1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3237 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Distribution of Hansard Blues. Mr. Speaker — 3237

Increased payments by Department of Human Resources. Hon. Mr. Levi — 3237

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Provincial revenue and expenditures to March

31, 1974. Mr. Fraser — 3238

Gas price guidelines. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3238

Proposed plans for the Inner Harbour area. Mr. Morrison — 3239

Cost of increased social allowance payments. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3240

Number of people employed under vote 222. Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3240

Square footage of Victoria Times building. Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3240

Advertising for staff for rentals man department. Mr. Smith — 3240

Examination into provincial steel needs. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3241

Details of employees working under unauthorized legislation. Mr. Gibson — 3241

Whereabouts of Mrs. Johnson. Mr. Morrison — 3241

Appropriateness of hospital services pricing structure. Mr.

L.A. Williams — 3241

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66).

Report and third reading — 3242

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 33). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3242

Report stage — 3242

Transit Services Act (Bill 70). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 11.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3242

Report stage — 3242

Lotteries Act (Bill 83). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3242

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3243

Report stage — 3243

Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 88). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3243

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. Curtis — 3243

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3243

Report stage — 3243

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 11). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3243

Succession Duty Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 12). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3244

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3244

Mrs. Jordan — 3245

Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 8).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3246

Mr. McClelland — 3246

Mr. Gibson — 3246

Mr. Fraser — 3246

Mrs. Jordan — 3247

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3247

County Courts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 74). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3247

Mr. Smith — 3248

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3248

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3248

Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

73). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3248

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3248

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3248

Emergency Health Services Act (Bill 93). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3248

Mr. McClelland — 3249

Mr. Morrison — 3250

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3250

Mr. Fraser — 3251

Hon, Mr. Cocke — 3251

Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act (Bill 101).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 3253

Mr. Fraser — 3253

Mr. Gibson — 3253

Mr. Wallace — 3254

Hon. Mr. King — 3254

Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act (Bill 120).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3255

Mr. McClelland — 3256

Mr. Wallace — 3256

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3258

Islands Trust Act (Bill 112), Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3258

Mr. Fraser — 3259

Mr. Curtis — 3260

Ms. Sanford — 3263

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3265

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3266

Ms. Brown — 3267

Mr. Bennett — 3269

Mr. Wallace — 3270

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Monsieur l'Orateur,

je voudrais dire à les étudiants de "la belle province" avec

nous ce jour — "bienvenu et bonne chance."

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to

welcome a group of students who are visiting with us today from

that very great constituency of Coquitlam. They are from the

senior secondary high school of Port Coquitlam.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): This morning, visiting the

House there were some students from the Surrey Centre School in

Cloverdale. I think some of them may be in the gallery today

and I'd like the House to welcome them as well.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker,

seated on the floor of the House to your right, starting from

the far end, are: Mr. Russell Stanton; Mr. Doug Mowat, the

executive director of the Canadian Paraplegic Association; Mr.

Doug Wilson from the Canadian Paraplegic Association; and Mr.

Don Voe, also with the Canadian Paraplegic Association. I'd

also like to point out that Mr. Wilson was a member of the

first Wheelchair Olympics and represented Canada, as did Mr.

Mowat, who was the team manager.

They're over here to meet with various Ministers and I might

also add that they participated in the Advisory Committee on

the Handicapped which was formed after the handicapped

conference last fall. The advisory committee will be travelling

throughout the province in the next two months to hear

representations from various people who work with the

handicapped and are handicapped as to what their needs are. I

would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I draw to your attention an

editorial that has come to hand from the Province which

is headed "'Truth' Stranger Than Fiction," dated

Wednesday, May 15 — last week. It states:

"Anyone for a round of 'now you say it, now you don't'? Those

interested in participating in this popular political game don't even need an

excursion to Washington, D.C. They can find it as close to home as Victoria,

B.C.

"There, thanks to House Speaker Gordon Dowding, anyone with

a speech to delete can play."

The editorial then goes on to describe what can be done to

the transcripts here. For the peace of mind of every Member and

the public of British Columbia, I wish to table the only two

transcripts which have come into contention in this House,

which happened last week, both of which I went over as a

referee to determine what was on the tape and what was

transcribed in the record. I table them now in the House.

I also wish to make a further statement with regard to the

unofficial Blues that have also been the source of some

discussion. I met with Messrs. Hall, Bennett, Anderson and

Wallace — that is, the spokesmen for the various parties — respecting the problem of the unofficial publication of

Hansard advance copies.

The present unsatisfactory state of the law relating to

distributing of such material, so far as loss of immunity is

concerned, was discussed. Each Member should be aware of

possible implications of the distribution of these copies,

although naturally each person must bear the responsibility for

his own actions. It was agreed that a general indication of the

problem be circulated, and I'm doing that today so every Member

knows what the problem is all about.

The other thing is that the Blues will be given to each

caucus room as well as in the chamber at 12 o'clock each day.

At 11 o'clock you would be urged to have your corrections, if

any, back to Hansard — that is, each day — or that

interval of time between the two.

I point out to you that if Members do not read their

statements in the Pinks and return corrections of manifest

errors — and I want to emphasize the words manifest errors — in the reporting by 11 o'clock, the record will go as shown

unless caught in the official printed edition.

For the benefit of everyone, including the public, I quote

from Parliament and Its Sovereignty by Hollis:

"A Member may correct mistakes of reporting, but he

must on no account alter the substance of his speech. What he has said,

he has said."

And that is the view I take of the duty of Hansard

and my own duty as a referee in these matters.

Introduction of bills.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a

statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I want to announce today the

increased payments by the department for social assistance

allowances, nursing home and private hospital care, comforts

allowances, child care and foster care for children.

[ Page 3238 ]

On July 1, 1974, social allowance basic payments will be

increased by $20 for each family. One person will receive $160

per month; two people in the family will receive $270 per

month; three people in the family will receive $320; four

people will receive $370; five people will receive $420; six

people will receive $465; seven people, $505; eight people,

$545; nine people, $585; and 10 people in the family unit will

receive $625 monthly.

We are concerned about the effects of the cost of living in

respect to minimum- and low-wage earners who are finding it

extremely difficult to financially manage, particularly those

with children. Increased family allowance benefits of $20 per

child instituted by the federal government in January of this

year have substantially assisted social allowance recipients

and low-income earners in keeping pace. The new Residential

Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act limiting rent

increases to 8 per cent, recently introduced by the provincial

government, has further assisted low-income groups.

I want to make it clear that any wage earner whose net

income from employment is less than an equivalent sum that

could be received as social assistance can contact the local

office of the Department of Human Resources for subsidization

of earnings.

Mr. Speaker, more and more we are becoming convinced that we

must move towards a more rational system of income security for

all people, based on models of guaranteed minimum income,

negative income tax and social insurance concepts. The

department is undertaking ongoing research in these areas.

On June 1, 1974, payments for private hospital care will

increase to a maximum of $525 per month for any residents

requiring subsidized care. Where residents requiring subsidized

care are receiving intermediate care, in rest homes or in other

special-care facilities for senior citizens, new rates will

range between $250 per month for residents, and $400 per month

depending on the nature of the programme. The new amount paid

for personal care will range between $225 and $250 per

month.

I would like to differentiate between intermediate care and

personal care. Intermediate care facilities are for room,

board, daily professional nursing supervision, and for some

psychiatric supervision, plus assistance for some of the

activities of daily living and help to become involved in

social and recreational activities.

Personal care requires a lesser level of daily supervision.

The provisions for persons utilizing this latter level of care,

in addition to room and board, are for limited lay supervision,

assistance with some of the activities of daily living and aid

in becoming involved in social and recreational activities.

Effective July, 1, comforts allowances for patients in need in the various

special-care institutions and mental health facilities will receive the uniform

rate of $25 per month throughout the province.

On June 1, 1974, rate increase for subsidizing child day

care in day-care centres will rise by $10 per child to a

maximum of $120 for a full day. Subsidized payments to provide

as a family day care, and day care in a child's own home will

rise by $15 per month to a maximum of $90 a month for a full

day.

Subsidized payments for nursery and kindergarten will be

raised by $5 per month to a child, to a maximum of $40 a month.

Subsidized payments for before- and after-school care will also

rise by $5 per child per month to a maximum of $50 monthly.

On July 1, 1974, the child foster payments will include

clothing, food and other personal-care costs will increase for

some, but not all age categories. Payments for foster children

who range in age up to and including five years of age amount

to $69 a month plus $20 family allowance, or $89 per month per

child. Payments for foster children aged six to 11 inclusive

will be $112 including family allowance. Payments for foster

children ages 12 and 13 will be $137 per month, including the

family allowance. Payments for foster children 14 and over will

be $152 including family allowance.

Oral questions.

PROVINCIAL REVENUE AND

EXPENDITURES TO MARCH 31,1974.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Premier and Minister of Finance. Could you advise the House

what the actual revenue and expenditures for the Province of

British Columbia were as of the end of the fiscal year March

31, 1974?

MR. BARRETT: I'll take the question as notice, Mr.

Member.

GAS PRICE GUIDELINES

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

to the Hon. Attorney-General: In connection with the current

controversy over the application of guidelines for the price of

gasoline in British Columbia, would you advise the House

whether or not the chairman of the Energy Commission has been

in touch with the ARA — I believe it is — that controls the

service station dealers, to determine whether or not any

cooperation can be obtained from them in standing to your

guidelines?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the energy, board and Mr.

Lloyd Kinneard have been in

[ Page 3239 ]

touch with one another. Of course, there are no guidelines

as such relating to the dealer markup. It is the charge to the

station that we are concerned to protect.

