1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page

1281 ]

CONTENTS

Motion

Motion to name special committee on privilege.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1281

Mr. Speaker — 1281

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1281

Mr. Chabot — 1282

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1282

Mr. Smith — 1282

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1283

Mr. Chabot — 1284

Mr. McClelland — 1284

Mr. Phillips — 1285

Mr. Wallace — 1285

Mr. McGeer — 1286

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1286

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1287

Division on motion — 1288

Routine proceedings

Vancouver Enabling Act, 1973 (Bill 119). Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 1288

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973 (Second Session) (Bill 120).

Hon.

Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1288

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill 105). Second

reading.

Mr. McClelland — 1289

Mr. McGeer — 1289

Mr. Wallace — 1290

Mr. Gardom — 1290

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1290

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 114). Second

reading.

Mr. Wallace — 1291

Mrs. Webster — 1294

Ms. Sanford — 1296

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1297

Division on second reading — 1298

An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act (Bill 109). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1298

British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1973 (Bill 110).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1298

Mr. McGeer — 1299

Mr. Phillips — 1300

Mr. Wallace — 1300

Mr. Gardom — 1301

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1301

Division on second reading — 1303

Report

Composition of special committee on privilege.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1304

Mr. Chabot — 1304

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1973

The House met at 8:35 p.m.

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

respect to the matter of privilege that arose this afternoon — my reference is Beauchesne — a committee upon a matter of

privilege may be appointed and nominated forthwith without

notice. I think the rules on the matter are plain. I move

that:

"Resolved that this House hereby instruct the committee of

selection, appointed on September 13 last, to name a committee

on privileges to examine the statements made in the House today

by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) against the Hon.

Robert Strachan, and the said committee shall with all speed

inquire into the said allegations and report its

recommendations thereon to this assembly before the end of this

session; the said committee of selection to be composed of" — and there's a variation because Hon. Mr. Strachan was named — "the Hon. A.B. Macdonald, the Hon. E.E. Dailly, Messrs. Dent,

Richter and D.A. Anderson; the said committee on privileges

being authorized to sit while the House is sitting."

I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish to speak on the motion?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, very briefly, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt first to say, for the benefit

of all Members, that I had already indicated this afternoon

that I would treat the matter as a breach of privilege,

regardless of the fact that a Member had refused to withdraw a

statement that was unparliamentary.

It's not for me, as Speaker, to determine the facts of the

matter, but only the refusal of a Member to withdraw. But it is

my duty to determine whether what was said amounts to a breach

of privilege. I indicated this afternoon that it did, in my

view — in my opinion, you understand — constitute a matter of

privilege that should be inquired into.

It follows that the motion therefore would be in order

without notice, once I've made that determination, providing

that the motion is in proper form. Therefore it also follows….

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order. To what

rule are you referring when you decide that the motion can be

entered without notice?

MR. SPEAKER: Once the Speaker determines that the matter is

in order to be entered upon by a motion without notice, the

House is then in possession of a motion, if a motion is made.

The purpose of the Speaker looking at the matter is to see if,

in his opinion, it can be entered upon without notice. I have

so determined that it's a matter that can be debated upon a

motion being made.

The only question now is: what is debated on the motion made

by the Hon. Attorney General? I suggest that the merits of the

case are not the subject of this motion. The only question

before the House is the advisability of a committee on

privileges being appointed. That is the only question before

the House — not the merits of the question, not who is at

fault, or who is right — that's for a committee to

determine.

Therefore I urge upon each Member — and I'm saying this

before the Attorney General speaks — that every Member discuss

only the advisability of appointing a committee. If you enter

into the merits I will stop you immediately, because that's for

the committee, not for the Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Members are suggesting they can

debate the issue on the merits, then they are entirely

wrong.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Well, Mr. Speaker, what

I'm saying is that you're suggesting that this House will

accept the motion put forward by the Attorney General.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know that.

MR. CHABOT: You suggested that.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no.

MR. CHABOT: You said it was up to the committee to decide.

Until the motion is passed in this assembly I don't think you

should prejudge.

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly would not prejudge and I'm advising

each Member that they must not prejudge the issue. They must

only discuss this motion, which is whether a committee should

be appointed, and not deal with the merits of the case that has

been raised.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief in

support of the motion. The matter is a serious one, in terms of

the good conduct of this assembly and the efficient despatch of

its business. It's very important that the matter be speedily

examined and resolved.

[ Page 1282 ]

It has been traditional in all of the parliamentary

precedents that I've looked at that an issue of this kind

cannot be discussed in a political atmosphere, but is referred

invariably to a small committee of privileges made up of all

the parties of this House….

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You forgot one.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Where are the

Conservatives?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Therefore it would be my suggestion

AN HON. MEMBER: A committee to name a committee.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …that the committee of selection,

which is the existing committee of selection, except that the

Hon. Eileen Dailly has replaced the Hon. Robert Strachan for

obvious reasons, meet tonight; that we agree among ourselves as

to who should form the committee on privileges; and that the

committee on privileges should get down to its work tomorrow

morning, tomorrow afternoon. Therefore the motion says that the

committee on privileges should be authorized to sit even while

this House is in session…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …in view of the time limits with which

we are faced. I so move.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's rather difficult for this

House to decide whether the matter should go to committee

because there have not been any documents tabled in this House.

We're dealing with a very serious matter, one which I think — and which you, Mr. Speaker, know full well — has been dealt

with in this assembly in the past. There are some serious

matters. The allegations were made in this assembly and I

personally believe that the matter should be resolved here,

rather than being filtered down to a committee and shoved

aside. The charges were made here, and I think the material

should be tabled in the House and the matter should be resolved

right here forthwith.

You have reminded me on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, in view

of some papers that you suggested I should table in the House — you suggested that I had a responsibility to do so because this

is the highest court in the land. If this assembly is the

highest court in the land, I really can't see why the matter

couldn't be resolved before this assembly.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter

of privilege. Unfortunately the matter was not clearly separated from the Member's

accusation and refusal of withdrawal, which is a separate matter which has already

been dealt with by the Speaker. But the allegation still stands, Mr. Speaker,

and this motion will enable an all-party House committee to immediately have

all documents tabled, to hear all evidence and report back to this House as

to its findings. That is the traditional method of handling a matter of privilege.

Quite frankly, on that basis, this motion should be

supported so that an all-party committee can meet. The

committee will be selected by the House selection committee,

which is the form. We will follow the form of this House,

have that committee have all the documents placed before it,

call witnesses and proceed with the matter on hand and report

back to this House. But to drop the matter in the House and

have a wild debate in this House will not resolve the matter in

the traditional method.

The government has initiated, as I said I would this

afternoon on a matter of privilege, this action, and this is

all-party action to resolve this matter.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

after the Premier's explanation, I'm not completely clear

whether the committee headed by the Attorney General is to

select a committee or is to be the committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let me clarify that. The form is that

there is a House committee that selects committee members. It

is the motion….

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that you're talking on a point of

order between you, because you're not entitled to….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I think to clarify

the motion, the intent of the motion is that the House

selection committee, which meets by tradition to select the

committee members, meet tonight and that that committee select

an all-party committee with this matter in front of that

committee. That is the most efficient way of dealing with this

matter of privilege.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what we have

before us is a matter of serious breach of privilege at least

this is….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: I agree with you….

MR. SMITH: This is a matter that we're talking about and

discussing. Now for a committee which will be composed of five Members

to select a standing committee of the House on privileges would put the

[ Page 1283 ]

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) in a very embarrassing

position, for the reason that there are three government in

proportion to the number of seats that they presently have in

the House. It's a foregone conclusion, Mr. Speaker, exactly how

the decision will be arrived at.

The Member made an accusation in the House this afternoon.

You made a decision that he should be absent from the House for

the afternoon session and he observed that decision of yours.

So that is settled.

But the fact that he has not been able to get on his feet

since returning to this House, that you recognized the Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) first to set up a House committee,

did nothing but stifle debate when he probably has a statement

to make to this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: It should be heard in this House by all Members

of the House at this particular point, because too many things

have been outside of this chamber by too many people this

afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I think the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland), is entitled to get up and make a statement to this

House at this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: I agree.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on the motion,

may we first say that we regret that recognition was given to a

Member of the cabinet prior to the Member for Langley, who was

on his feet at the time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's most unfair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why?

MR. CHABOT: You know it's true.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned

this for a very specific reason which the Attorney General

apparently is unaware of. That is that the charge and the words

used, unfortunate though they may have been, have not been

withdrawn; no apology has been rendered, and in accordance with

your earlier decision, Mr. Speaker, I would assume that you

will very shortly ask the Member once more to leave the House.

It would be logical, after all, unless he withdraws, for him to

leave the House. If that's not the case then I think that we

are embarking upon a very dangerous course indeed.

Nevertheless, it is to my considerable regret that the

Member for Langley was not given the opportunity of speaking

first.

As far as the motion itself is concerned, we unfortunately have the situation

here where this serious charge which, I agree entirely with the Attorney General,

should have been dealt with as soon as possible, will be delayed in its consideration…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We can do it tomorrow morning.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …from immediately, in other words

right away….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't play politics with everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about you?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Premier, might I point out to you,

through the Speaker, that we have not spoken at all in the

exchange earlier today. We're attempting to put forward our

views on this in a dispassionate manner. If you feel that

happens to be playing politics, I suggest that you go back and

check out what was said this afternoon. We have not attempted

to do so and we're trying, as a party not interested or

involved in this dispute, to put forward our suggestions.

We feel that the charge is serious. We agree entirely. We

think that it should have been dealt with immediately. We

regret that it was not dealt with immediately by virtue of the

fact that the Attorney General was recognized before the Hon.

Member for Langley. But in view of the fact that we have a

motion before us to deal with it in this fashion, we are

willing to accept it.

We regret very much that we are put in a position of

accepting a motion of this nature simply because no opportunity

was afforded the Hon. Member for Langley earlier to put forward

his statement which may well have affected the outcome of our

decision this evening, the outcome of even the Attorney

General's desire to put forward this resolution.

