is

understandable, but it is inappropriate to this amendment. The

amendment is to deal with competent people. I am quite sure the

Attorney General has competent people in his office. I don't

think that his assistant is anything but competent. The same

with the Provincial Secretary.

I'm not dealing with political appointments who perhaps got

their jobs for other reasons. That's clear and I hope that's

fully understood. But when a person comes in and, through no

fault of his own, the government is defeated, there may well be

a situation where he would like to continue in the civil

service because that's essentially the type of work he has been

carrying on. His abilities, I don't think, should be lost to

the civil service if he so wishes.

The control mechanism is, of course, the Civil Service

Commission. If the fellow or woman cannot read or write, I

presume the Civil Service Commission might turn him or her

down. If the person is unqualified, they will turn him down.

But where the person is someone whom the Civil Service

Commission thinks to be usefully employed, why should they not

be given this opportunity of entry at a level commensurate with

their experience and ability?

Amendment negatived.

Sections 70 to 78 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: 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 116, Public Service Act ,

reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on a great bill, Mr. Speaker,

COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

FUND APPROPRIATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 117; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

[ Page 1389 ]

section 1.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree

with the Premier that this is a great bill. I think it's one of

the best bills this government has brought in. Members can

haw-haw as they like on any side of the House; so far as I'm

concerned this is a tremendous bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: I'm not a little biased for Oak Bay has

probably done as well as any community in the whole province in

deriving money from this fund. I admit that openly…

AN HON. MEMBER: No politics. No politics.

MR. WALLACE: …and say that I'm very pleased and think

it's a good bill. I'll even go further, Mr. Premier, and pay

you the personal compliment of a statement you made yesterday

in debate when I was out of the House on another committee….

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't do that; I'll break down in tears if

they…. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: You reconsidered a situation on a compatible

and comparable form of recreation, namely the playing of golf

and the situation facing our golf courses. The Premier has made

a statement which at least shows that he seriously reconsidered

the position he took in this House not too long ago. I think on

an issue such as recreation, and on an endeavour to get people

out and get them involved in physical fitness programmes and in

any kind of outdoor sport, this is a preventive medicine aim

and it will have that very realistic result, I'm sure.

I just want to go clearly on record as supporting this bill

and also recognizing the fact that the Premier has made a

statement showing that he's aware, as a result of a lot of

information put before him by individuals right across the

province — this was not any pressure group; it was a

cross-section of many, many people who put the evidence to the

Premier — and he changed his position accordingly. I think that

that deserves recognition in this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I made it very clear though

what the requirements were….

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): February 14.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Beg pardon? Oh, it's not Valentine's Day.

February 22, George Washington's birthday. A filibuster? (Laughter.) I

was almost going to move the committee rise. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, the conditions are: 1. It must be dedicated forever as

open space; that is, the golf course….

AN HON. MEMBER: How long is that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Forever? About as long as we'll be in

government. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That won't be long.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That won't be long?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): That's only three

years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

section 1 of the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they haven't replaced their

divots.

1. That it remain in perpetuity as an open space, preferably

as a golf course. If they ever abandon the use of the golf

course, then as a park. As long as it is not subdivided.

2. That it be open to the public. Now, this poses a problem

to the exclusive private clubs. They've got to decide how

they're going to handle this. I'm open to proposals and I'd be

interested in hearing their proposals how they hope to handle

it.

For instance, if they tell the government that there is a

section set aside for lawn bowling for senior citizens and

other activities, and they make a case that they are open to

the public on a reasonable basis, then we're willing to listen.

The first requirement is a must for all of us.

The spontaneous request from the community was very

interesting. When I asked for community expression I got it,

and the main argument was the environmental one. We buy it on

that basis.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a couple of questions. I

must say that the official opposition is certainly in favour of

this bill, and we'll take all the money we can get in

Langley.

There are provisions in the Municipal

Act presently which

allow for the freezing of taxation for golf courses. In light

of your comments, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, are

those provisions going to be kept, because the conditions

certainly aren't as stringent as those that you've suggested in

the House today and last night?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. The designation that exists in the

Municipal Act will be kept,

But I do not believe that all

taxpayers should subsidize a specific activity that's

privately-owned. I'm not being rigid

[ Page 1390 ]

about it; if they wish to come and present a case

of a

guaranteed minimum time and availability, then we'll write it

in legislation and protect them right across the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: But you're saying they can still apply under

the Municipal Act .

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, they can still apply under the

Municipal Act , sure. Very few

of them have done that, but we

make it more available.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Premier, just a point of interest. I am

quite in accord with your provisions except that I see a

technical matter here.

Each golf course has a capacity. If you're going to extend

the membership completely wide open, it will virtually become

useless because nobody will be able to play unless by

appointment so many days ahead. I wonder if this

transgresses?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a problem

right now. That's why I said yesterday, "first come first

served on the time available." I don't want the House to govern

or create solutions or try to find solutions for each golf

course's problem. They have a different traffic pattern. They

must have an association out there; I would welcome the

association or group of people to come together and advise the

government how to handle this. If they haven't got room and

they make the case that they haven't got room, that's fine,

that's understandable.

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

we could move away from the specifics of golf courses for just

a moment. When we were discussing this in second reading

yesterday there was one point which I neglected to mention.

It's a pleasure to every once in a while be able to compliment

the government when one feels that it is acting in a correct

and proper manner.

We do see evidences of bureaucratic hang-ups and delays from

time to time. I would like to speak to the House, through you,

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the speed with which the

applications have been processed. One could be cynical and

suggest that it's a speed that would be reminiscent of the few

weeks before a general election is held, but that obviously was

not the case. To the best of my knowledge, as applications were

received they were processed by the appropriate departments and

the grants were approved with all possible haste. I think that

is a matter of some importance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Hon. Member. I want to

say that we resisted the temptation to use this as a political

vehicle as has been the pattern in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ho hum.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ho hum. Well, they can say that all they

want.