Perhaps I should say that we've had acceptance of our

provincial guidelines, I believe, from Imperial, from Pacific

and from Standard. I don't think we've heard from Mohawk and

Union which are small companies. We've had a little bit of

disagreement from Gulf Oil of Canada and Shell Oil. Therefore

I've asked the energy board to write to these two companies — and I believe they've done that today — requesting them to

attend a hearing to be held in the board room of the Energy

Commission on June 4 at 9 o'clock to justify, if they're able

to justify it, their declining to go along with the provincial

guidelines. The two companies, whose names I've given, are to

let the board know by May 28 whether or not they will attend

such a hearing, at the request of the Energy Commission.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental. I appreciate what the

Hon. Attorney-General says, Mr. Speaker, concerning the effect

of guidelines upon the refiners, and therefore the wholesale

price. But it appears that some dealers are raising the price

as much as 2 cents, and that the chairman of the Energy

Commission has suggested that perhaps one half a cent is

justified. I wonder to what extent this matter has been

examined into and if further discussions will be held at dealer

level.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm sure there will be continuing

discussions. This is really a request to the dealers to

exercise restraint in this period.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same

subject, to the Attorney-General: Has the Attorney-General been

made aware of significant price increases in northern and

eastern sections of the province, quite above the increases

which have been experienced on the lower mainland and Vancouver

Island?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No I'm not fully aware of the various

price fluctuations that have taken place all across the

province. That data is still being assembled.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Is the

Attorney-General saying then that there are, in fact, no

guidelines at the retail level that have been specified at the

moment? Is there simply the wholesale guidelines and he is not

prepared at the moment to give any retail guideline figure?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Only suggestions at the retail markup

level.

MR. GIBSON: And what exactly is that suggestion?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hold the line and leave the markup the

same.

MR. GIBSON: In other words, 8 cents, no more, at the retail

level.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mind you, the dealer markup varies; it

goes from everywhere from 12 cents in one station to 14 cents

somewhere else, to even more where a very small volume of gas

is retailed by the dealer. So they vary all over the province.

We've just asked them if they could, in this difficult period

of inflation, exercise restraint and maintain the dealer markup

at the same levels as heretofore.

MR. GIBSON: In percentage terms or absolute terms, if I

might follow that up once more?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'd prefer absolute terms, because

if they use percentage then, of course, that really means an

increase, doesn't it, in view of what the refiners have done?

In absolute terms, we'd request them to maintain that existing

markup.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental on the

same subject. If the Attorney-General has made provision for

the wholesalers of gasoline to meet with the energy board

concerning the guidelines and adherence to it or otherwise, is

he prepared to extend the same privilege to the members of the

retail auto association who dispense gasoline at the pumps, so

if they have a legitimate case, this can be made with respect

to the markup they put on the gas that they receive from the

wholesalers?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd just point out to the Hon. Member

that it's two companies that we've requested to attend the

hearing, two only, not all of them. The door is open to the

ARA, and communications with the Energy Commission should be

maintained as they have been in the past, but that's simply an

open-door situation with the ARA.

PROPOSED PLANS FOR

THE INNER HARBOUR AREA

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Premier and Minister of Finance. Now that the province has

acquired the Reid property in the Inner Harbour, could he

advise the House what other properties they might intend to

acquire in the Inner Harbour, and could he tell us what the

long-range plans of the government are for

[ Page 3240 ]

this Inner Harbour area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think the question is in order,

it's a matter of policy.

MR. SPEAKER: It's future policy by the sound of it.

COST OF INCREASED

SOCIAL ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: To the Hon. Minister of Human Resources:

in connection with the statement which he delivered to the

House this afternoon, first of all, is the Minister prepared to

make copies available to the Members?

HON. MR. LEVI: The Members do have copies, Mr. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the same matter — can the Minister indicate what the current cost of the

programme is, and what the likely increase of cost will be,

effective July 1?

HON. MR. LEVI: I can deal more specifically with the

increase. The increase for the welfare rates will be $9.6

million, and there will be a $6 million increase in respect to

the personal care and the chronic-care field, the foster care,

day care and the comforts allowance for a total of just over

$15 million.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE

EMPLOYED UNDER VOTE 222

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked the number of

persons employed under vote 222. That number is 323

persons.

SQUARE FOOTAGE OF

VICTORIA TIMES BUILDING

There was also a question asked with regard to the square

footage of the property known as the Victoria Times

building.

The total square footage of building space is close to

80,000 feet and the acreage is about 1.9 acres; it's almost two

acres on Douglas Street, just south of Hillside. The cost of

the office space works out to about $17.50 a foot. At today's

building costs it would cost us at least $35 a square foot to

build office space.

MR. SPEAKER: There's one thing I point out to the Hon. Members. The

Hon. Minister, I understand, gave an undertaking to give answers to these questions

that he couldn't answer during his estimates. The question is whether he should

do it during question period. I think he should do it during the question period

in case other questions revolve around the answer. Now maybe you don't believe

that; if you don't, tell me.

ADVERTISING FOR STAFF

FOR RENTALSMAN DEPARTMENT

MR. SMITH: I have a question to the Hon. Attorney-General. I

have to preface the question with a reference back to the oral

question period of April 30, 1974, when I questioned the

Attorney-General on the propriety of appointing a rentalsman

for the Province of British Columbia prior to the time that the

Landlord and Tenant Act had been through debate, second

reading and final approval in this House.

I believe, in paraphrasing the Minister's remarks, he

indicated that this was an order-in-council appointment and

therefore was not advertised and probably would not be

required; but if people were required by this department, then

certainly they should be advertised for in a proper manner, and

so on, after the bill had been through the House.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General who authorized the

placing of four ads in today's copy of The Province ,

which requests people to apply for the positions of director

of finance, officer manager, director of information and an

economist statistician for the rentalsman department, when we

are still in the position that the bill has not been through

this House or debated or passed?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the

particular ads. I do know that we're looking…. I don't think

that anybody could be appointed to a non-existent body or be

paid a salary by a non-existent body unless, or until, this

Legislature acts. But because of the social urgency related to

this matter, I dare say that people are already scouting for

suitable people who will be part of the staff. Frankly, I am

not aware of the ad as such.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. The ads are

placed in such a manner that they clearly say "for senior

appointments;" and they also indicate the salary range that

these people can expect if they apply for the job. Yet the bill

has never cleared the House setting up the Landlord and

Tenant Act , let alone anything else.

Is the Attorney-General aware of that? Or will he take steps

to see that it doesn't happen again?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take steps to

make sure that anything of that kind will be subject to the

Legislature. Of course, there can

[ Page 3241 ]

be no such jobs until the Legislature deals with the

matter.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary. I just wonder, in the light

of the Attorney-General's comments, whether he considers that

the people appointed and hired by the community resources board

in Vancouver are illegally operating their positions, since the

legislation has not passed through this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can call upon the Attorney-General to give a legal opinion.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'd have to ask a lawyer.

MR. McCLELLAND: You gave us one earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: That must have sneaked through. We have a

lawyer now.

EXAMINATION INTO

PROVINCIAL STEEL NEEDS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I will be happy to for a small fee, Mr.

Speaker.

To the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce. With reference to arrangements concluded during his

successful trip to Japan for the supply of steel to this

province, has the Minister or his department concluded the

examination indicating the specifications of the steel which

this province will require?

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

Mr. Speaker, the investigations are still ongoing, but the bulk of that information

is being collated now.

I expect that it will be coming in in dribs and drabs — the

balance of the individuals that use steel that would wish to

operate through our office to get a steel supply from

Japan.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplementary. Am I to understand from

the Minister that under this arrangement steel shapes will be

available as well as rebar and sheet steel?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYEES WORKING

UNDER UNAUTHORIZED LEGISLATION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this comparison between

the rentalsman position advertising and the community resource boards. I wonder

if the Minister of Human Resources could tell us how many people are currently

working in positions which are yet to be authorized by that particular legislation.

HON. MR. LEVI: There are no people working currently in

respect to the Vancouver Resource Board. I have a consultant

over there and one person who was employed under the employment

programme. Those are the only two people that I am aware of at

the moment.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary. How about the boards

themselves, Mr. Speaker, and any staff that they might

have?

HON. MR. LEVI: I just mentioned the staff that the boards

have — those two people.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary. That includes Mr. Jim

Karpoff, the new manager of the board; you've included him in

there?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, I did not include that.

MR. McCLELLAND: But he is in fact working for the board, is

he not?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, he is — for the Vancouver South Resource

Board, not the Vancouver Resource Board.

MR. McCLELLAND: The illegal one.

WHEREABOUTS OF MRS. JOHNSON

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question

to the Premier. I wonder if he could tell the House what has

happened to one of his greatest fans, Mrs. Johnson, who I see

is missing. We miss her smiling face.

HON. MR. BARRETT: She's in Ottawa visiting her son and, I

hope, giving the federal government — what was the former

federal government — the same advice that they were giving

us.

MR. MORRISON: I'm happy to hear that she's not ill; we enjoy

her company.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are too. We need every vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: And how!

APPROPRIATENESS OF HOSPITAL

SERVICES PRICING STRUCTURE

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon.

[ Page 3242 ]

Minister of Health Services. In connection with the recent

publicity that has been given to the use of patients in

government hospital institutions to do work for outside

organizations, has the Minister conducted an examination to

determine the appropriateness of the prices being charged by

the institutions for the services that are rendered?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we are in

the process now of examining that aspect of the rehabilitation

programme. The programme itself I am, quite in favour of — in

other words, the using of people for useful occupational

therapy so that they can improve their own state of mind

through occupation therapy. But I wasn't aware at the time of

the use of patients for outside work, and I am looking at that

now very carefully.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. Report on Bill 66.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

Bill 66 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Speaking very

briefly to the amendment which came from the Law Society of the

Province of British Columbia and which says that this

section

is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it full force

and effect from that date, which is July, 1948. I hope that the

lawyers will never criticize this little government for a

retroactive legislation.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 33, Legal Professions Amendment Act , 1974,

reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

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

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 11.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I move

the amendment standing in my name on the order paper for

subsection 5 of

section 11. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 70, Transit Services Act , reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

LOTTERIES ACT

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I move the amendments standing

in my name on the order paper.

[ Page

3243 ]

(See appendix.) By way of explanation, these amendments are

recommended to me by the Deputy Attorney-General and the

federal authorities. They flow from the requirements of the

Criminal Code of Canada that we must be a little bit

more explicit in

section 2 than we were in the bill before

you.

Amendments approved.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive as amended approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. HALL: Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that we need

this language in the bill for the purpose of the Criminal

Code.

Amendment approved.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 83, Lotteries Act , reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

SEWERAGE FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 88; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I move the amendments standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Sections 1 and 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I move the second

amendment standing in my name on the order paper, page 23 for

today. (See appendix.)

HON. MR. LORIMER: I just want to state that we'll accept

that amendment. It is an oversight.

Amendment approved.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 88, Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act , reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 11, Mr.

Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

[ Page 3244 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to increase

the credit allowed for logging tax paid against income tax

payable is necessary to keep the credit allowed current with

the income tax rates payable in 1974. The federal Income Tax

Act provides a reduction in the federal corporation tax of

1 per cent from 39 per cent in 1973 to 38 per cent in 1974.