We feel it curious that it has happened this way. We regret

that it happened this way, but under the circumstances we have

no alternative but to regretfully accept the motion

presented.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that it is well known under our

rules that we are not entitled to debate any issue more than

once when there is a motion. The Hon. Member would be out of

order to debate the question since he's already debated it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm talking about the Hon. Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) who has risen.

[ Page 1284 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member

for Columbia River addressed himself to the question from his

chair. I don't think he has really participated in this debate

so far and I think he should be allowed to speak if he wants

to.

MR. SPEAKER: I can only permit the rule to be changed upon

unanimous leave of the House. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. CHABOT: Just a brief statement, Mr. Speaker. There is a

serious departure in the filtering of this charge and

counter-charges to a committee on privileges. There is a

serious departure from a commitment made earlier this afternoon

by the Premier that he would entertain a substantive motion by

the Member for Langley. The Member for Langley is prepared to

make that motion at this time and we find that the Premier and

the government are unwilling at this time, after having made a

commitment to this House, to entertain that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley. I would point out

to the Hon. Member that he is himself involved in the motion

along with the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan).

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I understand that, Mr.

Speaker, and I will be very careful about the words that I use.

I am disappointed that the Premier did say that he would allow

me to present a substantive motion and that it would be

debated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Premier does not govern

the proceedings of the House. (Laughter.)

Order, please. May I remind the Hon. Members that this House

is bound by the rules. The Speaker does not….

MR. GARDOM: We waive them all the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Speaker determines the order

of business in the House in accordance with the wishes of the

Members. Nobody makes commitments for the Speaker, nor would I. I want that to be clearly understood. It is not up to anyone in

this House to make any commitments for the Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Every time we come into this House and there

is a message bill, it has precedence over any other business. I have no way

of predicting what happens when we start any day.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about message

bills tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: That's true.

MR. GARDOM: Unfortunately I was not present during the

denouement, but I saw this afternoon the Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith) at the extreme end of this House rise on his

feet to try to present a motion and he was not recognized. It

was my definite understanding that when we returned this

evening, Mr. Speaker, the first Member we would hear from is

the Member for Langley.

MR. SPEAKER: There was absolutely no way of predicting what…. You seem to know more about what the Hon. Member was doing

after a decision had been reached. We were preparing to go on

with other business. You are suggesting that the Hon. Member

had something in his mind that was unknown to the rest of the

House.

MR. GARDOM: No, no.

MR. SPEAKER: I have no way of predicting.

MR. GARDOM: No, no. I took the Premier at his word, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right!

HON. MR. BARRETT: He didn't come to the House. He was on

television.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Premier informed the House when we were

in here that we would hear from the Member for Langley tonight

and he welcomed that he would get up on his feet.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Langley has

the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: It has to go to a….

MR. McCLELLAND: No way. That's a double twist.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[ Page 1285 ]

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

to rise in opposition to this motion. I do so for three

reasons.

Number one, in the Attorney General's own words, he said

that this matter should be speedily examined. The most speedy

way to have this matter examined would be to have the motion

put right now in the highest court in the land and have it

examined before the press and before the public and not this

cover-up job that we are going to have in this committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's running down everybody.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! May I point out to the Hon.

Member that he is casting a reflection on every Member of this

House who might be appointed to that committee by suggesting

that they would not deal with it fairly.

MR. CHABOT: They could have in camera meetings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You have no right, whoever you

are, to cast reflections on the other Members of this House. I

ask you to withdraw that statement. Will you withdraw that

statement?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just give me time. Don't get excited

now. My gracious sakes alive! (Laughter.) Certainly if I, in

your opinion, Mr. Speaker, cast reflection on the Members of

this House, I'll withdraw, but I'll state it in a different

manner.

There is nothing that says this committee is going to be

open to the press where the matter can be brought out. The idea

of having a wild debate in this House as laid out by the

Premier really astounds me because, Mr. Speaker, I think he

likes to get into wild debates. That's the second reason.

The third reason is I feel very strongly that, with the

great majority the government has, we were misled by the

Premier this afternoon when he said he would accept the motion

that was brought in. That's exactly what he said, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Member to withdraw the word "misled." The Member has given a

statement to the press before he came to the House to present a

motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, he did. You spoke to the press. Did

you speak to the press this afternoon?

Yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAND: They came to me after they spoke to you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you speak to the press about this

matter? Yes or no?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Of course he did and that changed the

whole complexion right there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's intimidation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Intimidation! Ho!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member withdraw the word

"misled?" I presume you did not mean deliberately?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, uh, you know….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's closure now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the word "misled."

But I will certainly say this in speaking against this motion:

the Premier gave me the impression — I don't know whether he

gave it to anybody else in the House — that if we brought in

this motion tonight, it would be readily debated. And that's

the crux of this whole situation!

That's it in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, and that's why I'm

against this motion. And if the Premier can go on in his

dictatorial fashion, that's fine, Mr. Speaker. But the people

will know, Mr. Speaker. The people out there will know where

the dictators are!

MR. WALLACE: I think this has to be certainly the most sorry

debate of this whole session. I sense as we become more and

more deeply embroiled emotionally on both sides of the House

that we do nothing but deepen the divisions and diminish the

likelihood of reaching a logical conclusion.

My own personal feeling is that…. It is an impression,

and I'm no expert on the rules, but it certainly was my

impression that when we came back tonight the Member for

Langley was to table documents. This was my impression and I'm

not trying to say whether that is the case or not, but this is

certainly my personal impression and this was why I feel that

that might have offered the speediest solution of all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[ Page 1286 ]

MR. WALLACE: I say "might."

On the other hand, I'm trying to be objective enough that if

those documents did not prove the purpose which it was claimed

they would prove, we would be in a worse mess than ever, with a

debate which would range far and wide and would only confuse

the issue.

I'm only speaking as a person here. I'm not speaking on

behalf of a party or behalf of anyone else; I'm simply trying

to be objective in a very sorry and sad situation, the like of

which in my few years in this House I haven't seen. We're all

novices in trying to deal with this problem, Mr. Speaker, and

the manner in which it is to be dealt with is not something

that any of us have any experience with.

The Attorney General has quoted precedent, and I understand

that in the House of Commons in Ottawa certainly a committee is

set up to deal with breach of privilege. While that may well be

the example of tradition and precedent, I do feel that since

the alternative is having the Member not table his documents as

soon as the House sat tonight, I have to accept that the only

realistic alternative at this point in time — and I'm not

saying that it may prove to have been the best alternative, but

at this point in time the events of the last 10 minutes have

convinced me that the proper way now to deal with it is to go

to committee of privilege.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I think

the actions of the government have placed many of the

opposition Members in rather a dilemma. I didn't look at

television this evening, and I don't know what statements any

Members may have made to the press or to the public. But I was

here this afternoon and clearly recall a commitment made by the

Premier that he would entertain a substantive motion this

evening from the Member for Langley and that we would have an

opportunity to look at the merits of the case.

I quite recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Langley

used terms that were offensive to the House as defined in all

kinds of rules. But you've got to recognize that the Member for

Langley as he understood the situation would have had to

perjure himself in order to make that withdrawal.

The Premier, I thought, was fair this afternoon in

suggesting that we could hear the evidence of the Member for

Langley this evening, that a substantive motion would be

entertained, and this would be the subject of business. Now,

Sir, this evening we had the Attorney General recognized first,

presenting to us a method of dealing with problems of this kind

which, while traditional, nevertheless revoked a clear

commitment given by the Premier this afternoon.

Whatever we may regard as the merits of the position put forward by the Attorney

General, it nevertheless represents the Premier departing from a very clear

commitment that he gave to Members of the House which was absolutely understood

by those of us in opposition. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I think that Members

of the opposition are going to have to search their conscience as to whether

or not it's appropriate to support the motion put forward by the Attorney General.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney General might

consider temporarily withdrawing his motion until the Member

for Langley can be recognized and put forward the motion the

Premier himself invited from the Member for Langley this

afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, after we have heard that — and I'm only making

a suggestion; the Attorney General can accept or reject this

proposition — but if the Member for Langley is heard from, there

is nothing to prevent the Attorney General's motion then being

put forward and being considered on its merits by the House. As

it stands now, the Attorney General's motion has to be regarded

as a conflict with the commitment the Premier gave to the House

and to the public this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before the Hon. Members proceed,

obviously it's not the subject of the inquiry of the Members as

to the procedure usually followed in questions of privilege. I

refer the Hon. Members to the fact that any motion, substantive

or otherwise, could only refer this whole matter to a committee

on privileges in any event. I draw that to your attention

before everybody goes off galloping in different

directions.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in winding up this debate,

which is merely to enable the committee of selection to

establish the committee of privileges to look into this matter,

not by 55 Members of this House but by seven or eight or

whatever the number may be, where documents can be speedily

tabled, where, if I have anything to say in the matter, the

press will be freely admitted, where the two parties involved….

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I said if I have anything to say about

it so far….

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I believe it should be an open

committee. Can I say that as the Member for Vancouver East? I

believe all these committees of the House should be open. I

don't believe in trials behind closed doors. And I don't think

that these interruptions are warranted.

Interjections.

[ Page 1287 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There are two parties involved in the

dispute, Mr. Speaker, not one. There is the one who has made an

allegation; there is the one who has been the subject of the

allegation.

I don't know whether the Hon. Member for Langley would have

moved a substantive motion tonight at 8:30 or not….

MR. McGEER: You didn't give him a chance to.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wish that Hon. Member would just keep

his seat for a few minutes, please.

Had he done so, in studying the procedure, the matter

according to the traditions of parliament would have been then

forthwith referred, in any case, to a committee of privileges

to examine it, so the result would be the same.

Now, if he was not planning to move a substantive motion,

nevertheless the matter, as the Premier has pointed out, has

been on television and radio, and it is a matter that this

House cannot sidestep, but which should at least be examined

and a report made back to this House.

