1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2931 ]

CONTENTS

Point of privilege

Legality of preceding sittings of the Legislature.

Mr. Macdonald — 2931

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2932

Mr. Gibson — 2932

Mr. Lea — 2934

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2935

Mr. Barrett — 2937

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 77) Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading — 2937

Mineral Resource Tax Act (Bill 57) amendments. Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading — 2938

Public Construction Fair Wages Act (Bill 83) Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading — 2940

Motion

Motion 11: appointment of committee to select an auditor-general.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2940

Mr. Macdonald — 2940

Mr. Gibson — 2940

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Dismissal of Victoria pupil. Mrs. Dailly — 2940

Reduction of ferry crews. Mr. Wallace — 2940

Public opinion poll during December election.

Mr. Gibson — 2941

Motor-vehicle registrations. Mr. Cocke — 2941

Chilliwack agricultural land reserve. Mr. Skelly — 2942

Bell Copper-CAIMAW dispute. Mr. King — 2941

Ferry fares for senior citizens. Mr. Macdonald — 2942

Premier's mode of transport. Mr. Lea — 2943

Financial aid to Vietnam children. Mr. Wallace — 2943

British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act (Bill

46) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2944

Mrs. Dailly — 2944

Mr. Gibson — 2945

Mr. Wallace — 2946

Mr. Stupich — 2946

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2947

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 55) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2948

Mrs. Dailly — 2949

Mr. Wallace — 2950

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2951

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 61) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2952

Mr. Cocke — 2952

Mrs. Wallace — 2953

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2954

Division on second reading — 2955

Consumer Protection Act (Bill 65) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2955

Ms. Sanford — 2956

Mr. Wallace — 2957

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2958

Public Service Benefit Plan Act (Bill 64) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2959

Ms. Brown — 2960

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2960

Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill

72) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2960

Ms. Brown — 2961

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2961

Petroleum and Natural Gas

(1965) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 25) Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 2962

Judicial Review Procedure Act (Bill 44) .

Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 2962

Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 69) Committee stage.

section 8 1.

Mr. Nicolson — 2962

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2962

Amendment to

section 117.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2962

Amendment to

section 118.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2962

Report and third reading — 2963

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 74) . Committee stage.

Amendments to sections 2, 3 and 13.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2963

Report and third reading — 2963

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 62) .

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2963

Report and third reading — 2964

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 60) Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 2964

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'm rising

on a point of privilege that I think demands the immediate intervention

of the House, but if there are introductions I'd be glad to stand down

and yield for that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member yield to what would apparently be some introductions from the floor?

MR. MACDONALD: Very good.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I would like to introduce Mr. and

Mrs. Kenneth Lattimer, visiting Victoria from New Plymouth, New

Zealand. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a long-time resident of

Victoria but one who, to the best of my knowledge, is not often in the

galleries. He is Tom Christie, a former secretary-treasurer of the

Greater Victoria School Board. After retirement from that post he went

on to another career on the city of Victoria as an alderman who was

recognized always for crisp and direct comment on various issues. Would

the House welcome him today?

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): In the gallery today is a very dear

old friend of mine who left Cranbrook several years ago, which was

Cranbrook's loss, and moved to Victoria, which would make it Victoria's

gain. I would ask the House to welcome Bill Lyle.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): With us in the galleries this

afternoon is Mr. Manmohan Kang from the village of Granisle in the

constituency of Omineca. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising under the rules of the

House as laid down in May, particularly in the 18th edition, where

privileges are discussed on pages 341 and 342, in respect to the matter

which I say is a matter of privilege involving the House and its

members which demands the immediate intervention of the House without

the usual two days' notice. The motion on privileges which I make reads

as follows:

"Whereas the Legislature has been sitting outside of the

regular hours of the House provided for by standing orders, and

whereas there

is doubt as to whether the orders for adjournment of the House to regular hours

of sitting have been made properly and in accordance with parliamentary law

and precedence and sessional orders,

be it resolved that a special committee

on privileges be named forthwith by the select committee and directed to examine

and report upon the question of the sittings of the Legislature outside of regular

hours and the lawfulness of legislative orders passed at the present session

outside of the regular times of sitting and with power to summon and hear persons

and testimony."

Mr. Speaker, just shortly as to the reasons why I submit the matter

is both urgent and one of privilege, the House has been sitting at

extraordinary hours, and estimates and bills have been passed with only

some of the members present. Perhaps extraordinary hours do not matter,

but if the hours are irregular in terms of parliamentary law and the

precedents of parliament as they have been laid down through the

centuries, then that is a matter that demands the immediate

intervention of the House.

I suggest that the positive way in which this can be resolved is

that the matter immediately be referred to a committee on privileges so

that there can be no question as to the standing of this Legislature in

the eyes of the people of the province and its lawfulness in the eyes

of the courts of the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize any other member who I assume

may be speaking to the same matter of privilege, I'd like to say to the

hon. first member for Vancouver East that according to our rules in

this House a matter of privilege is one that is taken into

consideration immediately, which would mean that the Speaker would have

to examine it in some detail within the hours that are available to us

in this session this afternoon, I would hope.

I am of the opinion that "immediately" means that. It means as soon

as possible following the matter being raised on the floor of the

House. While I'm prepared to listen to comments from other members of

the House if they feel it will be of assistance to the Chair in

determining the matter of privilege, I would reserve for the immediate

moment a decision on the matter because I do want to take time to look

at it.

It is a matter of grave concern when a matter of privilege is before

the House, and it's something that cannot be dealt with in 30 seconds.

However, I would give the hon. member for Vancouver East the

undertaking that I would examine it as quickly as it is possible for me

to do so today and hope to have a decision for him. I saw other members

about to rise in their places. If they have something to offer for the

benefit and guidance of the Chair, I would be pleased to hear that at

this time.

[ Page 2932 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I might just say that while the

word "immediate" is there, I appreciate what you've just said and if

the matter comes back in the matter of a very few hours with a decision

after careful consideration, that would be, I'm sure, satisfactory to

all members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, in reply to what you have said, I

realize the urgency in your mind; otherwise you would not have put the

matter in a motion to the floor of the House. I also think that you

realize that I had no notice of the motion, which would have been

customary, so that I've had no prior knowledge of it or opportunity to

examine it. So I say to you quite openly that I will examine it as

quickly as is possible and get a report back to the House, because I

think that's in fairness to yourself and also in fairness to the chair.

I hope that you wouldn't expect me to have it back into the House in 30

seconds or 30 minutes or something of that nature.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, last

night you drew attention to the decision of the former Speaker, Gordon

Dowding, of March 22, 1973, which quite clearly spells out the routine

to be followed when a situation arises where the sitting hour has

allegedly elapsed and where it is quite proper for somebody to give an

order for the next sitting of the House to be established.

I'd like to draw your attention to a further ruling of Mr. Speaker

Dowding with respect to the right of the House to sit, once it has

established the time at which the next sitting is appropriate. I don't

think we have to deal with the question of whether or not it was

appropriate for an order to be given for the House to sit at 10 a.m.

this morning since this was adequately covered by Mr. Speaker Dowding's

decision of March 22, 1973.

He further goes on, Mr. Speaker, on March 29, 1974...and I draw your attention to page 127 of the Journals for 1974, in which Mr. Speaker Dowding points out: "The House today, having at 12:58...."

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, the Minister of Education

is debating the substance of whether we were lawfully sitting this

morning, for example. The question before the House is whether or not

that should be considered at once by a special committee on privileges.

That's the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate what the hon. member for Vancouver

East has said, and I would suggest to the minister or any other hon.

member who wishes to give guidance to the Chair that I will not

entertain a debate on the matter at this time. I think that would be

improper, but I am prepared to listen to hon. members who wish to give

guidance to the Chair by way of decisions or rules of this House which

they would like me to take a look at in relation to the motion which

was proposed by the hon. first member for Vancouver East.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's precisely what I was attempting to

do, Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted. To go on with Mr. Speaker

Dowding's decision on this particular case, I read just the relevant

paragraph from Mr. Speaker Dowding's decision. He said:

"The House today having at 12:58 p.m. fixed its next

sitting to commence at 2 p.m., it thus follows that the purpose of

standing order 3(2) is no longer required, and the next sitting of the

House can be ordered to be fixed for any time after the House adjourns

from the 2 o'clock sitting. In this instance, the hour was fixed for

Saturday at 10 a.m. and the House, having inherent power to regulate

its own sittings, may make such an order for whatever hour or day it

chooses, whether it be for 10 a.m. Saturday or six months hence. As the

Saturday 10 a.m. sitting is a duly constituted sitting, it follows that

the House will have the power to adjourn that sitting by order."

Mr. Speaker, we have been following a precedent established by the

New Democratic Party of sitting at 10 in the morning. We have

established by precedent Mr. Speaker Dowding's rulings for the House to

follow during those occasions. What has been done is entirely within

the rules established by the NDP in their term of office.

I suggest to you that the appeal of the first member for Vancouver East is entirely out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: That last comment, Hon. Minister, is not in

order. I think it is a matter for the Chair to decide. I appreciate

your guidance and your assistance in drawing to my attention the ruling

which was made by a former Speaker on March 29, 1974. I will certainly

look at that in conjunction with other rulings before I bring back a

decision to the floor of the House.

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

had intended to bring this particular question up as a point of order,

but since the hon. first member for Vancouver East has raised it as a

question of privilege perhaps I might suggest to you some of the

authorities that seem to me to bear on the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Please do.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey had an interesting point but I think it is not relevant.

[ Page 2933 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is as much out of order as

the suggestion that was made by the hon. member who just preceded you

in debate. I think that if you have references to points of law or

points in either the standing orders of the House or other rules, you

should bring it to the attention of the Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The relevant question to

me is not whether the time of this morning's sitting was legal but

whether the session was legally constituted at all or whether it was

correctly called last evening. Of course, any finding that the session

wasn't legal could call into question the legality of such important

bills as Bill 57. That's why I think we ought to have a ruling on the

order of it.