The Minister has accepted the applications on the dates that

they've come, processed them adequately and not used them as a

political vehicle. Nor is there any question of requests from

the riding and nor do we find situations where government MLAs

announced projects in opposition Members' ridings. We're not

going to call an election just because we've got this bill in

the House — that's another thing.

On top of that, as a matter of fact, I would hope that when

these facilities are open, the local MLA, regardless of party,

would be invited; and when the opening ceremony is there, that

the local MLA, regardless of party, is up there on the platform

as a person who helped get the job done. I've got 12 years of

openings in my riding. Mind you, there were so few in my riding

because of other reasoning….

MR. PHILLIPS: Poor MLA.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Poor MLA. The former Minister of Highways,

one P.A. Gaglardi, came into my riding and said to the chamber

of commerce, who I don't get too many votes from, "If you keep

on voting for Barrett you ain't going to get wolves in this

riding." That's what he said. And where is Phil today? He's out

working for delegates. I'm pleased with this bill, Mr.

Chairman.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: 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 117, Community Recreational

Facilities Fund

Appropriation Act , reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 118, Mr. Speaker.

WEATHER MODIFICATION

ACTIVITY ACT

House in committee on Bill 118; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

[ Page 1391 ]

Title approved.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): 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 118, Weather Modification

Activity Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 119, Mr. Speaker.

House in committee on Bill 119; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to

6 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 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 119, Vancouver Enabling Act,

1973 , reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 120, Mr. Speaker.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT,

1973 (SECOND SESSION)

The House in committee on Bill 120; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Attorney General promised the

Legislature, Mr. Chairman, that he would sing for his supper in

this bill, and we expect to receive from him an explanation of

all of the sections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All of the sections?

MR. GARDOM: Right.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In explanation of the first section, No.

1 speaks for itself.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. GARDOM: Explain

section 2.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It speaks for itself.

MR. GARDOM: We heard that last year and we found out that we

lost the PNE overnight. (Laughter.) I just want to make sure

that we don't find Vancouver amalgamating with Pouce Coupe or

some small subtlety like that, which is just a minor type of

amendment. So I tend to think that….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is your lawyer?

MR. GARDOM: That's a professional confidence, and the poor

fellow is not in the best of retainer these days, anyway, so I

perhaps couldn't suggest that. But I would like to hear from

the Hon. Attorney General on this

section and on the other one.

I think he owes it to the Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman,

section 2 in (

a) and (

b) clarifies the Automobile Insurance

Act by making it very clear

that we can't affect contracts made, say, in the City of

Toronto or somewhere else. It's merely clarification. The

repeal of clause (g), which is well known to this House, of

section 49 is simply done because that

section is also in the

Motor-vehicle Act as

section 2. It's supererogatory,

therefore.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. GARDOM: The Credit

Unions Act appears continuously

through the bill so maybe one general explanation would suffice

for all of the Members and we could take it mutatis mutandis

from that point on.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the Member

asked about this because it is an exciting departure in that we

are making credit unions equal to banks in respect to receiving

money. Sometimes they are just ordinary deposits — like the

City of Vancouver can use the credit union to deposit money in,

just as it can use the Royal Bank of Canada

[ Page 1392 ]

or some other bank.

Sometimes it's trust funds, as you will see in some of the

sections, which can be deposited in credit unions. In a whole

range of Acts we are equating the credit union movement of this

province, which is a very stable, expanding and exciting

movement, with private commercial enterprises in terms of their

ability to receive deposits, whether just ordinary bank

deposits or, as I say, trust funds of real estate agents and

things of that kind. There are a whole bunch of sections like

that.

MR. GARDOM: I think it would be useful to the Members, Mr.

Chairman, if the Attorney General explained — and since this is

quite a departure from…what will I say?…accepted

banking methods and principles, I think it's a good one — but I

think it would be very useful if the Attorney General would

explain to the Members and to the people of the province

whether or not there are any restrictions upon the lending

capacities of credit unions, and to what extent.

I gather that they have a far greater leeway in lending

rights than do banks. Is it true that they can lend on

deposits? Is it true that they can lend on anticipated

receivables?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, the credit union

movement, of course, is subject to the inspector of credit

unions, who is a provincial government employee. And they're

subject to the Credit Union Reserve Board and its rules and

regulations with respect to lending. Of course that board also

reinsures all of the loans and deposits made within the credit

union movement. That's the blanket of control and safety which

is similar to, say, the Bank Act

of Canada applying to

commercial banks.

MR. GARDOM: Are they all subject to the Canada Deposit

Insurance Corporation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: None of them are. They're thinking about

that.

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: None of them are, but that is one way

the credit union movement might go — the insurance on the first

$20,000 of deposits. At the moment the insurance is all through

the Credit Union Reserve Board, but we are thinking in terms of

a new Credit Unions Act . One

of the matters that's being

discussed within the credit union movement is whether or not

they should also take advantage of that federal

legislation.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I strongly recommend that they do so, Mr.

Chairman, to the Attorney General, because at least we did find in the

Commonwealth Trust situation that people who did have deposits were

protected to the extent of this $20,000. It's very, very valuable

protection and I think the credit union movement should certainly do

everything within their power to see that depositors receive that kind

of protection under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River):

Section 5, Mr. Chairman,

is the

section that places in the hands of the Minister

expropriation powers which previously rested with the

responsibility of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It means

now that the Minister of Public Works, on his own initiative,

is placed in a position of sole responsibility for the purpose

of expropriation. It appears to be a continuation of the trend

for central power in the hands of Ministers, moving it not only

away from this Legislature, as we've seen from time to time,

but now we see it being moved away from the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet.

It is a consolidation of power, tremendous power, awesome

power, in the hands of individual cabinet Ministers in this

section 5. It has been indicated very clearly and very well put

by the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) just last night

when we were discussing in committee a particular matter

relative to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan). He said, very eloquently, that the Minister got

all mixed up in the heat of debate. He suggested that in the

heat of debate that Minister was all mixed up.