That's the traditional way in which parliament protects the

reputation of its Members and its ability to conduct its

business as fairly as may be among mere human mortals. And so I

ask that question be put on the motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I just draw to your attention, Mr.

Speaker, rule 68. Rule 68 says, "At the commencement of each

session, a special committee consisting of five members shall

be appointed…." This was done. Can we, through this motion,

which is on an entirely different subject, change the

membership of that committee? I don't think we can.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can! They can do anything!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point is, Mr. Speaker, which I think

should be brought to your attention before the formal vote on

this, that rule 68 (1) says it shall be established at the

beginning of the session, and there has been no motion to alter

the membership of that committee. We have a motion here which

was called a special committee, and apparently the membership

is to be changed for this specific purpose. Now I would suggest

that the proper procedure to follow would be a motion to change

the membership of the committee because, after all, we

established it at the beginning of the session.

MR. SPEAKER: I take, by implication, Hon. Member, that that's just what's

happening, because we have a record book which shows who were the members of

the committee.

In this motion it indicates that the Hon. E. Dailly and

Messrs. Dent, Richter and D.A. Anderson, along with the Hon.

A.B. Macdonald, shall compose the committee. It is obvious to

anyone that because one of the Members concerned in this

motion is involved, he has been dropped from that committee of

selection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That, Mr. Speaker, was the argument put

forward, but the motion itself reads that "this House hereby

instructs the committee of selection appointed on September

13th last." Now unfortunately the committee, if we're going to

change the membership, isn't the same committee as we're

talking about. I would suggest that in the best interests of

the government, if they really want to get ahead with this,

they first put a motion to get the membership of the committees

straight as they wish. Certainly they can put that forward.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, we're doing it all at once but we're

doing it, I would think, in a manner which offends our

procedure under rule….

MR. SPEAKER: But do you have any doubt, Hon. Member, as to

who the committee of selection is, that when it says in the

latter part of the motion, "who is…T'

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're talking about two committees,

unfortunately, in this motion. We're first talking about the

committee of September 13th last and, secondly, we're

talking about a separately-constituted committee. The point

that I would like to make is that surely if this very important

matter — probably procedurally the most important matter we've

dealt with in the last year — if this matter is to be properly

dealt with….

MR. SPEAKER: I ask this simple question again: do you have

any doubt who is the committee of selection, in view of this

motion?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have serious doubts as to

whether the committee, whose names are on this, including my

own, is the same committee as is referred to in the second line

of the motion which says "the committee appointed on September

13 last."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's just one change.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right, it's a change;

[ Page 1288 ]

but that's the point.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, Hon. Members, you've already voted on the

motion. The only question now is a division to determine who

voted how.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it's exactly the difficulty that

we're faced with. You know, it's simple to shrug and make

noises of despair, as the Premier is so good at doing, but is

it or is it not the committee of September 13th last?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, if any Member of this House is

not satisfied with the motion in the form in which it's

presented, it's his duty, I would think, to make an amendment

if he wishes to do so. But it's too late, in my view,

respectfully, to try to make an amendment to a motion after the

House has voted on it.

We're now discussing a division. There's no question about

it. Only with the full leave of the House could we go back from

where we are.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: On the Second Member for Victoria's point of

order, I'd just like to point out that dictators can do

anything.

Interjections.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 35

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

NAYS — 12

Chabot

Richter

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Introduction of bills.

VANCOUVER ENABLING ACT, 1973

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator; a bill intituled Vancouver Enabling Act,

1973 .

Bill 119 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.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1973 (SECOND SESSION)

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator; a bill intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973

(Second Session) .

Bill 120 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. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public

bills and orders. Adjourned debate….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Premier, I believe another

Member has another matter.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sorry

that I was not on my feet more quickly than the Attorney

General.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there something that you want to discuss

before we proceed to orders of the day?

MR. McCLELLAND: I want to ask leave of the House to

introduce a further motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we need a little more on that. What are

we talking about?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask leave of the House to

introduce a motion, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's important that we find out whether

he's standing on a point of order or standing on something

else.

MR. McCLELLAND: I stood to ask for leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: He says he's standing on a motion, but motions

were not called.

[ Page 1289 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say that. I said I

asked leave.

MR. SPEAKER: For what?

MR. McCLELLAND: I stood to ask leave to introduce a

motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The question I asked is a sensible question. Is

it on a question of order, a question of privilege or a

question of one of the motions before the House or what?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just stood to ask leave to

introduce a motion — leave of the House to introduce a motion

in this House — and leave was granted.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I'm still trying to find out on

what you are asking leave.

MR. McCLELLAND: To introduce a motion.

MR. SPEAKER: On what?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, do you want me to read the motion, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I want to know what it is, in order to

determine what to put to the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it's already been put to the House.

Leave was granted, Mr. Speaker, and the motion….

MR. SPEAKER: I have to ask whether leave be granted and I'd

like to know before I ask.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I've answered your question, Mr.

Speaker. I stood to ask leave to introduce a motion to this

House. You asked the question, leave was granted and now I'd

like to introduce the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't ask anything except to you, and my

question to you was: what is the subject of your motion?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the subject of my motion is

that the documents in the hands of the Member for Langley

relative to the statements this afternoon in the question

period be tabled in this House forthwith for consideration of the committee on

privileges.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not needed by motion; it is simply

asking leave to table documents and that's why I wanted to know

what you're doing. You are asking leave of the House to table

some documents, is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAND: If you want me to do it that way…. I was

introducing a motion, but I will. I'll ask leave of the House,

Mr. Speaker, to table those documents.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: You see, maybe I should explain this to the

Hon. Members. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it's

important that if you're asking leave for a motion, you're

doing something without notice. To do that, you can only do it

once the Speaker knows whether it is a question that can be

taken without notice. That's why I was asking. So don't try to

make it out to be something sinister.

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in absence of

paranoia, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

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

105, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

HOSPITAL ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Richter)

adjourned for the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland).

Does the Hon. Member for Langley wish to debate Bill 105?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, the official

opposition accepts the principle of this bill. We will be

voting in favour of it.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Possibly when the

Minister winds up this debate he will give us a good

explanation why he, like the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly), is against the Public Works Fair Employment Act . We

suspect we know why he is against the Public

[ Page 1290 ]

Works Fair Employment Act , and that is because it works

impossible difficulties on people in the smaller areas of

British Columbia in working efficiently when they have got the

impractical positions of this Act hanging around their

necks.

Of course, people in hospital boards just like people in

school boards will be down demanding common sense from the

Minister and this is to save those exercises. But there are all

kinds of situations in British Columbia. As Members of the

opposition pointed out last spring, you won't have the vehicle

of the Minister of Education nor of the Minister of Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to lay these complaints and we will

simply have to live with

an Act that was injudicious and

impractical.

In any event the Minister perhaps, in winding up the debate,

will be able to give us some insight into what all kinds of

other groups in British Columbia might be facing as a result of

that particular statute.

Apart from this obvious requirement in this Act to Amend

the Hospital Act , we think the principles are very sound. We

will support them and I think we will particularly support

section 5.

MR. WALLACE: This party also will support the principle of

the bill. I think that more important perhaps than appointing

assistant chief inspectors in the plural, however, I regret

that there's nothing in the bill to deal with something we've

debated in this House in the two past sessions, some mechanism

of appeal against decisions of the hospital inspector. The

former government made a commitment that has no bearing on

this government, but the need is there. If we need more

assistant chief inspectors, then so be it. This is a very

important function of maintaining standards in hospitals.

I note also that the bill allows for the cabinet to appoint more than one person to hospital boards. I think this is a

function which should be looked upon lightly by the government.

There is always the tendency for government to increase its

powers and, by increasing the numbers of persons the cabinet

can appoint to hospital boards, it can centralize the whole

situation or it has that danger. I am sure that the Minister

will handle his responsibility with great consideration.

I think we should wonder whether it is not better that local

people be elected by the hospital association to the board and

then it is the choice of the local people who are deciding who

is best suited to serve on the local hospital board. While we

will certainly give this part of the bill our approval, I would

suggest this is not a trend which should be followed with great

haste or in greater numbers.

The selection allows the cabinet to appoint persons in the plural, and I don't

know how many persons the Minister might have in mind. In my reading of this

bill there is no limitation; it could be several persons and not just two. As

I have said in this House many times, one of the vital aspects of hospital board

function is to have a large degree of local input of local people and, where

possible, these local people should be elected and not appointed. Otherwise,

we certainly approve the bill in principle.

MR. GARDOM: I would just like to ask the Minister one

question, which he may answer when he closes the debate.

It seems to me that there would be the possibility of a

conflict between your new

section 46 under this statute and the

first collective agreement

section under existing Bill 11. I

wonder if any thought has been given to that aspect?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the questions in the order that I got them.

Firstly, on the question raised by the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) regarding the Public Works

Fair Employment Act , I indicated very clearly that when the

Public Works Fair Employment Act , which incidentally I

supported, was put to the House the last time and was finally

passed and proclaimed, we thought at that time that it did not

impinge on the Hospital Act. We found out subsequently that it

did in the view of some lawyers.

We didn't intend the Public Works Fair Employment Act to

have any power over this particular Act for a number of

reasons, not the least of which, I'm sure the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, who is a great thinker and a great

student of the whole hospital business knows, is, Mr. Speaker,

that they are autonomous. They are not a creature of the

government. They are not public works. They are run by

boards.

And another thing, and it's not incidental, many of the

hospitals are in areas in the far reaches of the province.

Under those circumstances the small contractor wishes to bid,

family interest, et cetera, so we feel that, under the

circumstances and particularly because of the autonomy, they

should conduct their own business as any other autonomous

group.

I think it's fairly straightforward. It's really arguing

about last year's business, and that's not unexpected.

I am pleased to see that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) supported this bill. He's had a great deal of

experience in and around the hospitals, certainly directly

involved in the health care over a number of years in B.C.