The basis on which the finality of the session last night called the

session this morning was on the ruling of Speaker Dowding of March 22,

1973, particularly at page 173, the final paragraph, where Speaker

Dowding says: "In sum, in my respectful opinion, the assembly by reason

of standing order 3(1) can adjourn the debate and agree upon the next

sitting at the hour of interruption" — I underline the next point —

"since the motions are made without the right to debate and because the

assembly has the power to preserve proceedings by its own will and

purpose."

First of all, you will note there is an "and" in there; it's a

conjunctive double condition. Of course, the situation, by precedent of

this House, has changed, since the time that Speaker Dowding made that

ruling. In other words, the motion to adjourn to a particular time —

particularly a time that is not otherwise contemplated in the standing

orders — is clearly subject to debate. You may recall, sir, that you

ruled in that way earlier on this session when on an occasion at 11

o'clock there was a move to adjourn to 11:05 and that motion was

debated for some time. So it seems to me that the conditions upon which

Speaker Dowding based his 1973 ruling have been changed by the practice

of this House.

Perhaps from there I may proceed to some citations from May — as to

what happens if the conditions for a legal carrying on of business at

the interruption of business by the clock are not fulfilled. First of

all, with respect to the business that is under discussion at that

time, May , 18th edition, page 290, notes under the heading

"Interruption of business":

"On every day of the week, except Saturday and Sunday, the

working hours of the House are subject to the following regulations. Under S.O.

No. 1, business is interrupted on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at

10 o'clock, when, if the House be not engaged in business exempted under

S.O. No. 3(1), the Speaker rises from the chair and interrupts the business

then under consideration; or, if the House be in committee, the chairman leaves

the chair to make his report to the House. Under S.O. No. 5, the moment of interruption

on Friday is 4 o'clock."

The following I underline:

"The business under consideration at the moment of interruption,

if no day is named for its resumption, becomes a dropped order."

Next we proceed further down the page to the status of dilatory motions at the time of interruption of business. May notes:

"Dilatory motions, i.e. motions for the adjournment of the

House or of the debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave

the chair, pending at the moment of interruption, lapse without question put."

That refers to such motions as may be pending at the time of interruption.

There is provision for them to be made thereafter.

Further down the page, he speaks of transaction of business after

the moment of interruption. This is very important, because of what

Speaker Dowding said about motions without the right to debate versus

motions where there is the right to debate which are clearly opposed

business. May notes here: "After the business under consideration at 10

o'clock, or at 4 o'clock on Friday, has been disposed of, no opposed

business can be taken." That is very categorical. In my opinion, the

motion to adjourn to an unusual time — 12:01 — is opposed business

since through the ordinary operation of our standing orders we would

otherwise have returned to the House at 2 o'clock today, and here we

are.

Later on, at page 296, May mentions what happens when objection is

taken to business which is attempted to be transacted after a motion of

interruption. He notes here clearly:

"If, however, when such a question is proposed from

the Chair, a member rises to object to further proceeding, or offers to

speak to the question (an action which is construed as signifying

objection) his action brings into force the provision of S.O. No. l(

b) and converts the business then under transaction into opposed business.

So to me it is conclusively proven that the motion to adjourn to an

unusual hour was, at that point, opposed business and could not be

taken.

Finally, I would draw your attention to our own standing orders,

which in any event would overrule any other precedent where they may be

applicable, and draw your attention to the fact that Speaker Dowding's

ruling of March 22, 1973....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member quote the standing order?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, standing order No. 3, Mr.

[ Page 2934 ]

Speaker.

I would draw to your attention the fact that Speaker Dowding's

ruling of March 22, 1973, referred to proceedings at 6 o'clock. The

wording of our standing order 3 with respect to 6 o'clock is different

than with respect to 11 o'clock. At 6 o'clock it is stipulated that the

Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 p.m. At 11 o'clock there's a

different language; it then notes that the House will continue until 11

o'clock p.m. unless otherwise ordered. It was certainly not otherwise

ordered before 11 o'clock, and therefore I would suggest that under

the terms of standing order No. 3 the House had no authority to

continue after 11 o'clock for the transaction of any business

whatsoever, according to the plain language of our standing orders.

I make all of these submissions, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to you that

the session this morning was illegally constituted and any legislation

passed there is illegal legislation and should be challenged in court.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge

you, when you're making your decision, to consider all of the facts

surrounding the need for such a committee to take place.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If the hon. member has something

to, quote in the way of a reference as guidance to the Chair, I am

prepared and quite willing to listen to it, but I would say to you that

it's not now a point of arguing the matter which is under

consideration. So please don't engage upon any argumentative debate at

this point in time.

MR. LEA: I do not intend to. All I would like to point out is

that it is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that each member of this House feel

he or she is protected equitably by the office with which you hold. I

feel that there is a need for all of the matters surrounding the issue

raised by the hon. first member for Vancouver East in his motion to be

aired fully by urging you, Mr. Speaker, to bring in your ruling that

such a committee will be appointed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! You are clearly....

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm just getting to a point that I think will be very interesting....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I appreciate the guidance which you

are giving to the Chair, but I must say to you this: what you are

trying to do by implication is suggest a solution to the problem.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Hon; Member, you are, in the language in

which you have phrased the things that you have said in the last few

minutes. All I'm saying to you is that it is unfair, really, for you to

engage in the type of debate which in any suggests a solution to the

Chair before the facts and the references which I will be looking at

have been looked at.

Please do not enter into any suggestion that the motion is either in

order, out of order, or should go to a special committee or anything of

that kind, because that is for the Chair to decide after listening to

arguments about the sources of reference, and I'm quite prepared to

listen to that.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, one source of information that should

be in your hands, and all members of the House should be aware of it,

is the fact that no undue influence should be brought upon you in your

office. Last night, I believe, there was the possibility that it would

appear that undue influence had been brought upon your office by the

Minister of Education and the Premier visiting your office. When we

were in government, at no time did the Premier and the House Leader —

and he carried both roles — visit the office of Mr. Speaker. I believe

that at 11:45 last....

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Prince Rupert please desist in engaging in a debate on the issue at this particular time?

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: ...everyone understands where she or he stands

within this Legislature, and the only way it can be done is if a

committee is appointed and conclusively we come to the decision that the

[ Page 2935 ]

government is not trying to bring undue influence on your office.

And it appears that that has been done by the Premier and the Minister

of Education.

Interjections.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, when you are addressing yourself....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! One moment please. I would hope that the

hon. members of this House would give the hon. Attorney-General the

same courtesy that was given to the other members when they were

speaking about this particular matter, and that is to refrain, please,

from the impulse to cast remarks across the floor, because I wish to

give my undivided attention to the remarks of the people who are trying

to assist the Chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, when you were addressing

yourself to the motion on privilege, which deals with inter alia the

suggested lawfulness or unlawfulness of legislative orders that

conceivably passed this morning, I think that you have to also give

concern to the general concepts of the parliamentary process. I would

respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when considering this

point you will direct your attention to whether or not parliament has a

responsibility to all of the people and that the business of the people

is the paramount interest and that that interest has to be served.

I am sure all members of the House will agree that that is not only

a legal and a constitutional but indeed a moral responsibility, and

anything less, Mr. Speaker — I would ask you as to whether or not in

your view — would be a denigration of the job for which representatives

are elected.

When you are considering the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the

procedures this morning, Mr. Speaker, I would also ask you to consider

as to whether the House was properly constituted, whether there was a

quorum, whether the mace was on the table, and indeed, sir, that you

were in the chair. I would furthermore ask you to consider as to

whether the fact that there were opposition members present or not

present will in any way impede the legality and the constitutionality

of the House as it was established and sitting.

Insofar as the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I very much fail to see that that is garbage. Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to Votes and Proceedings ....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I was listening very

carefully, Mr. Speaker, to the motion put by the first member for

Vancouver East. None of the points raised relate to the remarks of the

Attorney-General. I therefore ask the Speaker to rule the discussions

that he has entered into as out of order, and in addition, the

Attorney-General seems to be more impressed with the people's business,

but does not include in the people's business the role of the

opposition, who should be present at all times during the presentation

of contentious legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, in response to

the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, without entering into debate, if

you accept the hon. member's premise....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member! With respect, we

cannot at this time engage in a debate, and I would ask the hon.

Attorney-General to confine his remarks strictly to the relevant matter

which you think I should consider in dealing with the motion which was

moved, or which the hon. first member for Vancouver East placed on my

desk. Do you have a copy of the motion, Hon. Member?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I do, and I thought that perhaps I would read it for the benefit of the member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: Could I just say that I would just, at this

point in time, accept from the hon. member and the hon. minister

specific references to items which he feels may be of assistance to me

in making a decision?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member referred to the motion of

privilege, and it states that you will give consideration, so forth and

so on, to the lawfulness of legislative orders.

Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the points that has been raised by the

member for Vancouver Centre is as to whether or not the process was

lawful because there was an absence of the opposition. If one accepted

that kind of a premise it would mean that an opposition who didn't

appear...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2936 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: ...would completely bring parliament to a full stop.

MR. SPEAKER: With respect, Hon. Attorney-General, I am aware

of what the other members have given to the Chair in respect of advice.

If the hon. member has a new reference for me, I would appreciate it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I refer you, of course, Mr. Speaker, to the Votes and Proceedings

of this Legislature, March 17, on page 10, which deals with the time of

the sittings. Secondly, I again refer you, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Votes and Proceedings , March 17, page 10?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, and secondly, Mr. Speaker, I again

refer you to the actual ruling on March 20 of 1973, page 167 of Speaker

Dowding, at which time it says this:

"The Speaker's attention was drawn to the clock. On

motion of R.M. Strachan, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting

of the House. The Hon. Dave Barrett moved that the House at its riding

do stand adjourned until 6:10 o'clock p.m. today. Then there was a

division and the House adjourned at 6:12 p.m."

All one has to do, Mr. Speaker, is just change the names of the

people who proposed those motions and then read the reasons of Speaker

Dowding reported on page 171, March 22 — and I think it's useful to

reiterate this because this seems to be the gravamen of the decision:

"The sequence of events disclosed in the records

indicate that while the hon. member was speaking after 6 o'clock p.m.,

the hon. member for North Peace River rose on a point of order drawing

the attention of the Speaker to the clock."