I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I consider that the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is all mixed up

without the heat of debate. These are tremendous powers to give

to a Minister, who I consider to be all mixed up, and they

shouldn't be included in

section 120.

I remember full well the hue and cry from that little

government over there when they sat over here, when certain

powers of this description were sought by the Department of

Rehabilitation and Social Welfare. There was a tremendous

scream at these awesome powers. Now that they're government we

see it time and again, removing powers from the Legislative

Assembly, removing powers from the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and placing them in the hands of

one cabinet Minister.

This

section should not pass and should not be included in

this omnibus bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Minister already

[ Page 1393 ]

has the power to expropriate; there is no change in

that

respect. At the moment, every little purchase, every

construction of a shack in the course of public works has

to go through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is

just to enable those small matters to take place without going

through the process of an order-in-council in terms of a very

small purchase or a very small construction project. That's the

reason for the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: The Attorney General has suggested that these

powers are here to resolve any little matter. These powers

apply to the full power of expropriation, regardless of whether

it's small, medium or large. I suspect that the cabinet meets

twice a week, and I would think the powers should remain with

the cabinet rather than with the Minister. I think that's more

appropriate than taking on these abundant powers in the hands

of one Minister.

Section 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 13

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Curtis

Wallace

MR. CHABOT: When reporting to the Speaker, would you please

inform him that a division took place on

section 5 and ask

leave for recording the division in the Journals of the

House?

Sections 6 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that the division which

occurred on

section 6 be reported to the Speaker and he be asked if we

may have leave from him to record the names and how people voted.

MR. CHABOT: There was no division on

section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Five, five.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports the bill complete

without amendment and further reports that a division took

place in committee on

section 5 and asks leave of the House

that this be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Bill 120, Statute Law Amendment

Act, 1973 (Second Session) ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

AND COMMUNICATIONS ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea)

adjourned the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here.

MR. SPEAKER: The floor is open. The Hon. Member for

Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's

quite some time ago that we adjourned debate on this bill. As I

recall the proceedings on the day the Minister introduced the

bill, he referred to it, as usual, as a simple, little,

housekeeping bill. Some housekeeping this is!

The Minister also referred to the report on communications

from the federal people. We have no quarrel with that report in

that

section where the Minister said that the provincial

government could have a role in the regulation of

telecommunications to a certain degree.

But that report also said that there must be a national

dimension maintained in any kind of a role that the provincial

government has. I would suggest that that must be very

carefully maintained at all

[ Page 1394 ]

times.

The Minister also referred to an organization of

communications Ministers which he indicated was happening. But

it's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government

has not agreed to any kind of a formal organization of

communications Ministers. In fact, the federal government has

been very clear that it will only entertain at this time an

informal arrangement, strictly informal. So the communications

Ministers of Canada are still a very informal group without any

recognition. They're still illegitimate as far as the federal

government is concerned.

I don't have the same degree of confidence in the Minister

that the Conservative House Leader (Mr. Wallace) expressed in

the debate on this bill. There is this same insidious thread

running through all of this government's bills, Mr. Speaker.

One hates to continue using the same terms, but there's no

other way that you can do it except to say that this bill, like

many other of the bills that have been presented in this

session of the Legislature, rests total power once again in the

hands of the Minister without any reference to this

Legislature. It also gives the Minister title to unrestricted

spending, once again, Mr. Speaker, without any reference to

this Legislature.

The concern has been expressed on many occasions in this

House that we're rapidly becoming a meaningless body because of

this thread that has been running through the legislation put

forward by this socialist government, that thread of total

power and total authority to unlimited spending without

reference to the Legislature.

There seems once again to be an incredible hunger, Mr.

Speaker, to intrude into the private sector in all matters with

which this government concerns itself. Once again it has been

given an open door to the Treasury to pour taxpayers' money

down the drain in all kinds of endeavours, including those

endeavours which do deal with both communications and

transport.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) referred to the fact

that the bill gives the Minister power to enter into all kinds

of arrangements and to take over all kinds of private

businesses without reference either to the Legislature or to

any kind of fair play or compensation. The Member for Cariboo

referred specifically to Greyhound Bus Lines and wondered if

the Minister has the right under this bill to take over

Greyhound. If so, the new slogan for Greyhound Lines might be,

"Go Greyhound and leave the driving to Super-Bob."

I wonder which business the Minister does have his eyes on at this

time. I wonder too, Mr. Speaker, looking at this bill, where this

government's director of transit fits into all of the deliberations.

Victor Parker made a statement to the City of Vancouver not too long

ago that the government planned to get into the business of

trans-oceanic cruise ships. When we asked that question in the House of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) we were told that

it was a big joke, that there wasn't any plan to get into that kind of

business.

But now we see this bill, and certainly this bill allows the

government to get into that kind of business. I wonder why the

director of transit made those comments to the City of

Vancouver if he didn't in fact know that this bill was coming

up. Perhaps we are going to get into the transoceanic cruise

ship business.

Mr. Speaker, if the ferry system is any example of the

management expertise of this Minister, any future endeavours

that this government might get into are in serious trouble.

Is rapid transit going to be brought under this department?

It would seem that it's in the wrong area right now in the

Municipal Affairs Department. Considering the terms of this

bill, is the Minister going to be the Minister of rapid

transit as well as the Minister of ferries and the Minister of

greyhound buses and the Minister of television stations and the

Minister of radio stations and the Minister of local

newspapers?

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wasn't aware that the Minister had been

appointed high commissioner to Scotland. Is that correct, Mr.

Member? No? Oh, it's coming.

Why does the bill establish transportation and communication

services for departments of the government? What does that

mean: "establish transportation and communication services for

departments :of the government."? Is each department now going

to have its own propaganda mill? Does that mean we're going to

have a jet for every Minister now instead of just for flying

Bill?

It seems that the Minister is going to have the power, Mr.

Speaker, to get into the television business as well, at least

through cablevision. I think we have a right to ask in this

House what the Minister's plans are in the area of

cablevision.