[ Page 1291 ]

I might say that we don't normally debate something that

isn't in the bill, but since the matter of the chief inspector

and his deputy are included in this bill, I guess he wishes

there were an appeal procedure. It's a question that is being

looked at by my department, but there are many questions to be

looked at in the health care field. It's very difficult to

establish priorities as there is a great deal to do.

The fact that the cabinet can appoint more than one Member,

Mr. Speaker, is a valid point and I think we could discuss it

just for a moment. The reason that we have done this is that

some hospital boards, like the Victoria General Hospital, for

example the Royal Jubilee and a number of other hospitals have

very large boards, much, much larger than the hospitals for

example in Vanderhoof or Pouce Coupe. At the present time a

number of those hospitals have more than one government Member.

Let me indicate, for example the VGH has three presently. They

are breaking the law so we are bringing the law around so they

needn't circumvent it any longer. Royal Inland in Kamloops has

two; Royal Jubilee has two et cetera — because of the size of

the board mainly. We just felt that we would bring the boards

up to date.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

brought up a very interesting legal matter. I would suggest

that's probably where it should stay, whether or not there is

an impingement of Bill 11 on this. We have had our lawyers

looking at all aspects of this. They could make a mistake but I

would suggest that there's not too much likelihood in this

case.

I'm particularly pleased with the amendments to the

Hospitals Act , Mr. Speaker, and I therefore move second reading

of Bill 105,

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 105 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Adjourned debate

on second reading of Bill 114.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

(continued)

MR. WALLACE: There are several principles in this bill, Mr. Speaker,

and I'll try to be brief. In keeping with my objection to the Municipal Act

amendments, I do believe there should not be taxation without representation;

I believe that owner-electors should have a vote whether or not they live in

the municipality. Therefore, while I was opposed to the amendment regarding

owner-electors in the Municipal Act , I am equally in opposition to the proposed

amendment to the Public Schools Act for the same reason.

The principle is based on this: taxation is levied in

relation to ownership of property. Maybe that's not good

thing, maybe it is a good thing; that isn't the point. The

principle of the tax is that it is levied against ownership of

property. If it is levied on that basis and people are elected

to administer funds raised on that basis, then it only makes

sense to me that anybody who is taxed for that reason should

have a say in electing the people who administer the money that

is raised.

Obviously we don't agree on the two sides of the House, but

it seems to me that it is not fair and it is not logical to set

up a tax on a certain basis and then for certain people to set

a different set of rules for the electing of the people who

will administer the disbursement of that tax money.

The next important principle in the bill is the compulsory

membership in the B.C. Teacher's Federation. Several questions

come to mind and I'll try going round the racetrack just once

more; I've been round it many times in the last few years.

A teacher is a highly skilled and trained professional. I

believe they should police themselves and should be given

control of ethics in their profession. But, and for the Nth

time, I'll try and make this very clear to this House: I

believe that that is a separate, distinct function which the

teachers should carry out through a separate, distinct body,

not the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

All the misunderstanding, either by mistake or by intention,

that is directed against the medical profession in this House

is based on the failure to accept that the medical profession

has two distinct bodies: one is the College of Physicians and

Surgeons, which does indeed give a doctor a licence so that he

is fully-qualified, properly-trained and safe to release on the

public, and which also fulfils the policing functions to make

sure that he is a man of good moral and ethical standards. That

is a separate body: namely the College of Physicians and

Surgeons.

The medical profession, in terms of its union — if you want

to use that word — or in terms of its organization, which

negotiates in terms of wages or income or conditions of

employment and all the business aspects of the practice of

medicine, is handled by the B.C. Medical Association which is

somewhat the equivalent of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. The

membership in that business organization is essentially

voluntary and that B.C. Medical Association has nothing

whatever to do, nor should it, with licensing, standards of

training and the ethical behaviour of physicians.

It is my very strong conviction — and I've said it in this

House many times — that it would be much better for the

teaching profession to have two distinct

[ Page 1292 ]

bodies: one which deals essentially with the whole question

of standards of training which the teacher must meet before he

or she can teach; and the ethical standards of the teacher in

the course of his or her carrying out the teaching profession.

That is such a vital issue, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think the

same organization of teachers should be carrying out that

function as the teachers who carry out the political function

of looking after the teachers' financial and other interests in

this province.

I do think the system as it applies to the medical

profession works reasonably well — very well, in fact,

considering the highly complex matters with which they are

often faced. I think it would be to everybody's advantage — the

teachers, the public, and the legislators — to have a separate

body.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) or the cabinet can set up such a

separate body. I am saying that I hope the teachers will look

at this possibility.

There are two very distinct functions: there is the very

vital public responsibility of ensuring that teachers meet the

requirements, the responsibility and standard of training; and

that their behaviour in an ethical sense is what we would all

expect of highly-trained professionals. If they have to be

policed, they should be policed by their peers. But to have the

same organization of teachers carry out that function as carry

out the many multiple functions presently carried out by the

B.C. Teachers' Federation, makes it very difficult.

As I understand my reading of the recent press reports from

Mr. MacFarlan, this is the main reason he puts forward for

asking for compulsory membership of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation. He is quoted in the press as saying that, "the

federation is in the stages of drafting standards of teaching

competence that would be almost impossible to enforce without

compulsory membership." This may well be so, Mr. Speaker.

But I submit that a much better way to handle this kind of

difficulty which arises is to have a separate association or

organization which deals with the whole question of standards

of competence and policing, and that's its sole function.

I have drawn a comparison between the teaching profession and the medical profession.

The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that again in regard to the medical profession,

after the College of Physicians and Surgeons disciplines a doctor, the doctor

has an avenue of appeal to the courts. Under this legislation I'm appalled to

think that the only mechanism of appeal which a teacher has, once he or she

is rendered unemployable by decision of the BCTF, is to the cabinet. I'm suggesting

that if the teachers set up a separate organization dealing only with standards,

ethics and policing, the individuals who are disciplined by that body could

then go through the same mechanism of appeal through the courts as happens with

doctors who are disciplined.

Mr. Speaker, this is no reflection on the cabinet; the

cabinet would make the most serious effort to give the right

decision. But we've discussed on the labour code the

suitability of certain courts for rendering certain decisions.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has pointed out that the

highly-talented members of the Labour Relations Board are in a

better position to render good decisions because of their

experience and expertise than would, let us say, a court.

I'm just suggesting that if we compare various professions — and I am particularly comparing the teaching profession to the

medical profession — if the teaching profession had a separate

body to carry out this function of maintaining standards and

discipline and ethics, decisions by that body should be capable

of appeal to the courts.

I think it is a very serious matter that the B.C. Teachers'

Federation, once these amendments are passed, has the power to

discharge a teacher from membership in the B.C. Teacher's

Federation. By this Act, the teacher cannot obtain employment

anywhere in British Columbia and the only avenue of appeal is

to the cabinet.

Now the cabinet of this province is obviously busy. The

demands on time and the energies of cabinet Ministers are such

that I really ask the question: should it really be the

function of cabinet to consider appeals which a teacher might

have no alternative but to lodge against the decision of the

B.C. Teachers' Federation, which in fact, as I've said, has the

power to make a teacher unemployable, or at least incapable of

obtaining employment simply because they have been discharged

or have been refused membership in the BCTF?

This, Mr. Speaker is a very strenuous degree of power vested

in the teachers' organization and, as I say, the same kind of

power — and I make it very plain, in terms of the medical

profession — is vested in the College of Physicians and

Surgeons. But the very big proviso there is that every decision

of the College of Physicians and Surgeons which might penalize

a doctor can be appealed to the Supreme Court of British

Columbia. I think the respect that we all have for the courts

reassures us that, in such a case, no doctor is likely to be

penalized or victimized unfairly. If indeed some such mistake

is made, he has an appeal to the highest court in the

province.

I've already mentioned in a debate in this House the other day the case of

a shipwright in this province who, in fact, has been unable — for whatever reason

is unimportant…. But the decision was made by the trade union that this man

could not be a member of the shipwrights' union. This man is now walking around

in this province unable to get employment at the profession, or the trade, to

which he is trained.

[ Page

1293 ]

I think that, while it may be very reasonable to suggest

that all workers or professionals have to meet certain

standards, I very much question whether so much power should be

put in the hands of a representative organization, whether it's

teachers, doctors, shipwrights, or chimney sweeps — I don't

mind.

I just say that it really concerns me when I see the kind of

power that is placed in the hands of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation without an appeal to the courts. In further emphasis

on how important this is to protect the individual teacher or

the individual shipwright, I think we should mention that the

system, as it works for the medical profession, is that the

courts have in the past, and it's on the record…. The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is looking very interested.

I just want to say, so that I should not be considered partial,

that the decisions of the College of Physicians and Surgeons

have on several occasions been reversed by the courts.

Here's an example where a doctor might well have been

finished in his profession by a wrong decision of highly

honourable men who, in their judgment — elected by their peers

to hold this position on the College of Physicians and Surgeons — made a wrong decision and penalized a doctor. And although

the decision was reversed by the courts, the doctor goes

through a very substantial degree of suffering and mental agony

in the process of trying to vindicate his position.

I'm not even attempting to say why decisions might or might

not be reversed. I'm just saying that we're all human, and the

doctors who are elected to judge their peers are usually men of

the greatest respect in their own medical community and they

are elected to that position. This is another point that should

be made very clear in trying to illustrate my concern. Yet

history shows that these highly-motivated, well-motivated,

dedicated medical men have condemned their medical peers on

occasions and imposed a penalty such as removal of a medical

licence to continue practice, and then the court reverses the

decision.

I'm saying that if this can happen in one profession, it can

happen in other professions. In the case of the amendment to

this bill, the only mechanism of appeal is to the cabinet. With

the utmost of respect, Mr. Speaker, I can get the impression

just how busy the cabinet of this government, or any

government, is these days. I wonder if, from a very practical

point of view, the cabinet has the time and the wherewithal and

the insight to be the best second opinion of a lower level of

decision — namely, the decision by the B.C. Teachers'

Federation.