Well, we just have to change the times and the names of the members.

The Speaker asked the hon. member who had been speaking to be seated

and he quite properly complied, as happened last night. A minister, the

hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat — in this case, my colleague the hon.

member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) — rose while

the Speaker was in the chair and moved the adjournment of the debate

until the next sitting of the House. When objection was heard, not

formally however, the Speaker indicated to the House that the hon.

member had seated himself, which in this case is the hon. member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), at the interruption of business

and did not thereby lose his place in debate which had been underway.

And this ruling is confirmed by May , 17th edition, page 444, at the

bottom of the page. Carrying on with Speaker Dowding: "in other words, formal business has been...."

MR. SPEAKER: , One moment, please. The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that you are

quite familiar with what the Attorney-General is reading and it's

really taking up time if you are already familiar with it; and if it's

being done for publicity....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I listen to references from other members of the

House of which I have some knowledge including this one. As long as the

members are giving the references which are helpful in making a

decision, I feel that I'm obligated to listen. But I would hope that

the hon. Attorney-General will not go into full detail of what was

contained in that particular ruling by the former Speaker, because I'm

sure that I have a reference to it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am just referring you to the high points, Mr. Speaker. That was the first one, and the second one is this:

"In other words, formal business has in fact, been

transacted after the moment of interruption. Such a procedure is noted

also in the British Journals and referred to in May , 18th edition, page

291. See Commonwealth Journals — 1957-58 at page 180."

Then at page 172 of the Journals of 1973, Speaker Dowding says this:

"Thus, so long as the House is assembled and properly

constituted, such motions according to our standing orders appear to be

in order. Were it otherwise the proceedings of parliament could be

frustrated every day by a member holding the floor until past the hour

of interruption."

Now I would like to refer you also to two more quotations dealing

with the alleged lawfulness of the proceedings and the reference made

by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and also I believe the

member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) as to the

possibilities of the proceedings being considered illegal from a

judicial point of view, the point of view of a court.

MR. SPEAKER: May I listen to the reference, please?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, the reference is a book, Constitutional

and Administrative Law by S.A. de Smith. He is considered indeed a

constitutional authority and I refer you to page 86:

[ Page 2937 ]

"The courts will not encroach upon the exclusive

preserves of the two Houses.

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689 —

provides that 'proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or

questioned in any court or place out of parliament.'"

They fall within the province of parliamentary privilege.

Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, I would direct your attention that the

Bill of Rights of 1689 is applicable to this province. We took over the

statutory common law of England and the procedures of the British

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Erskine May in the 18th edition

at page 196, again dealing with the "lawfulness" that has been raised

in the hon. member's motion.

"The House of Commons claims that its admitted right

to adjudicate on breaches of privilege implies in theory the right to

determine the existence and extent of the privileges themselves. It has

never expressly abandoned its claim to treat as a breach of privilege

the institution of proceedings for the purpose of bringing its

privileges into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal

elsewhere than in parliament."

In other words, it appears to be the absolute and exclusive judge of

its own privileges and its judgments are not examinable by any other

court or subject to appeal. And on page 197 it says this: "On the other

hand, the courts admit that the control of each House over its internal

proceedings is absolute and cannot be interfered with by the courts."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is by coincidence that the

member refers to Sir Erskine May, 14th edition, page 196, for his

argument, as I do for mine. If you will continue his argument you will

find that it is a matter of privilege, not of outside law, that governs

the law of this House, and I refer you to the very example given by the

member, Sir Erskine May, 18th edition, page 196. But to complete the

reading, to point out the necessity of finding out that the legality of

the proceedings is not outside the chamber, but indeed, as the member

from Vancouver East has presented, within the chamber itself. That is

what makes the urgency of the motion itself. Not a defeat of the

motion, but support of the motion is really the point that has been

more than emphasized by the last example, and I repeat again, Sir

Erskine May, 18th edition, page 196.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. Leader of the

Opposition, when you first started to speak you referred to the 14th

edition. Did you in fact mean the 18th?

MR. BARRETT: Eighteenth edition.

MR. SPEAKER: So you're referring to the same....

MR. BARRETT: Eighteenth edition,

chapter 11: 196, 197 and 198.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will get you in trouble every time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have engaged in a fair number

of references to assist the Chair in making a decision on the motion by

the hon. first member for Vancouver East. Certainly I appreciate the

assistance of the hon. members in bringing to the Chair supporting

evidence for their reasons that a motion be considered. I think that it

is in the best traditions of parliament and that when we get involved,

as we have done, in debate which has little substance with respect to

the orders of the House or the assistance that we have in May and

Beauchesne , it does degrade the parliamentary process.

I appreciate and thank the hon. members for their assistance and I

would say further to the hon. members that if they have further

assistance by way of a particular text they wish me to look at before

bringing a decision back to the House, please do that when I leave the

chamber to consider the matters which you have brought before me. I

think now, hon. members, we should get on with the business of the day.

Introduction of bills.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

MR. LAUK: Is it abolishing the opposition?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't have to abolish you, Gary.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2938 ]

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

amendments to Bill 57, intituled Mineral Resource Tax Act.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the

amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the

House having in charge Bill 57.

Leave not granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just like you say. Graham doesn't waste any time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, because of the fact that

unanimous leave was not granted, you will have to go through the rather

long procedure to introduce your amendments to this bill.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the minister....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is it on a point of order?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've already recognized the minister, and I'm sorry.

MR. D. BARRETT (Vancouver East): He wasn't on his feet.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have recognized the minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members! Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the hon. first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) if he will withdraw the remark that the minister is a

coward. Please withdraw that.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We ask for an absolute withdrawal.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it is well established in this House that "political coward" is not unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: It's established.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Well, order, nothing! That's been established.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the hon. member to withdraw, an absolute withdrawal.

MR. LAUK: I said I withdraw the word "coward."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all I asked you to do.

MR. LAUK: He's a political coward. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a lame duck.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I remind all hon. members that

you cannot do in this House indirectly what you cannot do directly, so

I ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw without

reservation the word....

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are in the middle of a point of order. Would the Hon, Member

[ Page 2939 ]

please be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An unreserved withdrawal.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: I offer an unreserved withdrawal at this stage, Mr. Chairman; I'll have more to say about this minister later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and it will have to be in order.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I note that you've insisted on a complete and unequivocal withdrawal of the words "political cowardice."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Political coward.

MR. KING: Political coward — all right, Mr. Chairman. But I

would think, in light of what has gone on in this House the last number

of days, that both the Chairman of the House and the Speaker would want

to be even-handed in terms of enforcing the rules of the House. I would

point out that the language contained in the budget of British Columbia

— in the budget speech of the province of British Columbia this year —

contained a phrase accusing the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) of

political cowardice, and the Speaker refused to have that withdrawn and

upheld the right of the government to use that terminology.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I find it very, very difficult to understand how

you demand an apology and a withdrawal from the first member for

Vancouver Centre when the government not only uttered that kind of

charge but published it throughout this province. I think that brings

the whole House, the role and the impartiality of the Chairman and the

Speaker into question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I appreciate that observation. I

would like to remind the hon. member of something he already knows, and

that is that this is committee, that this is the Chairman of committee

and the precedent to which he has referred rightfully belongs in the

House, and I think the hon. member understands that.

MR. KING: I understand; this accommodates the government.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a point of order: with respect, the Chairman improperly reported.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you give an indication of how it is determined...?

MR. LAUK: He said the committee recommended the amendments. That's not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Chairman of committee then report in a manner which will not offend the member for Vancouver Centre?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, in reporting I neglected saying that we are recommending the introduction of the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, when you asked the Chairman to

come back and report again the correct way, you said it was so that he

would not offend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Did you mean the

rules or the hon. member?

MR. SPEAKER: It seems both the rules and the hon. member were offended.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message

and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to a committee of

the House having in charge Bill 57.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise recommending the introduction of the amendments.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You were one step ahead of yourself, Hon. Minister.

[ Page 2940 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the amendments be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message

and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee

of the House having in charge Bill 57.

Motion approved.

Amendments to Bill 57, Mineral Resource Tax Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION FAIR WAGES ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Public Construction Fair Wages Act.

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave to move motion 11 standing in my name on the order paper having

to do with the appointment of an auditor-general.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll read the motion, Mr. Speaker, for the

record. It's moved that the committee of selection appointed by this

House March 17, 1976, comprising Hon. Grace McCarthy, Hon. R.H.

McClelland and Messrs. Chabot, King and Gibson, be authorized to

appoint a special committee of the Legislature to recommend a person to

be appointed as auditor-general as provided under

section 2 of the

Auditor General Act.

MR. MACDONALD: May I inquire whether or not the committee to

be appointed will have power to sit whether or not the Legislature is

sitting? That might be in

section 2 of the bill. I haven't been able to

turn it up quickly.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Is it in

section 2?

The second question would be: is there any indication from the

minister as to when this committee should report back with its

selection?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Vancouver East, before we

proceed further, I think you are now discussing sections of the bill.

We are on a motion which is before the House. Perhaps the hon. Minister

of Finance can assist the hon. member in refreshing his memory as to

what is in the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Act puts any

time limit on which the committee would function. However, it would be

at their pleasure as to when they would report. I am of the

understanding that they would function throughout, regardless of

whether the House is sitting or not.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a further clarification I

would seek of the minister: during this debate the question arose as to

whether this committee would be an all-party committee. Is it the

intention of the government in the selection of the special committee

that it will be?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, that was already indicated in previous debate; it will be an all-party committee.

Motion approved.

Oral questions.

DISMISSAL OF VICTORIA PUPIL

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, this question

is to the Minister of Education. I understand the minister was informed

this morning that a Victoria pupil was dismissed from his school, and

55 days had elapsed before the school board held a hearing — which is,

of course, allowable under the Public Schools Act — and at which the

parent can attend. My question to the hon. minister is: will he give

this House assurance that he personally will look into this case which

appears to be a very severe denial of the rights to education for a

child in the school system?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the matter is already under

study by officials of the Department of Education. When I receive their

report I will deal with it and be pleased to inform the House.

