1975 Legislative Session: 5th 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 13, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2277 ]

CONTENTS

Oral questions

Government entry into liquor production. Mr. Morrison —

Survey of children with learning disabilities. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Juvenile delinquency in Surrey. Mr. Wallace — 2278

Output of railcars at Squamish. Mr. Chabot — 2278

Complaints about Horizon Corp., El Paso, Texas. Mr. McClelland —

Columbia River inquiry personnel. Mr. Gibson — 2279

Delay in voucher payments. Mr. Phillips — 2279

Remarks on hotline broadcast. Mrs. Jordan — 2280

Investigation of Chinese herbal pills. Mr. Wallace — 2280

Point of order Clarification of Hansard Blues. Mr. Phillips — 2280

Point of order Clarification on procedure in Committee of Supply. Mr. Speaker

— 2282

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 9. Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2286

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress —

Securities Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 20). Second reading. Mr. Phillips —

Police Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 46). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald —

Mortgage Brokers Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 48). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald

— 2293

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 197 5 (Bill 10). Second reading. Hon. Ms.

Young — 2293

Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 71). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2295

Medical Services Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 72). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Cocke

— 2298

Bee Act (Bill 45). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2299

Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 65). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2302

Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative Loan Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 19).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Levi — 2305

Status of Men and Women Amendment Act (Bill 75). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald

— 2308

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of some

good friends and visitors from Ontario, Mr. and Mrs. Peter

Turner. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver-Centre): Mr. Speaker, the Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and myself

would like to welcome some special friends of ours from the

riding. They are Luigi and Noreen Steffanucci, August and Yoli

Carasini, and their friends from Rochester, New York, Pearl and

Antoni Renalletta, and another friend of ours, Mrs. Doris

Mutch. May the House join us in welcoming them.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I hope that

the House will welcome today 28 students from Mt. Newton Junior

Secondary School who will be arriving at 3 o'clock today.

Members of their student government are here with their Prime

Minister, Mr. Cliff Leachman; their Minister of Finance,

Minister of Student Information, Minister of Records, and so

forth, and also Minister Without Portfolio soon to be

designated Minister of Consumer Services whose name is also Ms.

Young.

Oral questions.

GOVERNMENT ENTRY

INTO LIQUOR PRODUCTION

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

the Attorney-General. Would the Minister describe as without

basis and fact statements contained in a column by Jack

Wasserman in today's edition of The Vancouver Sun

detailing the government's plan to enter into the liquor

business, specifically the right to produce alcoholic spirits

in various forms for consumption?

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

a rumour which, unfortunately, is not true. But some of the

best rumours are untrue, you know, and they help to create

discussion about problems, and they are good. I have an

appointment with Ben Ginter next week. While he will be telling

me a tale of woe, and I have laid in a supply of Kleenex,

(laughter) I don't think he will ever come to the point of

asking us to run his brewery or his winery. So that is not

true.

MR. MORRISON: Could I ask a supplemental, then? Is the

government reviewing or making any studies at this time to

determine the feasibility of either developing or purchasing

alcoholic production facilities?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

SURVEY OF CHILDREN WITH

LEARNING DISABILITIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Education,

Mr. Speaker. Has the Department of Education completed the

survey of school district programmes for the testing and

treatment of children with learning disabilities?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I'm not quite sure

which particular test you're talking about, Mr. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I understand from

correspondence between the Minister and Mrs. Madson, the former

head of the B.C. School Trustees Association, that the

department was carrying out a survey of the various school

districts to determine their ability to test and treat children

with learning disabilities. I wonder if that survey has been

carried out and whether or not she is now in a position to

indicate what steps will be taken to implement the

recommendations.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think I can follow you now. The word

"testing" threw me off there. It was basically a survey of the

present programmes in each school district for children with

special needs. That survey has been completed. The officials in

my department have visited every school district in the

province and have prepared guidelines for those districts. Yes,

the first survey is complete. They visited all districts and

from that they will be giving out the guidelines for future

work in that area and will continue with the regional workshops

to assist them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask the Minister, then, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not increased funds will be available so

that regardless of where a child with learning disabilities

might live he will have the same opportunity to receive

counselling and special educational help?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, of course it has always been our

intent to try and assure that all children receive help. But

I'm sure that the Hon. Member is aware that one of the problems

often is personnel. Because of the geographical situation,

[ Page 2278 ]

sometimes it's not possible to get that specialized service

in. But our department is working with all school boards to

assist them in doing this.

Also, I want to point out that it isn't only the amount of

money that is being spent that we're looking at; it's how it is

presently being spent.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN SURREY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the

continuing incidence of juvenile delinquency in Surrey —

particularly the burning of a building to the ground and the

vandalizing of a resident's home at the weekend — and in view

of citizen response, which is mentioning vigilante action,

could I ask the Attorney-General whether he has received a

specific request for help in policing Surrey, either from the

residents or the Surrey council?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, not having been in my

office this morning, I can't answer with certainty, but I don't

recall a specific request for help. I would, of course, deplore

vigilante action which would create its own kind of

counter-violence.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in that this is a

subject that's been raised previously. At that time the

Minister mentioned that he was keeping a close eye on the

situation. Can he tell the House if any steps have been taken

in recent weeks by his department in co-operation with the

Surrey police department to prevent the kind of incidents that

seem to be continuing to occur in that municipality?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think I know what the

Hon. Member is referring to — I could be wrong. In that case,

it's a matter of very close police co-operation. It's at that

level.

OUTPUT OF RAILCARS AT SQUAMISH

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Economic Development as executive

vice-president of B.C. Railway. Regarding the much-delayed

opening of the B.C. railcar manufacturing facilities at

Squamish, which eventually opened on March 25 anticipating

production of four railcars per day, could the Minister tell me

how many railcars have been manufactured since its opening?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, as you know, in the Province of British Columbia we

have no indigenous supply of steel and some difficulties are

involved in getting a good, reasonably priced supply of

steel.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: We hope that this June the cars will be running off the

production line at Rail West in Squamish and that we'll be able to provide cars

not only to the BCR but the Canadian National Railway, the CPR and maybe the

American lines as well.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question — I should say the

basic question. How many cars have been produced since the car

plant opened on March 25, which has a capacity, so we're told,

of manufacturing four cars per day? Has the Minister been able

to use the rusty steel that has been hanging around Squamish

for the last two years?

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: No answers. They haven't made one car.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley is next.

Interjections.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The Member had a

supplementary question, the Member for....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the Minister must have heard the

question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, there was another supplementary, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary to the Minister. Could I

ask the Minister what suppliers have failed to deliver steel

and to honour contracts to deliver steel, which would have led

to the delay as he described it?

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't want to mislead the House, Mr.

Speaker. I didn't mean to indicate that it was a supply of

steel delayed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Members listen

carefully, and I think they should — it's a nice, sunny

afternoon but take your time and listen carefully — what I said

was a "supply of reasonably priced steel."

Now we have, because of the recent downturn in the economy

across the country, a redesigning of our car plant to produce

different types of cars. But I've been assured by the

management of the B.C. Rail, who are operating this plant, that

they'll be in production by June. I or the president of the

railroad

[ Page

2279 ]

will keep you up to date as these events occur.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In the light of the Minister's latest

statement, may we take it that the decision to delay production

was one of government in the light of changed steel prices, and

there was no delay whatsoever from any supplier of steel

contracted for?

HON. MR. LAUK: I didn't indicate that there was a delay

because of supply of steel; I said. "reasonably priced

steel."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're waiting for prices to drop?

COMPLAINTS ABOUT

HORIZON CORP., EL PASO, TEXAS

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

Consumer Services. She, I understand, has had several requests

or complaints from people who have been dealing with the

Horizon Corp. of El Paso, Texas. After having contracted to buy

property, they are now having trouble getting cancellation of

that property purchase agreement. I wonder if the Minister has

investigated this problem and what the results have been.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, I'll take the question as notice and report back to

the Hon. Member.

COLUMBIA RIVER INQUIRY PERSONNEL

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

question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources: I wonder if the Minister could explain to the House

why he's having so much difficulty in finding personnel for the

Columbia River inquiry that he promised to the House almost two

and a half months ago?

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

It's not a matter of difficulty, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, could the Minister undertake

to this House that that inquiry will be appointed some time

before the next election?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

DELAY IN VOUCHER PAYMENTS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct

my question to the Minister of Highways. I'd like to ask the Minister if the

supply of funds to the Department of Highways has been cut off by Treasury Board

or by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) because there seems to be a

great delay in paying some vouchers, I have two, both of which are over three

months old, and the comptroller of expenditure says he's unable to determine

the reason in one case; in the other case he says that he's not sure why the

account was not paid.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I can

assure the House and the Hon. Member that the supply of funds

has not been cut off. But it would seem to me that if the

Member were really interested in getting those vouchers paid he

would have come to see me personally so that I could have

looked after it, instead of bringing it up in a political way

in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, just by way of clarification: I

have written letters in both instances to the comptroller of

expenditure, which you advised me to do, Mr. Minister of

Highways. You advised me to take it up with your comptroller.

Don't you get political with me in this Legislature!

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member keep his voice

down to a shout?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. I just wanted to explain to you, Mr.

Speaker, that I did exactly as the Minister of Highways advised

me to do: take it up with his comptroller, which I did. And I

have received letters from his comptroller with no reasonable

explanation.

HON. MR. LEA: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I don't

think I can leave this like this. I told him that if he didn't

get satisfaction there to see me. And I didn't mean in the

House during question period; I meant seriously, so I could

work on it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The question I asked the Minister of Highways

was: is it mismanagement in his department or is the supply of

funds cut off? Will the Minister look into it to find out why

these vouchers are not being paid? In one instance it's a sum

of nearly $4,000 to a little tire shop in Smithers... over

four months. He probably only made about 8 per cent. Is the

Minister going to pay interest on this overdue account?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it concerns me — and I believe the

Hon. Member that there are people waiting for their money for

some length of time — but it would seem to me that if there is

mismanagement, it is not on this side of the House. I

[ Page 2280 ]

would like to get to the bottom of this. Even now if that

Member will come and see me, we'll try and push it through.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to say again that I

did take it up with the Minister and he advised me to see his

comptroller, and to write letters to his comptroller, which I

did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that is a

question. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan was seeking the

floor, and she hasn't had a question.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just didn't want you to be misled, Mr.