I would really hope that the Minister of Education would consider these remarks

I've made. I'm not suggesting that they are the perfect answer, but I'm suggesting

that the bill we have before us may well have the danger that a teacher may

be subject to the power of the B.C. Teachers' Federation and be penalized and

go through quite a lengthy procedure to try and gain a reversal of the decision.

I submit that there are reasons to think that a better way

to have that decision considered in the most efficient and just

way would be before one of the courts of the land rather than

by cabinet.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I know that the Minister has attempted, on another principle

of the bill, to correct a matter which my private bill

attempted to correct — where students move from one school

district to another, and someone has to pay fees in the second

school district, even though the student's parents have paid

fees in the first school district.

I respect the Minister's point of view. She tells me that my

bill's too simple, and that there has to be more control over

the situation. My bill used the phrase "where good or adequate

reason exists for a student to move from one school district to

a second school district." The phraseology "where good or

adequate reason exists" I thought would make it plain that a

student just couldn't pick up his bags and move to the other

end of the Island because he decided that the weather was

better, or for some frivolous reason of this nature.

I feel that there is a lot of mobility in urban areas

compared to rural areas. There's much greater scope for certain

courses to be available. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think

that it would be quite feasible to weed out, or to disallow,

those cases where the reason is not good or adequate, but on

the other hand to give very sympathetic consideration to those

students who for family reasons, for example — where the family

household is in a state of breakdown and the father and mother

are fighting — the best thing that can happen is for that

student to move out of that situation, perhaps to an aunt or an

uncle or a brother in another part of the province.

Cases like this, I think, are most deserving of very

sympathetic consideration. Frankly, I fail to see why reasons

of this nature are not so obvious and so acceptable that they

could be considered under the definition of "good or adequate

reason." But anyway, the Minister has certainly moved in the

direction that I like. I don't think the move has gone far

enough and I feel that, again, we are accepting legislation

which really means that the Minister will carry it out via

regulations which we are not debating.

Here we are debating the statute and we're considering

section 27, as it happens, and I just feel that the situation

could have been dealt with quite satisfactorily by the method

I'd already outlined in the form of the private bill. I would

hope that the

[ Page 1294 ]

Minister will report back to the House when we discuss the

Department of Education estimates in the spring session, and

perhaps we'll have had some experience of this amendment by

that time.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

The last principle that I just wish to mention, Mr. Speaker, is the whole question

of raising the levy on those areas that are blessed with high assessment rolls.

Again, I'm just a little confused from first principle, Mr. Speaker, that if

the education taxation is to be applied on a basis of districts — 83, or whatever

number there are — I really am not sure why there should be this compulsion

for one district to subsidize other districts; and this is really what it amounts

to.

It would seem to me — at least I ask the question: where do

you draw the line? The Minister has mentioned five areas of low

where they're well below the 24.7 mills, and I think she

mentioned a figure like 17. I just ask the question: where do

you draw the line on this whole principle of equalization? What

happens if it's 21 in some districts? Are they left to pay that

levy,

whereas the people who are at 15 are going to be brought

up to 24.7?

I just have some difficulty in understanding the rationale

of this move. As least, if we're going to accept the rationale,

that everybody should be paying the same amount, then I hope

that any district that's below 24.7 will be brought up to 24.7.

Don't just pick off four or five that happen to be down around

15. If you're going to apply this principle, I think it has to

be applied fairly to every single district in the province

where the appropriate levy is less than the 24.7 government

level.

I see that the Member for Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Hartley) whose

riding is one of the first to be nailed, I understand, is

approving the suggestion. The Minister, I'm sure, will take no

personal insult when I ask about her quoting that the surplus

in these five districts will go to consolidated revenue.

Now, with the former administration we were always very

nervous that that government frequently funnelled money into

consolidated revenue which we felt might be destined for a

certain purpose. But we never knew just where the money was

finally spent.

The interesting thing is that the bill states that the surplus money in these

areas with high assessment rolls will go to all other school districts. I think

that's the exact phraseology. The Minister in introducing second reading was

very distinct in pointing out that that surplus money would go into consolidated

revenue. I just have the horrible feeling that the consolidated revenue of this

province is a bag of money that's compiled from so many different sources that

I wonder if these surplus funds going into consolidated revenue will ever see

the light of day again in the educational budget.

I would hope that perhaps the Minister, in winding up the

debate, would assure us that there is to be separate

accounting, and that the precise amount of money derived from

this extra levy in these specific districts while it may

temporarily go into consolidated revenue, will find its way to

the other school districts. The Minister is nodding so I'm much

reassured, but unfortunately what it says in the bill did not

seem to coincide with what the Minister said in introducing

second reading.

This bill in second reading, Mr. Speaker, has several

different principles and it's very difficult to approve some

and disapprove others. But reluctantly there is more that I

disagree with than I agree with, and therefore this party will

be opposed to this bill in second reading.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I am very concerned about

this bill, particularly about the

section concerning the

restoration of compulsory BCTF membership.

The 1971 Act in

section 3 read: "Membership in British

Columbia Teachers' Federation or any other association of

teachers shall not be considered a condition of employment of a

teacher by a board."

Mr. Speaker, I say as a past teacher and with a long

association with the British Columbia Teachers' Federation that

this was the most demoralizing and damaging piece of

legislation that was ever perpetrated in this House in relation

to teachers.

Teachers are dedicated people, and they have done a great

deal to raise the standards in this province through their

teachers' organization. This legislation was passed by a

government that was completely unfeeling as far as education

was concerned, by a Minister of Education who obviously knew

little about the teaching profession or about the high quality

and standards that the British Columbia Teachers' Federation

was trying to develop to raise the standards in British

Columbia.

B.C. has one of the highest standards of education in

Canada. Also they have more highly qualified graduates and

postgraduates in the teaching profession than any other

province in Canada. This is the type of thing that the past

administration attempted to destroy.

In all the years that they were in office, Mr. Speaker, they

have had teachers in their caucus. How often was a teacher used

as a Minister of Education? Once, Mr. Speaker! Ray Williston

was used as a Minister of Education. He was my principal when I

was teaching at Prince George, and when I came out here as a

civil servant he happened to be the Minister of Education. He

was there for about two years, Mr. Speaker, and then he was

moved over to Lands and

[ Page 1295 ]

Forests. After that time they never used a teacher again,

although they had teachers in some of the other posts. They

used people that weren't quite as interested as a teacher might

have been in the field of education.

They did the same thing in the field of health. They had

doctors, but did they consult the doctors? I'm sure they

didn't. But they used accountants as the Ministers of

Health.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that upset the teachers almost more

than anything else was why the teaching profession was

singled out. Why was their membership, their association to be

broken? Why wasn't it the Medical Association? Would the

Medical Association allow a doctor to practise in British

Columbia without belonging to the association? No.

Would a dentist be allowed to practise in British Columbia?

Would it be legal for him to practise in British Columbia

without belonging to the dental association? No.

And what about the legal profession? Would they be allowed

to practise as lawyers without belonging as members of the Law

Society? I should say not. No, sirree.

Those professional groups have always disciplined their own

members. They have had a very, very tight control over their

own members. And yet the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer), a doctor, said that he felt it was much better

for teachers to be able to be voluntary members of their

association. Let me tell you that it's of eternal credit to the

teachers, Mr. Speaker, that of the 24,000 teachers in British

Columbia only 400 broke away from the association after that

iniquitous legislation came in — only 400.

When I began teaching in British Columbia in 1937, the

British Columbia Teachers' Federation had gotten started, but

at that time the compulsory aspect had not yet come in. Even in

the late 1940s — I guess it was about 1947 or 1948 that it

became compulsory for a teacher to belong to the BCTF to be

able to teach in British Columbia — there was a number of

teachers who had never belonged to the organization. They were

older teachers, they continued to teach and they were not

forced to belong to the British Columbia Teachers' Federation.

But the other members who had fought hard for higher standards

for teachers and who had worked for better conditions for

teachers were very angered about the fact that these people

could get by without contributing in any way to the BCTF and

still be able to get benefits from that association, get

benefits through what others had done all the work for.

However, that time passed.

One of the chief objectives of the organization, Mr.

Speaker, is not just salary; it's not greed. The main objective

of the Teachers' Federation is to improve the standards of

teaching in British Columbia. Teachers were encouraged through the late 30s and

the 40s and later on to improve their education and to get

their university degrees. Many of them during the depression

years didn't have university degrees, but a lot of them,

because of this encouragement, went back year after year for

many years to summer school and got their university that way.

Others went year after year to teacher training out here in

Victoria High School and UBC during the summers for

teacher-training courses to improve their standards as teachers

and to improve their skills in their own special subjects. They

used their own money for that. There wasn't any subsidy and

there was no way of them getting a sabbatical or anything of

that kind.

In order to encourage these higher standards it was

necessary also to work for better conditions for teachers which

included salaries and superannuation. This was exceedingly

important because in the 1930s and early 1940s salary

negotiations, for the most part, were on an individual basis

when a teacher applied for a school in a particular district.

At that time only the minimum salaries were laid down and, let

me say, they were not very high — $780 a year for elementary

teachers, $1,100 a year for junior high and $1,200 for

senior high.

Many started below that minimum for their own particular

category. I started as a junior high teacher for a salary of

$900 a year. Mr. Speaker, in some cases the janitor in the

school was getting more than quite a number of the teachers,

particularly the teachers who were teaching in the elementary

schools.

By 1940 I was making $1,300 and my inspector encouraged me

to apply for Prince George because there was a vacancy that had

developed at Christmas. So I applied. She suggested that I hold

out for $1,500, which I did. I didn't have too much difficulty

because there was, as now, a desperate scarcity of home

economics teachers, so they were glad to get one at any

price.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that when I arrived there the

situation was slightly different. I discovered that there was

an antagonism toward me. Why? Because I was getting the

second-highest salary in the high school, next to the

principal. I was being paid a larger salary than the

vice-principal of the school. The teachers' meetings at that

time were very fiery. I wouldn't want to go back to to

that.