REDUCTION OF FERRY CREWS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Transport and Communications: with further reference to my question of yesterday regarding the

[ Page 2941 ]

reduction of crews on the B.C. ferries, and the minister's statement

that "the numbers required under the Canada Shipping Act are the

numbers really required for high-seas operation and we are looking to

the numbers required for inland water operation," can the minister

tell the House if the government then views the Strait of Georgia as

inland waters when it is used by a large volume of international

sea-going vessels?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I think my reference to inland waters was inappropriate yesterday. I should have said protected waters.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With the

reduction of crews on the B.C. ferries to the minimum allowed on the

Canada Shipping Act, has there been any concern expressed, either by

crew members or management, over the capacity of the crew to deal with

emergency situations such as occurred in a collision with a Russian

freighter in August, 1970, and the fire on the Queen of Victoria in

November, 1972?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been some concern expressed. However, I will have to take the question as notice.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the

crews were reduced in number, have the regular fire and emergency drill

procedures been rehearsed, and have the results of these emergency

drill procedures been satisfactory with the reduction number of crew?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer is yes to

both those questions. But, again, I will take them as notice to make

certain of my reply.

ELECTION PUBLIC OPINION POLL

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier: could

the Premier advise the House whether he was privy to or aware of in any

way the results of any public opinion surveys taken during the period

of the general election in British Columbia last December?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I know of no surveys that were taken during the election last year.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary just to clarify that very

precisely, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is not aware of any results of any

surveys that were taken during the period between the calling of the

election and its holding on December 11.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am not aware of any surveys that were initiated after the calling of the general election last year, no.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not quite sure what the question is.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary. The question

wasn't whether they were initiated during the general election; the

question was whether he was aware of the results of any surveys on

which any soundings of any kind whatsoever were taken at any time

during the period of the dropping of the writ and the holding of the

election.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker. The only information I would have would be the enthusiastic reports of our campaign workers.

MOTOR-VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a question for

the minister responsible for ICBC, the Minister of Education: almost a

couple of months ago the minister said that he could not give the

number of motor-vehicle registrations recorded this year because the

ICBC computer was too busy on other work. It's now past the middle of

June and long past the big general rush of the year. I wonder if the

minister would furnish the House with this information now. How many

cars, how many trucks are licensed to operate on our roads this year up

to date, or at least up to last month?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll request that information and see if it's available, and if it is I'll report to the House by 6 p.m.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, while the

Minister of Education, the president of ICBC, is getting that answer,

if he can also confirm or deny a report that it is the intention of the

corporation to fire or lay off at least 50 per cent of the adjusters

who are working for the corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: That would be a separate question on the same general subject area, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it's not a supplementary

question, but there is no such policy. Naturally the corporation will

not keep excess employees; and if claims are down there will be some

allowance for reduction in staff, but certainly not by

[ Page 2942 ]

discharging 50 per cent of the adjusters.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental, I wonder if

while the minister is checking with ICBC for the information that I

requested, would he check and ask the cash on hand figure and the

amount of claims outstanding?

HON. MR. McGEER: On hand?

CHILLIWACK AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): My question is to the Minister of

Environment. Has cabinet approved deletion of any land from the

agricultural land reserve, based on an appeal from the township of'

Chilliwack?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): If the member is referring to an 1,800-acre parcel, the answer is no.

MR. SKELLY: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister as

chairman of the ELUC recommended to cabinet that all or part of the

1,800 acres covered by the Chilliwack appeal be removed from the

agricultural land reserve — all or part?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Even though the question appears to be out

of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't mind answering. To clarify it for the

member for Alberni, the Environmental Land Use Committee has not

received the application and subsequent information required for a

decision.

MR. SKELLY: Has the minister received any representation from

the hon. member for Chilliwack to remove all or part of that land from

the ALR?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The word used, I believe, was representation. I have discussed the question with the hon. member for Chilliwack, yes.

BELL COPPER-CAIMAW DISPUTE

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour.

Regarding the dispute that has been underway since February 7, between

Bell Copper of Granisle and the CAIMAW union, I wonder if the minister

is planning any personal intervention in light of the long tenure of

this dispute and the catastrophic economic effect it's having on that

community and the people of that community?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the

member for Revelstoke-Slocan has asked the question. I am currently

awaiting a report from the mediation officer who has been involved in

that dispute, and the purpose of receiving that report is to determine

precisely what action the Minister of Labour can take, either

personally or through other avenues open to him, through his department

or through the law, to deal with this matter.

MR. KING: On a supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister

suggesting that a mediation officer has been involved in this dispute

for four months and still has not filed his report to the minister?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the mediation officer has been

involved and he has filed a report. I've asked him to update his report

by getting in touch with the parties and advise me precisely what the

situation is today.

FERRY FARES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. Now that he has filed his answer and the effect of it

is that the senior citizens, who travel by bus from Vancouver to

Victoria and back, do in fact pay another $1.30 on their bus tickets,

will the minister now reconsider his advertising to make it clear to

the senior citizens of this province that it is not a free ride on the

B.C. Ferries, but in fact they pay $1.30 more than free? Otherwise I

think we are giving misleading information against the Consumer

Protection Act. Will you reconsider your advertising?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall any advertising.

We don't have any advertising programme to that effect, but it is true

that senior citizens boarding ferries can travel on the ferries free

between Monday and Thursday, and this is the first time in the history

of B.C. Ferries that this has been the case.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): They have to walk 30 miles to the ferry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the minister make it clear when he uses

the word "free" that the "free" costs $1.30 to all of those who travel

by bus? It is not free, and will the minister correct the

misrepresentation he has given to the senior citizens of the province?

It's all the government....

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, it is true that senior citizens

who commission a bus to travel from, say, downtown Vancouver to

downtown Victoria or,

[ Page 2943 ]

conversely, also pay for the bus passage on the ferry, which costs

over a dollar. So while they travel free on the ferry, they have, in

effect, caused the bus to be transported on the ferry and that expense

has to be met.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a ripoff!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

PREMIER'S MODE OF TRANSPORT

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Premier.

During the Easter break of the Legislature, cabinet met in open meeting

with the Vancouver city council. On the morning of that meeting would

the Premier tell me by what mode of transportation he travelled from

the Hotel Vancouver to city hall? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll take the question as notice and report back to the House. (Laughter.)

FINANCIAL AID TO CHILDREN OF VIETNAM

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health with regard to an earlier resolution of this House....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor on a question.

MR. WALLACE: With regard to an earlier resolution of this

House to provide financial aid to the children of Vietnam and the fact

that in light of the change of government in December that resolution

needs reconsideration, is the minister taking any initiatives to

reconstitute the committee, which was to decide on the disbursement of

$2 million as approved by resolution brought into this House by the now

Minister of Labour, to finalize the decision in light of the fact that

various agencies are still seeking to know when the money will be made

available to them to disburse it to the children of Vietnam?

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

the member for Oak Bay, I'm sorry I don't have the material with me at

the present time, I was about to answer that question this week in the

House, but from memory I would just say to the member that there is

some difficulty in reconstituting that committee. There was a committee

established and $2 million allocated to the relief for health care of

the Vietnamese children. There were three awards made by that

committee, I believe, in the sum of somewhere around $300,000. I don't

have the exact figures here.

However, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the $2 million was never

made available by Treasury Board, or by the government, to set up that

fund. The $300,000....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the $300,000 that was spent

was sort of borrowed from the fund which was set up for aid to

developing countries through the Department of Agriculture with the

understanding that someday in the future it would be repaid when the

Treasury Board could find the $2 million to set up the fund and repay

the agricultural development fund.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...since that money was never made

available, the fund was never set up, and it was not known to the

present government at that time what the previous Finance minister had

done. There is no budget allocation in this year's budget for the $2

million to reconstitute that committee or spend the money.

Mr. Speaker, I have to recommend to my cabinet colleagues that at

least for this fiscal year there would be no point in reconstituting

that committee.

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 2944 ]

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 46, Mr. Speaker, by leave.

Leave granted.

BRITISH COLUMBIA EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTIONS CAPITAL FINANCING

AUTHORITY ACT

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the principle of this particular bill is very simple and straightforward. It is to set up a Crown corporation ...

MR. WALLACE: Another one?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes.

...very similar to the B.C. school districts capital financing

authority, to the B.C. hospital districts capital financing

authority....

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinko!

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member just departing the

House referred to me as a "pinko", and I hope that he'll withdraw that

remark. I have never belonged to the New Democratic Party and I don't

intend to.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): How many have you belonged to? (Laughter.)

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, I

mistook him for the second member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who

is wearing a pink shirt. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, to get back to the purpose of

this bill, it's to give our post-secondary institutions, particularly

the three public universities and BCIT, the same opportunities for

long-term planning in their capital financing as we have brought for

hospitals, for our school districts and for our community colleges,

which at the present time are able to borrow through the B.C. school

districts capital financing authority.

The wording of the bill itself, the form of the corporation, very

closely parallels that of the other Crown corporations set up to borrow

for hospitals and schools in British Columbia.

The problem the universities have faced over the years is that they

have never been able to enter into any proper long-term capital

planning. So much money has been allocated each year in the way of

capital funds to the three universities, but frequently, if there's a

major building project, the amount of money is insufficient to cover

the tender which the board of governors must legally give in order for

that building to proceed. It's led to difficulties over the years, and

I think one only has to look at two of our three universities — the

University of Victoria and UBC — to realize the handicap this method of

financing has placed upon those institutions.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's not establishing a new principle as far as

long-term government policy is concerned; it merely creates a parallel

Crown corporation to give our universities and other post-secondary

institutions the same opportunities for long-term capital planning.that

now exists for our schools and hospitals.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, this is a very

interesting bill because actually, although it is called the education

institution bill, there are a number of questions which we would like

to have answered from the minister. But before I pose some of those

questions to the minister I think it's quite obvious that we have here

another move by the Social Credit government to move into deficit

financing. Here again in the past we have always had the capital funds

for universities laid out for us in the estimate book so members of the

Legislature can ask questions about how much has been spent and the

reasons why the government decided to give so much to the universities,

or not as much as they had in previous years.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

It's interesting to note that this year the capital allotted by the

Social Credit government to the universities was, I believe, in the

area of $6 million — considerably lower than had been in former years.