When the provincial 12 per cent rate on corporation income tax

is added to the federal rate, the total corporate income tax

rate in 1974 is 50 per cent instead of 51 per cent in 1973.

Therefore, to be current, the offset is 12 to 50 instead of 12

to 51.

This bill, therefore, proposes to adjust the offset allowed

for logging tax paid to match the change in the corporate

income tax rate payable in 1974.

In addition, an amendment has been requested by the

under the federal-provincial collection agreement, which will

simplify the calculation of installment payments required to be

made throughout the current year by individuals and

corporations who do not have income tax deducted at the source

in their earnings. This amendment was not received by the

provincial officials until the introduction of Bill 11,

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 , submitted to the House on

budget day. This bill will replace Bill 11.

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Income Tax Amendment Act , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 12, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hon. Members will recall that special

beneficiaries under the Succession Duty Act have a basic

exemption of $150,000 and bear a much lower duty rate on any

amount in excess of the exemption. These special beneficiaries

are husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother,

child, grandchild, son-in-law or daughter-in-law. This bill

proposes to add great-grandchildren to this class of special

beneficiaries.

The bill also proposes to benefit small estates by allowing

custody of the property of the estate to be obtained without

the necessity of probate or administration where the gross

value of the estate is under $5,000 instead of $2,000 as is now

the limit. This means these small estates do not have to be

processed through the courts.

I want to point out, as I've stated on many occasions

publicly, contrary to statements made by certain Members of the

opposition, there are wide margins of concessions and

exemptions for beneficiaries under the succession duty. We

intend as a government to keep succession duties on.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Double taxation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question of double taxation raised by

the Member, I want to point out, was a tax brought in by the

former government. Then, during the heat of an election

campaign to pacify the rich of this province, the former

Premier promised to take the legislation off.

A basic exemption of $150,000 is a fair basic exemption.

Anybody with an estate over that amount of money should be

prepared to pay succession duties. The rich must pay their fair

share in this society. I want to make it perfectly clear that

the exemptions that already exist in the bill do not offer any

hardship on any citizen.

The wealthy are asked to pay their share. The modest citizen

or the person who has worked hard to leave an estate for his

family is not unduly punished by this bill; it is only the

wealthy who are concerned. If the opposition wishes to speak

for the wealthy, that is their prerogative, but it is our

prerogative also to defend the rights of the poor and the

average income family in this province.

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

I don't have any hesitation in

[ Page

3245 ]

standing and speaking for the people who have estates in

excess of $150,000. If the premier thinks that they are the

wealthy of this province, I happen to think they are

hard-working people who have shown initiative and the ability

to save and are in a position to pass that on to their

heirs.

However, that's not what this bill is all about. This bill

extends the definition of "special beneficiary" to include

great-grandchild, and therefore to extend to an additional

class of persons the $150,000 exemption of which the Premier is

so proud.

In doing this, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that the government

has failed to recognize other classes of persons in the

Province of British Columbia who should be taken into account

when making this kind of an exemption. Great-grandchildren are

a long way removed from the person who made the money or saved

it and left the estate. Yet we have in our society people whose

relationship is very much closer than a man or woman and their

great-grandchild who should be given consideration by this

government.

I'm thinking of those men and women who, by reason of

circumstances, have no family or have lost all their family and

who have formed associations of very lasting significance for

them — associations of equal importance to that which exists

between a husband and a wife, and certainly between an

individual and his or her great-grandchild. I'm thinking of

people such as young widows who continue to work in our

society, save their money, form an association with some other

person — perhaps another young widow or spinster — live

together, share a common home and contribute each to the

welfare of their particular community. Then as the years go by

and one of them dies, the other is left alone, and even though

the deceased member of the partnership may have left his or her

estate to the other, that estate is subjected to the full

impact of succession duties in this province.

I agree to extend the class of special beneficiaries to

great-grandchildren. I would hope we would never go so far as

to extend it beyond that. But at this particular time it seems

to me that the government should take careful cognizance of the

fact that by creating a class of special beneficiaries we are,

at the same time, clearly establishing a marked difference

between those people related by blood and those people whose

relationship is purely social — a relationship which indeed may

be closer and more effective and more valuable to the community

than the blood relationship.

I would hope that the Hon. Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett)

would see fit to review the matter of exemptions, particularly with people who

have lived together and who really have a joint estate, and where on the death

of one that particular community is very seriously affected by the crippling

effect of succession duties and the absence of a limit

of exemption.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I just can't hold with the silly,

childish statement that the Premier of this province always

stands up and makes when one talks about succession duties — to

say that this is protecting the rich. This is another blind

thought that the Premier of this province has.

For his information, the majority of the rich people in

British Columbia are moving their money out of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sure this lady is defending the right of a

widow to receive without heavy taxation — double taxation — the

just benefits that have been accrued between husband and wife

through years of working and saving without having double

taxation imposed by this government.

In the previous instance when there was an estate tax in

British Columbia, this was with the full knowledge that there

was no capital gains tax in Canada. This meant that people

could acquire windfall profits over a lifetime or just a short

period of time which were not taxed, and that these untaxed

profits could then pass within a family without taxation. And

that was the purpose of the succession duty tax.

But, Mr. Speaker, in Canada today we have a capital gains

tax of a fairly substantial portion. When you relate this to a

family, particularly between husband and wife, you see us

existing in a society today where wives and husbands are

contributing in many instances mutually in terms of earned

income to that estate, and where wives are contributing equally

in terms of emotional input and responsibility in the marriage

when they are not gainfully employed, so that the benefits

accruing to that marriage are through an equal partnership and

should be shared justly.

What the Premier is saying is that in fact a wife does not have the right to

share in the mutually built up capital assets and benefits of a marriage to

which she has contributed in her lifetime, and that she, through taxation, must

reduce her standard of living to the extent that the state says is acceptable,

and that if that is not sufficient, within two or three years, at the rate of

inflation today, then she has the happy alternative of becoming dependent on

the state. Mr. Speaker, I say this is wrong. I say that people in British Columbia

— the average family — can well amass an estate of over $150,000. I would remind

the Premier that that involves various classifications, which is a way of forcing

people to put their assets into certain investments, because you are only allowed

$25,000, for example, in investment securities. So the state is not only double

taxing; it is trying to dictate through estate taxation how people should invest

their funds.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that larger

corporations or businesses or families with considerable

amounts of money can well afford to have what is good, but also

expensive, tax legal advice. They have accountants working for

them through their business and in nearly all these instances

the family estate planning is done through an income

tax-deductible cost. This benefit is not available to the

average family in British Columbia. Anyone who's signing their

cheques today who knows about income tax knows the average

person must pay his accounting bill for his income tax, and

doesn't have a write-off.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the wealthy

people in British Columbia — and I assume the Premier means the

multi-millionaires, and millionaires are in fact removing their

money from British Columbia to such places as Alberta, right

within Canada, to avoid estate taxes. Those with larger means

and involved in business can plan their estates with expert

legal and tax advice at the expense of a business and not at

the expense of the spending money that a family has. In fact

all moneys today, with the exception of the lotteries that will

come into British Columbia and which I wonder if this

government is going to tax, are in fact taxed profits between

husband and wife, in their instance. By levying an estate tax

on husband and wife, the transfer of this asset does, in fact,

amount to double taxation.

The last point that I would like to make, which I think

should be very dear to the Premier's heart in view of his

history as a social worker and his concern for people, is that

when two people unite in marriage there are enough problems

without them having to sit down monthly and having to figure

out who paid for what. Mr. Speaker, this type of an estate tax

does, in fact, levy a "yours" and "mine" attitude in marriages,

because in order to divide the estate the wife must keep

receipts and cancelled cheques for what she has bought, the

husband must keep receipts and cancelled cheques for what he

has bought, and in most marriages, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you

that generally people don't want to be involved in this type of

"yours" and "mine" possessive attitude. It is a union of many

things, including a union of financing, and the state is

imposing a divisive attitude on family units in British

Columbia by this attitude.

I don't feel any embarrassment in defending the right of a

wife or a husband to receive the benefits that accrue during a

marriage without double taxation. I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, to

say it here in the House and I certainly will say it anywhere

outside. And I'll meet the Premier on a platform, because I

feel that we have instances in this House…and I can see

he can hardly wait to get up

[ Page 3246 ]

to rant and rave about defending the rich.

We have instances in this House, Mr. Premier, and you know

one is coming up, where you accuse me of….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Hon. Member

to adjourn the debate? I don't want to miss the debate, but I

have another very important appointment.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you give me a commitment to remove the

estate tax between husband and wife in British Columbia?

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: No bargaining, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'll move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

ELDERLY CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speak er, the

purpose of the bill is to amend the Elderly Citizen Renters

Grant Act by raising the amount of the grants for tenants

aged 65 years and over to $80, and for the first time provided

tenants aged under 65 years with a grant, which this year will

be $30.

Changing the title of the Act to the Renters Resource

Grant Act indicates to the people of British Columbia that

this proposal is one way of redistributing the wealth of the

province. As the House knows, with our new resource policies

the provincial government is starting to get a better return

for the people from the province's timber and mineral

wealth.

The government recognized that tenants, through their rents

and municipal taxes…and this measure is one step the

government is taking in the direction of equalizing the

municipal tax load between homeowners and tenants. The

government is proposing to raise the amount of the grant for

tenants aged 65 and over from $50 to $80 per year, an increase

of 60 per cent, because we realize that senior citizens need

special protection from increases in housing costs.

By the way, persons aged 65 and over living in senior

citizens' housing operated by non-profit organizations such as

churches and service clubs or in provincial senior citizens'

housing are also eligible to receive these grants, provided

they occupy a separate household unit.

In the calendar year 1973, the Department of Housing

approved 48,096 applications aged 65 and over for a total sum

of $2,431,575. It's estimated that there will be approximately

50,000 applications for the $80 grant in 1974 for $4 million,

and approximately 250,000 applications for the $30 grant for

$7.5 million.

With the exception of Ontario, I'm not aware of any other

province that has a scheme of assisting tenants with their

housing costs in such a direct manner.

It's with pleasure that I rise in support of this bill, Mr.

Speaker. I move second reading.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I just want to

rise to thank the Minister on behalf of those rich British

Columbians that the Premier was speaking about who live in $800

penthouses in West Vancouver and will be getting their $2.50 a

month, thanks to this bill. I think they'll be very happy.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We know you speak on their behalf.