There's a great danger, Mr. Speaker, in regard to government

involvement in this area, particularly government involvement

by this government which has shown that it cannot be trusted in

many areas. I certainly don't believe that it can be trusted in

the area of cablevision.

Has the government, and will the Minister tell us, Mr.

Speaker, whether the government has entered negotiations with

Ottawa regarding the division of communications jurisdiction

with the province? Mr. Speaker, I don't only want this Minister

to tell me whether he's been involved with Ottawa in those

negotiations; has any Minister or any person from this

[ Page 1395 ]

government been involved with Ottawa regarding the

division

of communications jurisdiction with the province?

Has the government entered into negotiations with Ottawa

either through the Canadian Radio and Television Commission or

through some other independent agency or person? Has the

government entered into negotiations to develop a

provincially-operated CATV service?

Many of the members of this government, Mr. Speaker, have

shown a great degree of interest in cablevision. I include

backbenchers and cabinet Ministers as well. To quote, Mr.

Speaker, from the Vancouver Province , headed, "Cablevision

Takeover Tops MLA's Want List:"

"B.C. should take over cablevision stations, natural

gas

production and distribution systems, and get into the recycling

business, an NDP Member told the Legislature Wednesday. Harold

Steves of Richmond, speaking during the budget debate, said the

first step in the cable TV takeover should come through

regulation of existing operations under a government-controlled

B.C. Telephone Company. He said the government could use the

phone company as its agent to regulate lease arrangements for

cablevision stations and eventually they would be taken

over."

Here's another quote from The Vancouver Sun , headed, "Cable

TV Profit Study, Macdonald Tells Legislature."

"The government is looking very carefully at the cable

television business and the considerable profits it makes,

Attorney General Alex Macdonald said Wednesday. 'We are

actively studying and pursuing that subject. We want to know

exactly what our powers are."' We'd like to know what those

powers are as well."

Here's another item from the Victoria

Times . "B.C. Wants To

Control Cablevision," it's headed.

"The provincial government wants to acquire control of

telephone and cablevision services in order to reduce rates and

improve services in outlying areas of the province. Public

Works Minister Bill Hartley today released a statement which is

a reply to a position paper developed by Gerard Pelletier, the

federal Minister of Communications. Hartley said the province

is interested in obtaining jurisdiction over telephone and

cablevision facilities because rates being charged are too high

and quality is too low."

So there has been a lot of activity and a lot of interest

expressed by the Members of this government dealing with the

subject of the takeover of cablevision in the Province of

British Columbia. I believe that we deserve an answer to the

question of whether or not active negotiations have taken place

in fact with Ottawa and whether or not those negotiations have

developed

into any kind of a programme which the Minister will announce

in closing debate on this bill.

Private cable operators, Mr. Speaker, have come in for a lot

of abuse by the Members of the NDP backbench and the

government. But it's not generally known that British Columbia

has been a world leader in the development and promotion of

community antenna television systems. Canada is one of the most

heavily cabled countries per capita in the world right now. The

B.C. pioneers can take a good deal of credit for the rapid

growth of CATV services not only in our own area but all over

the world.

There are over six million Canadians now viewing their

family television sets via cable. Victoria and Vancouver are

the most heavily cabled of them all with 85 per cent of the

people in this area now receiving television by

cablevision.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia

shares the honour with a couple of other areas in Canada as the

birthplace of cable TV in 1952. Premier Cablevision of

Vancouver is a prime example of a pioneering and energetic

private company which started with not much more than an idea,

developed that idea far beyond its own locale, spreading

Canadian know-how to many parts of the world. They should be

credited for that.

Mr. Speaker, the cablevision companies that I refer to are

among the companies in British Columbia which have been

seriously damaged by this government's attitudes and public

statements affecting the stock market.

Cablevision companies, while reflecting a rapid rate of

growth from a profit point of view and from an expansion point

of view, have had serious problems with their common stock

because of the uncertainty created by this government. And

those companies have a right to know where this government

stands and what negotiations it has already entered into.

The charges, Mr. Speaker, that private cablevision companies

are ripping off the community are plain and utter nonsense. The

private cablevision station in Vancouver, for instance, offers

free TV channels for all to use. And that channel is open to

all. The Premier has made a big thing out of saying that any

community facility should be made available to all people;

there's an example of a private company which has opened its

doors to all community groups and interests, and makes those

facilities freely available.

Hundreds of citizen groups in both Vancouver and Victoria

have been given access to television where they would not

normally have had such access. The same is true, Mr. Speaker,

of nearly all ethnic groups, which have the free access to the

private cablevision television stations. That's a situation

that is rapidly expanding as well, because fully one-third of

all of

[ Page 1396 ]

Canada's cable companies now transmit programmes

originating

locally in the companies' own studies. And that number is

growing daily.

Right now, and perhaps some of the Members of this

government have taken part, Vancouver cablevision, channel 10,

is running a series dealing with political life in British

Columbia — a very effective series and a very important series

to the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia. It was

conceived and produced by two university students and provides

a valuable addition to the political education of the people of

British Columbia. And it's being provided at no charge by a

private cablevision company.

Cablevision in our part of the world has offered us a

valuable public service and, given a minimum of government

interference, will continue to develop.

The unlimited possibilities of this relatively new form of

communication are boundless. Possibilities for the future are

really mind-boggling — not just for the future, Mr. Speaker,

but for right now with regard to cable television, especially

with the development of two-way multi-channel systems — pay TV,

adult education, and regular scholastic courses, along with any

number of entertainment and sports programmes for special

interest groups.

This kind of cable TV, Mr. Speaker, is here right now; it's

not something out of science fiction. In fact they're ready to

go now; all they need is approval from various government

bodies. Once this policy for CATV is adopted, the systems are

all go.