Speaker, that I didn't do exactly as the Minister of Highways

advised me to do.

REMARKS ON HOTLINE BROADCAST

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to address my question to the Hon. Attorney-General and ask

him, in relation to his statements on the Jack Webster

programme this morning, if he really believes that the House

has been in session nearly four months this session; if he

really believes that confiscation in Bill 61 doesn't mean

confiscation; and if he really believes that there is nowhere

in the Act where property can be taken without

compensation.

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

seems like four months. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister directing his statement that....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In answer to the second and third, which

are really the same question: as I read the bill — and all

bills can be improved, I've no doubt about that — I would think

no property could be taken without the settling of the price of

arbitration.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Am I assuming,

then, that the Minister is correct in the statement that he

made...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member really,

in effect, is asking about a bill which is already on the order

paper and would not be proper for question period.

MRS. JORDAN: One last question that's not about the bill.

Would the Attorney-General please advise the House which

Minister is known as Big Ernie? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A highly improper question.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Who's Big Pat? (Laughter.)

INVESTIGATION OF CHINESE HERBAL PILLS

MR. WALLACE: That's what equality of the sexes is all about,

Mr. A-G. (Laughter.)

To the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that

physicians in the Victoria area have attributed deaths to the

continued use of illegal Chinese herbal pills, could I ask the

Minister if any decision has been made to carry out an

investigation of the cases quoted by the president of the

Victoria Medical Society, who quoted something of the order of

four deaths?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, at the

present time, the whole question of the Chinese herbal drugs is

under investigation by the federal Department of Health. We

didn't feel there was much point in our duplicating because

they've been very heavy about this whole question. Members of

my department are maintaining a watching brief and certainly

will co-operate in every way with the Department.... Well,

actually, it's under investigation by the pure foods people, I

presume.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have a point of order I'd like to bring up

with regard to the Blues, page....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure it's a point of order until I know

what we're talking about.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, a point of privilege?

MR. SPEAKER: Let's find out what it's about and then we'll

see what it is.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr.

Speaker.

Page 188-2-jbr, dated Monday, May 12, 1975, afternoon

sitting, which I believe was yesterday afternoon's sitting.

Part way down the page it says: "HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move that

the committee rise, report resolution" — which is penciled in

by the Hansard staff; the typewritten copy says "report

progress" — "and ask leave to sit again." I'm just wondering

which....

You did correct it? Is it to be "report resolution"?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you said "progress" and now it's

penciled in as "resolution." I'm just wondering which it's to

be and which is going to appear in the official Hansard ,

because if the corrected copy of Hansard says "report

resolution, "

[ Page 2281 ]

that would mean that vote 9, Provincial Land Commission, in

the amount of $580,510, was passed.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member, if he looks further in

the Blues, will see where all that was clarified, I

believe.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what really bothers me, Mr. Speaker,

because down later it says: "MR. CHAIRMAN: (restating the

motion) The motion is that the committee rise, report..." —

and there the "resolution" is erased and "progress" is....

They don't coincide with one another, and I'm just wondering

how they're going to appear. I would like Your Grace to check

into this to make sure that in the official black and white

copies, Mr. Speaker, it is correct, because it's somewhat

confusing.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll certainly look into it, and we'll

all pray together. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: One other point, Mr. Speaker. On page 193-4,

where the Chairman returned to the chair, there is nothing in

the Hansard Blues to indicate that a division had been

called. At that point I tried to raise a point of order. The

microphones were certainly not cut off, because the Speaker

didn't even motion to leave his chair and stand up until he

started running from the chair. It's not recorded and I would

like to request....

MR. SPEAKER: I'll look at the Blues on those two points to

make sure that corrections that were made were properly made at

the time in the House, or the Committee of the Whole House,

whichever they occurred in. I'll also listen to tapes and I'll

probably invite the Hon. Member to go down and listen to them

with me so that we can find out what occurred in committee.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd appreciate that, yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The other thing I would point out is that this

matter was raised yesterday about the question of calling a

division in the Committee of the Whole House and leave being

given, asked for in the House by the Hon. Premier, that the

Committee of the Whole House return to have that division. Now,

of course, the Speaker, quite properly, must ask leave of the

House when that request is made by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I did so, and I felt rather hurt later to be

criticized for doing my job in asking the House for that

leave.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I didn't see any criticism in the

Blues.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope there wasn't any in the Blues, but I

felt that I was doing the correct thing in asking leave of the

House. The House did go back into Committee of the Whole House,

and the thing that you had been asking for was done.

In the meantime, until I've studied the matter more

thoroughly, I would suggest that whenever such an event occurs

where there is a great deal of noise in committee, for example,

and you can't be heard properly — although I have my

reservations on whether you couldn't be heard anywhere — then I

suggest that you ask leave of the House to return to committee

for that division. I'm sure all persons in the House would

agree to that being done.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly won't take

that as a slur against my voice.

MR. SPEAKER: Of course not.

MR. PHILLIPS: And I know you'll correct it in your usual

unbiased manner, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Absolutely.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It was in the most jocular fashion that it was

intended.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That's about as near as I can get to being

jocular.

MR. CHABOT: A supplemental and on a point of order on the

same matter, Mr. Speaker. In the question period yesterday —

and I am sure that Hansard is trying to assist me in

getting the proper titles to various government ventures — I

asked the question of the Attorney-General in charge of the

liquor administration board, and the word "administration" is

scrubbed out and the word "control" is in its place. I was

attempting to be current with what takes place, and I see that

there has been a change here.

MR. SPEAKER: Did Hansard try to correct it to what

they thought it was? Is that what it appears to be?

MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: And it should be the way you

[ Page 2282 ]

described it.

MR. CHABOT: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll certainly take that up too. As a

matter of fact, the Hon. Member knows that he should correct

his own statements where they are in error in

Hansard .

MR. CHABOT: How do I get them, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Aren't there copies delivered to you?

MR. CHABOT: No. This copy was delivered to me after great

prodding to receive it. It wasn't received until 1:45.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't always get mine on time either. They

are pretty busy.

MR. CHABOT: It's difficult. Of course these things aren't....

MR. SPEAKER: I will certainly look into that, but I think

that the Hon. Member can make that correction himself because

he knows more certainly what he did say than I do.

MR. CHABOT: Yes. I want to thank Hansard for trying

to put me straight on what the proper title is anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

There was one other question, besides that question of

division, raised yesterday that I was asked to look at, but

merely for the purpose of giving an opinion. I point out that

yesterday the House itself made a decision which, in effect, is

a judgment of the House. I was asked to look at this decision,

though, and comment on the decision of the committee on

estimates yesterday, and the Chair accepting a motion that it

rise and report progress when a vote had been presented and

withdrawn from the committee without the question put on the

vote.

This abrupt practice has been in common usage for many years

to meet the requirements of the sessional order that is adopted

each session: "...that this House will at its next sitting

resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be

granted to Her Majesty and that this order have precedence over

all other business except introduction of bills until disposed

of." Such motion was adopted in this House last February

Whether the House stays in committee or not appears to rest on whether other

matters deserve the consideration of the House. Where the government wishes

to postpone consideration of estimates, it has in such cases in the past complied

with the precedence order by rising without debate or question put on any money

vote, and the House Leader moving that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Last Friday the matter of standing order 45A was raised, and

it being the conclusion of the 45th sitting, contemplated by

the new rule adopted last year, and also the hour of

adjournment under standing orders — being after 1 o'clock — the

committee rose. I was asked in the House whether the questions

still remaining to be put to the Committee of the Whole House

should have been put. I stated that since the rules of the

House prevail when we are in the House: "the House will carry

on its normal business of adjournment."

I stated further, in reference, to the precedence order for

Committee of Supply: "that unless there has been a substantive

change, this House will resolve itself into Committee of Supply

so that on the next sitting after today, whenever that is

appointed by this House, that committee will be called again

until all its business is disposed of or until it rises" — now

that is very important as that is what I said on Friday — "and

is called again on a subsequent day."

When you try to find precedents for this matter, looking in

the present May is not much help because the present

British practice upon interruption by the adjournment hour is

that all questions may be put unless there is an objection, in

which case the Chairman leaves the chair and the House can,

however, deal with exempted business — but that is not

controversial business. That is not our case here. Looking at

British practice as it was prior to that standing order in the

present rules in Britain, May 's 13th edition, at page

349 and page 350, deals with precedence orders of the House

which prescribe the times at which and the proceedings by which

the remaining part, or the whole of the committee stage, the

report stage, the committee in report stages, et cetera, should

be disposed of. Analogous to our situation, May states

at page 350 of that edition:

"When the time appointed for its conclusion is reached, such

questions as may be necessary to dispose of that stage or

portion shall be put forthwith from the Chair as soon as the

question which is under discussion at the appointed time, and

which is then to be put forthwith, shall have been disposed

of."

May then goes on to state:

"On days on which proceedings under the order are to be

brought to a conclusion" — which was the case in standing order

45A — "or in some cases on any allotted day, dilatory motions,

or that the Chairman report progress or leave the Chair, are

forbidden unless moved by the government when the question

thereon is to be put without amendment or debate."

[ Page 2283 ]

It makes an exception for the government on the business of

the time coming to its close on the appointed day, where the

Chairman is to leave the chair on the motion of the

government.

It appears that the decision of the House yesterday

supporting the Chairman's ruling seems consonant with that

statement of the practice in May , and that such a motion

may be accepted by the Chair in committee, despite the word

"forthwith."

Obviously the priority motion is a government motion which

it can invoke or postpone as it has always done over the years.

This is the way it appears to me. Now it is only my opinion. I

cannot say it is a ruling of the Chair. You asked my opinion

and that's all it is, but as it stands now that appears to be

all I can find on the subject.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I would suggest to Mr.

Speaker that in the words he has delivered to us this afternoon

and the advice that he's brought down there is one other point

that I think you should consider at your leisure, and that is

the fact that the traditional motion which is put at the

beginning of the Committee of Supply....

MR. SPEAKER: The precedence motion.

MR. SMITH: The precedence motion that we must enter into

Committee of Supply until disposed of, with the exception that

the introduction of bills has precedence over Committee of

Supply, did not contemplate at any time in the past the rules

as they exist today.

MR. SPEAKER: You mean standing order 45?

MR. SMITH: Under standing order 45. So we now have another

rule that is on our books that was not there during previous

sessions of the Legislature.

I would suggest to the Speaker that the matter of Committee

of Supply and the adjournment of debate of Committee of Supply

or the motion to rise and report progress should be viewed

within the context of rule 45, which sets out a definitive time

limit for the number of days or the number of hours of

Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member realizes, from what I

have quoted, that the question of a definite time at which,

being the allotted day, the appointed time at which the

question is then put forthwith, was true in the British

practice prior to our standing order 45A years ago in their

practice, and that they could postpone it if it was a motion by

the government that the Chairman go out of the Committee of

Whole. Therefore, it really isn't analogous to the problem of

"forthwith" as defined in 45A.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in order to assist the House in the

matter that we have before us, and that is the undisposed

business in a number of portfolios, I ask leave to move a

motion without notice under standing order 49. The motion is

this: that the now existing standing order with respect to

Committee of Supply be suspended, and the following substituted

therefore:

"The proceedings in Committee of Supply shall not be

limited unless and until debate has been completed on each estimate by

the Members of the Legislative Assembly."

I ask leave under standing order 49 to move such a

motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be unanimous to change standing

orders.

MRS. JORDAN: Who said no? The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald)? The defender of justice?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: I'm speaking further to the point of order

raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith),

Mr. Speaker, and supporting his suggestion that Your Honour

might wish to review this once again.

I think the usefulness of the British practice, as reflected

in May , is only to the extent that it is not superseded

by the clear language of our own standing orders, and, further,

would have to be read in conjunction with the then existing

British standing orders, which aren't in front of this House. I

don't know exactly how it would relate and why it should be

that a dilatory motion was, in that instance, allowed. But I

would suggest that whether it was or not in those circumstances

in Britain, it is different here because of the clear language

of the word "forthwith." I would suggest, Your Honour, that

"forthwith" means "immediate," as it does in the

dictionary at the foot of your desk there, and that in fact the

Chair has no right to recognize any Hon. Member under the terms

of standing order 45 at that time, other than for the purpose

of a point of order or point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member mistook what I said. I

said, and I quoted from May , that on some occasion on any

allotted date, dilatory motions, or that the Chairman report

progress or leave the Chair, are forbidden.

[ Page 2284 ]

MR. GIBSON: Yes, that's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Unless moved by the government.

MR. GIBSON: Unless the government moves it. But I would

suggest, Your Honour, that under the language of our standing

order they are forbidden flatly and absolutely, whether moved

by the government or any private Member in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you see, I have this problem. As I said,

the House has already made a decision on the matter yesterday.

I can only give some advice on the subject.

But, really, to change it the House would have to

change either standing orders to clarify the point or take some

other method of adopting what you want.

MR. GIBSON: Well, perhaps Your Honour could enlighten me,

but I had always thought that unless standing orders had

explicitly been changed, they take precedence over any supposed

decision of the House on a particular point. As long as the

standing order is there, it must be enforced. I suggest, Your

Honour, that that's what that standing order means.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that submission could be adopted — that the House could alter it in that fashion.

MR. GIBSON: Well, that's what I am saying, that the House....

MR. SPEAKER: The House has made the decision on what the

meaning of the standing order was, in effect, standing order

45A, that the Chairman can accept a motion from the government

.... This is also true in England, prior to the present

standing order 1; they could accept a motion from the

government. After all, the question of supply and its

precedence was asked for by the government. They are the ones

concerned that their motion be invoked from time to time, and

the opposition is entitled, except for the final day, to make

motions that the committee rise and report progress, for

example. But on the final day, under the British practice,

apparently the government can make that motion.

MR. GIBSON: But, Mr. Speaker, you leave me with some confusion here

because what you suggest is that the House may interpret standing orders in

any way they wish, no matter what the language of the standing order is. That

would suggest, for example, that for standing order 3, the hour of 6 o'clock,

the House could interpret it that it means 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock or

10 o'clock. But what I am asking you is: if the plain language says something

else, how are we to have any order in this House unless that plain language

is followed? It is not being followed in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the word "forthwith" was used in the

British practice. Nonetheless, it still gave to the government

the option not to proceed with the particular matter despite

the wording of priority and the word "forthwith."

MR. GIBSON: That has to be read in conjunction with....

MR. SPEAKER: What it means to me as I see it now, and what I

tried to say on Friday, is this: once you get into Committee of

Supply, you must carry out the votes as required under standing

order 45A forthwith. But there is the provision for the

committee to rise and report progress; and only the government,

according to May , could make that motion.

MR. GIBSON: That's nowhere in our standing orders.

Nowhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Much of our standing orders are according to

custom, usages as adopted under standing order 1. Therefore,

when we are silent on something or where our rule is not clear,

we look to whatever advice we can get both from the British

rules and from other decisions of Speakers in this or other

jurisdictions.

MR. GIBSON: But I suggest with respect, Your Honour, that

our rules are not silent on it and they are not unclear. They

are very clear. The vote shall be called forthwith and....

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would have thought that the decision of

the House in the matter really settled it. I cannot overcome

the rule of the House regardless of what you and I say.

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

order.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out, before we go on to that,

something in Beauchesne , 4th edition, page 10? "In the

interpretation of the rules as standing orders, the House is

generally guided not so much by the literal construction of the

orders themselves as by the consideration of what has been the

practice of the House with respect to them."

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Of course I agree with you. There's no

precedent for standing order 45A other than the decision of the

House yesterday, which is, of

[ Page 2285 ]

course, more than a precedent. But, beyond that, the use of

words and how they are considered and treated by the British

House have always been a matter of

interpretation that we must

be guided by too. I have indicated a case where the word

"forthwith" was used when all votes must be placed forthwith in

the British practice; yet, nonetheless, a government could make

a motion that the committee rise and report progress. That is

precisely, as I understand it, what happened yesterday,

Monday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I noticed that you quoted from May and I

would like to know what edition. I have the 18th and 19th.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I said the 13th edition because, you see,

the 18th edition has a totally different standing order 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you. Yes, certainly the 18th

edition, which is the one we normally use, is totally different

and I would refer you to general rule 1 to which you referred

us earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: I just pointed out that that rule has nothing

to do with either this House or with the rule as it was at the

time we adopted our rules in 1871.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we did not adopt rule 45 in

1971. (Laughter.) We adopted it in 1974 over the protest of the

entire opposition. It's a rotten rule. I agree with you. It's

something the government and yourself would dearly like to get

out of, but it exists there and it's perfectly clear....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Are you suggesting that I've

done anything else other than what you requested me to do?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you, and I

agree with the government, as they have now discovered — and

even the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) maybe has now

discovered — that this rule is simply not a good one.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the proper course for you is to put a

motion on the order paper with due notice to change standing

order 45A.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've tried that and we've tried hard,

Mr. Speaker, and made every effort to have rule 45A changed,

and the government refuses. They want to have it both ways.

They want to keep the rule there and yet not use it.

Well, they can't do that under the terms of the wording of rule 45A(3). They

can't do it because it is mandatory under the wording — under the clear understanding

of those of us here that "shall forthwith" means "will immediately" go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we're arguing at no purpose because

neither of us can change what has already been said and done in

this House and in Committee of the Whole House. The House has

made a decision which I cannot, of course, overrule.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting anyone

should overrule any decision taken yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Then let's get on with the business.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's simply that in the future the same

mistake should not be repeated.

MR. BENNETT: Like today.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria on a point

of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw your

attention to rule 45A(3) on page 18, which refers to the fact

that the Chairman of the Committee of Supply "shall forthwith

put all questions necessary to carry every vote and item."

Having drawn your attention to this, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure it

will be unnecessary for you to do otherwise than follow the

rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order. The Hon. House

Leader.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Vote 9, Department of Agriculture.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 9: Provincial Land Commission, $580,510 —

continued.

[ Page 2286 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano

on a point of order.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A few words on

vote 9, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a motion before the committee. We'll

dispose of the motion first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, when

reporting to the Speaker, would you advise that a division took

place in committee and ask leave to have it recorded in the

Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a

division took place in committee and asks that the division be

recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I was just having a few words

about the government's own insider trading practices and

conflicts of interest last evening when we adjourned. Just to

further make my point possibly a little clearer, I checked into

the 1974 annual report of the Westcoast Transmission, and I was

interested in looking at some of the operating revenues of that

company. I want to recall again to the House how our Premier

and Minister of Finance condemned this particular company when

in opposition a few short years ago as ripping off the people

of British Columbia, making excessive profits off the backs of

the residents of British Columbia. I remember him talking about

them stealing the natural gas and making excessive profits. But

what happens when the government buys shares in Westcoast

Transmission??

Let's just take a look at their profit over a 10-year

period. For instance, their total operating revenue for the

year 1966 was $60,895,000. In 1969, it had gone up to

$84,675,000. In 1971, it had gone to $101,575,000. But then the

government moved in and they bought some shares on behalf of

the taxpayers of British Columbia, and the operating revenue in

1974 went to $226,600,000.

What I'm saying here is that there is a possibility — I'm not

saying it's happened, but there's a possibility — that if the

government is loose, which they have been in the past on many

instances with their statements about what they're going to do

in the stock market, there is a great possibility that them

being an insider, knowing what they're going to do, persons

close to the government could move in and pick up the shares in

a company that the government might state an intention to buy

shares in. Once the government has control of X number of

shares in one of the companies, then, through their

manipulation through the awesome powers which they have, which

I mentioned yesterday afternoon, either through the Revenue

Act, or through the British Columbia Petroleum Corp., or

through the Timber Products Stabilization Act, they can have a

definite control over the value of the shares in that

company.

If you want to take a look at the net income, which is

applicable to the common shares of that company, the same trend

has happened. We don't really see the large profits that this

company was making during the time the Premier was speaking

about it. As a matter of fact, the net income went from

$2,350,000 in 1966 to $9,230,000 in 1971. But in the last two

years, since the provincial government, through their B.C.

Petroleum Corp., has been able to

[ Page 2287 ]

manipulate the price of natural gas, the net profit for

Westcoast Transmission has gone from $9,230,000 in 1971 to

$25,172,000 in 1974. As I say, anybody who knew what the

government's intentions were in this matter would be able to

pick up shares. It is the government because of their power and

their inside knowledge of being able to control these markets

through the power which they have that....

I want to give you another instance where the entire

opposite has happened — this would be in the case of MacMillan

Bloedel. I'd just like to read you a short statement by the

chairman of the board. His comments on it are, I think, very

applicable to this bill, where he says:

" 'The New Democratic Party in power in Victoria cannot brush off this week's warning that its

policies are inhibiting the investment of capital to create new

jobs in British Columbia, nor can it ignore an allied statement

that the ability of the forest industry to preserve existing

jobs will be jeopardized unless there is relief from new and

onerous costs imposed by the provincial government.'

"These fundamental issues were bluntly expressed by

George B. Currie, chairman of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. at the company's

annual meeting on Wednesday. Mr. Currie also had the unpleasant duty to

tell the shareholders that declining earnings have forced a reduction

in their dividends for the second quarter of this year to 15 cents a

share from 50 cents."

So here we have the entire opposite happening.

When the government buys shares in a particular company — we

can witness what happened to Can-Cel — through the powers they

have through the Timber Products Stabilization Act, they can

ensure that their policies are going to see that the shares of

the companies in which they have an interest are going to

appreciate,

whereas if they wish to use these same powers to

depress the shares of any particular company, they can do

that.

What we need is not only the bill we have before us but also

a conflict-of-interest bill to prevent the government from

having these conflicts of interests, and to keep the government

out of the marketplace. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) knows this — that the government has left itself

wide open to the criticism I am giving it here today.

The Canadian Development Corp. Is a horse of a different

colour. It's going to be owned totally by the people of Canada

and the government.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but the Canadian Development Corp. and the shares

they buy... they don't have the power to manipulate and they're not going to

manipulate all the industries in Canada because you control the natural resources.

But here in British Columbia you have a different situation, an entirely different

situation. It's on a much narrower scale. You have that power. We told you that

you were taking that awesome power when you passed the legislation, Mr. Attorney-General.

You have that power already granted to the cabinet and to the Ministers to control

these natural resources.

By being able to do that you can manipulate whether these

companies will make a profit or not. You have definite conflict

of interests. You have conflict of interests, particularly with

Westcoast Transmission, owning shares in it, because you

control the resource that they make a profit on. As I stated

yesterday, this government, the government that used to

criticize Westcoast Transmission for making what they called a

few short years ago "rip-off profits," now makes three

times the amount of profit in a short two and a half years than

they did in 1971.

Mr. Speaker, this is what can happen; this is what is

happening.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): They were

depressed.

MR. PHILLIPS: They were depressed? Well, you were the

government that condemned Westcoast Transmission for making

such tremendous rip-off profits.

Yet since 1971, in your manipulation and because you own

shares in that company, you have allowed the profits to triple.

You have changed their rate of return from 9.5 to a guaranteed

10 per cent. There are many companies, Mr. Speaker. Is this

going to be the standard?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We are under the national Energy

Act.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this going to be the standard for rate of

return on investment in British Columbia?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They are regulated by Ottawa.

MR. PHILLIPS: You set the price of natural gas. You made the

deal with Westcoast Transmission as to how much profit it shall

make for handling and distributing the gas in British Columbia.

You made that deal, Mr. Attorney-General, through the British

Columbia Petroleum Corp., and don't say that you didn't.

Therefore you control the entire situation. You have within

your grasp the power, through the British Columbia Petroleum

Corp., to say exactly how much profit Westcoast Transmission

shall make. You have that power because you say what they shall

buy the gas for and you say what they shall sell the gas

for.

[ Page 2288 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They don't buy and sell. They just have

carrying....

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right. So that the general public

can understand it, I am putting it in easy terms.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They don't buy.

MR. PHILLIPS: But you still regulate how much profit they

shall make, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General does through his

British Columbia Petroleum Corp.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You regulate the profit. You have the power to

regulate the profit.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The federal government has the

overseeing power there — the National Energy Board.

MR. PHILLIPS: We've set a precedent here, Mr. Speaker. If

Westcoast Transmission.... I would suggest that maybe because

the interest rates are down they are probably getting a return

of closer to 10 to 15 per cent — 10 to 15 percent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, no.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, work it out. Have you worked it out, Mr.

Attorney-General? We have set a precedent, because this is

going to be the standard for the return on natural resource

industries in British Columbia. If it is, are you going to

allow a rate of return to the mining companies? Are you going

to guarantee them, Mr. Speaker, a rate of return of 10 per cent

guaranteed? Is there a double standard in the Province of

British Columbia where some natural resource industries are

going to be guaranteed a rate of return? Are you going to

guarantee them? Why don't we treat all natural resource

industries on an equal basis? Why are we killing the mining

industry?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're getting a little bit away from

this bill, aren't we?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about is the amount

of power and the conflict of interest. What I am saying is that if the government

wants to bring in conflict-of-interest legislation to control the stock market,

they are the biggest user of the stock market in British Columbia and they have

a conflict of interest. They will be the inside traders. They will manipulate

the stock market. What I am saying is that if it is good for one group of people,

it should be good for the government, because you definitely will be an insider

in trading in the stock market. You definitely will be an insider. You definitely

have more information than certainly any other insider might have because you

make the rules and you are not unknown to change them in the middle of the game.

I would suggest, on the converse, that the government has

cost the taxpayers of this province many, many thousands and

thousands and thousands of dollars lost in the stock market by

those people who held mining shares. The reverse there is

possible. This government has a conflict of interest and should

pass legislation to let the sun shine in.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Into every company a little ray must

fall.

MR. PHILLIPS: The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that the

Attorney-General and his government have let a lot of rain fall

on one of the natural resource industries; I refer to the

mining industry. They have let nothing but sunshine in because

they have a pecuniary interest in the petroleum industry in

British Columbia. We have the same situation occurring where

the government is now going to bring in incentives for the

petroleum industry to drill for oil and gas.

I remember speaking my heart out along with the Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith) in this Legislature in 1973 and

in 1974, imploring the government to do something to save....

And after the horse is out of the barn, now you are going to

have to use twice as many oats to get it back in as you would

had you fed it while it was in the barn. But after the horse

has run away, you are going to try and lure it back. As I say,

you are going to need twice as many oats. You will probably

have to give the petroleum industry more incentives now than

you would have had they remained in the province. But you

wouldn't listen to common sense.

I remember the Attorney-General standing on the floor of the

Legislature saying that he wanted to prop up the petroleum

industry, wanted to prop it up with taxpayers' money. "Give

away the gas. Give away the oil." What are we doing now? The

Attorney-General is faced with a dilemma. He wants the

petroleum industry back in. He wants to hear the sound of those

drilling rigs once again.

The Peace River area and the great oil and gas fields are in

silence today, Mr. Speaker, in silence. But the

Attorney-General wants to hear those diesel engines once more

turning those powerful drills in search of that black gold. Oh,

he wants to hear it and he's got his hand out with them. And

there's going to be money in the palm of his hand. "Come back."

He'll be on bended knee. "Come back." And they're going to say:

"Sweeten the kitty a little more."

[ Page 2289 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): And he will.

MR. PHILLIPS: They hold the upper hand now, Mr. Speaker,

because he drove them out. And they're going to be hard to

bargain with. He's going to have to use more of the taxpayers'

money than he would have had to use before had he treated them

just with respect when they were here. But many of those

drilling rigs have gone in search of richer land. You won't get

them back that easily because the cost of transporting a

drilling rig is in the thousands and thousands of dollars. He's

going to have to entice them back. But anyway, I might be

straying slightly from the point.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, no, no!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly didn't want to do

that. No. I didn't want to do that. I certainly didn't want to

do that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, he wouldn't do that.

MR. PHILLIPS: But I do want to, in closing, Mr. Speaker, say

that this government has left itself wide open to make errors.

I'm not going to say that they're going to make these errors

intentionally — but you've left your rear guard open. You're

going to make these errors because you have too much power.

You've taken this power unto yourself, Mr. Attorney-General;

you've taken this power unto yourself. You now have the

combination to the safe, and if there's anything missing you're

going to be responsible. Any errors made, and the

Attorney-General's going to be responsible. I'll tell you, Mr.

Speaker, I don't trust that Attorney-General! I don't trust his

ability to handle this situation he's in. I hate to see him

with his back against the wall.

Already in this short period of time we have seen three,

four instances where the government has made errors. I refer to

Dunhill; I refer to Can-Cel; I refer to Westcoast Transmission;

I refer to B.C. Tel, where the government has moved in, backed

off, moved in again, backed off, made errors and manipulated

the stock market. This is what's going to happen time and time

again.

All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I plead with the

Attorney-General to bring in some legislation which will

prevent the government from getting itself in this position

where by a slip of the tongue, by misplaced statement, you can

cost individual shareholders thousands and thousands of

dollars. Or, by the same token, you can, by a slip of the

tongue, let somebody in a government position or even outside

of the government — friends of the government — know that

you're going to move into a particular company, know full well that you have the power

to increase the earning capacity of that company so that they

can move in if they know. Then they will be the insiders — just

by a slip of the tongue.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mum's the word!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you haven't had mum's the word. We've

already had two cases where mum wasn't the word; it was

open-mouthed government. I'm not going to go back over the

cases again, but it was open-mouthed government where you have

directly affected the stock market, directly affected the price

of shares that have been trading on the stock market.

We can see that if you really want to make a bonanza, keep

your ear tuned to the government — find out in what direction

they're moving, what industries they're going to take over and

buy when the price is low. Because once this government gets

hold of the shares of that company, through their great awesome

powers they will manipulate the resources to ensure success of

that company and that the shares will have great earning

capacity.

We want to watch the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

because he's ready to move into the mining industry. I wouldn't

want to tell anybody here today to go buy mining shares. But

the Minister is ready to strike and, as soon as he moves in,

the price of those shares will go up because he'll continue to

give the natural resources away because he wants to make good

showing and that he's made the right deal.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to close on the note that I

wouldn't want to be in the Attorney-General's position.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wouldn't want to be in your position of

having all that awesome power, being able to manipulate the

stock market, but bringing in a little piece of patchwork

legislation to prevent insider trading within the stock market.

You are the greatest insider trader in the whole of the stock

market in British Columbia! You are open to a conflict of

interest. I wouldn't want to be in your position, Mr.

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Your speech has depressed the

market.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wouldn't want to be in your position, for

you've depressed the whole Province of British Columbia and all

of the taxpayers in the Province of British Columbia. You've

depressed them all. Never before in the province will there be

such complete depression as when the tax notices go out. There

will be complete depression. They're on their

[ Page 2290 ]

way. There will be despondency.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that's not under my

estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, well, I'll resume my seat on that very

depressing note.

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

if I may, with the Attorney-General's permission, return to the

principle of Bill 20, which I believe the Attorney-General

indicated is to be found in

section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: One of the principles.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But this is one of the main and important

items that the Attorney-General is trying to correct in the law

as it stands today.

There is no question that people who, by their relationship

with companies, have private access to information which they

can use to their own private advantage should have some

restraints cast upon them. I would, however, appreciate it if

the Attorney-General can settle one matter that is of concern

to me in the bill as it presently stands.

I appreciate that there is now to be a penal provision of

considerable consequence. I appreciate that the insider who

uses confidential information for his own advantage is liable

to account to the corporation and, I assume, hence pay to the

corporation the amount of his gain. That's implicit in the

language.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was in the bill before.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. But now there is a

provision whereby any person who suffers direct loss is also

liable to be compensated by the insider. I am concerned to know

in what way the Attorney-General would possibly perceive that

an individual might suffer a loss by reason of someone else

making a profit. I assume it is that direct loss which would be

the responsibility of that person to prove in a court of

law.

What most often happens, Mr. Speaker, is that by reason of

the insider having private, confidential information, he is

able to move to his own advantage, and someone else who is a

shareholder in that particular company is unable to make an

assessment of what he or she should do, either to buy or to

sell the securities. Therefore, I don't see that what the

Attorney-General is attempting here is going to be of any

significant value to the many people who are the owners of

securities in companies.

You are penalizing the insider for his gain, but you are not really assisting

the other owner of securities to receive redress for the misfortune which he

may suffer. Indeed, it may not be a direct loss. It may be somehow or other

the inability to realize a gain, and I don't think that the Attorney-General

would include that latter set of circumstances within the definition of "direct

loss." Therefore, it seems that some greater consideration must be given to

these provisions to ensure that confidential information which affects the value

of securities is not withheld from the people who are the owners of securities.

Really what I am urging, Mr. Speaker, is for the government

to consider requiring companies to make the fullest disclosure

of information from time to time which has the effect of

improving or depressing the value of their own securities, so

that the owners of those securities can make a proper

judgment.

With regard to the insider himself, would the

Attorney-General also, in closing this debate, indicate the

restrictions that this places upon the normal dealings of an

insider who, by reason of his position, knows probably better

than anybody else matters which affect the future of the

company in respect of which he is an insider? Is he thereby

limited from disposing of any securities he may control? Is he

precluded until such time as that confidential information is

generally known? Suppose it never becomes generally known.

Suppose a circumstance arises and it comes to the attention of

a director of a company that something is going to happen

within the next few months and it is going to depress the value

of those securities. Must he wait until that occurs before he

can engage in a securities transaction?

I think that while we all recognize that improper use of

information should be precluded, and that the general movement,

the general trading of securities by people who happen to be in

positions of an inside relationship with the company, shouldn't

be precluded, I would like to be assured that people who find

themselves in that position are not, by this amendment, going

to find themselves in a more difficult position.

Companies, in order to survive, need skilled advice; they

need people who must place themselves in the relationship of

insiders in order to function. If by that they are somehow or

other handicapped from what is a normal commercial transaction,

then I think it may bring about a result which is not in the

best interests of companies generally and of our economy.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that

such a little bill can generate such a good discussion over

such a wide-ranging field.

Returning quickly to the bill, the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) was

[ Page

2291 ]

a little disappointed in some of the things we have done,

and he's been reading some of my old speeches. But we're doing

the public governor thing, in terms of the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, and we've done the Corporate and Financial Services

Commission, an appellant body which has already listened, I

think, to the first five stock complaint cases. It is a new

avenue for people to complain, without expense to themselves,

if they feel they have been unfairly treated, contrary to law

in the marketplace with regard to securities.

In addition, the policy board of CLEU held a meeting in

Victoria, I think it was — their last meeting was about a week

to 10 days ago — and they made a recommendation, which I have

accepted, that they should continue and return, as it were, to

the study of commercial fraud — white-collar bilking of people

in the Province of B.C. That is continuing. There are some

other matters in the CLEU report but I'm staying right within

the four corners of this bill. I will be glad to say them at

some other time.

In answer to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips), governments have to be careful today. I agree. For

an example, we have the Hon. Minister of Finance in Ottawa

(Hon. Mr. Turner); and I say this seriously: what he does in a

budget can affect the value of equities in companies on which

the Canadian Development Corp. may be picking up the shares.

That's the kind of responsibility that's laid upon government

in a kind of a difficult age. As the people become the

shareholder, many interests are affected. I think the people

should become the shareholder.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, the people were never the

shareholder of Westcoast, Pacific Pete or B.C. Tel; these were

largely foreign-owned concerns. We are returning an equity in

some of those concerns to the people in this province. But it

requires that we are careful not to manipulate any markets — of

course it does — and not release insider information. If

there's going to be an acquisition of shares in anything, that

has to be kept very confidential, and we have to act just as a

private company would in acquiring another company. You know,

the regular rules should apply to government just as they apply

to those companies, and they should apply very fairly. In

answer to the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams), while this bill just deals with penalty, there

is a requirement — I think it's

section 111 of the present

Securities Act — that the director who has inside information

that's either going to enhance or depress the price of the

shares of the company has a positive duty to disclose that to

people interested; and breach of that duty is subject to

sanctions under the Securities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Securities Amendment Act, 1975, 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 46, Mr.

Speaker.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Our main Act with respect to police

services in the Province of B.C., of course, came in during

1974. This Act is merely to make minor amendments to effectuate

the operation of the existing legislation. For example, there's

a minor amendment in the area of citizen complaint, because we

do now have a code where if somebody feels they have been

abused by police action — or police officers themselves can

launch a grievance, as it were — that grievance would be

ventilated at open hearings. We just wanted to make it clear

that that procedure applies to complaints even against the

commission or the commissioner.

We have also some time ago published our code of police

internal discipline. We have abstracted from the labour

relations area the things that should not be there. This code

has met with approval not only prior to its being made law but

subsequently, because I have had no complaints of police

services throughout the province, whether they are municipal or

RCMP. I appreciate that because our police commission, under

Dr. John Hogarth, has, if nothing else, moved in terms of

consultation. He's taken a long time with, say, the police

code.

Because he has consulted deeply, he has won consensus of

agreement as he has gone along not only with the police

services but also with the civil liberties union. It is very

important in the kind of times in which we live that we have

good police services and they are accepted and understood by

the community.

So, for this little housekeeping bill I would now make the

motion of second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Speaking to this bill, I

agree somewhat with the comments of the Attorney-General that

apparently this bill has met with a favourable reception by

members of the police service throughout the Province of

British Columbia.

One of the points that often occurs to me in bills like this

which really become amendments to existing legislation that has

been passed through the House, either at a prior session or

some years ago.... I wonder if the Attorney-General, in

closing debate, would indicate to the House what procedure

his

[ Page

2292 ]

department follows to make sure that the parties who would

be most interested and affected by the legislation, or the

proposed amendments, receive copies of those amendments prior

to the debate on second reading in the House. Is there any

particular route march that your department follows in this

respect?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We use leaks. Leaks are the best way to

get it around. (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: I'm not suggesting that leaks do not occur, Mr.

Attorney-General. I am suggesting that after the bill has been

introduced to the House, particularly a bill of this nature

which is an amendment to an existing Act, it seems to me that

it would be fair to the public at large, and particularly to

the people who are most vitally involved and concerned, if some

procedure were to be set up where those people involved and

concerned would be guaranteed receipt of the amendments

proposed. Too often, not only with this bill but with others, I

have found that the people most intimately affected really knew

very little about the fact that amendments had been proposed,

particularly if they are sometimes minor in nature and the

press does not report them widely. They know nothing about it

until the bill is so far advanced that it's practically a

matter of complete approval. I do believe that in bills of this

nature and others which come before the House — perhaps outside

of your department, but we can't deal with that in this

particular amendment to your Act — there should be a provision

set up within government to make sure that the people most

intimately involved will receive copies of the bill.

Unfortunately, on too many occasions — and this may be

because of work; I'm not suggesting that anybody does it

purposely — we go to the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms to

obtain substantial numbers of copies — sometimes not

substantial numbers; sometimes just a few copies — of the

amendments proposed or new legislation proposed in its

entirety, and we find that the bills are not available in any

great number for distribution.

So I would hope that the Attorney-General, who is chief law

enforcement officer of the province, keeps this in mind not

only for his own bills but also others of like nature which

come before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out before we go on, Hon. Member,

that bills are printed by the House, not by the government, on

order to the Queen's Printer. If you need more copies, make

application to the Speaker's office, and we'll see what we can

do.

MR. SMITH: If I might speak to that for a moment,, Mr. Speaker, I realize

that, but, as you know, the pressure is on the Queen's Printer at the time the

House is in session. If there's some reason that your office has not been able

to foresee the demand, then we back up, perhaps, for 30, 60 or 75 days.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we'd better get on. Would you send it to

me in a letter so I can deal with it?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Just as a backbencher I rise to

say that I support this amendment which I think is very

crucial. I know this reflects very competent work by the police

commission and their staff. Also in consultation even out in my

area.... I know that in discussing this and in fact in

working quite regularly with the two officers in charge — the

one in Mission and the one in Maple Ridge — there are some

really, I think, excellent intentions in this.

If I can just digress for a second, Mr. Speaker, this is a

very difficult time in history to be a policeman or

policewoman. I think the police sincerely...and here — I

guess in my experience I am talking about the RCMP in my riding

- there is that fine line of just how far you go in.... You

don't want your actions as a police person to be in

contradiction to the kind of example or response you expect to

get, whether it's from a young person, some person or some

group maybe that many people in the community find are

delinquent and are causing security problems.

I'm delighted to see these amendments, the disciplinary

authority. This authority, of course, is protecting the public,

but also, Mr. Speaker, I remind you that the police really

haven't had much protection. This, I think, now sets a

complaint procedure. It helps protect both the policeman and

the policewoman as well as the public.

I just want to go on record in emphasizing that this is a

very difficult time in history — I bet an awful lot more so

than a decade ago — to be a law enforcement officer but also to

be an example, to try to elicit a positive response. Every MLA,

I'm sure, goes out with real feelings to the people who are

trying to carry out this.

I know that at times there are young constables who maybe

with their enthusiasm have made the occasional indiscretion.

That is, as we say, a cross to carry by the officer in charge.

I am very impressed with the kind of leadership and with the

kind of counselling that we are now seeing from senior staff in

the RCMP, which, of course, our police college will also try to

develop in a greater way — this whole administrative ability

and counselling ability of the senior staff.

I want to say the obvious, that I think this House really

commends this legislation, but also, I feel, has a real

responsibility, in a time where we're seeing polarizations on

all kind of issues, to go out there and support the

increasingly better work of our police.

[ Page 2293 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words

about consultation. Our consultants are basically our B.C.

Police Commission — Dr. John Hogarth, Rev. Robert Burrows and

Geoff Mortimer, the last addition to the police commission. I

want to pay them a compliment. They consult with the union of

chiefs, the B.C. Federation of Police Officers, the RCMP and,

as I say, the Civil Liberties Association usually represented

by Jack Bryan.

Taking up what was said just briefly by the Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), it is a very difficult time. I want to

pay tribute right now to what happened last weekend at the

Pacific Centre, — which was a difficult situation — first to my

Deputy, Dave Vickers, who lost his weekend, John Hogarth, the

Vancouver police commission at the local level, and the

Vancouver police in preventing what could have been an ugly

incident which would have exacerbated events this year.

Finally, in concluding that, let me say that the answer was

that they went to the leaders of the Indian organizations —

Bill Wilson, Deme Rae and through their offices some

understanding was gained of how the matter could be peacefully

resolved. So I've paid compliments, especially to the last two,

for the assistance they gave.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 46, Police Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

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

reading of Bill 48.

MORTGAGE BROKERS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR, MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the

Mortgage Brokers Act basically provide for the appeal to the

Corporate and Financial Services Commission, which I think I

referred to before.

Secondly, they also provide that the people who are in the real estate business

and who engage in mortgage transactions which fall within the meaning of this

Act are deemed to be licensed. So if they are trading in mortgages and there

is some suggestion from somebody that they are breaching the Act in terms of

fair play, then they can be investigated as would a registered broker, and are

thereby subject to the Act to that extent. Otherwise the amendments are of a

minor nature.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Mortgage Brokers Amendment Act, 1975, read a second

time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 10.

FAIR SALES PRACTICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

[ Page 2294 ]

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, in speaking to the second reading of this amendment

Act, I would like to point out that the legislation has been on

the books now for two years. Such legislation is new in Canada.

In that two years we, as a province, and I'm sure other

jurisdictions throughout the country, have gained from the

experience we have received under this particular piece of

legislation.

It was quite effective in stopping, for the most part, the

despicable pyramid schemes that were very prevalent in the

province to this time. However, unfortunately the people

involved in such schemes have found a few ways to get around

the Act, and this is to plug up some of the loopholes that they

managed to create. I feel that there was a creation on their

part and it certainly wasn't intended.

We are also asking the House to change the title of the

legislation to more clearly reflect the essence of the

legislation, which is to deal with pyramid schemes.

In addition, there has been some confusion in the public

mind between the title of this Act, the Fair Sales Practices

Act, and the Trade Practices Act, so by changing the name we

would clear up this confusion in the public mind.

One of the loopholes that the ingenious pyramiders

discovered, found or created was to create affiliated companies

and spin off part of the investment that an individual might

make in a pyramid scheme into an associate company for

"warehousing purposes" or for "training purposes" or something

other than the purported case of an investment in a pyramid

scheme. This amendment will go toward eliminating that

loophole: the affiliates and the associated companies will also

be liable, under the legislation, as well as the parent

company. The parent company can no longer use this as a

shell.

In the original Act, although the implication was there that a consumer could

take action, it was not spelled out. This is going to be spelled out in the

legislation. It gives the consumer the right to seek redress

in the courts.

We have found also another device that the pyramiders used

in order to escape the

section that required a participant to

sell 10 times the amount of his investment before he was able

to recruit further participants. We found they were using a

technique whereby they blitzed; they aided the participant to

blitz a sale on one weekend. In other words, they would be able

to inveigle the person into investing $25 and, with the

assistance of other people, they would immediately blitz an

area on a weekend and in that time would sell $250 worth of

merchandise. By this device the participant was able to go out

and become a distributor again. So that was defeating the

purpose and the intent of the legislation. Now we have put in a

time limit on this that will eliminate this problem, in our

view.

That is essentially what is in the legislation, Mr. Speaker,

and I move second reading.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We appreciate very much

the clarification to the original legislation that we find in

this bill and that the Minister has outlined for us in the

introduction of second reading, I believe that we are all aware

of some of the practices that have taken place under pyramid

selling, and I can't resist saying that if the people who

promoted pyramid selling had exercised as much energy in a more

legitimate fashion they would have been legally honest today

and not facing the problems they are, and would have been very

successful. When one examines the ingenious methods that they

use to literally con very responsible people into falling for

their systems, one has to be impressed — not with the fact that

very responsible people fell for the system but that they

virtually hypnotize people through seduction with words. I am

sure the Minister is aware, as many of us are, of responsible

people such as teachers, people who have been in business

before, going to these meetings and falling under this hypnotic

process that had been perfected to the finest line and finding

themselves giving up well-paying and very responsible careers

and taking

part in a system which virtually ripped off people

financially, emotionally and morally.

Our party agrees with the Minister that the change of name

has been an excellent move. There has been a lot of confusion.

I think that by adopting the name Pyramid Distributors Act,

this will also draw the public's attention to the whole system

that is involved. It is quite complicated when you first hear

about it. I think the public are frequently confused as to what

is going on and did not appreciate that there was some coverage

in the Fair Sales Practices Act for them and that the areas

where they weren't covered weren't reflected in that Act. I

offer encouragement to the Minister in this area.

I think, as far as detailed discussion goes, Mr. Speaker,

that this can take place in a clause-by-clause debate. We just

offer our support to the Minister for bringing in this

particular Act.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this party also

strongly supports the Minister's action in trying to close

various loopholes. In the greater Victoria area, many consumers

in recent years have been subjected to all the evils of the

pyramid sales system, We can't support strongly enough any

measures that will control this situation.

Hopefully, by making control very stringent and, if not

eliminating it, reducing it to a minimum, the particular

amendment which I think is of most value is the time factor

which the Minister has placed at the end. We will talk about it

in committee reading. But the fact that it isn't just a

question of cramming a whole sales pitch into a weekend on one

area but having it at least over a period of time to show some

consistency in sales rather than some frantic energetic effort

over a limited period of time.... For that and many other

reasons, which the Minister has explained very clearly, I might

say, and which we appreciate, we will give this bill our

strongest support.

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

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the previous

speakers. The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) couldn't

have put it better when she said that if these people put their

ingenuity to work in legal and constructive ways, they would

probably be billionaires today. I don't know what kind of minds

it takes for them to spend all their time and energy trying to

wheel and deal the law, but they do it. She is perfectly right

in that regard.

In the matter of what the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) said, one other point I would like to bring out is

this blitzing business. The supplier or the pyramid distributor

had a cute habit of assigning personnel to the participant to

help him sell all this merchandise very, very rapidly and, of

course, giving him all sorts of expectations and then sucking

him in to a second and a much larger investment. That is what

was going on. As you so rightly suggest, putting that one-year

limit in there precludes that possibility. In other words,

somebody is going to have 363 days to cool off.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 10, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1975, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 2295 ]

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, second

reading of Bill 71, Community Care Facilities Licensing

Amendment Act, 1975, which will be followed by the second

reading of Bill 72, Medical Services Amendment Act, 1975.

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES

LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 71, I think, will help us

a great deal in separating the two areas of community care

facilities. Heretofore we have always had a dichotomy that has

been produced as a result of the different ways that must be

used in handling children's and senior citizen's facilities

and, of course, the residents thereof. In the past, by virtue

of the fact that we have had regulations and legislation that

referred to both of the groups and a board that dealt with both

of the groups, oftentimes there were areas where one or the

other of the groups suffered to some extent by virtue of the

way you had to treat them both. Some were caught in the middle.

So, really, what the first part of the Community Care

Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1975, does is to separate

the two areas, providing us with an opportunity to create two

boards — one board for the children and one board for the adult

facilities.

Mr. Speaker, as was the case, to each board three persons

will be appointed by my Ministry" three persons by the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi); and two persons by the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). These are the three

areas of government that are most involved in community care

facilities, and, of course, each will develop its own

regulations which will be more compatible with the areas of

their own specific concern. In other words, the regulations

government children's facilities won't necessarily be those

regulations that govern adult care facilities.

There are other areas in this bill where there have been

some changes made. Incidentally, a good portion of the bill,

from sections 3 to 5, really just complement

section 2 in that

it creates the changes that are necessary in order to see to it

that the Act is complementary.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

There is another area we have been quite concerned about, and you'll find that

area later on in the Act. This is the question where some community care facilities

tend to indicate very strongly that one way you can get in would be giving a

major donation, or some sort of a donation to the facility. We don't think that

is justifiable. Therefore the

section dealing with that aspect in this amendment

will make it unlawful for any community care licensing facility to require as

a condition of admission that one makes a donation to that facility. I feel

that this is just purely the way to go properly, and I think that is long overdue.

The last part of the bill deals with another rather

anomalous situation — that some of the facilities tend to be

very restrictive in their whole attitude towards potential

residents. For instance, a facility may say that you may come

and live in this residence but you may not smoke. I'm not

suggesting that people should smoke, but at the same time if a

person, say, 80 years old has had a lifelong habit of smoking,

it would be, in my view, a rather harsh way of treating that

person in suggesting that he would be better off out in the

cold as a result of the regulations that the particular

community care facility has.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we're suggesting in the latter part of

that bill is, as it's outlined in the bill, is proscribing and

limiting the conditions of admission that a licensee may

require of an applicant for admission to a community care

licensing facility, and the restrictions that a licensee may

impose on the person cared for in the community care

facility.

So we're saying that those very tight restrictions are

sometimes quite injurious. This has been found by people who

have long experience in the whole area of community care, and

they were very strongly recommended because of situations that

have occurred in the past where people found themselves on the

street, so to speak, because of rather tight little islands

that were created as the result of certain people's biases.

Sometimes they were biases against a very innocent kind of

situation — for instance, even as far as playing solitaire. Now

that's pretty inhibiting, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that the amendments to this Act are in keeping

with 1975 and I would therefore move second reading.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

welcome the amendments to the Community Care Facilities

Licensing Act. Many of them have come after we've talked about

them in this House on a number of occasions since 1972.

I'm particularly happy to see the provision in this Act

which requires that an applicant for a licence under this Act

will be tested not only for his financial condition and his

qualifications but also for his or her personality and

temperament, I think that's something that's been missing over

the years. We've seen in many instances people get licences to

run these types of facilities who are totally unqualified from

a mental and psychological point of view to be in that kind of

business. Prior to now we have had no way of knowing or testing

or requiring that those people do meet these kinds of

qualifications. It's high time that we had some kind of method

by which we can decide.

I hope that when the Minister is setting up the two

[ Page 2296 ]

boards he will give some concern, as I have mentioned in the

House before, to making sure that there is as much local input

to the licensing of these facilities as possible. While the two

boards, I am sure, will do a better job than one board could

have done in this regard, you still need that local input — the

input from the people on the health teams and the human

resources teams in the community who might sometimes have some

background information which isn't available to the people in

Victoria. I think it's very important that we put the licensing

onto the local level as much as possible.

I hope, too, that the boards will set up a better system of

inspecting these facilities than is in effect now. I know that

the public health inspectors have a tough job on their hands at

the moment. There is a lot of work they must do in addition to

the inspection of community care facilities. Nevertheless, the

inspections in some communities seem to take on an air of

routine so that the people come to expect the inspectors and

are therefore able to prepare for them on a basis which is not

proper or correct. So I hope that those inspections will be

upgraded to a large degree. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I

have heard of occasions where the inspectors have phoned before

they came, which allowed the operators, if they were operating

any kind of a poor facility, to upgrade for that day so they

would look good when the inspector came.

Another area, Mr. Speaker, that I think should be looked at

in this whole licensing procedure is that we should make sure

that the people are financially capable of keeping that

operation going once they have received licences. I find that

this becomes a problem in many instances when a facility

changes hands and perhaps get a re-mortgage with a low

down-payment for the purchase of the facility, a re-mortgage

with very high monthly payments, to keep that facility going.

I've noticed on several occasions where facilities have changed

hands that after three or four months the people simply are not

able to keep up those mortgages. Therefore the services have to

fall; so the patients or the people who are in those community

facilities suffer because of that. A higher degree of

enthusiasm must be pursued in making sure that whoever is

taking over a community care facility licensed by the

provincial government is able to financially withstand the

mortgage payments on that facility and isn't going to find

himself or herself in trouble later on and find that they have

to cut back on services in order to make the payments.

I welcome, too, the proposal — I don't know how widespread it was; perhaps

the Minister could enlighten us — that we don't see any facility operators blackmailing

their patients with extra payments or extra considerations in order to get into

that facility. I hope the Minister would show some concern as well, Mr. Speaker,

for the mention he made about the controls on admission at the provincial level.

There may be, in fact, a case where a community facility on an autonomous basis

and on a democratic vote or a consensus of the people who are in that facility

might like to impose some kind of conditions. The Minister used "no smoking."

Perhaps every patient in that community facility might like to say: "We don't

want smoking in this facility." So signs are put up and when people come to

apply for admission, the operator might say: "Look, everybody in this facility

has said that we don't want any smoking in here. So if you want to come in,

we'd like you to abide by that." Now if that's not approved because of provincial

regulations, then that can no longer happen. It might be on a local, democratic

basis that that kind of regulation was imposed.

At the same time, there might be in many community

facilities, perhaps in my area, a requirement for some kind of

religious study or, at least, appearance at religious

gatherings by a democratic consensus of the people with in the

facility. Now if we rule against that at the provincial level,

then we are doing away with some of the autonomy of the

community facility. I am not against this section, Mr. Speaker.

But I think it holds some dangers out. It holds some

possibilities that local autonomy again and the autonomy and

democratic right of the people who are in the facilities may be

eroded somewhat if we aren't very careful in the kind of

regulations we impose at the provincial level. But other than

those few comments, these changes in the Act are very welcome

by the official opposition.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this kind of legislation is

particularly welcome in the greater Victoria area because of

the high percentage of elderly citizens who depend greatly on

the availability of rest homes and similar community care

facilities. Therefore any measure the Minister takes to try and

enhance and improve the overall supervision of such facilities,

I think, is very welcome. I would agree that there seems to be

a lot of sense in separating the supervising function of such

facilities for children as compared to facilities for the

senior citizens. I personally am more experienced in dealing

with the senior citizen in these facilities.

If I had to voice any reservation on these amendments, it

would just simply be to say that I sincerely hope that the

eight persons appointed to these boards will not fall into the

well-intentioned trap, perhaps, of trying to make this Act and

these amendments function right down to the letter of the law.

This is not an appeal for slipshod supervision or, as the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) said: "inadequate

inspection." I'm not suggesting that for a moment. I think

inspection is very important, and

[ Page

2297 ]

supervision and enthusiasm by the eight people who will be

on these two boards is to be encouraged. But it's been my

experience that there can be a tendency to fail to see the wood

for the trees by ensuring that every regulation is obeyed right

down to the letter of the law, and some elderly citizen falls

the victim, in effect, of a substantial amount of bureaucracy

and red tape.

I've just had an experience with one constituent in Oak Bay,

whose son and daughter-in-law have just had an endless amount

of negotiation and discussion and exchange of letters and

goodness knows what over a relatively simple situation where

technically the building was licensed for 10 people, as stated

in the Act. There were 11 people in the building and one moved

out. The 11th person was occupying a basement suite, which

technically was not approved within the licence to that

facility. I don't want to make a long story out of this because

it's rather trivial, but it shows to me....

Certainly if anybody in this House wanted to talk to the son

and daughter-in-law, who are entirely happy with the location

of their mother in this suite, and the old lady was entirely

happy.... But you wouldn't believe the bureaucracy that's been

involved in the last several weeks, because there was a real

threat that she would have to be moved, even though she was

perfectly happy. To take a specific example, she was at or

below ground level as far as escape in case of fire and so on

was concerned. She was in a much safer situation than she would

be if she was two floors up in the house and had to get down

the stairs.

So, in setting up these boards, I can well imagine the

Minister's good intention and I certainly support it. I would

just say that this can be sometimes a problem, that the people

take the job too conscientiously, perhaps, and start forgetting

that we're dealing with human beings and that some of these

regulations and amendments are drawn up in good faith but are

required to be interpreted with some reasonable flexibility.

This recent case that I have referred to really.... I thought

to myself: my goodness, if this happens with any kind of

frequency, not only have we got too many bureaucrats spending

too much time splitting hairs but we have elderly human beings

being harassed and their relatives put to some difficulty,

which really is quite unnecessary.

This case that I'm quoting might be an exception to the rule; I rather hope

it is. But it's not the first one that's come to my attention in the last several

years. I just think that when we're dealing with something as important as the

actual residential surroundings of elderly citizens, we should remember, as

the Minister himself has said, that they may have long habits of many years,

or they may have certain likes or dislikes. Surely the least we can do is try

to cater to their preferences, likes and dislikes in their later years. Where

we have perhaps a minimal deviation from the regulations, I hope that the people

on these boards will not literally throw the book at the residents.

The other point in mentioning these amendments stems from

the findings we had with the standing committee of the

Legislature which studied this subject two years ago. That

relates again to the real danger that in these community

facilities where owners or potential owners want to create such

a facility, the mere technicality of the situation is

overstressed: there have to be so many square feet of windows

at a certain height from the ground, et cetera, et cetera, et

cetera.

Once again I would like to just mention, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Minister, that if in setting up the board we

could again just get the well-meaning message across that there

is a shortage of these facilities, that every reasonable

encouragement should be given to people who are willing to

enter into the operating of such facilities and that we

shouldn't again get hung up on very stringent building codes

and splitting the letter of the law in relation to regulations

to the number of square feet of space, position and distance

and size of windows, et cetera, et cetera. We got the

impression on the standing committee hearings that this could

be a problem.

It may be that as the Minister continues to review this

whole bill from year to year, these boards he's now set up

under these amendments could perhaps take a look at whether or

not there's too much attention to physical detail and not

enough attention to the really important human elements that go

to make up a home for these people rather than just an

institution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'm pleased that the official opposition and

the opposition Members are in favour of this bill. I do think

that it meets many of the needs that have been demonstrated

over the past few years.

Setting up the two boards, incidentally, means that we're

setting up the two provincial boards, but they'll be

complementary community boards. We amended the Act last year to

permit the local.... So locally there will be complementary

boards so that the community input, which the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked for, should be available.

Really and truly, the senior board will be more of a

policy-setting court-of-last-resort type of situation.

Hopefully, most of the province can be dealt with locally.

Naturally, some of the inspections that are required — health

inspections, and so on, particularly in some areas — will be

outside the boards' sphere of influence. Naturally, the

facilities have to meet the requirements of the Health Act, as

with any other

[ Page 2298 ]

public place. But there should be community input.

The Member for Langley discussed the applicant test; that is, the

humanistic kind of thing. I think

that is really an excellent change from what's happened heretofore.

We've been far too mechanical around that area. Also, you'll notice

that the corporations will have to designate somebody so that that

somebody can be looked at — not as in the past where it was sort of

meet the facility standards and the criteria for staffing, and you are

away to the races. That won't be the case in the future.

It's going to be up to those community review boards to be

careful not to become biased in one way or biased in another

direction. In other words, they should really truly reflect the

needs of the people they are serving.

I agree with the Member when he talks about re-mortgaging of

private facilities. I would say probably most of the community

care facilities are non-profit now. Certainly it's getting in

that direction anyway. But there are many facilities still in

the private sector and will be for years and years to come,

particularly when you think in terms of rest homes and so on. I

do know that that is a problem because, after all, the new guy

buys and he puts on a new mortgage at a higher interest rate.

Somehow or other he has to pay that off and it's reflected in

the per diem costs to the patients or, in many instances, to

the government where we're picking up the tab. It is a

situation that, hopefully, can be dealt with in a sort of

diplomatic way because it's very difficult to say to the

private sector: "You can't do it". You can't say that.

Hopefully, we can persuade people to more closely meet the

needs than they do under those circumstances. I agree with the

Member that it is a mitigating force.

As far as the question of the donations, I certainly agree

that that has to be dealt with. We are worried about the other

controls, as the Member says, where a group of people

democratically take a vote. I presume that that can happen

within the institution, and it might be that they are going to

vote to say that nobody smokes in this room, that room or maybe

most rooms. But I would hope that a group of people wouldn't

have rules so tight that other people would be totally

discomforted. I think, particularly in terms of some of....

Again, the communities will be watching this; there isn't going

to be that kind of hard-line dealing with these people. We want

to encourage community care facilities as best we can. That's

one of the reasons we are separating the two areas by virtue of

the fact that we think we can better reflect the needs of the

community.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) discussed the question of the number of

elderly citizens in this area. He also recognizes that there are many areas

in the Capital Regional District where there are a great number of children

who are being served by the community care facilities, so persons attracted

to the board, I don't think, are going to be all that tied up in trying to red

tape themselves or the junior boards to death. I really think what they want

to do, or will want to do, particularly when you consider the fact that they're

going to be representing three departments with all of those needs that will

be naturally in the forefront... it seems to me that those people will want

to obviate as much of the red tape, and not be careless in that regard or callous

in that regard.

Naturally we have to have rules, and people have to stay

within reasonable distance of those rules. The rules will come

later — under the regulations.

One of the reasons we want these two boards is so that

policy material can be fed into the hoppers so that the

regulations can more closely reflect the needs of the two

separate groups.

As far as encouraging new facilities, we think that this is

one of the ways we can do that. We think this is one of the

ways we can talk to the two separate areas and say: "Okay, what

is it you want? What can we do to help you?" You have got to

have two boards to do it.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that and the endorsation, I would

therefore move second reading of Bill 71.

Motion approved.

Bill 71, Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act,

1975, 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 72, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2299 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 72 contains nothing new.

That's a nice little rhyme to start the debate on this

far-reaching bill. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, you would think so. I noticed that an

Act that was a duplicate caught a little bit of flak the last

few days.

Mr. Speaker, in Bill 72 what we have done is actually repeal

the Medical Grant Act, and we've included it in the Medical

Services Act. It was rather ridiculous to have two Acts, one

being a companion, so we have just taken the sections our of

the Medical Grant Act, not changed them in any way, shape or

form, and included them in the Medical Services Act. Therefore,

Mr. Speaker, with that I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 72, Medical Services Amendment Act, 1975, 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 45, Mr. Speaker.

BEE ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

suppose with the combination of the getting-back-to-the-land

movement and with the rapidly increasing cost of sugar, there

has been a tremendous increase in beekeeping in the province.

In 1973 the number of registered apiaries was 1,784. In 1974 it

had increased up to 2,802. In the last six months there has

been 550 new registrations, so the total right now is 3,352.

This doesn't include the number of out-yards that a registered

apiarist might have. One man alone in the province has 220 such

registered out-yards.

So, with this tremendous increase in the number of

beekeepers in the province and additional interest on the part

of the department, particularly to control the spread of

disease, the legislation has been rewritten. It was formerly

called the Apiaries Act; it is now called the Bee Act. I don't

know just exactly why we changed that. Nevertheless, the

emphasis in the rewritten legislation is on the control of

disease.

Formerly, the legislation controlled particularly bees

themselves — maybe I had better not get too far into that now.

In any case, in the new legislation the emphasis is not only on

the bees but also the equipment so that a person even storing

equipment and not having any bees is still required to register

that they have such equipment because the equipment can carry

some of the diseases for years, long after the bees themselves

have been using it.

So, it is to provide for more effective control so that we

will be able to protect the producers, protect the bee industry

in the province and, hopefully, to increase even further the

growth of our honey production in B.C.

I move second reading.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm glad the Minister stopped short of

suggesting anything more for the bees. They've been to the

point now of licensing birds, and now it looks like we might be

unionizing bees. We don't want too much interruption in the

bird-and-bee business in this province.

We appreciate that there has been some concern on the part of apiarists for

some legislation. We also appreciate very much the need for certain controls

in order to ensure a disease-free or, as much as possible, a disease-free industry.

But again we must express our concern that what should be a

good Act, and, in essence, is really an upgrading of the former

Act, still has a strong NDP mark with it.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the legislative counsel

working for this government have a very easy rule to follow

when they are drafting legislation. The recipe for their

legislation is quite simple: you place wider discretion in the

cabinet, you make room for more party hacks on appointed

boards, you diminish or delete appeal procedures, you fix

authority in the statutes to go far beyond the stated intent in

the bill, and you centralize the maximum amount of authority in

Victoria. You take spending powers outside the control of the

Legislature, and you thread the statute through with compulsory

features. It is a quick mix, Mr. Speaker, which I don't feel is

necessary. It tends to make one very wary of what should

otherwise be a very good Act.

In discussing this Act with the various apiarists and other

Members, I find they feel a little concern that it recognizes

virtually every bee in the province. I guess that they are a

little concerned, as we are a little concerned, that the bill

may be going far beyond the stated intent of the Minister,

which is disease control. There is a great danger that every

bee is being brought into the honey pot of the government. The

danger here is that it looks sweet but by the time it comes

into full force, it may create a very sticky situation for the

beekeepers in this province.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: You are right on, Mr. Minister of Finance. The

apiarists are a little concerned that they may get stung by an

Act which they really want to welcome and which we want to

welcome. I thank you for the encouragement of that line.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That really wasn't any

encouragement at all.

MRS. JORDAN: Without going into all the details, one of our

objections would have to be in the Act that it, as I mentioned

before, vests tremendous powers in the Minister, again without

any reference, really, to cabinet. There have been instances in

the past where Ministers have viewed problems from far too

narrow a point of view, and discussion with their cabinet

colleagues and consent of their cabinet colleagues might well

have proved in the better interests of the public and those

whom the Minister was trying to help. This authority to

virtually touch every

section of the beekeeping business,

whether it is a hobby or a professional business in the

province, is here.

It makes one a little concerned when one sees the

[ Page 2300 ]

powers that are vested in the inspectors. I recognize that

the inspectors must have authority to act, but should the

inspectors act and should an apiarist wish to appeal their

decision or the destruction of their hives or their beekeeping

equipment falsely, the appeal procedure is completely

controlled by the Minister. He has the authority to appoint the

head of the apiary culture branch, which will be a new branch,

as I understand it, and another person appointed by the

Minister from among the elected officials of the British

Columbia Honey Producers Association. We certainly agree with

that, but it is another person appointed by the Minister. I

believe it would be much more in the interests of the apiarists

if they, through their membership at large, were even allowed

the opportunity to make a recommendation to the Minister and

then be formally appointed by the Minister.

It is almost an incestuous circle, Mr. Speaker, and I

suggest it is too much power in the hands of the Minister.

There should be an opportunity, particularly with the appeal

procedure, for there to be an assurance to the apiarists of

this province that they are going to get not only a fair

hearing and a non-partisan hearing but a knowledgeable hearing.

There is the danger, based on previous appointments made by

this government, that these will be partisan appointments, with

the exception of those appointed from the association. The

Minister may have trouble finding a party member in that

association. We don't want a partisan beekeeping industry in

this province. It is an industry that has been enjoyed by many

individuals — heaven knows what their party faith or

affiliation, if they have any, is — and it shouldn't enter into

this type of an industry.

It concerns us with these tremendous powers in the bill,

again with the appeal procedure very limited and the

appointment of the appeal board open to such question, that

when you combine that with another

section of the bill where

the Minister has the authority to suggest the size of colonies

and the radius in which colonies may operate for pollination

purposes, this may extend itself to the Minister in fact having

the power and exercising the power to virtually say who can be

in the beekeeping business and who can't and to not only

allotting pollination areas but also to allotting marketing

areas.

It is common knowledge, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, with the number

of honeybees that you have in your area, that the increase in beekeeping is

not only in the commercial basis but it's on a hobby basis. Those who are professional

apiarists do not fear competition in their business. They don't fear fair competition.

They have expressed to me a desire to remain free from the marketing board or

marketing controls other than protection from the dumping of honey on our B.C.

market or what could be considered unfair marketing practices by those outside

the province.

I hope the Minister will make very clear that there is no

intention of using the powers in this Act to subtlety or openly

force the apiarists in this province into any form of greater

organization than they themselves choose by a good majority — a

60 per cent majority — to undertake, and that part of this Act

will not have behind its statements the intention of the

Minister to set up controlled marketing areas. My understanding

is that this is not the wish to those in the business; they, in

fact, fear this type of intrusion by the government.

I must say, in speaking to the principle of the bill, which

the Minister said is designed to not only control the disease

factor, which we do laud, but also to offer protection to the

apiarists in British Columbia, that there's no effort on his

part in this bill or through any other legislation or through

any other order-in-council to offer to them the one assistance

that they have asked for: some financial assistance to build

chain-link fences to protect their hives. I brought this up

under the Minister's estimates and I was not satisfied with his

light dismissal of the whole subject by suggesting that the

chain-link fences were not necessarily that unsatisfactory. I

pose to him that they are the most satisfactory means known to

apiarists at this time. The Minister's estimates made no

indication of any concentrated effort on the part of the

department of financial assistance to the apiarists themselves

to establish a better method of protecting their colonies from

the intrusion of bears.

We know through the newspaper as well as discussions in

various part of the province that the bears in this province,

if they are not on the increase, are certainly feeling the

effects of the spring, are very active and are indeed posing a

severe menace to the beekeepers when they put their colonies

into the various crop areas, whether it's alfalfa, in the fruit

orchards or wherever they choose to put them for pollination

purposes. They are unprotected and a bear can wipe out a whole

colony in a very short period of time. There is no insurance

for this type of loss, and I would suggest that the cost to the

Crown would be very minimal in entering into such a programme

as we see in Alberta or Manitoba, both of which offer some help

to the apiarists in terms of protecting their livelihood —

their whole capital investment — from intrusion by the

bears.

Again, I would suggest that we would like to see — we will

debate this further when we are discussing the bill

section by

section — broader controls on the Minister from making perhaps

unintentional mistakes. We would like to see broader

representation in the appointment of the board of appeal. Also

we would like to see some form of provision in the bill for

compensation for producers who are offended unjustly by

inspectors or any of the Minister's representatives. It's not

beyond the realm of reason

[ Page 2301 ]

to suspect that a new inspector or perhaps improperly

trained inspector might make a mistake in his dec