This is most interesting because I recall so many speeches made by the

Minister of Education when he sat over here in which he condemned the

former Social Credit government and the NDP government for lack of

educational spending. And he was always particularly interested, in

universities — far more so, I think, than in the public school area

because, of course, that is the area in which he has been most

involved. But I do find it rather ironic that this present Minister of

Education — who spent so many years criticizing the former governments

for their lack of contribution to education, particularly higher

education in this province — brought in an estimate book this time with

$6 million for capital expenditures for universities.

I'm not arguing that at the present time the $6 million was a figure

that may be undesirable for the universities, but I do think that this

minister who fought so strongly in opposition...certainly his words and

his attempts to increase the spending for education have become very

muted since he became Minister of Education, and not only in relation

to university financing — and I want to keep on the bill — but also to

all educational expenditures.

[ Page 2945 ]

Now this bill is obviously, as I said, another attempt by the

government to move into deficit financing. They are setting up another

corporation similar, as the minister said, to the capital financing

structure we have for public schools. But why not be honest about it?

Why doesn't the minister admit that the government is in difficulty

financially and one of the reasons for setting this up at this time is

because of the deficit situation in which this government finds

themselves?

I don't think there's been much dialogue with the universities of

the province over whether this is a suitable way of financing. I'm

wondering if the universities council of British Columbia — which was

set up by the former government, and which I know the minister

apparently endorses — were asked about this. Perhaps they were. It

would be interesting to hear from the minister how he arrived at this

particular moment, so quickly, into a rather major change in the

financing of capital costs for universities. I'd be most interested in

the discussions which took place and led to this.

I know that the universities have been hit cold by this, which I

think is unfortunate. I think that it's too bad that this Minister of

Education does not seem to endorse the policy of consultation with

those involved in the educational environment before he brings in some

rather far-reaching legislation. I think there are a number of

questions that the universities are asking, so it's obvious that there

was not too much consultation — although I do know that the minister

has made some speeches to them, and he has met with them.

I must say that in reading a report on one of the speeches made by

the Minister of Education on this matter — the whole area of

educational financing and capital construction financial problems — I

think the minister actually said, and I stand to be corrected or expect

him to correct me if I am misquoting him, to the university officials

at one university: "Well, you know, if you are having problems with

financing...." And somebody asked him about raising student fees, I

believe this Minister of Education has gone on record in this

particular

article as saying: "Perhaps that's an area you'd better look

at."

So we have it quite clear where this minister stands. Although he

stood so strongly for increased expenditures for education when he was

on this side of the House, his present policies have certainly not

shown that he is carrying through what his words seemed to suggest as a

member of the opposition.

I am also very concerned that he has actually suggested to

universities that the raising of tuition fees might be one way out of

their financial problems at a time when so many students are going to

experience great difficulty in even getting into any area of

post-secondary education because of this government's financial

policies in so many areas, particularly their lack of ability to

provide employment for students. I really think the minister stands

condemned for suggesting at this time that universities should raise

the tuition fees for their students.

I have a couple of questions on the bill. I know we are not in

committee, we are discussing it in principle, but I think these

questions perhaps could be thrown out, unless corrected by you, Mr.

Speaker, at this time.

The universities are interested in the relationship of the

universities council to this bill. I wonder if the minister will be

able to explain, when he closes debate on this reading: will the

universities council continue to make the recommendations on the

financial needs of our post-secondary educational institutions? The

universities, that is — that's all they are empowered to do at this

time, I believe. Will they continue as they were doing in the past?

This new authority which is set up I believe will have three cabinet

ministers on it. What relationship will this authority, with the

cabinet ministers on it, have with the universities council? Will they

still be looking to the universities council for input? Even if they

do, I think it's quite clear that these cabinet ministers will make the

final decision now on the final disposal of moneys for capital.

So really what I am trying to find out is: what are the terms of

reference now at the universities council with reference to university

financing for capital now that this new authority is being created?

I think the universities are also concerned about their total

budget. Their operating budget has been reduced. It was considerably

reduced by the government. I think they are concerned as to what is

going to happen when this new authority comes in. Is the Minister of

Education going to ensure that the Treasury Board makes provision for

the payment back of the principal, interest payments, which must be

provided for, I presume, by each individual university? Is it going to

be the same as it is for the public schools? The universities are

concerned. Or are they going to have to take this extra money for

repayment for the capital construction out of a very, very skimpy

operating budget for next year?

At the present time, Mr. Speaker, those are the points I wish to

make, but I do want to close by saying that it does show that this

government is in difficulty in financing. It really is another

deficit-financing bill. Thank you.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver – Capilano): I don't think

this bill deserves a great deal of debate at second reading. It is, as

the hon. member who just sat down said, just another deficit-financing

bill. It's very, very curious that the government and that particular

minister, in his other half as president of

[ Page 2946 ]

ICBC, was so anxious to pay deficits off before March 31 and is so

anxious to incur them now. But we'll put that down as one of the funny

little accidents in times of history.

This is a way, of course, Mr. Speaker, of generating a big surplus

in the budget in the coming year — if they make it operational right

away by borrowing money through this corporation and paying it out to

the universities. It otherwise would have come out of capital grants

showing up in budgetary account. So it's another way of fiddling around

with the accounts. It is a separation between capital and operational

expenses in the accounts of this province, and that's a good thing, but

it could have been done right in the budget if the Minister of Finance

had chosen to draw it that way. He didn't. The government chose to

proceed this way. I see nothing terribly objectionable in it as long as

people understand exactly what's being done, and that is that it is a

deficit-financing bill.

The Minister of Finance very much must insist, in the accounts of

this province and in his budgetary presentations from here on, that the

borrowings and operating positions of all of these Crown corporations,

which are being set up this session, are faithfully reflected in the

accounts of the province and consolidated in order to give a genuine

picture of the operations of the province in order that we will not

have too much sleight-of-hand and the claiming of great changes in the

financial position of the province in comparing apples and oranges to

previous years. These are the only remarks I would have on the bill at

this point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt

that in the years I've been in this House there's been a constant

request by universities in particular for subsidy, and the government

is meeting the request of the universities in that particular regard.

However, I would just echo the comments of the other two speakers who

have just taken their place in this debate. It's strange to me that

right through the session this government, which sought the election on

a very clear premise that there would be less and less arms,

commissions, Crown corporations and various agencies of government, is

really doing a surprising job in creating new Crown corporations. This,

I think, is the third or fourth one when we consider the ferries

corporation and the B.C. Buildings Corp. I may have missed one or two

others this session that are on the order paper, Mr. Speaker.

But certainly here we have another Crown corporation where the

authority is vested in the Minister of Finance, the Minister of

Education and the Deputy Minister of Finance. I just wonder whether

this kind of authority, which, as has been pointed out, is certainly

another smokescreen for deficit financing, is really the proper way to

go about giving the universities the kind of help they want in their

long-term capital planning.

In the budget debate and in many other debates this session I have

pointed out that I think there is a schizophrenic approach by this

government, that in operating dollars it absolutely insists that there

must be nothing but black ink. But time after time bills come before

this House asking us to authorize borrowing in very large amounts. The

worst example I can think of is the B.C. Hydro Authority. That, in

turn, with its debt-carrying charges, is reflected in the variety of

ways which, nevertheless, cannot hide the fact that this is a debt. But

I suppose to the man in the street that kind of debt through capital

borrowing by Crown corporations is much less obvious than the so-called

debt or deficit that might arise from the operating budget of the

province.

I think it would be very important when these new Crown corporations

are functioning that the clearest possible accountability be

established at budget time each spring to this House and to the people

of the province so deficits which are being carefully avoided in the

operating budget of the province are not skilfully covered up by

presenting capital borrowing through the Crown corporations in a less

than obvious fashion.

Again I would refer back to Hydro and the ever-increasing debt of

Hydro as an example, I think, of how the government is held

accountable as guaranteeing a lot of this borrowing, but which for the

ordinary citizen doesn't show up on the budget sheet each spring in

this province. I wonder if the minister, who used to speak very

eloquently and very convincingly from this side of the House as a

Liberal for complete accountability in government, particularly the

most important kind of accountability — the accountability for the

spending, borrowing and dealing and all the handling of taxpayers'

dollars that are raised either by revenues or by paying inflated Hydro

rates because of the extensive cost of borrowing in Hydro....

When the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) stood on this side

of the House, he was most emphatic that that should always be the case.

So all I would say in supporting this bill in principle is that it

provides borrowing and better capital planning on a long-term basis for

universities and colleges, would the minister combine that with the

very clear commitment and promise to the House that in the borrowing

that is done we will receive total accountability and explanation at

budget time each year?

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, while I agree that

this is just another deficit-financing bill, I don't think it is good

enough at this point in time to dismiss it lightly or even treat with

it once over lightly by saying that it is just another

[ Page 2947 ]

deficit-financing bill. Certainly the explanation of the minister

would lead us to believe that that is all it is — an attempt to take

out of our consolidated revenue and expenditures this particular item

and to finance deficits over a longer period of time, to finance

capital expenditures. With that we don't disagree. We have argued that

long-term assets might properly be financed over a long term. But we

don't agree that control over these expenditures should be taken out of

the hands of the Legislature.

I recall that yesterday when we were discussing another bill, I

think it was the hon. member for Hawaii who said that it is not taking

away from democracy to take matters out of the hands of the members of

the Legislature and give those matters to the cabinet — that's really

being more democratic because then you're giving it to the people who

are better mentally qualified to deal with it. In the case of this

bill, we are even taking it out of the hands of the cabinet and giving

it to three people to deal with — and that's supposed to be, I suppose,

an extension of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, previously in dealing with matters of capital

expenditures for universities, we discussed it in this Legislature. It

could still be done that way and they could still be financed over a

longer period. We could be dealing with borrowing bills, borrowing

bills that would provide money even for specific purposes. But they

need not set up separate institutions, or separate corporations or

separate authorities over which the Legislature has very little

authority — very little authority, Mr. Speaker.