The government as well, Mr. Speaker, has shown serious

interest in cable television for educational purposes. We find

no fault with that because we feel that cable television holds

a tremendous possibility for good in this area. But we must be

very careful with the method in which we use cable television

if we're going to get involved with it at all. I can refer to

the example of the educational television in Ontario which the

members of the House committee set up by yourself, Mr. Speaker,

were privileged to attend last winter.

At least in my opinion, we saw a fascinating example of

extravagance and waste at a very level — even putting this

government to shame, which is difficult to do. But

nevertheless, we saw a cable television system with — I forget

what the budget is, perhaps the Member for Prince Rupert (Hon.

Mr. Lea) would help me out on that — but I think it was $40

million a year; really only a distribution company doing a very

bad job for that $40 million a year.

The Members who were on that committee will remember getting an

example of a sexy soap opera which that educational television outfit

had developed — I don't know what it had to do with education — but

nevertheless, they had developed that kind of programme. The Members

will also recall that the minute we walked in the doors of their very

expensive offices — offices as expensive as the Minister of Human

Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi'

s) offices in the buildings here — the

Members will recall that the first thing we were given was a little

bottle of perfume, which was called Channel No. 19, I think, because

their channel number was 19. Out of their $40 million budget, I think

they had $12 million budgeted for perfume. Certainly not very much

budgeted for good educational television.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just suggest if this government has

designs on entering itself into educational television through

this communications bill, that it be very careful and weigh all

of the possibilities very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also concerned with the distribution of

television coverage of this House. It's also a question of

serious concern with regard to this bill. Will the new

Minister, for instance, be responsible for those communications

services as well? And if so, what are his plans in those

areas?

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Distribution of television coverage, live, I

presume, of the proceedings of this House.

We've already seen, Mr. Speaker, the committee which was

dealing with the matter of television communications from this

House which made recommendations with regard to lighting in

this chamber and also with regard…. In fact, the

recommendations were that we do provide television coverage of

this House providing that we could do it without either

disturbing the decorum of the House or disturbing the comfort

of the Members.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we've already seen an example of

the comfort of the Members being seriously disturbed in even

the small examples that we've had of television coverage that

we've had so far. I refer to the lights, which are, on

occasion, blinding and very difficult to live with. I refer as

well to the scaffolds which have been set up from time to time

in the chamber, over which we must clamber and it makes it very

difficult to get to our seats. So, I wonder, is the Minister

going to be responsible for that kind of television

service?

How will the Minister divide his responsibilities with the

Speaker? Where do the Speaker's responsibilities end and where

will the new Minister's responsibilities begin? Will there be

consultation with the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) before the Speaker announces any new

government policy on television, either coverage or

distribution of the proceedings of this House, or times for

television proceedings? — any kind of government policy?

The Speaker, Mr. Speaker, has expressed great

[ Page 1397 ]

concern about so-called "editorial selectivity," I

believe were his words, vested in the media. He has completely

ignored, and this is for the Minister's information, the

recommendations of the special committee on television

broadcasting, and has completely misunderstood the committee's

intent of free access by the media to proceedings of this

House.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I'm frightened that in future

communications policies, the obsession expressed by the Speaker

and other Members of this government about editorial

selectivity by the press will be replaced by editorial

interference by this government. In fact, the statements made,

both by the Speaker and by other Members, seem to indicate that

the directions…. And I refer to the second report under the

Legislative Procedure and Practice

Inquiry Act , which says:

"acceptance of a cropped, edited, revised, abridged, replayed

television in the hands of a new breed of political editors who

happen to use scissors instead of a blue pencil to build their

version of parliament must be resisted firmly and finally."

Now is that the opinion of the Minister of Transport and

Communications? Because if we are to set up any communications

system, either to distribute legislative TV or radio coverage,

or for any other reason, Mr. Speaker, the government should and

must keep its hands off lest we really end up prostituting the

concept of a free press in this province. Because I'll take my

chances, Mr. Speaker, with the press rather than the editorial

selectivity of the Minister of Transport and

Communications.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, this bill, like all of the other

major bills which have come before this House, is an erosion of

the duties and responsibilities of this Legislature. Power is

being conferred by order-in-council once again. The Act itself,

Mr. Speaker, should outline the duties, the powers and the

functions very clearly so that reference to this Legislature is

maintained at all times.

Mr. Speaker, we're tired of seeing such awesome

discretionary powers being vested in these cabinet Ministers.

We don't trust these Ministers with those kind of wide-open

powers. We cannot support the kind of legislation that is so

obsessed with total Ministerial powers and which seems so

obsessed with developing a communications system in British

Columbia which will not have reference to the Legislature,

which has serious possibilities for editorial interference by

the Members of this government.

I don't believe for one moment that this government, given

the chance to interfere with the free press, would not, in

fact, interfere with the free press in this country.

MR. GARDOM: Well the significance of the opposition's

argument to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I think is best summarized by a

thoughtful analysis of the unique — to use a rather bland word — remarks of the ex-media man, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea),

now Minister of the Crown, and one who has the sworn obligation, as

have all of us in here, to do the best job he possibly can for not only

those of his own dictates and passions but for all of the people of B.C.

One has to bear in mind with that statement, Mr. Speaker,

that we have a minority government here in one great sense, and

it has compromised the majority of the wishes of the people of

B.C. — it received a minority of votes: 38 per cent.

But emanating from that is a majority of power. One would

think with such a sensitive mandate that the 62 per cent

apparently gave to the 38 per cent, the power was a thing to be

exercised by this government with caution, with a most careful

consideration and, I'd say, with the greatest of temerity. But

this isn't the situation. We've run into the unbridled course

and that appears to be the clear direction of this

government, The Minister of Highways, when he spoke in second reading

this bill, indicated that if he had his way, bias would play a

part. If he had his way, bias would play a part.

Now presumably by that he would mean that if he had his way

his bias would dictate government intervention, government

power plays or government control, government dissemination of

government policy, government news — owned-and-controlled

media.

He also inferred that the only fear he had really from

exercising this very terrifying bias was his fear of being

removed from his office. He said only that fear, and this

appears to be his one check and his one very small balance.