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

this government never fails to amaze me. I'm glad that the Hon.

Member for Langley mentioned that figure of $2.50 per month. It

is not much of an assistance to the renters of this province

when we consider that this Minister has, almost single-handed,

stopped the construction of rental units throughout this

province. When he's put a freeze on, when he's going out to

build 2,000 new rental units, as he boasts in a press release,

and at the same time has stopped the ordinary construction of

something in excess of 15,000 rental units which are built in

British Columbia every year, it's just not good enough to be

giving renters an extra $2.50 per month.

The Minister was speculating that there'll be something like

200,000 applications for the $30-a-year grant. I'd like to ask

the Minister, when he makes his remarks in closing second

reading, if he could give us an approximate cost of the paper

work on those 200,000 $30 grants.

I'd like him also — and this really goes to the basic

philosophical part of this bill — to describe to this House the

relationship that he foresees coming up in the long run between

the homeowner's grant and the renter's grant. Is it the

long-term intention of the government to bring about parity in

dollar terms between these two kinds of grants, thereby

equalizing the status of the homeowner and the tenant?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): While the grant is very

inadequate, I would ask the Minister when he's closing how it's

going to be administered. There have been a lot of questions

asked. Where are these forms available? Are they going to be

available throughout

[ Page 3247 ]

the province in provincial government offices, or just from

Victoria from the Department of Housing? Where can the people

affected get the application forms, and approximately when?

MRS. JORDAN: I would just like to mention to the Minister

that I find his words today very reassuring in light of his

present action, but I wonder where he was a year ago and where

his government was a year ago when we pointed out to the then

government that the renters grant Act which was started by the

previous administration with an original $50 grant was a

commitment to be increased every year for elderly renters. If

he stands here today saying how deeply concerned he is and how

he recognizes the crisis situation, why in adding this $30 this

year doesn't he bring in the $50 that they should have had

added for last year, so that they would have had added for last

year, so that have had added for last year, so that he wants to

put in this year? They would have been in a much better

position to hear his words, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister

will state why he let a whole year go by before bringing in

this amendment.

I also would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a

problem which related to another bill which was passed in this

Legislature very shortly, but does apply here to this bill

where we're discussing the assistance to elderly granters and

the $2.50-a-month bill. As I pointed out in the debate on that

bill, which was the ceiling for rents, the fallacy is that a

municipality, if it wished to accommodate even one landlord and

tenant group in adjusting their rent beyond the 8 per cent, had

to apply for a complete municipal exemption for that type of

building.

That's exactly what's happening, Mr. Speaker, in the

Okanagan, for example, and in other communities where there are

genuine cases where a landlord has been undercharging a tenant

and cannot possibly meet his commitments. They are applying to

the municipalities and in the reaction, in order to help them,

the municipality is making a blanket exemption.

I have a specific case in the area that I represent which

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is aware of, where

people in mobile-home parks were under pressure — both the

landlords and the tenants. We wanted an exemption for selected

mobile-home parks but in fact they had to go for an exemption

right across the board in the whole municipality. So landlords,

who are in fact garnering more of a fair return than they

should at this time of inflation, are getting away with murder.

This piddly little bit isn't going to help those tenants.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if in fact the Minister wouldn't be prepared to speak

to the Attorney-General and have the former bill amended with an amendment this

session so that the municipality can adjudicate the situation on its merit,

rather than having to go to a blanket exemption which is going to work a hardship

on the very people that this bill is supposed to be assisting. Perhaps the Minister,

Mr. Speaker, will give this House this assurance that this will be done now

so that the addition by this amendment to the elderly will be helpful.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, it is the intention that this

should continuously be increased. It will become a more and

more significant amount as time goes by.

The administration will be similar to what is already being

successfully administered — the Elderly Citizens' Renters Grant

- and that's done without too much bureaucracy, quite

surprisingly.

Forms are being prepared right now so that they will be

ready for the June 1 date. They will be available in government

offices. There will be some advertising as well on the

availability. Applications will be made, though, to the office

here in Victoria. We'll be ready to go on that ceiling for

rents, the fallacy was that a municipality, if it wished to

accommodate even one that really is under the jurisdiction of

the Attorney-General. We've had continuing discussions on

various aspects of it. We certainly do have liaison on that,

but it's not really related to this Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee

of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after

today.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a minute. I think we first have to pass

second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 8, Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Amendment Act,

1974 , read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading on Bill 74, Mr. Speaker, and

I'd like the House to do Bill 73 afterwards if that's

agreeable.

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill increases the

jurisdiction civilly of the county courts to the sum of $10,000

monetary, instead of $3,000. It provides that a person shall

sue in the small claims court, within the jurisdiction of that

court, and not in the county court. In other words, if your

case falls within the lower court, don't incur costs and take

it into a higher court than necessary. It also provides that

the judge shall not be required to take handwritten notes of

evidence. Those are the main

[ Page 3248 ]

provisions of that bill, and I move second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in speaking

to the principle of the bill, we concur with the remarks of the

Attorney-General that it is time the jurisdiction of the county

court was increased to listen to cases of monetary value of

$10,000. Taking into consideration the day that we live in and

the monetary value of money as a means of exchange, limiting

them to $3,000 was an imposition on a lot of people when they

had to go to a higher court. We agree with that and we support

the principle of this amendment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go into the

matter at length now, but I hope before we deal with this bill

in committee that the Attorney-General might be prepared to

indicate to the House the extent to which official reporters

will be available to serve all the county court judges in the

province. The amendment which removes the responsibility of the

county court judge to take notes of the proceedings is

certainly an improvement if there is a reporter available, but

if there isn't that obligation, I don't know what we will do in

the case of appeals. I don't want to delay the matter now;

perhaps the Attorney-General could give us a statement in

committee.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon.

Member I might say at this time, briefly, that we're

undertaking training of shorthand court stenographers — a field

that we're very short in at the present time. We're also

training the monitors — the people who can sit with the

recording equipment in court. But there is a great shortage in

this field, there's no question about it. I move second

reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 74, County Courts Amendment Act, 1974, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 73, followed by Bill

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill does not change in any way

the scheme of criminal injuries compensation, but it does provide a proper appeal

procedure, an appeal procedure that has already been adopted by this House in

the case of Workmen's Compensation claims. The new appeal board is functioning

and active and hearing many cases in the field of workmen's compensation, and

I think they are the proper tribunal to give claimants under this Act a proper

hearing if they feel their claims have not been properly adjudicated upon. I

move second reading.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We certainly agree with the appeal

provisions the Minister has included. I wonder if the Minister

would like to indicate whether or not the perpetrator of the

crime might be given some consideration on the matter of

appeal. Once the award having been made, and perhaps some

obligation placed upon the perpetrator of the crime, the

circumstances might be such that some change should be made at

a later date.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I will consider that matter

before committee stage. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 73, Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment

Act, 1974 , read a second time and referred to Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 93, followed by

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES ACT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, Bill 93,

Emergency Health Services Act , is

an Act to put the

provincial government in a position where they can provide

ambulance service to all people in the province, and further

provide a coordination of ambulance service with emergency

service for the people in B.C.

We feel that the bill will enable us to provide a

centralized programme on a sort of decentralized basis. There

will be a central dispatch area with zone areas beyond the

central dispatch area, but the whole service will be

coordinated in such a way as to provide that we can offer

back-up service when necessary such as an air ambulance which

has been called for by many Members of the Legislature. This

won't immediately occur throughout the province, although I

think most people here recognize that we have been running a

pilot project in the Stewart area, using both fixed-wing and

helicopter services in that particular area, assisting people

to get to the referral hospital. We feel that….

AN HON. MEMBER: How is that working?

HON. MR. COCKE: It's working fine as far as we can see. The

only thing I can suggest about that is that once in a while

people go outside of the

[ Page

3249 ]

contracted companies. Okanagan Helicopter was the company

that was contracted for that particular area, yet another

company has been called in on one or two occasions, which

offends me a little bit because once you have a contract, well,

then you should your primary contractor unless they are not

available, and I understand that they have been available.

In any event, a commission will be set up and the

commission's responsibility will be to see to it that the

people are hired — that is ambulance men throughout the

province, those people supervising their activities and other

people working in this area. They will, of course, have under

them an executive director whose responsibilities will be to

report to them the whole background of what he's doing and what

he intends to do, and they will be directing his activities.

They are a Crown organization, the Crown being responsible for

all the actions of the commission.

Mr. Speaker, I think I might say that their first

responsibility will be to provide emergency health services.

They will also establish, equip and operate emergency health

centres and stations throughout the province, as is indicated

in the bill.

They will also assist hospitals, other health institutions,

agencies and organizations to provide emergency health

services. Their responsibility will also be to train, to

recruit and examine. They will also be responsible to provide

ambulance service for the whole province pursuant to the

regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I think the average person in the Province of

British Columbia is looking forward to what will occur in this

ambulance service. We're very excited about it.

On a pro tem basis I have appointed Dr. Peter Ransford who

did a tremendous study, a commendable study, on the whole

question of emergency health services for the province. At the

present time he's appointed as a consultant, but hopefully, if

this Act passes, he will be executive director of the

commission. Mr. Speaker, with that I'll move second reading of

Bill 93.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition

certainly agrees with the efforts of the government to

coordinate ambulance services in the province and bring them

under the auspices of the provincial government, and certainly

for any upgrading that can be done in the ambulance services

which need it.

However, we see again this bill, another example of the government's insistence

on setting up the kind of bureaucracies that it must set up with every move

it makes. Here again we have another commission — a five-member appointed commission

which will serve at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I thought

by now we might have been running out of people to appoint to commissions, but

we must have found some more somewhere hiding in the woodwork.

The Minister's comments about centralization at the same

time as decentralization are interesting because I notice that

in the press reports when he introduced this bill to the House

he talked about decentralization.

But always, whatever the government does, we vest the

control in some body which is divorced completely from where

the action is and oblivious to the needs of the community, so

really what we're getting is centralization of the worst kind

in nearly everything that the government does. In this instance

we are going to do it again.

Here we have some more $39,000 per year jobs, perhaps, for

the five-member commission. We know that this government has

made a lot of political promises, but the taxpayers' wallet is

getting thin and isn't able to stand much more of it. Somewhere

the expansion of this kind of bureaucracy has got to stop

because the money is going to run out if we don't stop it

pretty soon.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we find this as a multi-principled bill.

It isn't, as was indicated in the first instance, simply a bill

to provide ambulance service for the Province of British

Columbia.

There are other serious principles contained in this bill as

well. As a matter of fact, the Minister read off

section 5 in

his opening remarks in second reading, and we find that the

ambulance service is way down there as a kind of a footnote in

subsection (

g) of

section 5. So the bill is more than just a

bill to provide ambulance services.

We have no objection to the principle to provide ambulance

services or any other kind of emergency services throughout the

province. We think they are necessary and necessary now.

But it's this expansion again, another kind of a tangle in

this bureaucratic maze that's being built up in this province,

which is making government and the access to government so

complex that the poor guy on the street is really running

around in circles. He'll never find his way out of the maze,

never find his way into the system so he can get some help,

Instead, he's going to be wandering around outside the system

while the bureaucrats hold their meetings, get their input and

call their task forces and whatever else it is that bureaucrats

do.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why we couldn't have had a

simple bill which would have allowed us to proceed with the

kind of services that are mentioned in this bill under an

existing department of government and saved the taxpayers of

British Columbia a great deal of money.

I think in the Minister's opening remarks earlier when he

introduced this bill in the House that he may have been a way

low in his estimates of costs — I think he mentioned $9

million. I wonder whether the

[ Page 3250 ]

Minister, when he closes the debate, would indicate whether

or not that's a figure that was reached by any kind of research

or whether it was one which was just plucked out of the air

somewhere.

Would the Minister tell us, too, what steps the government

will be taking to ensure that the $5 fee, which he has

mentioned, is still the fee that will be charged, and whether

or not steps will be taken to ensure that that $5 fee will not

be abused, that the ambulance service won't, in fact, be used

as a kind of a shuttle service or a taxi service by the people

of the province, and whether there will be deterrents included

in the regulations perhaps, and whether or not the timetable is

still in effect as of July 1st for the assumption of the

ambulance services, or at least the start of the assumption of

the ambulance services?

I don't want to go into the sections of the bill, but I just

want to ask the Minister if he would explain in

section 6

whether or not his mind has been set at rest that all of the

legal problems can be overcome with regard to people performing

emergency services, whether or not they are licensed

paramedical people or not. Or whether, perhaps, this

section

might instil a false sense of security in the minds of the

paramedical people which might cause them to step out on ground

that may not be as safe as they believe it to be. Has the

Minister consulted with legal people in regard to this and does

he believe that all the questions have been answered? I think

this holds very serious results for paramedical people if all

of the questions haven't been answered.

As I say again, the official opposition agrees with the

principles of this bill, but we feel that the government has

stepped out again in the wrong kind of a direction in going

again for the kind of political appointees that will make up an

expensive commission which will tangle the bureaucratic red

tape even more and will ensure that the people of British

Columbia don't have as easy access to this kind of necessary

service as they should have and could have if we didn't mire it

down in bureaucracy.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

Minister, when he is closing the debate, could give us the

details of just an example of what happens in an area which is

served now by voluntary crews on ambulances. Those crews are

concerned as to what will happen to them. They have given many

years of faithful service; most of them have never received

anything in the way of remuneration. They give up long hours of

their weeks to study and prepare themselves; they have been on

call at any hour of the day or night. Obviously they are quite

concerned as to what their position will be under this new

regulation. I think he could, perhaps, give us the details on

that.

As far as the air ambulance is concerned, I'm sure by now one of the first

problems he has discovered is that this province does not have adequate airports.

Many communities do not have even adequate small strips which can be used by

small aircraft. Perhaps helicopters are available in most areas, but he knows,

I'm sure, that they are slow and they have small load-carrying capacities. Perhaps

in the future he could suggest to the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) some form of programme to encourage communities to set aside

an area which can be used for emergency uses such as this.

Another question I'd like to ask is: in the outlying areas what happens when

a call originates? Where do they call? Is it handled through a central office

here in Victoria? I'm referring not only to the air ambulance portion, but to

any ambulance that might be needed in an outlying area. Could he give us the

details of just exactly how a call would be handled and what the people would

do? Let's assume it's very early in the morning and there's nobody around the

telephones, who do they call? How is it handled? — those complete details.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with what the

Member from Langley has said if I could be satisfied that all

that the Minister has in mind is the operation of a much

improved ambulance service in this entire province, not only in

the metropolitan areas but in the smaller communities as

well.

I would like the Minister to be a little clearer, if he can

be, as to what he envisages in the provision of emergency

health service because that is at the very top of the list of

the responsibilities of this new commission.

Since the Minister is proposing in this bill to create a

five-man commission, I can only assume that its

responsibilities are really to be much broader than the

provision of ambulance service so that whether it is a highway

accident or whatever the case may be, people can be given some

immediate relief on a first aid basis and then taken speedily

to a hospital.

I would like to be assured by the Minister that in moving

into this field of emergency health service we are not going to

be detracted from a provision of medical and hospital

facilities in the outposts of this province.

The concern I have is that if we are moving into an

emergency health service that this will be staffed by a

paramedical person, and this may, in fact, deter the

establishment of fully qualified medical practitioners with

registered nurse assistants working as a team to give to a

community a basic health service which will be of a greater

value over the long run than just what one might envisage in

emergency or first-aid treatment.

I, too, would like to raise the question mentioned

[ Page 3251 ]

by the Member from Langley with regard to the consequences

section 6. I think that one of the difficulties we face in

the Province of British Columbia, both with fully qualified

physicians and surgeons, as well as the paramedics that are

envisaged under this Act, is the legal complications that flow

from rendering emergency assistance when there are no

facilities or limited facilities available.

The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) a year ago

introduced a private Member's bill dealing with just this

point. It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that even a fully

qualified medical practitioner is under some considerable

personal risk if he stops at an accident and renders medical

aid without the facilities that may be required.

This is an unfortunate situation. I would trust that no

qualified person would be deterred in this way from fulfilling

his responsibility as a citizen and as a human being. But the

question still remains, and one always wonders whether or not

we are expecting medical practitioners — and under this Act the

paramedics who will be licensed — to expose themselves overmuch

to legal responsibility when they involve themselves in

emergency services.

MR. FRASER: I would just like to make a few points here to

the Minister, particularly on air ambulance. As an example — I

think the Minister's aware of the area — from Williams Lake to

Bella Coola, a distance of 300 miles, the only medical facility

is halfway in between. There are several accidents on the road

and so on. The point I'd like to make is that at the halfway

point there is no air strip that will accommodate an air

ambulance system. I'm wondering what….

HON. MR. COCKE: Puntzi.

MR. FRASER: Yes, that's right. You're correct, there's one

at Puntzi. That's still a way from the facility, but there's

nobody running the airstrip as such. It's not maintained. I

would like to hear the Minister say more on that. In other

words, we can't get advantage of the air service if we haven't

got the strip. As I understand it, the type of plane that's

required won't land on gravel strips. There are a few gravel

strips, but they're not capable of landing there. I'd like to

hear the Minister comment on that.

I would also like to know something else from the Minister.

There are a lot of municipalities large and small in the

province in the municipal field really up to their ears in

costs and problems. Is it correct to say that you are relieving

them of these costs effective July 1, 1974?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate indeed.

Let me first deal with one or two aspects of the whole question of emergency

care.

We brought in a little bill, Mr. Speaker. Let me show it to

you — this big. That huge bureaucracy! Let me talk about that

huge bureaucracy. If we had wanted to set up a huge

bureaucracy, we could very well have around this very emotional

issue. But it's not going to be a huge bureaucracy and it's not

going to go outside the department to enlist commissioners.

That might surprise the Member for Langley, (Mr. McClelland),

Mr. Speaker.

I proposed that people on the commission will be such people

as Bill Lyle, the Deputy Minister of Hospital Insurance, Dr.

George Elliot, the Deputy Minister of Public Health, and so on.

Those are the kind of people. We want to coordinate the

services within the department. We felt it necessary to set up

a commission. It also freed us to work throughout the province

in a way we couldn't have done without a commission.

So, Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies whatsoever for having

created this bureaucracy, which we consider to be the only

bureaucracy that could in fact produce and could afford us an

ambulance and an emergency service.

Mr. Speaker, this is not going to save the taxpayer money.

This is going to cost the taxpayer some money. But the taxpayer

has demanded emergency care for a number of years. The

taxpayer, for example, that has been struck ill in Vancouver:

despite the fact that Vancouver subsidizes their ambulance

service to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year,

still that taxpayer that's struck ill has to pay $30 to go from

his house five blocks away from the Vancouver General Hospital

to the emergency unit of the Vancouver General Hospital.

It's no fault of the city and no fault of the ambulance

service that's available there. Therefore, this is the kind of

cost that's going to be to the taxpayer, and we're going to do

it as economically as we can.

Mr. Speaker, the figure $9 million was arrived at by having

done some very careful survey work over a period of nine months

prior to submitting this bill to the House. I can't guarantee

the Member for Langley that we can count on $9 million as being

the total cost in the years to come. I can tell you right now

that I could have built a house or bought a house two or three

years ago for a great deal less than it would cost me today.

There is an inflationary factor that we just can't deal

with.

In any event, $9 million is our present estimate. Hopefully

it's going to be a good guesstimate.

The $5 fee is what we propose. I hope that people won't

abuse it. There's going to have to be a public education job on

this whole question. We have to do something in faith here. We

have to say to people: now for heaven's sake don't use

ambulances for

[ Page 3252 ]

something …

That's right. As the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)

said: "It's not for joy riding; it's for an emergency." We just

hope that people will acknowledge the fact that it is for

emergency and emergency only.

As far as

section 6 is…. Oh, by the way, July 1 is the

day we hope that we're off the ground. It seems that

everything's go now. We have a headquarters, so we feel we'll

be able to begin our service on July 1. At that time — I'll

answer one of the last questions now — that's the time we'll

begin picking up the cost, on July 1.

The false sense of security around

section 6 — yes, I

recognize both your legal problem with this and the lay problem

with it. We're trying to circumvent that as best we can by a

companion piece that will appear in the Statute Law

Amendment Act that will, hopefully, strengthen up this

situation.

We did, as you remember last year, amend the Medical

Act to some degree to provide for the good Samaritan, not

quite to the extent that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) would have liked; but we're looking

at that again, and hopefully we can provide the kind of

protection for those people providing service that's absolutely

necessary to protect them from any kind of legal entanglement.

I think it outlines very clearly that if it's an absolute

emergency, that's the kind of protection we're endeavouring to

afford.

As far as the volunteer is concerned, the volunteer will be

treated in a way that he hasn't been treated heretofore in

those areas where it's required to have volunteers. In many

areas you won't have volunteers; you'll have full-time staff.

But in other areas it will be part full-time staff and

part

volunteers. In other areas there'll be a greater number of

volunteers. In those areas the volunteer will be paid for his

trips, so he'll be supplemented for having performed that

service. He will be asked, however, to upgrade his education in

this whole area. He'll be asked to take advantage of courses

that will be offered to him, and he will be a greater asset to

the community that he's serving at the present time. And these

people will all be taken into consideration. So that's what we

expect.

Where the people will call will be to a central area, and

that's what I was talking about, sort of. I'm not trying to kid

the troops on this one. This is not a matter that we can

decentralize completely. There are many areas of health care

that we're really trying to decentralize even further than we

have today — many areas. But as far as ambulance care is

concerned, and because of the need for back-up service — that's

immediately available — we feel that we must have a centralized

service.

Therefore, you call your local number that will be advertised in your local

area, and if the situation requires that kind of sophisticated back-up, then

they will refer it to the central headquarters. So that's what I mean by centralized

service. This one particular area must be centralized, we feel. So they will

be calling in their own areas to areas that are advertised.

As far as emergency health services…and it was brought

to my attention about

section 5; yes,

section 5 is

all-important. What is the point in having an ambulance service

if you don't have the back-up service that's necessary to

afford you the full emergency situation?

For instance, if a person is struck ill in front of his home

or on the street or something, the time that he should be

getting care is at that point — not wait till he gets to the

hospital after he's dead, but right then, right there on the

spot. That's why all of the rest of this back-up service and

the whole thing is absolutely predicated on the question of how

we can soonest afford a man emergency care. That's why there

are all of the subsections in

section 5. We think it's

extremely important.

As far as medical outposts are concerned, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) asked how do we

feel about medical…. sure, even in this Act, we are afforded

an opportunity to even diversify still further in our medical

outposts, and give them, I think, enriched staffing because of

this bill and because of the support of this bill. We presently

are trying our very best to get health professionals into the

more isolated areas, and I think this is just another step in

the direction. Hopefully it's going to improve the whole

service for the whole province.

As far as paramedics are concerned, we, naturally, are going

to encourage the paramedical situation. We don't contemplate

immediately having a medical centre — or what is it on

television where the paramedics have everything at their

fingertips? — we don't envisage that in the immediate future,

although that is going on to some extent and to a great extent

right within almost a stone's throw of this building. The

Saanich fire department have an excellent paramedic situation

out there and they're providing good performance, so do some

sections of the metropolitan ambulance…. those sections that

are tied up with the New Westminster Royal Columbian. The

reason for that is because they are being given first class

leadership by the emergency doctors at the emergency ward. They

are virtually specialists in emergency care.

They have them both at the Jubilee and at the Royal

Columbian Hospital. I believe they are called casualty

officers, and a casualty officer is the person who is going to

give leadership in this whole area.

Mr. Speaker, I've dealt with this as much as…. oh, yes,

the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) talked about air strips.

Well, Mr. Member, where we

[ Page 3253 ]

can't get in…. and don't forget that in areas we'll be

contracting and contacting outfits that are working in those

areas. We're not going to use the government air service for

full service, that's going to be back-up service. The same

thing with air-sea rescue at Comox, they will be used for back

up. We will be trying, as we did in Stewart, to contract with

local outfits to do the job for us there. We can't suggest to

you that the Health department is going to build airstrips all

over this province, that's not….

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I was talking to the Member for

Cariboo. We're not building airstrips all over this province,

but we'll make use of what we have in the province in the best

way we possibly can — using helicopters where necessary, using

ground vehicles and fixed-wings where each one fits in, so

we'll try to do the very best job we can. I suggest to you that

at the outset I'm very confident in the people whom we have so

far contacted to implement Bill 93. Mr. Speaker, with that, I

move second reading of Bill 93.

Motion approved.

Bill 93, Emergency Health Services Act , read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 101, Mr. Speaker,

followed by Bill 120.

SPECIAL PROVINCIAL EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAMMES ACT

HON. W. S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, this is a

bill which basically gives to the provincial government the

necessary legislative authority to mount special employment

programmes from time to time. We have a specific programme in

mind for this current summer season — the Student Summer

Employment Programme. The thought behind this programme is to not only provide

useful summer employment to students, high school students and

university students, and assistance thereby to further their

education, but also to provide them with an opportunity to gain

some work experience. We have found that certainly many high

school students who drop out and seek a place in the work force

are handicapped through having no prior work experience, and

handicapped also through having no reference from a former

employer and so on, which makes it very, very difficult for

them to break into the work environment.

We feel that this programme is essential in terms of providing (1) economic

assistance to the students, (2) that all-important work experience which I think

is a first step to gaining a place in the work force of the province for those

who leave the educational institutions.

Beyond that, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it would be

possible to mount from time to time other employment programmes

that may be necessary to come to grips with special problems

that arise on a regional basis perhaps due to closures of basic

industries in certain municipalities. It might be desirable for

a limited amount of time to mount some special employment

programmes to ease the burden and disruption that would flow

from a closure in that community.

I think this is a flexible kind of provision which is

worthwhile for the government to have in its arsenal of

economic tools to provide the kind of security and the kind of

benefits that the people of this province need.

MR. FRASER: The official opposition certainly supports this

programme, but we have a few questions we'd like to ask about

it. We noted that in one

section a figure of, I think, $30

million referred to, and then a bulletin of $25 million. I

think that probably needs some clarification. That is, in other

words, what the cost is.

You refer that over 12,000 students will be hired this year

and they will be given a meaningful work experience. I

certainly hope that this is the case, but from observation last

year on some of them, it certainly wasn't the case. They were

sent out to cut brush on the right-of-way without any

supervision and half of them ended up in hospital. I don't

think that that was meaningful and I hope that something was

learned from that experience last year.

I would also like to know if the Department of Labour of the

federal government was consulted or used in any way about this

programme. Will they be used?

The other thing that we'd like to know…you spell out, I

believe, the rates for high school. There is a difference

between a high school student and a university student, and

maybe you could give some observations on that. All in all, it

looks like a good programme.

MR. GIBSON: In general terms and in principle, Mr. Speaker,

I would welcome this programme as well. Like the Hon. Member

for Cariboo, I have just a few questions.

I certainly agree with the words of the Minister that this

will provide another tool for the government to respond to

either rapidly changing economic — circumstances or rapidly

changing regional circumstances.

I would ask the Minister if he could foresee how

[ Page 3254 ]

much of the special employment in ordinary years would be

provided through the enumerated agencies such as

municipalities, regional districts, school districts and so on;

and how much would be a function of direct provincial

government employment.

When it is a question of direct provincial government

employment, I wonder if the Minister could describe to the

House what employment practices would be followed. I would

presume that the persons employed, being of an essentially

temporary nature, would not be employed under the Public

Service Act, or it might be that they would. I would be

grateful if the Minister would describe to the House how young

people should present themselves for employment under these

particular programmes as they develop.

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to speak in favour of

this bill. I find that as my family grows up, the whole

question of looking for summer jobs becomes much closer to

home, one might say.

This is enabling legislation which doesn't spell out very

much in detail, but I accept that by virtue of the fact that it

is simply enabling legislation.

But I have been a little distressed this year by what seems

to be apparently announcements by Ministers about jobs in their

various departments. If I can take the Department of Highways

for a moment as an example, no sooner was the announcement made…as I say, my daughter went down looking for a job and she

said that, there's a long waiting list and they're not taking

any names. And that's not a fair criticism of this Minister, I

just happen to know that was the case in the Department of

Highways just a day or two after there was a grandiose

announcement by the government of how many jobs were to be

available for students. I don't necessarily say that applies to

other Ministers but that was an example which surprised me.

I also brought up the issue in the House in the Department

of Consumer Services where announcements were made about summer

jobs for students. When somebody inquired, it was to discover

that a large number of the jobs were already filled. I just

wouldn't want to think that this bill gives further hope and

expectation to a lot of students who then come to the Minister

of Labour's office and find the demand for jobs far exceeds the

supply.

I wonder if the Minister, in winding up second reading,

could perhaps pass some comment on the mechanics that will be

employed and the degree of notice he anticipates students will

have so that perhaps, several months before they actually leave

their term at the university, they can have some reasonable

expectation of getting a job when May or June comes around.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour closes the

debate.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

questioned the bulletin which gave a different figure than the

bill. Yes, indeed, that was a typographical error contained in

the bulletin. Quite frankly, I don't know how it came

about.

The calibre of the programme. The Member for Cariboo

questioned some of the kinds of work which the students had

been doing under previous plans. Yes, indeed, there was a

problem. But I would point out that the previous year this

programme was mounted in a rather hasty fashion without the

kind of lead time that's really necessary to plan on a rational

basis the whole structure, the rating and so on that will be

paid. As a consequence, there was some problem in terms of the

supervision and the selection of appropriate jobs that are not

only worthwhile to the student but also useful to the

community.

There is an additional problem with the rates of pay that

were developed where we had anomalies. Some students worked for

a lower rate while, perhaps, their friends were working for the

Department of Highways on a much higher rate.

We've attempted this year, because we've had a little more

lead time to plan, to develop a basic system of rates which

reflected the age categories of the students and their probable

needs in terms of expenses — as opposed to high school and

universities — and possible dependents. Many of the university

students would be married and therefore entitled to a higher

rate of pay than the high school students who are simply

seeking a work experience for the summer.

I should point out on this question that we wanted to be

very cautious also that we did not, in effect, go into

competition with the private sector. This is an ancillary

programme; this is a programme designed to provide employment

for those young people who could not find a slot in the private

sector. Certainly we don't want to get into a position in terms

of rates of pay where we're competing with the private sector

and drying up the kind of assistance available for the service

industry and the seasonal kinds of jobs available in the

private sector.

So, yes, we did go to the federal government and we do have

in the offices of the federal Department of Manpower and

Immigration information brochures on the programmes available

under the student summer programme. In fact, in some areas, our

regional student directors are occupying those offices on a

part-time basis to assist in disseminating information to the

young people on what kind of jobs are available.

The division of the funds was between the provincial

government departments and the municipal and regional

districts. I have a cursory assessment of

[ Page

3255 ]

that at the moment. It's something like 60 per cent under

the provincial government's departments and 40 per cent to the

regional districts and the municipalities. That's only a fairly

cursory assessment; that's what it looks like at the

moment.

Some of the government departments had as a general rule,

under their own aegis, mounted student employment programmes

for many years. I think therein came the conflict between

announcements they made and the student summer employment

programme per se.

The status of the employees with the B.C. Government

Employees Union. I believe the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) questioned whether they would

be civil servants or government employees and so on. We have

talked to the B.C. Government Employees Union and gained their

cooperation in terms of the temporary job status of the people

and the rates of pay which will be afforded. We are doing the

same with CUPE, which is the affected union in terms of the

municipal programmes.

There have been some problems encountered in these areas.

Hopefully, before next year I will have a committee which will

be representative of some of the municipalities and trade

unions involved. We'll iron out any problems or any

difficulties which could be encountered through a conflict of

union rates or the content of the work being done. I'm in the

process, as a matter of fact, of setting up that kind of

committee now.

Mr. Bob Plecas from the Department of Labour research branch

has mounted the programme for us and is doing a fantastic job

in my view. The publicity disseminated has been of a

first-class nature. It's available in high schools, in

universities, in Canada Manpower offices, municipal city halls

and so on. There's a pretty wide distribution. Again,

hopefully, next year we'll be able to start it at a bit earlier

date to get this information out so the students will know

approximately what's available in their community.

One of the beauties of this programme is, with this flexible

approach, we can assure the regional equity of it. There are not parks in every area but there are highways. There are not

environmental projects in every area but there may well be

something in a park. There's enough flexibility between the

government departments and the municipal areas of interest to

ensure a good distribution of the available jobs throughout

every area of the province. I think that's very important.

Finally, I just wanted to say that the programme is well underway. We anticipate

about 12,000 jobs this year will be available to high school students and university

students. It looks like about a 40-60 split between the regional districts and

the government. Nevertheless, I think it's something that is very worthwhile

from a variety of viewpoints — not only the work experience but some first-class

projects of tremendous assistance to small municipalities which could not otherwise

have afforded to undertake the kind of job necessary: park cleanups, rivers

and things like that. We're going to monitor it as closely as possible. I have

every confidence it will be a huge success.

I move second reading of Bill 101.

Motion approved.

Bill 101, Special Provincial Employment Programmes

Act , read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of

Bill 120, Mr. Speaker.

FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES

COMMISSION ACT

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, speaking to Bill 120, the

Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act , I'd like

to say that for any number of years in this province we've had

a great deal of trouble around the area of delivering service

to those people who are considered to be criminally insane, to

those people who are considered to be a threat to the

community. There are those around whom I would tend to agree

with when they say that this situation has not been handled as

well as it could be. Therefore, we are trying our very best now

to come up with a different approach to the whole question.

We are trying under this Act to establish a commission to

provide a comprehensive and integrated psychiatric programme.

That programme is to be delivered to the courts and relayed to

agencies in the province, including Corrections and Probation

Branch.

Mr. Speaker, the commission under Bill 120 may operate or

contract with other agencies for the operation of services to

provide consultation and advice to the courts and related

agencies. Also it can provide diagnostic and treatment

facilities and services to persons who sort of fall in these

categories — persons who are remanded for psychiatric

examination; also persons that are held by order-in-council,

those persons held by order-in-council pursuant to the

Criminal Code, or the Mental Health Act, or held

pursuant to a court order and, further, to those requiring

psychiatric care and assessment while in custody.

So really the whole approach to this area is to provide as

wide a service as we possibly can. It's also to assist in

developing education and research programmes as they relate to

the mentally disturbed offender.

[ Page 3256 ]

For the administration of this Act, Mr. Speaker, we're going

to set up a board. That board will consist of a minimum of five

members, and they will be appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to hold office during pleasure.

I say a minimum of five; we are thinking in terms of maybe

going as far as seven members initially, with representation

from the judiciary — we're trying to beat them to it, Mr.

Speaker — with representation to the judiciary from the

community and departments of the Attorney-General and the

Department of Health. All sorts of bases will be covered on

this commission.

What we're trying to do here is tie in the different

departments and the different agencies that are involved in

this whole area. The board, according to the Act may appoint a

director and the necessary staff to administer and operate the

programme pursuant to the Public Service Act.

I would note here that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may transfer existing mental health agencies — and I think that

this is important — to the board under the Mental Health

Act,

section 5, and lay down the conditions in terms of

transfer; and the staff would remain as public servants.

But there are a number of areas that we're thinking of in

terms of doing that very thing with now — for example,

Riverside, which is now being run sort of between departments.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the board is also empowered to acquire and

to purchase property in which they can carry out these

programmes, and also that funds may be made available under

consolidated revenue to run the programme for the balance of

this year.

So, in essence, the commission is to provide a high level of

forensic psychiatric care in this province with specific

emphasis on interrelating and interlocking various aspects of

the programme so that it is comprehensive in scope and meets

the special needs of those patients and provides us a varied

and challenging, rewarding job for the staff.

Mr. Speaker, with that I move second reading of Bill

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the

Minister of Health for anticipating my questions and attempting

to answer them in advance. The official opposition is with you,

Mr. Minister, in your attempts to find a more humane method of

dealing with these kinds of people, and we'll be behind you in

the efforts to make this work.

I'm still a little uneasy about the establishment of more

commissions. I accept your explanation and I accept your

assurances that they won't be expansions on the bureaucracy, as

I put it, and yet they're here for all time. I still feel that

the government is going out of its way to establish special

commissions and special boards when it isn't really

necessary.

But, all in all, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister,

we are behind your efforts to solve this problem all the

way.

MR. WALLACE: This party is certainly very eager to support

this legislation. We think it's a step forward.

We've had some devastating revelations in past weeks and

months of people with mental disorders who, in effect, have a

life sentence or an indeterminate sentence, and they're held by

order-in-council or by some court order in Riverview, or in

Riverside Hospital.

This, Mr. Speaker, should really give us all some…. It's

no good just to say: "Well, that's water under the bridge." I

think it's been staggering to me to discover that people who

commit an offence while they're mentally or emotionally

disturbed could, in effect, lose their freedom for years and

years and years.

We've had the recent case I just read of in the paper the

other day of a longshoreman from Chemainus, Mr. Helland, who

spent two years in Riverview because of confusion as to the

handling of his problem.

In favouring this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Minister…. There is one angle to all this that really

bothers me. In the light of the past history and the confusion

which can obviously exist…. I'm not trying to just be

completely negative and criticize what has happened in the

past; but what has happened, happened for a reason. The reason

appears to have been that the person committing the offence was

moved into Riverview, and for some reason or other the

mechanics did not allow that person to be brought back into

court.

That's one point. I would like to know how on earth it could

ever happen that when a court order was made that the person be

remanded for X number of days — 14 days — or in the case of

being detained during the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor

…. That seems to me to have left the door open not to willful

abuse, but to neglect that the person was forgotten.

To be detained during the pleasure of the

Lieutenant-Governor, surely it was intended that there would be

a periodic review of that person's condition and his ability to

stand trial. In all of this, of course, there's the very

difficult decision to make as to how to blend the best services

of the medical profession with the legal profession.

I also worry a little bit in this bill as to whether there

might be any attempt to make a doctor into a lawyer, which

would be a disastrous metamorphosis for the person's legal

rights. While I'm sure we've all been shocked by learning about

these 20 or 30 patients who have been in Riverview for years

and years — probably unjustly — nevertheless, in trying to

[ Page 3257 ]

improve this situation, we must be careful, in my view, that

we should not place legal decisions on doctors.

I would like the Minister, in winding up the debate, to

perhaps touch on the basic reasons why some of these cases were

detained in hospital without periodic review and without

reassessment of the individual's condition when, in point of

fact, his total freedom for years was involved.

We've had at least two that I'm aware of: this case I've

just quoted of Mr. McCann, as I remember, who has also been

released after a lengthy time. There was another case of a

young man who was held for 79 days without any legal

justification, and in fact, under the system, Mr. Speaker, he

could have been detained indefinitely.

Now without dwelling too much on the past, the fact must be

accepted that that real danger exists. I acknowledge that the

Minister, in providing a wider range of forensic psychiatric

services, is trying to prevent that happening again.

A Member down the way has talked about another commission. I

also have a little concern that we're creating more and more

commissions, although in this case I see nothing but a real

challenge to this kind of commission to prevent the mistakes of

the past and to bring some hope to a person who finds himself

in court at a time when his mind is disturbed.

In passing, I'm delighted to know there's scope for research

in this bill, because as research continues, I'm sure we'll

find more and more explanation as to why people do behave in a

criminal fashion, based on a better understanding of their

mental state, either before or during the criminal act.

It's my feeling that in hopes of preventing crime and

dealing with some of the difficulties which we discussed in the

Attorney-General's estimates, much of the progress will depend

on what we can learn from this kind of research under the aegis

of this commission. I find it exciting and very hopeful, but I

wonder how these accidents happened in the past.

I wonder what the Minister sees as the direct responsibility

of this commission in relation to ensuring that the person who

has committed the offence will be subject to periodic review,

whether or not there is any attempt to place on this Minister

responsibility which should rest with the Attorney-General, or

to what degree there is to be shared responsibility.

These are some of the questions that I think we would like

to know more about. I don't think we should leave this subject

either, Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the tremendous

effort by the particular lawyer in Vancouver, Mr. Robert

Gardner, who got hold of this problem and wrestled with it

because the freedom of individuals was concerned.

This is not to suggest for a moment that all of these people

held in Riverview should be released. For no moment do I want to say that. It may well be that the

majority, on review, should be retained in some kind of medical

facility. I'm not disputing that for a moment, but if there's

only one person locked up in such an institution for years and

years who should be free, then I say that the system really has

to be reviewed and there has to be some kind of, to use a

popular expression, fail-safe mechanism so that a person in

such a situation is assured of a periodic review.

I think the kind of tenacity of purpose which Mr. Gardner

brought to this whole situation is to be commended because it's

been an enormous effort on his part against some considerable

obstacles, legal and otherwise, and he's been at least

responsible for restoring the freedom to two people who on

reconsideration and re-examination were not a menace to

society.

I might say also that the newspaper columnist, Jack

Wasserman, who went to bat for these individuals has at least

made one error in his reporting. He stated in a newspaper just

the other day that nobody in this House — not one of the

politicians in Victoria — has raised the matter at all. I'd

just like to put the record straight that I raised the matter

at great length during the debate of the Attorney-General's

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) estimates, as the Minister well

remembers. The Minister took

part in that debate. I think it

was prior to first reading of this bill.

It's amazing in our modern society that people can find

themselves through a combination of legal and medical

circumstances locked up in a hospital, perhaps for a number of

years, simply because the mechanism did not exist for a review

of their condition, or the mechanism which did exist was not

being followed.

This bill certainly makes it possible for skilled forensic

psychiatric services to be made available and for various

consultants and experts to be engaged under

section 6 to make

this service available, but I wonder if the Minister can

reassure us as to the working mechanism of the commission. You

can have all the experts in the world, but the final decision

will have to be made in court — at least I assume it will. If

the medical commission or a specialist certifies that Mr. X is

no longer a menace to the community and can be released, this

can only be done and I hope it always will only be done by

having the person appear in court before a judge where the

skilled medical evidence can be given. This apparently has not

been happening and is the root cause of the problem.

Whether or not this bill meets all its purely medical goals

really won't be the most important thing to the individual if

in fact he doesn't have his day in court. I'm not suggesting we

blame this Minister for the shortcomings of the legal system or

the shortcomings of the A-G's department. But if

[ Page 3258 ]

there's a shortage of staff or if there's some inadequate

way in which the convicted person is to be returned to court,

then all the forensic services in the world won't really solve

the basic problems. So there's these two basic questions:

where's the responsibility; to what degree might a medical

person be hinging or coming close to making legal decisions,

and what assurance can the Minister give us that in fact the

person convicted who is mentally disabled will always be

assured of a review and a day in court?

HON. MR. COCKE : Mr. Speaker, again I'll try to provide the reason

for the commission. The problem has always been that one department of government

has worked on its own, unilaterally performing the services that that government

department usually performs, but there are many things — and this is what we've

found out in the last couple of years — there are many areas of concern that

require the joint efforts of a number of government departments. I brought that

out in the ambulance situation and I'm bringing it out here again. We're lost

without the A-G's input into this, we're lost without the court's input, and

we're lost without the Health department.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: You have to have a vehicle, Mr. Member, and

you being a businessman know that better than anybody here. So

let's not kid around with that. The fact of the matter is that

you have to have some kind of a vehicle to afford this

service.

Now, what is that service? That service is a service to the

courts. Here we're not asking a doctor, Mr. Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace), to become a lawyer. Here we're asking a doctor

to afford a lawyer immediate technical and medical advice. Here

we're putting them together with an opportunity for them to

make their joint decisions. I think that's the big aspect of

this. We're not asking, on the other hand, a lawyer to become a

doctor through this; nor a judge, for that matter, to become a

doctor.

As you said, the last word has to be in the court. But the

court has to be given the expertise, the backing of a proper

service, which it hasn't had heretofore.

The Health department, in a way — we've been doing it in the

past — has tried. But there's no way you can put it all

together unless you have a vehicle and that's why we created

this with the total acquiescence — not only acquiescence but

total cooperation — of the Attorney-General's department. I

certainly commend the Attorney-General's department because

they've given real leadership in this area.

I suggest to you that we're going to try our very best to see to it that this

commission serves to give people their human right, and that right is freedom

where possible — or to face the courts, where necessary, with their crime. We're

not trying here to see to it that people are released in a way that's going

to endanger the public. What we're trying to do is see to it that everybody

has a proper assessment and that the lawyers and the doctors and all of the

people working together see to it that Joe whatever his name might be is afforded

every opportunity that society can provide him either to receive health care,

freedom or his day in court — whatever the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, I think I've answered the questions. With that,

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 120, Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission

Act , read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 112, and

then we intend to carry on with Minister of Finance

legislation.

ISLANDS TRUST ACT

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): This is

another small bill. The object of the bill is stated in a

general way in

section 3. It is to preserve and protect, in

cooperation with municipalities and the government, the

environment and the peculiar nature of the islands consisting

of those islands generally speaking in the gulf south of

Campbell River. Those areas are defined as the trust area.

The trust will comprise three general trustees, appointed by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The functions of the trust

are broken into two general categories, one being general

affairs, which relates to matters affecting an individual

island designated in

schedule B. Those in

schedule B are those

with a permanent population of somewhat over 25

people.

The powers of the trust when dealing with the islands

overall and minor islands which are not designated will be

exercised by the three general trustees of the trust, but for

purposes of dealing with matters relating to designated

islands, the trust sits as a trust committee comprising the

general trustees and the two local trustees. Regional district

directors concerned in the areas may sit on the trust committee

but will have no vote.

At present the islands are situated in six different

regional districts, and the voting strength of the islanders

has been quite small. They've been on the tail end of regional

district in the past few years. As an example, in the Capital

Regional District there are, I believe, 47 votes in the

district, and two votes

[ Page 3259 ]

represent the island of Galiano and those islands south of

Galiano — Saturna, Mayne, Pender (south and north) and

Saltspring. So at the present time they have two votes out of

The islands have basically been a bit of a nuisance to the

regional district. We had a committee of the Legislature last

year that visited a number of islands that had public hearings

on most of the populated islands, and we found as a committee

that the feeling was that they were being badly neglected not

only by the regional districts, but by the province as a whole,

I think.

Now some of the regional districts have done a reasonably

good job, in my opinion, with the islands. And I think the

Capital Regional District is one in which some effort has been

made to deal with the problems of the islands. We have found in

our visits, I think it's fair to say, that the islands can be

ruined very, very quickly and very, very easily by unfortunate

subdivisions and unfortunate developments. It was agreed, I

think unanimously, that there had to be some mechanism created

to control this sort of development on the islands.

Now the activities of the regional districts will carry on

under this provision. There are no powers of the trust to

implement any action regarding any developments or any zoning

or community plans of the islands. That is still in the hands

and will be in the hands of the regional districts. We are

hopeful that the regional district will carry on what they have

done in some of the regional districts — having local community

groups meeting together to draw out their own community plan.

We hope that this will continue.

The trust will assist, where possible, the process of the

community plans and will be able to bring in expert advice from

any department of the province if they need any assistance in

anything they're wishing to undertake. It will also coordinate

the activities of the different departments of government and

the Crown corporations as they deal with the islands.

Due to the undesirable development in a number of the

subdivisions of the islands, the previous administration had to

take prompt action and brought in the 10-acre freeze on

subdivisions. This was done to protect the islands and was done

just in time, I suggest, to prevent the ruination of a variety

of these. The ruination had started.

The 10-acre freeze has now probably been on for four years.

We hope, with the assistance of the trust, to assist the local

people and the regional districts so they can create their own

local community plans, have those registered and the bylaws

passed in order that the 10-acre freeze can be lifted and the

situation go on as normal.

As I mentioned before, the trust has no initiating powers. I expect that not

only the islanders but also the regional districts will be very happy with this

instrument.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the

official opposition considers this a bad bill, and we don't

intend to support this bill.

I would like to say here that I was a member of the

municipal affairs committee and we toured some of these islands

in the summer of 1973. I would like to say that things are

different on each island. Particularly referring to local

government, I concur with the Minister's remarks that some

regional districts appear to have done a good job and others

hadn't done anything at all. We found, as I say, that things

differed.

It is correct that the committee recommended that a trust be

set up. But I think the whole crux of the thing is the make-up

of the committee as recommended here in this bill. It really

says that three members of a committee — of the trust, rather — will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council, or the

government, and there would be two from each island. It's

really eroding local control as near as I can see. I've always

opposed that where senior jurisdictions try and override local

control. And it's obvious to me that this is what is going to

happen here.

The individual islands, when they come to making decisions

and so on, will find that the trust is loaded with government

appointees. I don't see why that has to be at all. I think it

can work in reverse. I can't see why the residents of the

islands can't be the majority and the government appointees in

the minority. This is really what this Bill 112 is all

about.

Some of these areas have community plans, some haven't. And

this again is back to where some are functioning properly and

some are not. But we can't go along with the fact that the

government will have the final say in all this. I don't want to

go into the background of the islands but, again, back to the

Minister when you remarked about the 10-acre freeze, I wasn't

aware of this beautiful area of British Columbia to any degree

until the trip.

I appreciated learning more of that part of the province,

but it was obvious to me that the 10-acre freeze certainly

saved the islands. That was put on — I don't know whether it

was 1968 or 1969. And that is the condition that exists there

today.

The 10-acre freeze is still on. And a lot of harm has not

been done. I would certainly like to see the government consider

that this loaded committee or trust be reversed the other way

so that the people…. Since the bill has come out I've had

people from the islands unknown to myself approach me in this

respect that this is the part where they certainly want some

further strengthening of what they have. They don't want it

strengthened to the

[ Page 3260 ]

degree that the government has absolute control and a

majority on the committee.

Therefore, we cannot support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that we cannot support

Bill 112 as it presently stands notwithstanding the fact that

Members of all parties represented on the municipal affairs

committee last year recommended that a trust be established. I

think the record of the Legislature will show that

representatives of the NDP, the Social Credit and the

Progressive Conservative Parties signed the committee report.

The Liberal Member since resigned — the former Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) — I believe, was in favour of

something along these lines.

The Minister, I feel, should have tried a few more drafts of

Bill 112 before he presented it in the House. Because it is

lacking in many respects, and it shows a big-brother attitude

of paternalism, to use a somewhat overworked phrase, with

respect to the people who live in the Gulf Islands and to many

British Columbians who make use of the Gulf Islands on a casual

or regular basis. They may own property or they may rent

property on the Gulf Islands from time to time. Or they may, as

all of us in this House realize, visit there for an afternoon

or a day or two and stay in one of the small resorts.

I felt, Mr. Speaker, as one Member of this House who

represents a number of the islands within the designated trust

area — several of the islands lie within the Saanich and the

Islands constituency — I felt it important to go to as many

islands as I could in the relatively short space of time

between the introduction of the bill and whenever it was called

for second reading, to attend public meetings and to as

objectively as I could, by reading the bill on a line-by-line,

point-by-point basis and then answering questions, get the

opinion of the residents of the islands within my constituency.

And that I did with meetings, in order, on Saltspring, then for

north and south Pender Island, later on Mayne Island, and

finally on Galiano Island.

I received an invitation to speak on an island represented

by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and I

hope