One of the main things that they discussed more than

anything else was how to improve teachers' salaries, because

some of the salaries were so desperately low. To help us the

executive of the BCTF came out to the various schools

throughout the province and helped with our salary

negotiations, because we were all fairly new at this type of

thing.

It was a jungle. I'm sure the teachers wouldn't want to go

back to it, but that is the sort of thing

[ Page 1296 ]

that was encouraged when Bill 3 came in — when the voluntary

aspect was suggested or implemented. It would have put us right

back into the same old fight to protect our rights that we had

struggled for for so long. I don't think teachers should have

to go through that again. I was just as angry, even though I

haven't taught for years, as a lot of the teachers who are

teaching today because I know what the struggle was all

about.

The BCTF over the years has grown into one of the best

organizations for its profession of any professional group in

Canada. It doesn't concern itself only with salaries and salary

negotiations. It has concerned itself over the years with human

rights — the rights for equal pay for female teachers with male

teachers, the rights of married women to continue teaching

after they are married. It has concerned itself with the living

conditions of teachers.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that even though consolidation of

our school districts took place about 1946, there were a great

number of areas where there were still a one-room school. Where

did the teacher have to live? — in a little teacherage attached

to the school. That was her bedroom and her kitchen and her

living-room — her everything. Saturday nights, when the dances

took place in the school room, it was the place where they made

the sandwiches and the coffee. A lot of these dances lasted

until three or four in the morning and the teacher wasn't able

to get into her own quarters until after the dance was

over.

As a result, the B.C. Teachers' Federation formed a housing

co-op. One of the first things they went into was building

proper teacherages for teachers in the country.

BCTF has also developed a credit union for the teachers. It

gives them the opportunity to get loans at decent interest

rates. It's had its own vehicle by way of the B.C. Teacher — their professional magazine — which reviews books and gives them

a great deal of professional information.

Beside that, it has developed a very fine reference library

from which the teachers throughout the province can borrow

books at any time. It has a research staff which has developed

all sorts of lesson materials — teachers' aids — which are

printed and prepared right at the BCTF office, and teachers can

have them on request. They can go to the office and get them or

they can write in for them.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the BCTF, the public school

teachers of this province, are dedicated people and they

deserve our support. Because of the high standards they have

attained for themselves they have also, in many cases, become

leaders in the community. This is particularly true in the

smaller centres. They give a great deal of valuable time beyond

the classroom in volunteer service in the arts and in sports,

particularly in extra-curricular activities and community

programmes.

Let me say also that this retrograde step that was taken

through Bill 3 came at a time when the province had a surplus

of qualified teachers. The implications, Mr. Speaker, were

obvious. This was meant to destroy the professional

organization. One of the gravest dangers, of course, was in

relation to salary negotiations but it also opened an

opportunity for those who might only consider teaching as a

stop-gap — either for marriage or for some other career — to be

able to get in, teach one or two years, and get out without

putting any work or any money or any encouragement into the

organization to help raise the standards or keep high standards

within the teaching profession in British Columbia.

I contend that we, as citizens, should be very proud of the

very high standards of educations in this province. Along with

this goes the fact that B.C. has a greater percentage, as I've

said before, of teachers with graduate and post-graduate

standing anywhere in Canada. Their qualifications are as high

as those of doctors, dentists and lawyers. They take just as

much training as other professions do. They have the

responsibility of moulding your childrens' characters and

minds. Let us have the best teachers we can get and let us give

them our support and our trust.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I am pleased that the Minister is

having a look at this problem with regard to the changing of

school districts for certain students in the province. There

are problems involved here and I think the fact that the

Minister is having a look at this and is going to initiate

discussions between school boards and the department to come up

with some solutions to this problem is certainly welcome in

Comox riding.

I've had discussions just recently with parents who are

living in a place called Vernon Camp, a logging camp located on

the logging road that leads from Gold River, 25 miles away.

Because they are not in that school district they are

required to send their children, by bus, 75 miles north to a

school where the children are required to board all week and

return again on the Friday evening. This is a problem for these

people. They cannot afford to pay the full amount to send their

children into another school district. The fact that the

Minister is going to have a look at this will, I know, be

welcomed by a lot of the parents there.

There were some comments made this afternoon by the Hon.

Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and also the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with regard to the ownership of

property and payment of taxes.

Now they were both raising the point that since the people who own property

are the ones that are being taxed, they are the ones who should be able to vote

on money referenda, and they were questioning

[ Page 1297 ]

that the tenants should actually

have that right since they did not own the property. Even though the taxes are

charged against the owner of the property and even though it is the owner of

the property who actually pays that money out, the money comes from the tenants

who are living on that property.

I would like to cite one example of the fact that tenants do

pay and pay a great deal for increases in taxes when money

referenda are passed in any school district. Some years ago in

Campbell River the school board decided to go to referendum on

a given issue, and worked out and published in the paper that

the average homeowner would have to pay an increase of $7 per

year if the referendum passed.

However, the tenants that were living in one apartment were

informed by the owner of the apartment before the referendum

took place that if the referendum passed, their rent would have

to be increased by $1 a month. This meant that the homeowner

would be paying an additional $7 a year in taxes but the

tenant, who supposedly is not paying for these referenda and

does not have the opportunity to vote on them, was going to

have to pay $12 — more than the average homeowner was going to

pay.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the tenants do pay for the money

expenditures through these referenda and that they should be

permitted to vote. Thank you.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of

points made by various Members in the opposition in relation to

the bill. Some are here and some have left, so I'll just run

through them fairly quickly.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) was concerned

about the matter of applying the principle fairly if we put the

money into consolidated revenue. I don't think you are against

that principle, but you did suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker,

to the Hon. Member, that perhaps it should be treated as

special moneys and returned for special needs or policies or

programme. I would gather that was the point you were

making.

I really must say emphatically that I do not agree with you

on that point. I do not consider them special moneys at all. I

think because of the very fact that we consider this has been

inequitable we are trying to equalize our financial grant

formula through this process. I certainly should say quite

clearly that these are not special moneys and they should not

be treated in any different manner than the other moneys

raised. The only problem we have, of course, is that they must

be returned to consolidated revenues, which is basically the

way it is handled. This applies to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) who expressed his concern about whether that money

will get back. This is really an answer to both your questions

in respect to that.

The money has to go through the Finance department here,

through consolidated revenue first, and then be returned to the

school boards. That is the procedure, anyway. It is just a

vehicle of doing it, and I can assure you that there is no

attempt here to have it locked in consolidated revenue. It is

the only way we can provide the machinery to return it to the

districts.

I certainly agree with the Hon. Member for Chilliwack in the

very first point he made where he did suggest that it was a

rather difficult bill to sort of weave your way through because

you have to keep referring back and forward to so many

sections.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): More than one

principle.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: And more than one principle, correct. I

can assure you that I found this rather frustrating myself. I

am hoping that the next time I introduce amendments to the

school Act we will be able to weave our way much more easily

through the Act. Because we are dealing basically, as you know,

with a very archaic school Act. It was apparently produced

around 1900 originally and patterned off the Ontario public

school Act. Therefore, whenever you open it, you are dealing

with some very unwieldy clauses.

We are hoping to try and bring in some really major cleanups

in that Act which will not only be for the purpose of helping

the Members of the Legislature to study it more clearly, but

basically to show that there is a pattern and a philosophy through a public schools Act which this certainly does not

show now.

MR. SCHROEDER:

section 35.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes,

section 35 is. I can quite agree with

you on that. I also thought that the Hon. Member made a good

suggestion in another area. I can't quite remember what it was

but I marked it; it was a good idea. Oh, it was on the matter

of what to do with the same problem that the Member for Oak Bay

is concerned about.

You suggested that there should be some type of formula that

could be worked out. I must say that is an excellent suggestion

and we will discuss that in the department. That might be our

way to get some relief to the parents. At the same time I would

like to say to the Member for Oak Bay that we do have a problem

there of ensuring that there are not mass exoduses from one

district to another. It can happen. I do think there has to be

some way of putting restrictions on this. I think your idea of

some type of formula might be very valid.

Basically I appreciate the sincerity of the Member for Oak

Bay when he speaks on the matter of

[ Page 1298 ]

compulsory membership. Obviously I cannot agree with you or

I would not be, as a Minister, bringing this bill in tonight. I

believe that the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster)

certainly expressed far better than I could, with her

experience over the many years as a teacher, her strong

feelings for the great assets to be gained, not only for the

teachers, of course, but by the young people in their

classroom, if we do restore compulsory membership. I thank her

for the very fine point she made in support of that.

The other point about the fair employment Act which was

brought up by the Liberal Member and also from the official

opposition: I think that if you read our Act you will see that

it does state that there must be fair employment practices

under the aegis of the local school board. You know, we can't

have it both ways. We do give autonomy to the school boards in

the running of their districts and it is up to them to make

their peace with the unions in this respect.

I really think that that pretty well covers the points which

were brought up to me tonight for discussion. I now move second

reading of Bill 114,

An Act to Amend the Public Schools

Act .

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Chabot

Richter

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

NAYS — I

Wallace

MR. WALLACE: Recorded. (Laughter.)

Bill 114 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 109, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

REGISTERED NURSES ACT

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, again a routine amendment to

the Registered Nurses Act . This is an amendment that was asked

for by the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C.; discussions

were held between the Registered Nurses' Association, the

Department of Education and those people who were directly

interested in the Act and in teaching of nurses.

You'll find in this first

section that there is just a

routine change that is made in all the Acts when they're

open.

In the next

section you'll find that we're adding a

definition of the board of directors.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's interesting, Mr. Speaker. This

includes, if you'll go to

section 21 in the Act, the approved

school of nursing. Now, Mr. Speaker, the association also felt

that it would be in their best interest to open up the board of

directors of their association to other than nurses, so there

will be lay representation on the board of directors of the

RNABC.