So one must ask then, Mr. Speaker, how very easy would it be

for the Minister of Highways or any other government Member to

compromise that one check and balance — the fear of being

removed from office. And to what extent would he be prepared to

compromise his now-expressed attitude to parliamentary

democracy to one which would overcome the obstacle that is in

his way at the present time? Would he indeed turn, shall we

say, on the electoral process to prevent his being removed from

his only worry, that of losing office?

Now I consider these to be very scary sentiments that were

expressed by the Minister in this chamber, and indeed very

frightening prospects for the 62 per cent of the people in the

Province of British Columbia who not only do not subscribe to

but utterly reject the raw-power postures that have been

enunciated by that Minister, and have been enunciated in this

House in the legislation throughout this session.

I think the Minister of Highways is certainly entitled to

one credit and that is for the frankness of

[ Page 1398 ]

his expression; but I would say total discredit for

the

philosophies that he enunciated.

Lord Acton knew pretty well what he was talking about when

he said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts

absolutely." So why, indeed, does the government choose within

this legislation to give itself that absolute mandate? And why

does it grant such powers to its Minister, who may have the

ability to succumb or lack the capacity to face all of the

temptation, which temptation was so demonstratively expressed

by the Minister of Highways?

This type of opportunity for abuse should be statutorily

restricted. We should have a democratic hand on the brake here,

Mr. Chairman, and certainly see that we have democratic checks

and a democratic balance.

But this doesn't seem to be the lifestyle of this government

to do that. Because by the regulating and structuring and power

of the cabinet mechanisms that they're constantly enacting day

by day, they are running roughshod over the concepts of these

needs for a democratic society.

Now you say "structure society." You want to do that, as 38

per cent of the people deem fit; regulate as the 38 per cent of

the people in B.C. deem fit; govern all of society by

order-in-council as about one half of the 38 per centers over

here decide to order; wean off the value and the democratic

check of open debate and slough off legislative confidence.

It's been the pretty obvious direction of this government

throughout the session that they wish to see the doors of the

courts closed as much as possible — no prerogative writs, lack

of appeal, no rights against the very vicious powers of

expropriation which have come up in a variety of the statutes

that we've considered, and still no right for the individual to

wage his lawsuit against the Crown.

We must suppose, Mr. Speaker, to extend the policies that

have been enunciated to this point, the next one would be to

see that the young are force-fed with doctrinaire socialism,

and with this bill they will certainly have the raw power to do

just that; to control, if they deem appropriate, the

dissemination of news and to make subservient to the press.

Now all of these measures smack of the advent of a

totalitarian state. If the government feels that this is wrong,

then don't provide the powers. Accept I'd say, graciously, at

least, the warnings that have been emphasized from the

opposition benches — and unfortunately also so clearly

emphasized by your very own speakers — of the potential for

abuse.

Failing that, I think they've got to accept the criticism,

Mr. Speaker, that this bill is just another very demonstrative

and classic example of the erosion of basic human rights that

daily is besetting British Columbia, from Red Square here to

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on

second reading of this debate.

I am somewhat appalled by the amount of power which this Act

is giving to the Minister and to his cabinet. I realize that

this point has been made before. I realize that there has been

plenty of discussion already, both on October 30 and tonight,

on this particular problem. But the fact of the matter is that

we have here before us one of the worst examples of the type of

legislation which we have consistently opposed in this

Legislature and which we will continue to consistently

oppose.

It has been said by the Minister introducing this bill that

it is a housekeeping bill. Really and truly, if that's his

attitude, that frightens me very much, because it is not a

housekeeping bill.

It's a bill that gathers together a tremendous number of

functions of the provincial government which he listed in his

speech to which I listened with great interest back in October;

a great number of different government departments dealing with

varying aspects of communications and transportation.

The fact of the matter is that the bill just doesn't do

that. The bill in its

interpretation

section sets up the

Minister with enormous, powers, infinitely more than simply the

collection of the previous bits and pieces which, as he

correctly pointed out, were scattered throughout a number of

other government departments.

I draw your attention to the

interpretation

section —

definitions

of communications, of transport — how it takes in

virtually everything. Word of mouth, I think might well be

taken in, too, when you consider that it means any manner, any

means, any method by which information is transmitted.

It goes on: sound picture signals, electronics, et cetera,

just about everything, every way of communicating is under that

particular provision. And we have not heard any explanation

from this Minister, or the Minister of Highways who spoke as

well, as to the need for taking such extensive powers to the

Minister. Had there been such explanation given, we could then

discuss this in specific terms as to whether it was justified;

when no explanation has been given we obviously are going to

have to oppose this bill in principle.

We go on in the Act and we find that sections 5 and 6

increase and increase enormously the powers granted to this

Minister. The combination of the definition section, and the

powers of the department and the powers of the Minister add up

to really something quite awesome and something which has not

yet been justified by any statement of the Minister or by any

statement by the Premier or by any statement of any other

Minister.

I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the real powers in this Act

are not given to the department; the real powers in this Act

are given to the Minister — and

[ Page 1399 ]

he's capable of acting in his own right — and with

the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in just about any manner that

he sees fit, under the general heading of communications,

excepting only of course areas where the Parliament of Canada

has exclusive control.

The departmental powers are few, and it's curious indeed

that this bill is intituled the Department

of Transport and

Communications Act ; it should be the "Minister of

Communications and Transport Enabling Act," because

that's essentially what the Act does.

section 7 there is even the power to carry on

investigations, to go in and question civil servants in a way

which I don't think any other bill that we have seen has

suggested, or indeed any Act that I know of which is on the

statute books at the present time. Once again, no explanation

as to why these extensive powers are needed.

Mr. Speaker, when we have put these views forward previously

the government has come up with the argument, as it came up

with it from time to time in this debate, which is essentially,

"Trust us." We don't know why we need these wide powers either — it is

essentially their argument. "But if we have them, we can

use them if we need them, and if we don't have them, well, we

might one day need them." It is a circular argument and it

really gets us nowhere.

The point is that in this Legislature we should be, as far

as possible, questioning legislation so that the rights of the

citizens of the province are infringed upon as little as

possible when we hand over powers to Ministers. Because when

you hand over power to Ministers, as sure as night follows day

you are infringing upon the general liberties of the citizens

of the province. That is a fairly simple proposition.

Yet in this Act we go further and further and further in

handing over such powers to Ministers without any real

explanation at all.

You know, the government's made fun of our concern. But in

situations like this, the loss of individual liberties does not

occur all at once with any great hue and cry in any specific

Act. It occurs by erosion. That is essentially what we are

seeing with the legislation which the NDP has brought down this

session, last session and, of course, the first session — erosion,

little by little. Power is taken until finally, of

course, the rights left in the hands of individuals are

slight.

We feel — and this is a philosophical difference — that the right

should rest within the individual citizen, that he should have his

powers or his right as unfettered as possible, except for the public

good. When you take something away from him, when you start

controlling, when you start regulating, when you start handing over

power to Ministers or to commissions or to boards or to any other body,

it has to be explained. Otherwise, we in this Legislature are taking

away something from the people which they have now and which in future

they will not have.

It's easy to make fun of this proposal or this attitude that

we in the opposition have — certainly we in this party have.

It's simple to criticize it. The fact of the matter is that

this has happened time after time in these bills. If the

arguments are repetitious, the fact is that the bills are

repetitious in this sense, and the fact is that the principle

is so important that we cannot help but to constantly bring it

up.

In this bill TV, radio, word-of-mouth, all these things, are

under control of one man. We have seen in the States the way

the new electronic media can be tampered with by an

administration who, rightly or wrongly, felt somehow that their

views were not being properly presented by the media, felt

rightly or wrongly that they were somehow persecuted and

beleaguered and to even the score they had to make use of the

illegal powers so that they could even things up.

The Republican Party in the States felt that because the

press, in their mind, was basically Democrat in instinct — and

I think they are right there — the fact is that they had to

even things up by having extra information. They used the

electronic media. They used the new technology — all the things

that we are talking about in

section 1 of this particular Act — the new

types of things to try and even things up. If that

isn't a very good reason for keeping to the minimum the amount

of government interference in this area, I just don't know what

is.

We have seen examples in the States that this power has been

misused and we have, I think, got a pretty good example of why

we should not extend, without any reason, the powers of

Ministers in the general area of communications,

telecommunications and transportation.

The argument that we can somehow trust the government, an

argument that they put forward frequently, we cannot accept. In

general terms I would argue that you can trust no government

because you can't tell whether the individual people who you

might personally respect, admire and trust will remain in

office. I don't know how long the present Minister will remain

in office. I don't know how long any other Minister will remain

in office. There's no way we can tell.

So the argument that a Minister can be trusted because he is

himself an individual of ability and competence and quality is,

of course, absurd. Ministers change. Governments change. You

never can tell who might take over. Only if you write the Acts

properly and get away from these foolish excuses can you have

some certainty that over time the public, who have to suffer

the actions of these people, will get what they expect and what

they should in terms of justice.

Mr. Speaker, this department was going to take

[ Page 1400 ]

over communications and it is also taking over

transportation, such as ferries and other things of that

nature. I have had quite a bit to say over the last two months

on this question. I personally do not feel, under the

circumstances, in view of the fact that we as representatives

of the public and those of us who live on the Island are

representatives of the public who make tremendous use of these

ferries, that we have received in any way, shape and form from

this Minister adequate explanation of what he has been

proposing to do and what contracts have been given out and what

approaches the ferry service is adopting.

I have no wish to go over at great length the problems that

have occurred. But we feel that when we have a Minister at the

present time taking enormous powers to himself, it is as well

to look upon the record of the Minister in dealing with some of

these areas that come under this new Act where we feel he has

failed to be fully candid with the House.

I've mentioned to him, I've questioned him on this: back on

September 24 I asked him a fairly specific question. I asked

him whether or not tenders had been called so the British

Columbia naval architects would have an opportunity to compete

with foreign naval architects, American naval architects, on

the design of the new ferries. I got a commitment from him, I

thought.

I quote him now to you back from Hansard

of that time. He

said "Competitive estimates have been obtained from Victoria,

B.C., naval architects CELL, which is Case Existological

Laboratories Ltd., for design fees for a trailer ship and a

274-car ferry." And he added, "the same thing was asked of

another firm and we find the amount of money being asked to

provide this and the time required to do the job is much less

with the firm whose plans were in this place the other day," which of

course was the firm of Nickum Spaulding.

It took me a page of questioning to find out — five

questions, I believe — that Nickum Spaulding had at that time

been paid money by the people of British Columbia, people's

money to the tune of $10,000, for design sketches. Then later

on we find out, of course, on October 24 that the American firm

had received the contract.

Well, I fail to see why it is not possible for the Minister

to make sure, by way of a statement in the House, by way of a

reply to a question, to make sure that the actual report that

he quoted to me, a report dated May 24….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What does this have to do with

the principle of the bill? I point out that one of the rules of

the House is that you do not discuss the ordinary

administration of the government in discussing the principle of

the bill. It is a well-known principle.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, when

you have such an all-embracing bill and the bill incorporates

the full ferry service, I think it's as well to point out that

if this Minister is to continue to be responsible, heaven

forbid, for the ferry service, we are at liberty to comment

upon his stewardship of the ferry service to date.

MR. SPEAKER: I quite disagree and so does May .

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the fact of the matter is that we

are asked, Mr. Speaker, in legislation such as this where we

have extensive powers being granted to Ministers, simply to

"trust the government," and I am trying to point out to

you why we can't do it.