For some reason or other even Hansard has given up — at least I can't hear myself any more; I hope the minister can.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any need to go through this

subterfuge in an attempt to fool the people of the province into

believing that this government is not operating at a deficit when it is

proper in this circumstance and for this purpose that they should go

into a deficit when they don't have the cash on hand to pay for capital

expenditures. There's no need to do this sort of thing. We should come

out openly and honestly and say to the people of the province: "We're

going to borrow money this year to build universities, to provide more

buildings at universities, universities that are going to be discussed

in this Legislature." The location of any new ones that might come up,

the possibility of expansion at existing ones — these are the kinds of

things we should be discussing in this Legislature in conjunction with

votes that are coming before us, at which time we will be determining

how much money would be allocated to that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular bill, unless I have missed it in

going through it, there isn't even an upper limit on the borrowing

that the government is going to be called upon to guarantee. Now what

effect will that have, Mr. Speaker, on our credit rating with unlimited

authority to guarantee money that might be borrowed for this purpose?

Certainly, I suppose, there would be a limit to the amount that would

be spent on this purpose, but not a limit set by the Legislature, Mr.

Speaker, as far as I can see in reading this legislation. There may be

a limit possibly set by the committee of three, but only possibly. It

doesn't even say that they will control the spending by whoever is

going to build university plans.

There is nothing in there to say who is going to set the targets,

nothing in there to indicate in what years these buildings would be

built, how much money would be spent, nothing in there to indicate what

will be the plan of action at all, nothing to indicate, Mr. Speaker,

that we are doing anything else other than agreeing to pay for a

long-term asset, which is proper, but agreeing also, Mr. Speaker, that

this is one more example of this government taking out of the control

of the members of the Legislature the spending of people's money.

Mr. Speaker, I'll remind you that this coalition over there — all of

them — were the people who used to talk about not dime without debate.

Consistently in this session, Mr. Speaker, they have, through their

actions — not through their speeches, but through their actions,

through their deeds, Mr. Speaker — one time after another shown that

they are only too willing, too anxious and too determined to take out

of the hands of the members in this Legislature not only the spending

of dimes, but the spending of, as they say, unlimited tens or even

hundreds of millions of dollars, the province guaranteeing that these

payments will be met without knowing just how much that guarantee is

going to be.

Even with B.C. Hydro, Mr. Speaker, as much as it spends and as much

as we have guaranteed on behalf of that corporation, at least we go

through the motions every year of changing the upper limits. There's

nothing in this about limits at all, Mr. Speaker. We would support

deficit financing for purposes such as this because we think it's a

good purpose and we believe that long-term assets should be financed

over long-term periods when you don't have the cash to do it, but we're

not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to support one more attempt to hand over to

a very small body control — control that should be in the hands of the

people through their elected representatives in this House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just in closing, to answer some of the

questions and, I hope, alleviate the anxiety of the members who have

spoken, yes, the amount of capital available for the universities is

down this year. We've restricted the available capital to the

completion of buildings that are already underway, but that won't

restrict the universities from taking advantage of this bill, if it

passes the

[ Page 2948 ]

Legislature, to commence now their longer-term plans. The dilemma

that we were faced with, as far as the universities council and the

universities were concerned, is their need to have some long-term

capital base. But as the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) and

the former Premier (Mr. Barrett), who was also the Minister of Finance,

will know, you don't undertake long-term financial commitments that

obligate you beyond a given budget year. In order to solve this

problem, we propose to place the universities on precisely the same

basis as the school districts and the hospital districts for their

financing.

Therefore there's no more an upper limit on this particular bill

than there's an upper limit for the borrowing for school purposes. So

it's not like some nefarious new scheme has been introduced to take

spending authority from the Legislature. Far from it. I'd like to

assure the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that of course there will

be full and complete accounting of all the money which is approved for

borrowing purposes under this Act at each session of the Legislature.

My passion for full and open disclosure of finances, Mr. Member, has

not dimmed a bit from the perspective of this side, and I certainly

strongly support the Auditor General Act which is coming forward which

is going to give us a degree of accountability which the province has

never before had at its disposal.

Now there is the problem of separating capital and operating, and

only for a brief period during the 1960s was the province fully

self-sufficient in both capital and operating from its various incomes.

Even then, the capital projects undertaken by the Crown corporation,

including schools and hospitals, were being financed by money that was

in effect borrowed from the people through the various pensions funds.

I refer particularly to the Canada Pension Plan and to the teachers'

pension fund and the various other trust accounts. So while it was not

necessary for us to go outside of British Columbia in those years to

provide for the capital and the operating needs of the province — I

might add at some penalty to the educational institutions —

nevertheless it was necessary for borrowing to take place from the fund.

So, again, we're not extending any new principle from the point of

view of the way the province's finances have been governed. With the

introduction of the auditor-general to the financial system of British

Columbia, it will all be displayed in much more vivid fashion for the

two former Ministers of Finance (Mr. Barrett and Mr. Stupich) who sit

on the opposition benches now, and it certainly will add greatly to the

opportunities that our universities and other post-secondary

institutions will have to plan an adequate long-term capital plan,

I think most members would agree with me that the job which has been

done so far is far less than satisfactory. I can assure the members

that it's going to be something which will be corrected with all

possible dispatch.

Now the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) wondered whether the

universities council would be making the recommendations to the

government. If she looks at

section 10, she will see the provision

there for the universities council to make a recommendation on each and

every project before it's approved by the government for funding.

Now the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has just

disappeared for the moment, but I want to explain to him that the kind

of capital that you borrow for long-term capital purposes is entirely

different than the kind of reserve account that must be established in

an insurance corporation to pay for claims which have been incurred,

but for which the payout has not yet been demanded.

I think if he thinks about it a little bit, he'll realize how

specious his argument was in trying to make a comparison between ICBC

reserves, where individuals are owed money by the corporation, even

though they haven't collected it and the building of an appropriate

edifice for our post-secondary institutions. With that, Mr. Speaker, I

move the question now be put.

Motion approved.

Bill 46, Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): On behalf of the House Leader, (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) second reading of Bill 55.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this bill is the traditional

bill which appears from the Department of Education every year setting

forth amendments which are deemed appropriate after, I might add,

considerable consultation with the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C.

School Trustees Association and our own Department of Education.

I won't, in attempting to establish the broad principle of the bill,

go into each of the individual sections. We can deal with those in

committee. I might, however, mention some of the more important

features of the amendments for the members' consideration.

Section 7 of the bill — and I realize I'm transgressing perhaps a

little bit in this, Mr. Speaker, but if the members would wish me to

establish the more important principles contained in this, I shall. I

don't know what the wish of the House is.

[ Page 2949 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? There's not a single principle in this bill because it's very....

HON. MR. McGEER: It's the educational equivalent of the

Statutes Law Amendment Act, and Mr. Speaker,

section 7 amends the Act

to make it clear that principals, teachers, vice-principals and other

administrative staff are really teachers and they can be reassigned to

teaching duties by a board.

I think the hon. members realize that our total school population in

British Columbia is remaining constant, and in some school districts

the school population is actually declining. In view of this, of

course, it's going to mean some shifting of the personnel in the

educational system. All this makes clear in the Act is that an

administrative post is not a post where life tenure is granted, but a

person is really a teacher who for a period of time is being assigned

to these other administrative duties.

Section 6 of the Act makes it an offence for a person not to leave

the lands and premises occupied by a school when directed to do so by

an authorized person. This is merely to establish a little more

authority in the school system so that people cannot wilfully disrupt

the activities of a school. In former times, a person could go onto the

school grounds and while they might be disturbing the school, as long

as they ceased for the moment they were under no obligation to leave

when they were asked to. This just corrects that.

Section 9 makes it possible for a board to take action which is in

between either complete reinstatement or complete dismissal, and

regulations will have to be established under this particular

section

to see that it's fairly and appropriately administered.

Section 13 will permit there to be busing of people attending

independent schools, and I believe that was something what was

sponsored by the previous government. We think that that's an excellent

proposal and here it is in the legislation.

There is in

section 5 a more precise procedure defined for

suspending or expelling of pupils and I think that this will bear in a

positive way on the question asked by the member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly) earlier in the day.

There's a

section in there which allows the instructional unit to be

increased in value according to the consumer price index.

Mr. Speaker,

I apologize for the sort of scattered grab-bag nature of the amendments

introduced this year, but as I say it's a rather standard thing for the

Department of Education, and these are what we consider to be the most

urgent items that need to be attended to.

I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: I agree with the minister that it is a bill that

you either don't discuss at all until committee stage or you deal with

some of the major sections, — so I would like to make a few comments on

the bill in response to the minister in concerns which have been

expressed to me by other interested people in this bill. Then, of

course, in committee stage we'll have an opportunity to go into it in

more detail.

The majority of the amendments produced here seem to have been a

continuing process for the number of amendments which the New

Democratic Party government had already been making. I think the

minister's aware of that, so I'm very pleased with the carrying through

of some of the amendments here.

I think it's most interesting that the one on the assignment of

principals was one which we brought into the House a year ago and held

back specifically so that we could get a reaction from the teachers and

the trustees and others on it.

Now I understand that the time has passed. The minister did say he's

had considerable consultation, but to my knowledge I really don't think

— through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister — that there really

has been the kind of consultation taken place in his department and

under his ministry which did take place before, and I think that's

regrettable.

Certainly I agree that you don't expect groups to see direct copies

of the bill, but I do think that it is unfortunate that the minister

personally did not attempt to set up meetings with himself in personal

attendance with the groups in the province who are very, very

interested in what proposed amendments are coming out. Most of them

just had to wait and wonder just what was going to drop, which I think

is an unfortunate way to move into legislation.

However, on the matter of the assignment of principals, there is an

area of concern here, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to bring it to the

minister's attention — I know it has been brought to his attention by

the teachers already — and I think the teachers and the trustees both

agree with the basic principle of calling a principal or a teacher who

can then be assigned from principalship back to teaching or the other

way around, et cetera.

It's needed, but the teachers are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that there

is no real appeal process for a principal who could be moved from a

principalship to a classroom. I would wonder if the minister could

perhaps respond to their concerns, because I personally am concerned

that, by and large, I'm sure most school boards will handle this matter

very carefully, very delicately, but there could be areas where it may

not be handled that way.

What recourse does that principal have who suddenly finds himself

assigned from a principalship to a classroom? Yet teachers and

trustees, I know, both agree with the principle of the amendment. The

teachers though are concerned, and I am personally,

[ Page 2950 ]

with perhaps the lack of safeguard here, if we could put it that

way, for the movement and the transfer of a principal to teacher.

So I hope the minister will tell us how he feels about that and if

he really feels that due process of appeal has been given. I frankly do

not feel it has.

I think the matter where it gives an opportunity for someone to be

moved from schools...in school grounds who's causing problems, I think

is a necessary one and I'm glad to see it here. But I do think perhaps

the minister should look carefully at the actual

section to perhaps

give a better

interpretation as to who really has the authority to ask

someone if an unruly student or a person should be removed.

I don't think the

section is quite clear on who really has the

authority to ask that person to be removed, and if you try to go up to

a person and ask them to move, the point is that they are going to

question under whose authority. I wonder if the minister could perhaps

clear that up.

I'm glad to see there are changes in the whole area of dismissals of

students. As the minister said earlier, we were discussing that in

question period, and whatever we do it's essential to maintain the

rights of the child or the student in the case of dismissals and

suspensions and transfers.

I'm still a little concerned that perhaps there is too much leeway

for the principal, perhaps, and the teachers — I mean primarily the

principal — to make these decisions, perhaps with isolation from the

board. Although I do know there are some safeguards there, I think,

perhaps, it could be strengthened to ensure that the child's rights

come first in all ways, when it comes to the right to education.

There are a number of other sections of this bill which I would prefer to leave to the committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, — I just would seek the same rule

in this debate that we might discuss certain individual principles. I'm

particularly concerned about the one to which the minister referred and

which has been mentioned in question period.

I understand that prior to this bill a principal could only dismiss

but not suspend a student, and I would certainly appreciate the

minister's attention to the questions I wish to ask. I notice he's

otherwise distracted at the moment.

I notice that in this new bill the power given to the principal, the

teacher and the board uses repetitively the word "suspend,"

whereas my

understanding of the pre-existing legislation is that a principal or

teacher could only dismiss a pupil, whereupon a certain train of events

was put in place whereby automatically the responsibility was passed to

the board to determine for how long that child should be out of school.

I think, Mr. Speaker, they're dealing with a very, very important principle here. I use the word "principle" on this point.

Under the new legislation it would appear, and the minister can

correct me if I'm wrong, that the legislation we're now debating gives

the principal, in fact, the authority to suspend for up to five days.

Presumably, if the child or the parent then wishes the child to return

to school on the sixth day after suspension, there will be no further

procedures involved, no notification of a superintendent and no board

hearing. This would be my understanding from reading the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to go into great detail unless we can

perhaps deal with it fully in committee, but I would like the minister

to have this foreknowledge that I want to raise this point and discuss

it very carefully in committee — have we changed this basic thrust

that, in fact, a principal or teacher now under this new bill has the

authority to suspend for up to five days on his or her own authority?

Subsequent to that point, if the suspension should be considered to

be necessary for longer than five days, has the principal, indeed, to

notify the board of the school district and the board will then hold a

hearing, at which time the pupil and the parent or guardian appear

before the board?

If my

interpretation of this new bill is correct, I wonder why five days was

chosen. I presume that means it was chosen as five days happens to be a school

week. It does seem to me to give an additional significant degree of authority

to the principal or teacher when in point of fact the previous legislation made

the board directly responsible as soon as a student was dismissed.

It's very much an important difference between using the word

"dismiss," which can quite readily mean that the child could return to

education tomorrow,

whereas "suspend" connotes a definite period of

time, which this bill chooses to be in the order of five days, five

school days. This is one point that I think we should be clear about.

The other point is that in relation to the hearing which the child

can have before the board in the presence of a parent or guardian, I

wonder if the minister has given any thought to the importance of the

parent or guardian having the right to have some kind of adviser with

them at the hearing before the school board. After all, a school board

may well be composed of six or eight or 10 trustees with various

officials around a large table, and it is a rather awesome experience

for a parent who is already concerned about the behaviour of the child

who has been suspended or dismissed to go before this kind of audience

of elected officials when usually the parent

[ Page

2951 ]

would have limited or no knowledge of the exact provisions of the Public Schools Act.

I'm not aware, and this is a question I had intended to ask the

minister in question period..... Excuse me, between coughing and

sneezing this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I'm having some difficulties.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Take two aspirins. (Laughter.)

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): See your doctor. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the treatment I've tried for my

allergy in the past puts me to sleep and I'm sure the government

wouldn't want the opposition to go to sleep. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: If I can just remember what point I was trying to make it would be just great.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if in this principle of the bill

the minister would consider incorporating some kind of assurance that

the parent or guardian will have the right to have an adviser present

in the hearing before the school board. My understanding at the moment

is that by regulation of each school district this might be possible.

But I would suggest that there's enough at stake in trying to

straighten out the troubles of a student who is being dismissed and the

concern of the parents that it should not be up to the option of the

school board to decide whether or not some other adviser might be

present at the hearing.

I think the parents or the guardian and the child should be given

that right within the legislation and the assurance within the

legislation that they may have the option of having an adviser. Whether

that would be a legal adviser or a teacher or any other person is not

nearly as important as the assurance that someone who is well aware of

the provisions of the Act and who can guide and assist the parent and

guardian.... I think that would be a very progressive step for the

minister to take.

Again I would ask him, if there's nothing in this bill at the moment

to give that assurance, would he perhaps take the matter under

advisement and consider a possible amendment to ensure that when the

situation has reached the point where the student and parent or

guardian go to a board meeting, they have the assurance and the right

that they can be accompanied by someone of their choosing who will

advise and give them the kind of confidence that otherwise I think

would be lacking in that kind of hearing?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, just to deal with the last

point first, in closing debate — we can go into a little more detail in

committee. It's our advice that the parent is entitled to be

accompanied by someone. I hope that, having said that, we are not going

to have specialists developing in representing students who may be

suspended or expelled.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I am not sure whether it was

appropriately denied, but we'll have to go into that. Certainly I'll

have some answers for the time this comes up in committee.

Now a suspension must be reported forthwith by a principal to the

board. So while it doesn't have to go formally before the board for a

hearing, they must become aware of it. I think that one of the

difficulties of the present system and why this spells out more exactly

the procedure is that it isn't always easy for a board to be assembled

for a hearing. Again we've got this case where a youngster waited 55

days, and I really just don't understand yet the reasons why that took

place. But we will be investigating it.

Now the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) raised the subject of

the appeal of teachers or principals to reassignment. Of course, this

is something that the B.C. Teachers Federation has had under

consideration for a year, as the member well knows, when it was

proposed before as an appropriate and necessary measure. It doesn't

come into force until January 1 next year, so the B.C. Teachers

Federation has six more months to consider what they would deem to be

an appropriate method of appeal. We're quite open to whatever

suggestions they might make, providing they are practical suggestions.

For the moment, Madam Member, there is an appeal to the minister and

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council so it is not as though there were no

appeal procedure at all. Some might consider this the highest court in

the land. Others might consider it a hopelessly biased and

inappropriate body. But whatever lies in the individual's mind about an

appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the fact remains that it

does exist at the present time. Before the enactment of the bill people

can come forward with a mutually acceptable system for hearing appeals

out. We're more than pleased to accept them.

Now having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move the question be now put.

Motion approved.

Bill 55, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1976,

[ Page 2952 ]

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 61, Mr. Speaker.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the

Automobile Insurance Act are very routine indeed. They're explained in

the little explanatory notes to the bill.

Once more, it's a grab-bag — but a very small grab-bag — and the

basic thrust of the amendments is to give the insurance corporation

defences in court which would be open to any other insurer in British

Columbia.

The second package is to provide for situations where a person is

run down in British Columbia by an uninsured...and, of course, as the

members well know, that could never be anybody from British Columbia, but it's conceivable that somebody who is uninsured from

outside of British Columbia could be driving within the province of

British Columbia. If they strike somebody who is uninsured and,

therefore, unprotected, ICBC deems it appropriate that it should only

pay the claim in the event that the person who is injured would come

from a jurisdiction that would give the same consideration to a

resident of British Columbia were they in that position.

I move second reading of the bill.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I'm pleased that the

minister dubbed the bill, Bill 61, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act,

with a new name. He called it "grab-bag." Mr. Speaker, I for once in a

long, long time agree with the Minister of Education. It's a grab-bag.

It's a grab-the-money-bags of the people of British Columbia. Don't let

them kid you about talking about nice housekeeping amendments.

Look at the significance, Mr. Speaker, of these amendments. You have

time while you're sitting in the chair, I'm sure, to go over all the

bills, and I'm sure that you have done so long before now. By now

you're certainly in agreement with me that what the Minister of

Education, the minister responsible for ICBC, is doing is making the

way nice and easy for the advent of the private insurers who devastated

our land in the past and will be back to devastate our pocketbooks some

more in the future.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two items, just before I get

into that particular area, that I'd like to discuss. The first part of

the bill, I think, pretty well proves to me that ICBC has been infested

with NSF cheques. That, I suspect, is why the first part of that bill

was necessary — that kind of housekeeping. We suggested that there

would be, as a result of the departure from the normal practices of

ICBC, by the beginning of May — that was the beginning of the second

cheque that was.... At that time, ICBC could pick up the second cheque

from their pre-authorized cheque accounts for those who were on partial

payment, and it would seem that there are many uninsured drivers

driving the streets of our province.

Mr. Speaker, again in that section, the early

section of the bill,

it departs from the compensation fund — that is, the normal kind of

compensation fund that we wanted to get into, like the Workers'

Compensation Board. What they've done now is they've precluded that. I

believe this is just another way of making way for the private insurers.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill really says loud and clear is that we're

going to have a new system of insurance payments. If you look at not

only this bill but also Bill 80, you'll find that this also goes along

with the same direction. Bill 80 says that people will be buying their

licences at different times of the year — orderly. Well, Mr. Speaker,

that's orderly enough, but there are no safeguards. This is the way the

private insurers do it, and I suggest to you that only a stroke of the

pen in the future is necessary to bring the private insurers back.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why it's necessary to bring the private

insurers back. Certainly ICBC under this government has made it, I

guess, no less attractive having the private insurers back. Our rates

now are comparable with the rest of the country, and certainly much,

much higher than Saskatchewan and Manitoba, higher than other

jurisdictions in line with what we considered before the highest

ratings in Canada, and those were to be found in Quebec, in Montreal,

and jurisdictions like Toronto.

No, Mr. Speaker, all that we worried about when this government

started their direction on ICBC I'm afraid is coming to pass. The way

will be made clear for the private insurers who were, along with the

mining companies and others, instrumental in the election of this

"populace movement."

Mr. Speaker, I had to smile; I read that the other day in a column

about this populace movement. I don't know if you'll find very much

populace about a movement that's nothing much more or less than a

coalition of very ambitious people. And their ambition shows up in this

kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets up and gives the bill a short

shrift, when the minister gets up and says, "a little housekeeping, you

know, just the sort that makes things straight," the kind of

housekeeping we have here is a broom, and that new broom is sweeping

the way clear for the private insurers to come back.

I can understand the minister's motivation. He's overworked — look

at him, he needs a rest. It's obvious. Last night he even had to go

into the

[ Page

2953 ]

Speaker's office for a rest at a quarter to eleven. He didn't take a

rest, unfortunately, however, because the Premier walked in, the

Speaker walked in, and before they knew it they were making all sorts

of plans. But aside from that, Mr. Speaker, what we're looking at here

is a minister who says to himself, "Well, I need a rest, and therefore

if I get rid of ICBC, dump it on the private insurers...." and we're

back to square one.

Mr. Speaker, we've gone through all the reasons, hour in and hour

out in this House, why we should not go back to the mercy of the

private insurers. All across this country and all across North America

people are becoming fed up with the private automobile insurers. People

want off it. They're not looking to B.C. any longer, because we're no

example, but they're still looking at Saskatchewan and Manitoba where

good, fair automobile insurance is available.

Mr. Speaker, I have said before and I'll say again that what this

government is doing is trying to prove to the world that private

insurance is the way to go. They are doing that for their friends. But

the people in this province had a taste of private insurance; they had

a very short taste of public insurance, and got the feeling of what

public insurance could do for them.

Mr. Speaker, they don't want the stroke of the pen; they want some

kind of assurance from that minister today, in this House, that what I

say is not true. They want that minister to stand up here and defend

ICBC, to say that it's an ongoing corporation that will have the

protection of this coalition government as long as the coalition

government lasts. Yes, protection.

You see, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, when you become, as

ICBC has, one of the highest-rated insurance companies in the country,

then the private insurers can come in and undercut, particularly on the

basis of creaming off the best of the market and leaving the worst

risks for ICBC. Let's not kid ourselves. The Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) shrugs; he looks like Pierre when he shrugs.

But, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Consumer Services, doesn't

understand that, who should? You should.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. If the member for New Westminster would continue to address the Chair, perhaps....

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I missed your presence for a

moment, and I'm sorry about that. I direct my discussion to you and I

reiterate that this bill, the Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, was

carefully named by the Minister of Education — he called it a grab-bag.

That's right; it is a grab-bag, an opportunity for the private insurers

to grab bags of money, as they once did, from the people in this

province. Unless the minister can stand up and assure and reassure us

that that is not the case, that they are not making way for the private

insurers, then we have no alternative but to vote against this bill in

principle, if in fact you can call it a principle. Yes, Mr. Speaker,

we're interested to hear what that minister has to say.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, this bill

is the death knell of ICBC. I am amazed that the government is moving

so quickly to destroy something that has been built for the people of

British Columbia. If this bill passes, we will in a year's time back in

this House find ourselves with another bill proposing to sell ICBC to

the private insurers for the sum of $1, because that's all ICBC will be

worth once we find ourselves in the position of having the private

insurance companies back in the province of British Columbia.

This is the direction this bill is taking us. It is not a simple

housekeeping bill; it is the fulfilment of an election promise to put

insurance back in the hands of the private insurance companies in

British Columbia.

The deals are already being made, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with the

private insurance companies to come back into the province, to take

over the good risks and leave ICBC, as the member for New Westminster

has said, holding the bag with the poor risks and the expensive sort of

insurance. This is the death knell that this bill passes; it is the

first step to destroying ICBC. For that reason, I feel I must rise and

oppose the bill.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister could have done far

better than take the stand he has taken in financing the total costs of

ICBC in one fell swoop with a rubber cheque to the Minister of Finance...

AN HON. MEMBER: A rubber chicken.

MR. MACDONALD: A rubber duck of a minister.

MRS. WALLACE: ...of paying off, at the expense of the citizens

of British Columbia, the entire cost of ICBC in one fell swoop and then

preparing to destroy that very company which we have built with the

taxpayers' money and with the money of the drivers of British Columbia,

a company that was able to provide the kind of insurance that should be

provided — full insurance, no quibbling in the courts as to who was

guilty or who was not guilty, but complete coverage, safety, assurance

of financial security when you were on the road. This has been

destroyed, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest. This bill is

[ Page 2954 ]

moving even further to destroy that very concept that ICBC was all about.

I abhor the government moving this quickly to destroy something that

was performing such an excellent service for the people of British

Columbia.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I abhor this government moving so unashamedly

to fulfil its promises to the private insurance companies, that it

moved so quickly to get those rates up. Just as soon as they were in a

position to do it, those rates went up so the private insurance

companies would find a competitive market here in B.C. Now we are

moving through some administrative changes to make it even more

palatable for those companies to return.

This bill is not a simple housekeeping bill, Mr. Speaker; this bill is destroying ICBC. I am completely opposed to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I found it hard to believe my

ears at some of the arguments that were being set forward by the

opposition with respect to this bill. I would have thought they might

have at least read the bill, read the sections, and realized that,

really, what was involved here is just protecting the treasury of

British Columbia against unjustified claims from people who live

outside the province, and in some cases giving ICBC the same protection

in the courts as now exists for the private insurance companies. Why

the members would be opposed to that I simply cannot understand.

Certain statements were made about ICBC — reference, of course, here

to the

section on cyclical billing which, it is the hope of the

government and ICBC, can be brought in perhaps not for this coming

renewal year but the one after. All this is going to do, Mr. Speaker,

is spread a workload that is now condensed into one month over 12

months and allow for much greater efficiency of operation, and permit

people to be more productively employed than having to do all of the

work in one month and then cool their heels for the remaining 10 or 11

months. The cyclical billing will reduce the cost, by our calculation,

perhaps as much as $20 million a year, which will be of benefit to all

the people of British Columbia. Why you would be against that I cannot

understand.

As far as the NSF cheques — I'm sure there will be some of those, I

hope very few, issued to the corporation — that doesn't mean that a

person is uninsured, as the member should well know. If they have a

decal, as far as the law is concerned, that person is insured.

Now if they are in arrears in their payments, they won't be able to

collect on any collision; but as far as liability is concerned, other

people are protected. If they are in arrears in their payments, they

may have trouble getting a renewal if they owe the corporation money

and if they haven't paid. If they are in arrears, as the member well

knows, they are subject to having their licence picked up by the

police. These are the protections that the public has against people

who would wilfully not pay the insurance protection they must have in

order to drive in British Columbia.

The member seemed to think that there is some kind of sinister plot

to bring private insurance companies back to British Columbia. Well,

Social Credit made it very clear during the election campaign that the

private insurers would be invited back to British Columbia at some

future time to compete with ICBC, and whether or not they wish to come

back in force is anybody's guess. But at the present time licences have

been issued. No directive from the government but Mr. Cantell, the

superintendent of insurance, has been issuing licences to the private

insurance companies, and indeed some of them are selling at the present

time fleet insurance in British Columbia.

So where the private insurers can offer better rates they're doing

so. But what's wrong with that? It's certainly no sinister plot and

it's nothing new. It was part of the platform of the Social Credit

Party, and I take it from the results of the election that that was

endorsed by the public of this province.

ICBC — the former minister responsible for ICBC said that we should

give the people reassurance that ICBC was going to exist. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we only give this reassurance about ICBC. So long as that

corporation is an efficient corporation...and it is an efficient

corporation now, operating at millions and millions of dollars less

than under the NDP, not protected by any false prospectuses issued by

the government, not by any false budgets but by legitimate bookkeeping

and proper business management, and because of that the public of

British Columbia in a very real way is going to benefit by millions and

millions of dollars.

Now if people can come in and do an even more efficient job than

that, then it is to the benefit of British Columbians. But the

suggestion is being continually made by the opposition that somehow the

books should be cooked so the public of British Columbia would believe

that they were getting low-cost insurance when all the time there was

an inefficient corporation operating that had to be subsidized by the

public treasury — those days are gone under this new government, Mr.

Speaker.

I tell you that the only protection the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia will have will be as a well-run corporation that

brings service to the people at cost. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

under this

[ Page 2955 ]

government the real cost of that service is going to be considerably less than under the socialists.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Jordan

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Loewen

Mussallem

Veitch

Strongman

Wallace, G.S.

Rogers

NAYS — 16

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Wallace, B.B.

Barber

Brown

Barnes

Lockstead

Skelly

Sanford

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

Bill 61, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1976, read a second

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

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

I am very pleased — as a matter of fact, I might say I'm very proud —

to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 65, the Consumer Protection

Act.

Over the years the British Columbia Legislature has given its

approval to a number of statutes which have been designed to protect

consumers — and not only to protect consumers but, just as importantly,

to help the many honest businessmen who suffer just as badly as

consumers do when unscrupulous competitors are allowed to take

advantage of the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, a landmark move in helping consumers was the 1967