I'm very pleased to see that; I wonder when some of the

other professional associations are going to move in that

direction. There has been a move in that direction, and

sometime those moves have been put down. I would hope that in

the future they won't get quite the same reception as they have

in the past.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also contains one other aspect that

pretty well clarifies who is in charge of setting the standards

for nurses' education. It is the last

section of this

amendment. It was discussed fully between the nurses'

association, the Department of Education and our department.

There was unanimity that this was required in order to expedite

the whole question of nurses' training. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,

I move second reading on Bill 109.

Motion approved.

Bill 109 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 110.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

GRANT ACT, 1973

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this government is on record as not approving

the method of financing the railway by having the province buy

[ Page 1299 ]

additional shares

of the company. However, the government desires to honour a commitment of the

previous administration made by order-in-council in September, 1971, to the

company.

At that time, the authorization was given to the railway to

issue $50 million more in shares the company authorized but did

not issue.

Mr. Speaker, those shares are absolutely meaningless. It is

a device designed by the former administration to expand the

number of shares and then immediately buy them up and make it

appear that somehow the government was investing further in the

railroad. There could be an endless device of continuing to

issue shares. Fortunately, the public was never asked to buy

these shares.

Mr. Speaker, it was a bit of a game, and it's not good for

governments to engage in this kind of gamesmanship in

financing. The railway needs financing; the railway has

long-term commitments. The railways must be looked upon as

another highway, as a route of access to development of regions

in the province. You do not buy shares of a highway; you expend

the funds, and the revenue generated from the extension of that

highway comes back into general revenue hopefully to enhance

the rational development of the province.

We wish to honour the $25 million more capital for the

railway, but not by acquiring more shares in the name of the

Crown. This bill therefore proposes instead a $25 million

outright grant to the company to carry on its capital

construction projects which were committed by the former

administration. These capital construction projects have

nothing to do — and I make that clear — with the present

negotiations and agreement in principle with the CNR for

extensions into the north.

I have no apology to make as a British Columbian for the

railroad. The former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) deserves credit

for the fact that he alone was the force in pushing the

railroad in terms of expansion. But I wish no part, Mr.

Speaker, in a financing method that is a bit of a game.

Therefore, I am moving this bill which will give an outright

grant to the company rather than a continued expansion of

shares which will never be offered for sale and were only a

charade in my opinion.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that it's

entirely fair to describe the share issuance method of

financing the railroad as a charade. It's fairly standard

practice for any corporation that is expanding to obtain its

capital through share issues. Whether it's bonds, whether it's

an outright grant, or whether it's shares, to my way of

thinking it's the same thing.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked would

I buy some? Well, no, I wouldn't buy shares in a railroad.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: And we won't sell them either.

MR. McGEER: But nevertheless, as a principle, if one expands

the line by spending capital, presumably at some future time that line

will bring in revenue to justify the expenditure of capital.

I agree with the Premier; I don't think the railroad will

ever make money and I don't think there should be an

expectation that it will. It's a quasi-public corporation that

can serve as a highway. I agree with the Premier on that.

But, however, nevertheless, the point is this: the charade

wasn't with respect to issuing shares. The charade was to

intend providing funds for the railroad all along by

commitments that were made in private to the Crown corporation…

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. McGEER: …with the full expectation that by presenting

a false budget to the Legislature, the revenue surplus would be

provided that would permit that financing.

It's all very well for the Premier to say "the charade is

ended because we now give an outright grant instead of an

issuance of shares." That's bunkum. The charade hasn't ended at

all. The charade will end when we have an open declaration of

the budgets of the Crown corporations, and we have it laid on

the line in the budget what the requirements of those Crown

corporations are going to be from the tax revenues of the

province.

We'll have ended the charade in British Columbia when we

produce budgets in this House that are an honest expectation of

the revenues of the province, and then declared in a

straightforward way how we intend to spend the people's

money.

This past February the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) who had promised the public he would give up that

portfolio the day he took office, nevertheless retained the

portfolio and presented to the House a budget which was farther

away from the mark.

I say this right now, and I am prepared to bet any Member 100-to-1 odds that I will be correct in what I say. It's

farther away from the mark than any budget that's ever been

brought down in the history of British Columbia.

What we should have had, Mr. Speaker, during this session

was an interim report of the state of finances. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, such a report is required by the statutes of British

Columbia, and today the Premier of the province is in contempt

of the Audit Act . I

[ Page 1300 ]

realize that there is a bill standing on the order paper

which will absolve him of his statutory requirements, but

nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we have not had an honest

declaration in the budget in British Columbia. Interim

revenues, partly because of inflation, partly because of

increased taxes, are far above any declaration that was made in

the budget. And to say that the charade has ended is the worst

piece of bunkum that's ever been presented in the House.

We support the bill, but we don't support phony financing in

this province any more from this Minister of Finance than we

did from the last one.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Before the Premier

closes the debate on this bill I want to say that we're in

favour of the principle in this bill in keeping the railway

going, but the real purpose behind this bill, Mr. Speaker, is

to prepare the people of British Columbia for fantastic losses

which will now occur in the British Columbia Railway — a

railway that has been very well run the last number of years,

probably run better than any railway in British Columbia, a

railway that in recent years has had more miles of line under

construction than any railway in British Columbia, and a

railway that has been making money.

Now the Premier wants to prepare the people of British

Columbia for mismanagement of the railway which will take place

under this regime, so he's changing the financing, changing the

rules, and he keeps on condemning the railway which he knows is

one of the best-run railways in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to the British Columbia

Financial and Economic Review. It's the 33rd edition, dated

July, 1973, Department of Finance, and under the hand of the

Hon. David Barrett, who was the Minister of Finance at that

time.

In this great report which the Premier put out to the people

of British Columbia, very nicely done up, well printed, it has

all the finances of the province in it. Lots of pictures, a

table of installed generators, it has to do with Hydro, and all

the various finances, the various agencies of the province. I

took this to be gospel, and in this very fine book, Mr.

Speaker, it says that in the year 1965 the net profit of the

British Columbia Railway was $1,744,969. Now these are figures

prepared by the Minister of Finance. And in the year 1970 the

railway made a profit of $896,923. These are figures, Mr.

Speaker, prepared by the Minister of Finance, under his hand

July, 1973. And for the year 1972, audited figures from the

Minister of Finance, again, Mr. Speaker, in this economic

review the railway had $992,499 profit.

So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what was the intention of the

Premier in putting out these figures? I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, he

wouldn't intend to mislead the House, or mislead the people of

British Columbia in his printed word, would he? And yet he said

in the House just recently that the railway had never made a

profit. So you know, I don't know, I think maybe, Mr. Speaker,

that the Minister of Finance is all mixed up. He's all mixed

up.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't understand it.

MR. PHILLIPS: But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that with

regard to railway financing that the capital stock which we are

talking about of the British Columbia Railway is $185,572,900

with a sinking fund of approximately $75 million in excess of

that figure. The sinking fund, the funded debt, is

$259,507,360.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want you to compare that with the

Canadian National Railway which is the railway owned by the

Dominion of Canada. They have capital stock outstanding of

$2,027,885,572 and their funded debt, Mr. Speaker, is much

less. Yes, it's much less. It's only $1,894,008,621. And you

could go on through Algoma Central and the CPR and find the

same thing.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, that the British Columbia Railway,

as the people of British Columbia realize, is their railway,

one of the best-run railways anywhere in North America. And I

think the people of British Columbia are proud of their

railway, and they don't want to see it come under

mismanagement. But when you start giving these outright debts

it's an easy way to cover up losses through mismanagement. It's

an easy way to cover up losses which are going to possibly

occur when the terms of reference and negotiations are

completed with the Canadian National Railway, Mr. Speaker.

Because I feel that the British Columbia government has been

had in that deal. Absolutely had in that deal. And we'll have

more to say about that later.

We want to see the railway continue, Mr. Speaker, so we will

support this bill. But I think it should be read into the

record that already the lack of business experience on behalf

of the present Minister of Finance is showing up, and

unfortunately for the people of British Columbia it will be

their loss.

I think he should resign as Minister of Finance, which he

was going to do; he said he was going to. But there again it's

pretty difficult, Mr. Speaker. At times it's very difficult to

put any stock in what the Minister of Finance says, because

it's one thing one day and something else the next.

However, since we want to see this railway continue, since

it is such a good railway, and since it belongs to the

wonderful people of British Columbia, we're going to have to

support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, our party will support this bill,

maybe for no other reason than I don't want to be on my own

twice in the same night. (Laughter.) But I accept the Premier's

statement that

[ Page 1301 ]

the issuing of shares which only the government is going to

buy back really makes a farce of going through this mechanism.

For that reason I feel that it is much better to come outright

and say that the railway needs more funds and that the

government should put up the money required.

The only question I would have is why $25 million? It's a

pretty bland bill here, with this usual phraseology about the

revenue surplus appropriation account, and so on. This occurs

through many of the bills — in fact all of the bills it seems — and all I would ask is that the Premier might mention in

winding up the bill, he did say that $50 million had been

committed of which $25 million had already been made available,

and I presume this is the other half of the $50 million.

These are large sums of money and all I'm suggesting, I

guess, is much the same as the First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) that there must be an accounting of this $25

million. Why not $50 million?

That's all the bill says, that the government will be making

a grant, an outright grant of $25 million, and it would seem to

me that since that's a very substantial sum of taxpayers' money

that we should have some accounting now, and certainly detailed

accounting when the annual financial statement of the railway

is made available to the House.

It brings us back to the point that we were hammering away

at the other day on another bill. The whole question of

financial accountability.

I don't think anyone in this House would want otherwise than

to see the railway succeed, and the foresight and vision that

has gone into expanding the railroad so that we can have access

to our resources shows very sound thinking. With this we would

agree.

On the other hand, we can't give any kind of carte blanche

either to the Premier, as Minister of Finance. If this session

it's $25 million, will he be back in the spring for another $10

million or what-have-you?

I just quickly make the point that if the railroad needs

this money then it should be an outright grant. There should be

no farce in the way in which the money is made available, but

on the other hand we feel the government must give more detail

as to why this particular amount of money is required at this

time.