Now if you say you can quote no previous experience, I

wonder why you haven't ruled the Premier out of order so often

when he has referred in so many bills to the previous

administration? I would think that when he refers to the

history of the previous administration, he would have been a

year out of date. Well, I'm only a couple of months out of

date.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the

question of changing a policy from a previous administration is

quite apart from discussing the present administration of a

department, which is not part of the principle of the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the ferry service

is to be brought under this bill, surely it is possible to

comment on the administration of it.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not what May says. I'll get you the

quotation if you like.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: Meanwhile, you can go on with something

else.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the fact of the matter is that

we've had this situation where we are asked to trust the

Minister.

We have a situation where he stated in the House that all

would be given an opportunity to compete. Yet the companies

concerned have failed, failed totally, to agree. Indeed, they

state flatly that they have had no opportunity to compete on

these contracts. This is the administration of the department

that we are talking of now.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I have already indicated that it

would be contrary to the rules but you persist in debating it.

Now, surely either the rules

[ Page 1401 ]

prevail or you prevail.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I think both can prevail if given

the opportunity of discussing this particular problem. When you

have such wide-ranging powers and when you take virtually

everything under one heading, where the Minister describes it

as simply a "housekeeping bill" and "a minor thing" — "trust

us" that's the old slogan, trust them — surely it's incumbent

upon me to give indications of why you can't trust them, why we

can't go ahead with this legislation granting such wide powers,

why we need further checks and balances in this legislation and

why the principle of unfettered powers in the Minister is

wrong.

That's all I'm asking: that I be permitted to proceed with

the discussion of a specific instance, admittedly, but a

specific instance that points out clearly that with this

government and with this Minister there has not been the type

of candid release of information and the type of backing-up

statements made in the House, by release of public or what

should be public documents, that would lead us to believe that

this Minister, or indeed any other Minister, can be trusted

with this type of power.

It's simple to say, and I can believe what you have said — that you

cannot discuss examples of administration under the

general heading of the bill. It's a pretty simplistic

proposition, but we've heard it time after time, as examples of

a general theme, and I fail to see why I cannot introduce it at

this stage on those grounds.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already indicated why you cannot — the

rules that we, in this House, follow.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll switch from this,

but let me end by saying that when you have a situation where

the most wide-ranging powers are being demanded for a Minister,

and that Minister knowingly or otherwise — and I certainly

trust it was otherwise — has misled the House on contract

details, unwittingly perhaps, but nevertheless misled us on the

information that you won't let me put forward, I feel it is

extremely curious for that Minister and the government to ask

for more powers to be placed in his hands.

If we in this Legislature cannot question and get replies in

question period, cannot raise issues during debate, why on earth are we

handing over to a Minister even more powers to cover even more things

up? I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the principle of this Legislature

having the right to discuss issues such as this I think is important,

and I would hope that it will be possible for me, when I continue to

discuss this bill, to point out that past performance does not justify

confidence for the future. If I can't do that I really wonder what the

purpose of second reading is all about.

The principle of this bill is excessive powers in the hands

of Ministers who can't be trusted with it. That's the principle

to me.

It's clear — read the

definitions section. Read what they

say about communications: "Any method, manner…by which

information is transmitted, imparted, or exchanged…"

except, of course, where it's exclusively federal. See what

they say about transportation — anything there at all. See

what's said about the powers of the Minister — virtually

unfettered.

I can't think of

an Act where we've granted more power to a

Minister over more areas of human activity than this bill

involves.

The point that I'm trying to make is that we get absolutely

no satisfaction on behalf of the public when this Minister is

questioned. Even documents relating to public money — large

sums of public money — are not revealed, We get no satisfaction

at all when we try and raise this in debate, and the result is

that there's no way we can accept this type of legislation.

The legislation is bad for two reasons — first, because I

don't think you can hand this type of Minister this type of

power, and secondly, even if he were the type of person to whom

you might entrust such power, no man should be given such

power. I'm giving you examples of why.

I'm looking now at the press release issued by the Minister

on the construction of ferries. There's a substantial

involvement of many, many millions of dollars — $13 million

each for the car ferries, $9 million for the trailer, for a

grand total of $35 million. This is the Minister's own press

release.

In the House he states that these things will be put up for

public tender and that there will be an opportunity for

Canadian firms to compete; in practice it didn't happen. In

practice the design portion, at least, of the $35 million total

package has gone, without tendering, outside the country on the

specious argument that if they take it to an American firm it

won't be bound by the British Columbia Department of Highways'

own book dealing with the percentages they can charge for

design.

This I find exceptional, this I find curious, this I find is

the type of thing that means to me that no further power should

be given to that Minister.

Why? Because I don't think he has answered in the House

responsibly to Members' queries.

Why? Because I don't think that this Legislature, if these

powers are given to that Minister, will have any more control

over the other areas of communications and transportation than

they have had under the areas that were previously under his

jurisdiction.

I see you leafing through May ,

Mr. Speaker. I agree with you

that it's not for specifics, so much as for an example of the

general problem.

[ Page 1402 ]

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Well, I'll continue then with

this. The fact is that we have not had candid replies to these

questions. Every opportunity has been given the Minister….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think I've already informed

the Member that he's not to refer to specific administrative

matters in the department when debating the general principle

of the bill in second reading. And that is clearly set out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The general principle of the bill is

handing extensive powers to the Minister. And his attitude is

demonstrated.

MR. SPEAKER: His attitude is not a subject of discussion.

The subject of discussion is the general principle of the

bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I trust you rule all

government Ministers out of order when they make statements

such as….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This is the third time I've

drawn you to order, which is quite a lot, I think.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, when we're discussing a bill

dealing with what Ministers might or might not do under it, and

when you accept from the government Ministers the statements

that, "Oh, don't worry about that — we won't use those powers," which

we've heard this session, surely we in our turn

can comment upon the powers that are incorporated in the bill

and point out that past experience with these specific

Ministers makes it perfectly clear that they should not be

trusted with more power of this nature.

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

Insurance): On a point of order, he's dealing with personalities,

not a Ministry. This Ministry isn't set up for one person. This Member

continues to deal in personalities and he knows he's out of order.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On what basis do you make

that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Member has been