MR. GARDOM: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the

number of resignations that have been requested in this House

were ever accepted, we'd be facing much more than a by-election

in the province — we'd have to have a general election within

the next few months.

I do see that we have here a six-line bill for $25 million,

which is over $4 million a line. The Premier indicated in his

opening remarks to us that this was not for costs for new

programmes, but for ones — I take it from his statement — that are already planned or are

on the drawing board. I'd like to ask him what these things

are. Could he please furnish the House with the specifications

of these projects and their estimated costs? Would he please

tell us what projects are unfinished and what ones are going to

be finished for this $25 million? C.D. Howe got into a great

deal of difficulty with the statement "what's a million?" and I

certainly don't intend to follow his footsteps as to what is

$25 million.

I would respectfully state my own position tonight: he's

asking me to make a judgment decision for $25 million, and

unless I have some more facts from him, notwithstanding that I

thoroughly support the British Columbia Railway, I don't have

any hesitation in saying I won't support this bill if we don't

have some particulars.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In committee I will come in with as

accurate a statement as I can get from the railway as to the

projects and the commitments.

I'd like to go back over some of the statements. Mr.

Speaker, I find it difficult to understand the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). Perhaps in some strange way

there are political points to be gained, but I don't understand

what kind of political points are to be gained. Either the

Member's for the bill or he's against the bill. But I don't

understand how he can say that it's bunkum, it's not so, it's

bad and everything else is wrong, and having said all that's

nasty about the bill he says, "I want you to know that I'm

voting for it."

Now, it would seem to me a matter of principle. However, I

don't wish to define that for the Member — it's for his own

conscience to be his guide. But surely to goodness, Mr.

Speaker, if a Member feels that strongly that a bill is bunkum,

then I would expect to hear his voice opposed to the bill;

otherwise the galleries, who are less experienced in politics

than those of us who are hardened veterans and flip-flops,

would be shocked. The galleries would walk away wondering, "How

could a Member possibly speak that way and vote another way?"

Perhaps it's nothing more than a game, Mr. Speaker. Mercifully

there are no young children in the gallery, and the damage will

be less because at least they're adults.

I'm glad as the debate is taking place tonight to hear the

other Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). He doesn't

even know the history of the Social Credit administration when

they took power after the Liberal administration with Boss

Johnson as the Premier. This was one of the first times, as I

recall — and it's information that was brought to me — that a

succeeding government actually changed the budgeted figures

within midstream of an

[ Page 1302 ]

administration they took over, and they altered Mr. Boss

Johnson's projections. It was Social Credit that did that, and

actually wrote a debt — wrote a debt, Mr. Speaker. Now, I've no

intention of playing that game.

AN HON. MEMBER: Change the figures.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no intention of playing that game.

I inherited a budget halfway through a year. I was presented

with the figures and I accept their veracity until it's proven

otherwise that there was some hanky-panky. I'm not going to

play hanky-panky. The whole change, Mr. Speaker, is to be

absolutely honest with this House and say to the House that it

is a charade to keep on expanding shares that will never be

offered to the public, hopefully, and as a result to give the

impression that the company is expanding by shares.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom); I'm

surprised that his reaction would be such around the share

issue. I hope that you're accepting the fact that it's a

straight grant, which I consider to be a far more honest

presentation to the House than coming in and playing the

game.

MR. GARDOM: I'm asking for facts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, okay. Then I will get those for the…. But I'm pleased that you didn't get into the share

banking.

Now the speech by the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips); Mr. Speaker, I don't know. Maybe he's infected by

something that the good doctor's spreading, because you, too,

are going both ways. "The railroad is built for the people of

British Columbia, the sweeping hand of socialism is going to

ruin it…!" and everything else, and the whole performance

all over again, and then he sits down and says "I'm going to

vote for it, too." (Laughter.)

Now, that's twice the same performance in one night from two

different Members. Who is down to whose lowest common

denominator? I ask you, is the First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey at the same level as the Member for South Peace River, or

is the Member for South Peace River down to the level of the

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey?

MR. PHILLIPS: You're all mixed up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How low is low, Mr. Speaker? That's

something that has to be determined by those two Members.

MR. GARDOM: That's a spurline speech.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you know, I thought I'd put in a few

spikes.

MR. WALLACE: Till you get to the end of the line.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's the end of the line, right. That's

coming too.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to some other things that

the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey raised. He said that

this government is going to show the greatest surplus, as I

interpret it, of any government. Mark those words clearly,

because perhaps on the outside people will want to hear what

the Liberals said about this administration. He predicts the

largest surplus in the history of the Province of British

Columbia. How do you square that with the argument that the

socialists are here and they're going to ruin the economy? Now

isn't that a paradox?

Mr. Speaker, here is a situation where the Liberals say, via

their financial spokesman, who is an undoubted financial

genius, at the same level as the Member for South Peace River….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the paradox.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make up your mind.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The socialists are going to have a huge

surplus, and they're naughty-naughty for that, and on top of

that the rotters haven't ruined the economy. Why, they're even

going to have $25 million from surplus to put into the railroad

and he's predicting we're going to have more money left over

from that. A disgrace! Members, hang your heads in shame! We

haven't run the province into debt. We're going to have a

bigger surplus, he claims, than anyone else, and yet the

socialists are supposed to ruin the economy.

MR. SMITH: You will.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, research on the brain does

not exempt that Member for the practice of schizophrenia.

(Laughter.) You know, Mr. Member, I find that a paradox of

explanation for your financial genius. Now what will we do? If

we do have a surplus, am I to resign? If we do have a debt, am

I to resign?

MR. PHILLIPS: Go to the late-night show.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, the late-night show

started early and I thought I'd give you the final act.

Interjections.

[ Page

1303 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I see this kind of drifting kind of

dancing around this terrible thing that we're doing. We're going to extend to the railroad the moneys to complete

the commitments by the former administration and I will bring

into the House the projected commitments, and I'll do it in

committee.

Now, the stories that we get about the railroad and how

great it was, and as soon as we come in we're going to ruin it:

have you not read the Minty report? Now, Mr. Speaker, as I read

the Minty report the accounting of the B.C. Railway by the

former administration leaves a great deal to be desired. Are

you attacking the Comptroller-General who we inherited from

your administration? Is Mr. Minty making up fairy tales when he

said there was "a pioneering attitude towards the financing of

this railroad." Or did you read the Sawyer report?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That wasn't a horoscope — that was a

horrorscope.

Now, the extension into the Peace: I'm anticipating a

report, hopefully to be on my desk within the next few days, to

give me an explanation why the extension to Fort Nelson was

rushed through so quickly and why we're having so many problems

with that particular extension, which unfortunately may cost us

millions and millions of dollars to correct because of the

blundering policies of the former administration.

The preliminary reports that I've had on the engineering

study that we've ordered to evaluate the engineering processes

because of questions raised by the Member for West Point Grey,

who deserves full credit for raising those questions over the

year…. Because of the questions raised by that Member I

ordered a further engineering study of that extension and the

preliminary verbal report to me indicates that the haste,

cautioned by that Member, and predicted by that Member, is in

fact true, and the former administration bungled the whole

engineering process of that particular extension.

It may have to be rebuilt at a cost to the taxpayers of

British Columbia to the tune of millions and millions of

dollars, and you call that sound administration and sound

expansion. The Member recalls C.D. Howe; I will agree about

only the first part of that; it's pretty "seedy, and how"

(Laughter) the way they operated the extension of that

particular railroad and wait until we see the engineering

report. If you are against the railroad, vote against this

bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on!

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have to reduce this to the complete understanding

of the average voter. After all, Mr. Speaker, who am I to ask for complexity

in the world? Who am I to go into the detailed accounts and examination and

criss-crossing of the schizophrenia of the opposition? The question is simple:

If you're agin the bill, vote agin the bill. If you're for it, vote for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: You think you're still in opposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. Mercifully that experience is

well behind me. (Laughter.) When I see you suffering through

that trauma and see what difficulty you're having in that role,

I don't want to go back there. The way that you're operating

you guarantee that we won't be going back there for a long,

long time. You just keep it up. You're the best insurance we've

got to stay over here. I hope that nothing happens to you

because every time you open your mouth it is good for 1,000

votes — and what's 1,000 votes between friends? Especially in a

small riding. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope they all win the leadership.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There it is. I hope they all win the

leadership, that's right. (Laughter.) No, Mr. Speaker, it is a

simple question: are you for the railroad or against it? I now

move second reading of Bill 110, the British Columbia Railway

Company Grant Act, 1973 .

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Gabelmann

Nicolson

Skelly

Lauk

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Fraser

Smith

Richter

Chabot

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

NAYS — 2

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

[ Page 1304 ]

Bill 110 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

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

leave to report the selection of the committee of selection as

to who shall constitute the committee on privileges.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Messrs. Chabot, Smith, Wallace,

Williams, L.A., Liden, Lockstead, Macdonald, Radford, Anderson,

G.H., Ms. Sanford and Mrs. Webster. The committee is to meet at

11 a.m. in the Maple Room and proceed forthwith with its

business.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have any motion regarding the same?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't think it's necessary. It's

merely an announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, that's right. It's carried already by the

motion made. The motion covered it, I think, at the

commencement of this sitting.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Speaking to the announcement: the

Attorney General has not suggested who the convener of this committee is

going to be. I think it only fair that the members know who the convener is

going to be. I think it is a responsibility of the convener as well, once it

has been established who he is, as to when the meeting will be held. There is

a particular procedure to be followed in announcing meetings and I don't think

the Attorney General, in announcing the forming of a meeting, has the right

of the responsibility to announce when the meeting will be held.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, and this is presumptuous — as the first-named of the selection committee, I undertook to

organize the personnel by agreement of all parties. I suggested

the time, to your own House Leader and to the other members, of

11 o'clock because the motion does say that we are to report by

the end of the session. I'm purely the convener; I'm not the

chairman. Once the committee meets in the room it will select

its own chairman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:14 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada