1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4097 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 44). Second reading,

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4097

Mr. Lockstead –– 4097

Mr. Barrett –– 4097

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4097

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 44). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

section 19 — 4097

Mr. Lockstead

Division on

section 19 –– 4097

On the amendment to

section 33 –– 4098

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Barrett

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Third reading –– 4100

Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 64). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4100

Mr. Howard –– 4101

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4102

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4102

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4102

Division on second reading –– 4102

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980 (Bill 47). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4103

Mr. Barber –– 4103

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4103

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980 (Bill 47). Committee stage.

Division on third reading –– 4103

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980 (Bill 60). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4103

Mr. Howard –– 4103

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4104

Holiday Shopping Regulation Act (Bill 56). Second reading,

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4104

Mrs. Dailly –– 4105

Mr. Nicolson –– 4105

Mr. Mitchell –– 4106

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4107

Division on second reading –– 4107

Land Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 13).

Third reading –– 4108

Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 27).

Third reading –– 4108

Mines Act (Bill 39).

Third reading –– 4108

Municipal Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 54). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 4108

Mr. Barber –– 4109

Appendix –– 4113

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM . Thank you very much. That was a profound message in

prayers this morning, Mr. Speaker. I call second reading of Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. FRASER: This bill could be more properly discussed in committee. I move second reading.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The opposition agrees that the bill is more properly discussed in

committee stage. However, I would point out that I have before me a

copy of the government's amendment to the helmet laws, which is fine.

Everybody in the province, I'm sure, agrees that there should be helmet

laws. However, the proposed amendment to the helmet law sets no

standards whatsoever for helmets in British Columbia. Everybody is well

aware that about 65 percent of the helmets worn by motorcyclists are

substandard. What I'm asking the minister to do now, while he still has

the opportunity in committee stage, is to bring in amendments that

would comply, more or less, with the recommendations in the Godfrey

report, which has been before the motor vehicle branch and the minister

for about a year.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to

impress upon the government that there is no intention by the official

opposition to delay, if you wish to go to immediate committee reading

today, even by leave — especially on the helmet section. As far as

we're concerned, it is sometimes necessary for the normal order of

business to be set aside on a matter like this that does not divide the

House on a partisan basis. It is important that we put back in place

that helmet law throughout the province of British Columbia. Our

position is very clear. We will go immediately to committee stage, if

the government wishes to.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 44.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: I ask leave to refer Bill 44 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

44, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. 1980, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 44; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman. I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, that amendment, as it stands on the order paper, Is out of

order because it is a direct negative. Simply voting against the

section would have the same effect.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

This particular amendment to this bill…. As with so many of the other

government bills that have been brought in, this

section really removes

the power of the Legislature and puts it into the hands of the cabinet.

Quite frankly, our party is opposed to that kind of thing on principle,

because we think, it's to the detriment of democracy and this province.

I therefore suggest that the opposition cannot support

section 19 of

this bill.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 18

Barrett

Howard

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

Mr. Lockstead requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 20 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 4098 ]

Section 27 as amended approved.

Sections 28 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

As I stated in second reading, this

section deals with a very serious

problem, and the minister is aware of the problem. What the government

has failed to do by bringing in these amendments.... I've spent a great

deal of time on this topic, and as I've said, between 60 percent and 65

percent of the helmets worn by motorcyclists on the road today are

unsafe. Some of the helmets worn by cyclists today in fact contribute

to deaths rather than prevent deaths. I've got all the material and

stuff here and I don't want to go through it all again. I did a week or

two ago. What I'm asking now is the minister will give us assurances

that regulations will be brought in, within a reasonable length of

time, governing standards for helmets for cyclists. This is what all

the cyclists out there — the responsible people — are asking. It's all

that's being asked by the group out there, and if the minister will

give me that assurance, we'll eventually pass the amendment.

HON. MR. FRASER:

We've already passed the new regulations. They're in effect, and we'll

be revising them from time to time. They were passed by cabinet Tuesday

night.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you. I haven't seen them.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, it is a difficult situation when I am in favour of the

amendment but not in favour of passing it at this time. The reason for

that is that I think it's proper and correct that helmets should be

worn — anybody who rides a motorcycle without wearing a helmet is very

foolish indeed — but at the same time it was the court that decided

that the helmet law was invalid. The government, I think, has been too

quick to react and to force people to wear helmets. There is a large

body of evidence in Canada and the United States of America that proves

that helmets are not an entire protection: people get killed on

motorcycles whether the head kills them first or injuries to the body.

There's quite a lot of evidence to prove that deaths on motorcycles did

not recede anywhere when helmet laws were introduced. Twenty states in

the American Union have repealed the law. Now we find our law

automatically repealed by the courts, and I think we react too fast. I

think this was an opportunity to wait for a year and see what happened.

Instead of that we fly in to protect people.

I think people have the right to determine their own way of life, and I think

we are too anxious to say "you must do things to save your life."

Why do we not legislate more strongly against alcohol? We tried prohibition,

and it won't work. We know alcohol is more deadly than any motorcycle could

ever be, but we do not legislate, because we can't enforce it. Here we think

we can enforce a law against 44,000 motorcycle riders in British Columbia,

so we take the cudgels and arm ourselves, and we say: "You shall not ride

without a helmet." I think they have the right to have this test of one

year. Although I assure you I will not vote against this section, I think you

moved too quickly.

MR. BARRETT:

With all the best intentions that I can give in interpreting what the

member says, he says — as I wrote it down — that he's in favour of the

amendment, but not right away.

There have been a number of

deaths already. No one can prove, Mr. Member, that the deaths were

caused by the absence of helmets. But the fact is that there have been

an increased number of deaths of helmetless drivers since the court

struck down the requirement.

You say that you want a year's

trial, but you're not prepared to vote against the amendment. Someone

might interpret that as smacking of politics. This is no time for any

interpretation of politics or someone misinterpreting what you are

saying.

There is no question of philosophical difference in

this House about the issue of motorcycle helmets. The regrets we have

are that if there were any way that helmets could have saved those

unfortunate people, the time loss that we legislators are responsible

for may have been a factor. There should be no delay in this House

getting to the business of requiring people to wear helmets when they

drive a motorcycle. There has been the argument of civil rights. It is

this government that passed the law requiring seatbelts to be worn in

the privacy of one's automobile. If you want to sit in the privacy of

your automobile in your driveway without your seatbelt, go ahead. But

when you go on the road and you're driving along, you've made an

invasion of privacy by saying: "Wear your seatbelt." I don't disagree

with that; I voted for it. We've got to have the courage to lay down

standards of what we expect in terms of public application of

responsibility. We tell people what side of the road to drive on. Is

that a violation of civil rights? We paint a line down the middle of

the road and we tell people: "Everybody going this way, drive on one

side; everybody going the other way, drive on the other side." The

point is, Mr. Member, somebody has to lay down some ground rules for

the protection of each other.

The death of a motorcyclist

without a helmet is a final solution. But what about the driver of a

car that hits the motorcyclist, who may be overwhelmed with guilt about

the fact that he has been involved in an accident that contributed to

the death of a motorcyclist? What about the living who are involved in

sharing the highways — not just the dead?

We have a

responsibility as government to do the best we can to ensure that when

public roads are being used and vehicles are being used we lay down

minimum standards. For the life of me, I cannot believe we don't have a

law in this province requiring airbags in automobiles. Proven research

indicates that airbags in automobiles would save lives.

Wear

a helmet. Use some common sense. Let's get on with it. It's got nothing

to do with NDP or Social Credit. Let's get this thing through as

quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE: I certainly don't

want to delay this legislation, but the member for Dewdney mentioned

statistics. I believe we should read into the record some of the

statistics. He mentioned none; he just referred vaguely to them.

In British Columbia during the last year there were 42 motorcycle fatalities; that's less than one a week. In the last

[ Page 4099 ]

week

there have been six. In the states of Iowa and Illinois, which are side

by side, the ratio of deaths, Iowa to Illinois, is 1 to 3. Iowa has

helmet laws; Illinois does not. Washington state, right south of us,

had helmet laws; they repealed them and the deaths doubled. I think

those statistics speak for themselves.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about the urgency of this. I anticipate

that the members of the House will give leave that this bill be

reported immediately afterward. But I want assurance from the House

Leader that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor or the Administrator

will be brought into the House today to give assent to this bill in

order that it can go through in the most efficient time possible.

Then

that member's asking for leave to put this through under the guise of

urgency shows that this government has not only wasted time in bringing

this in; it continues to waste time, and it isn't really serious about

getting through with this in the most urgent manner possible. I ask

that member to phone the Administrator or the Lieutenant-Governor.

Surely the potential saving of lives is going to be well justified. I'm

sure that can be done today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will

not comment on the last remark, because that responsibility, I think,

rests with the House Leader. I speak briefly only as one who rode

motorcycle a great deal and, in spite of advancing years, I hope to

continue to do so, more likely off-street than on-street. I happily

purchased and wore a motorcycle helmet before they became law, and I

agree with a number of remarks which have been made on both sides of

the House. It is one of those rare occasions when I agree with what the

Leader of the Opposition has said, except when he alluded to the

possibility, whether it is interpreted or not, that the member for

Dewdney was moved to speak for political purposes. I've known that

member for a few years, but not as long as some members, Mr. Chairman.

I know that he speaks from his heart. He expresses a view which

obviously is not going to find favour with the majority of people in

this House today but, nonetheless, as an hon. member he is entitled to

speak as he did. I disagree with him, but surely that's what democracy

is all about.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I urge

the most speedy passage of this. One would be tempted to speak at

greater length. I simply say that the overruling of this in court, with

the need for this legislation, is to be regretted. I believe that the

government has moved very promptly in terms of doing that which is

necessary and, not finding that there is a likelihood, in haste, we

indeed would find that we would have to bring in yet another amendment

in the next day or two, or perhaps find that we would have to wait a

little longer. I support the amendment, but again, I respect any member

who stands up and expresses very sincerely what is at the moment an

unpopular point of view.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I thank the

hon. Minister of Finance. I'm surprised when I see the Leader of the

Opposition taking up the cudgels so strongly in favour of a government

motion and attacking the member for Dewdney. It's all right to do that.

You must not forget, hon. members of this House, that I do not speak

with the idea of people losing their lives; I speak because we are

moving a motion that is not substantiated by fact. I could show you

within half an hour the situation in the United States of America and

the situation that is happening in Manitoba this day, where their act

has been repealed. I could show you beyond proof that helmets do not

save lives of motorcyclists. It is true that when the law is removed,

such as it is now, there is a certain euphoria that goes out and there

are more people killed. When this settles out there are less.... More

people are killed because of helmets than with them.

Here we

are legislating something we don't know anything about. The majority of

people in this House have an idea that they know about motorcycles. The

hon. Minister of Finance has ridden a motorcycle: so have I. A few

have. A few here are so adamant and so thoughtless as to consider that

they know all about the situation when they know very little. They do

not know that a helmet restricts hearing and causes accidents. They do

not know that a helmet restricts vision and causes and creates

accidents. Helmets do save some, but lose others.

In Victoria, there were two deaths recently. One was with a helmet; one was without. It's impossible to legislate.... I'm

not saying that we should not have them. I feel they are additional

safety. But here was an opportunity to wait and see what the helmet law

would do. I don't think that helmet law saved a single life. It may

save one life, but loses another. It may save one accident, but creates

another. I think that we're trying to legislate something that we don't

know anything about. I think we should encourage, by advertising, by

word-of-mouth, by all these things, to.... Anybody that didn't, in my

opinion, use a helmet has to be very foolish. But there are a lot of

things done foolishly. And we shouldn't be here to legislate every

little thing that comes up. I don't think this House does itself great

credit in doing so.

I take issue with the member for

Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), when he

said: "Why don't they put air bags in automobiles?" Well, that just

goes to show, hon. friends, how little he knows about this thing and

many other things. Why don't they put airbags in automobiles? Let me

tell you why. By absolute proof they only work seven-tenths of the

time; the other three-tenths of the time they don't work. It is no good

having a thing in your car to save your life and three chances out of

ten it won't work. That's why airbags aren't used. Seat belts always

work if you have them on. They always work. Hon. members, airbags also

go off when....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Correct. The hon. member coaches me and he's quite correct. They also

are released without warning any time. That's quite a serious situation

when suddenly you don't see. But the hon. member uses the analogy of an

automobile seatbelt with a motorcycle....What a ridiculous analogy!

an automobile, you're in a container which is fortified against

accidents. At just 45 kilometres an hour, if you have a collision with

a seat belt on and a shoulder strap, you're reasonably safe in an

automobile. But if you didn't have a seat belt on, you're almost

certain to be dead, or badly hurt.

[ Page 4100 ]

There's no such thing as an analogy between motorcycle helmets and seat belts.

Motorcycle

helmets will save some accidents, but they create others. That's the

test that time should prove to us in British Columbia. We've had the

act. Now it's off, and it should remain off for a year.

I still say it is foolish to ride a motorcycle without one. That's my opinion. But it is not substantiated by evidence and fact.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'd like to address a few remarks to the committee, Mr. Chairman, and

specifically to the member for Dewdney. I'm quite happy with the speed

we've got to so far with this very important amendment, and I can't

agree with the member for Dewdney that we wait and see. We're only

amending what happened in a court case; the legislation, I'd point out

to the member, has been there for a long time, and this court case has

caused the amendment we're looking at.

I have just a final

observation. A number of states in the United States have rescinded the

motorcycle helmet-wearing laws, and they found a 46 percent jump in

motorcycle deaths between 1976 and 1979 in the states that have done

this. So I don't think that that's the road to go, and I would urge

unanimous approval of this amendment, including the member for Dewdney.

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 44, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendments.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House now.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House Leader if we

could have the expectation of this bill being given assent today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That depends upon the availability of either His Honour or the Administrator.

Leave granted.

Bill 44, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 64.

HORSE RACING TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

(continued)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Yesterday evening when this debate was adjourned, I was proposing to

respond to some of the concerns expressed by the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) with respect to this bill.

First

of all, she quite property wondered in the course of her remarks about

the regulations which would be necessary in order to carry the

intention of the legislation forward. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that

the studies which we've undertaken into this matter have touched upon

matters relating to not only the Ministry of Finance but also the

Ministry of the Attorney-General, because it is under the latter

ministry that the B.C. Racing Commission exercises its responsibility —

and in the establishment of the regulations, Madam Member, the

government will be relying upon the recommendations and advice of the

B.C. Racing Commission. They are a body which has continued to

receive increasing recognition and support from the horse-racing

industry, they are people who are knowledgeable with respect to racing,

and the government will rely upon their recommendations in establishing

the basis upon which the fund will be distributed and administered. The

member will note that under the legislation the B.C. Racing Commission

will be responsible for the administration of all of these funds; they

will not, as has been the case, be divided for administration between

the commission and another segment of the industry.

The

member also wondered how it could be that the government responded with

this legislation when it hadn't been asked for. Well, the member is not

quite accurate in understanding what was asked for and the

representations that were made during the course of a study which was

undertaken on this important matter. The member must also recognize

that the study of these issues began in 1977 and there were a number of

representations made from a variety of sources long before the study

announced by my colleague, Mr. Gardom, was made in March 1978. As a

result of those earlier recommendations and representations, this

Legislature moved to provide for a reduction in the provincial take-out

of parimutuel taxes by 1 percent.

The suggestion which has

been made more recently that we should again respond by providing for a

reduction in the take-out of parimutuel tax really failed to recognize

the fact that the government had already anticipated the wisdom of such

a move. The suggestion which was referred to in the House by the member

was that if there was a modification of the take-out of tax, that would

suddenly result in an increase of returns of moneys to the bettors;

they in turn would bet more money, and therefore the parimutuel

revenues would increase because more money would be put through the

machines. That is entirely speculative. While it has happened

everywhere else — the member is quite right — it also happened

following the reduction in tax made in 1979.

The difficulty

that arises is that the uncertainty in such a move and the way in which

the funds flow in that method result in a very small part of the

reduced government tax flowing through to the horsemen in the way of

purse increases. It is estimated at the most optimistic that if you

reduce the tax by 1 percent, you might increase the handle by $10

million. A $10 million handle increase only increases the

[ Page 4101 ]

purses

in the thoroughbred field by $450,000. It fails to take into account

the fact that the amount of money that flows from the operators of the

race-track for purses is a matter of agreement made from time to time

between the operator of the track and the horsemen. I am advised that

in Exhibition Park they are in the second or perhaps the third year of

a five-year agreement,

whereas in standard-bred racing, the agreements

are adjusted every year.

I therefore would urge the House to

recognize that the move which is being made in this legislation is one

which is designed to provide direct assistance to the owners of horses

which are bred and raced in this province and to the people who are

breeding horses in this province. The publicity that has been given has

suggested that this is going to cause chaos in the industry. That comes

from people who are not prepared to recognize that the development of a

strong racing industry and a strong breeding industry in this province

is something which requires some time. Yes, there are not very many

horse breeders in this province. One of the difficulties is that it is

a very expensive operation and one which will take time to develop.

This initiative is one in which, while it will provide immediate

assistance to the owners of horses that race in the province, the

benefits with regard to the breeding industry — which is the whole

substance of racing — will accrue in the fullness of time. When the

announcement was made that additional funds would be available for this

purpose, it was made quite clear that one of the responsibilities of

the racing commission will be to monitor the way in which the breeding

industry responds to this initiative and provides better breeding stock

for racing in this province.

I should also point out that in

the bill the funds, while they have no longer been identified

specifically for the two purposes, are nonetheless to be used for the

improvement of racing in this province. It must be recognized that in

the operation of a breeding industry it is eminently desirable that the

breeder societies be strengthened, because it is through the breeder

societies that auctions of horses are conducted and that improvement in

the industry generally can be achieved.

There is also the

provision for grants with regard to operators of race-tracks, and I

would ask you to recognize that in addition to the major tracks in the

province which operate for many racing days throughout the year, there

are other tracks which are essential to the proper development of a

racing industry in the province located in Victoria, Vernon, Princeton,

Kamloops, Williams Lake and Osoyoos. Because those tracks have only a

very few racing days, it is not possible for them to function in the

same way as the major tracks, which have a much longer season.

Therefore from time to time assistance is required.

conclusion, I might refer to some of the comments which were made

during the course of the study that was undertaken into the subject.

Mr. Marvin W. Hamilton of the B.C. Thoroughbred Breeders Society said:

"We need hundreds of better animals in our province. This

is certainly a measure of bankruptcy in our industry. United States- and Ontario-bred

animals continue to dominate the major races in British Columbia, and in 1979

won 37 out of 44 open-stake races. It is very pathetic."

Initiatives such

as the one we have before you, Mr. Speaker, are designed to ensure that the

measure of bankruptcy — as Mr. Hamilton refers to the issue — is drastically

reduced.

One of the other members of the racing fraternity, Mr. Dan Kenny, offered this advice:

" I'm just saying as a warning that at a time when British

Columbia racing is virtually completely dependent on B.C.-bred thoroughbreds

to staff its race cards, its precious raw material is being exported because

it's just a losing proposition. I see a revolving door where people come in

and take a peek at the racing game, but it's certainly no long-term break-even

proposition. "

The

industry is important to the province. It employs directly some 2,600

persons; indirectly, it's impossible to measure. It is recognized as an

increasing segment of the agricultural community, and it is an industry

which survives on the basis that the breeders and owners of those

horses which are successful will be the ones who can function

economically. I think it is important that this be recognized, and that

financial stability be provided through the funds which come to

government, which are provided by the people who bet on races in this

province.

MR. HOWARD: There are a couple of basic and

fundamental reasons why we think the bill should not be supported. They

don't have to do with the necessity or the desirability of promoting

and assisting the breeding and raising of race horses in the province.

They have to do with two things, one a fact of economics and the other

a fact of political activity or political fault — not in a partisan

way, but because of the governmental structure which relates to this.

Basically,

the bill deals with a tax and the distribution of that tax, or a

portion of it. The portion of that tax which is distributed is a

subsidy — assistance, if one wants to use a more polite word — that is

theoretically designed to assist those who want to breed race horses

and raise them in British Columbia. It goes almost without saying that

a subsidy of this nature, resulting from taxation that is distributed

in a general way, always tends to help the larger firms and breeders,

those well-established, those who have a better record of wins at the

race-track. It does not help those who may want to get started; it

doesn't help the small person, the person who may want to commence

activity in the field of breeding or raising race horses. It's for that

reason that I think one should look with skepticism upon the effect

that this will have. It will seek to confirm the established firms.

Those that the accounting and computer accounting of this done by

McAfee, Lilly and Co. show the highest earnings, those that show the

highest number of wins at the racetrack, will be helped more, and

probably to the exclusion of the small breeder or the person who wants

to get into the breeding of race horses.

The second reason

for objecting to it is the proposal with respect to regulations. In

other words, this reflects once again the desire of this government to

do more and more things in the area of government by order-in-council,

rather than by legislative action within this assembly. It is a move

towards consolidating the bigness and the authoritarianism of

government itself.

When you tend to do more and more things

by order-in-council. you tend more and more to do them in private —

more and more to do them with different kinds of considerations that

would normally be available in the Legislature itself.

The proposal with respect to

section 3 of the bill which seeks to add an additional authority to the Lieutenant-

[ Page 4102 ]

Governor-

in-CounciI — namely, to establish a formula or other programs for the

distribution by the minister of the funds derived as a result of this

bill — just leaves too many questions unanswered, too many doubts, too

many concerns about the effectiveness of this particular piece of

legislation. We fear very, very much that for those who are listed as

having been the big winners in the past — I don't want to read through

any of the names, but they are there; some of them are very notable and

prominent families in British Columbia — and who are in the horse

racing business, the bill will just simply, in our view, regardless of

what the Attorney-General said about the generosity that may be in

there, seek to enrich the position of those who already dominate the

horse racing industry and will do practically nothing in the way of

assisting those who may want to get into the horse breeding business or

those who are, in a very small way, in it at the moment.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I just rise to make a few comments on this from a bettor's

standpoint. I've been following the races at Hastings Park for 35 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say debtor or bettor?

HON. MR. FRASER: Bettor!

want to tell you, first of all, that they operate a fine place. They

have the best setting in the western world for a track, and I think

they do an excellent job. Every day of racing — about 115 in a year —

the public of British Columbia bets an average of a million dollars. So

I think the public of the province appreciates what goes on there. Of

course, we have them here later on in the year at Sandown, and we have

races once in a while at Kamloops, Princeton and Williams Lake. But the

big apple, as they say, is Exhibition Park, and I think they operate an

excellent place.

This bill will assist and encourage

B.C.-breds, and that's why I'm in full support of it. We have a large

industry here that's always struggling, and this will only assist it. I

believe the Attorney-General said there is also an employment base here

of some 2,600 people, and everybody appreciates what they do there.

want to make a point, though, that the opposition has been trying to

make: that certain people — the large operator — get all the rewards or

the benefits. That isn't necessarily so at all, Mr. Speaker. It might

have been, but I can tell you that the large operator who's been

referred to here isn't going to have very much money coming to him in

1980, because his horses are running last. Under that situation he

doesn't get any benefits. Those are the risks that you take in horse

racing. One year might be good, but....

Basically this helps the small operator, and that's who I hope it'll help and who it was designed to help.

One

observation that I would like to make — and I don't get any tips from

them, Mr. Speaker — is that I hope this bonus money.... I understand

that in some cases the owners share with the jockeys and in some cases

they don't. I think that should be considered by the racing commission

— that the jockeys get their share. There are contracts, and they get

their share on the purse money. It's an agreement between the owner and

the jockey. But I understand that in some cases they don't get their

share of the bonus money, and I think, through the ministers, they

should see through the Racing Commission that they not be denied that

extra....

MRS. WALLACE: Don't hold your breath!

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I think it should be a condition that could be written in regulations; that's what I'm getting at.

With that, I'll sit down. I certainly fully support this fine industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share a confidence with the House. It goes this way:

The owner told Clarence the clocker,

The clocker told jockey Magee,

The jockey, of course, passed it on to the horse,

And the horse told me.

What

I've heard is that this bill is not only supported by the breeders and

the jockeys; it's supported by the horses as well. Win, place or show,

it's a great bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I know better than to attempt to do better than that.

The

point made by my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser), who attends the track more than I do, has raised a

point which I am quite certain will be taken into account as

regulations are drafted. This is an important industry in British

Columbia. We see this as a means of assisting those who are functioning

in a very small way in the industry. I think that the skepticism which

has been expressed on this will evaporate as it is seen to function in

the way in which both sides of the House would intend.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 15

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

64, Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading on Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4103 ]

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: We had a touch of humour when this bill was introduced. I'm sure there will be continuing remarks.

have extensive briefing notes in the event that anyone wishes in

committee to make an inquiry with respect to a specific aspect of the

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980.

Without violating second

reading rules, I would draw the attention of all hon. members to the

fact that this act comes into force on proclamation. Therefore, in the

event it is found that there is even a minor problem with one

particular section, then corrective action can be taken at the

proclamation stage.

The deregulation

section of the ministry

has laboured at length to produce the list which is before all hon.

members today. I think that in virtually every case they would be

self-explanatory. I would like to pay tribute to the deregulation

staff, the deputy ministers and other senior staff in the ministries

where a particular act is proposed for repeal. Through deregulation and

through the ministry this year we have gone to the ministries concerned

and the deputies have signed off the particular piece of legislation

which is suggested for repeal.

With those brief remarks and

with the undertaking that if there is a specific question on any

particular part, perhaps that could be dealt with in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 47.

MR. BARBER:

Having some interest in this field, I wish to observe that the minister

put it, to say the least, charitably when he described deputy ministers

being required to, in his language, "sign off" those sections in this

bill which may, in some fashion, originate from or touch upon the work

of their ministry. I heard it quite differently. I heard it that the

Minister of Finance told the deputy ministers that their necks —

although he did not use the word "necks" — were on the line, and that

they were required, in fact obligated, to sign a piece of paper

guaranteeing in writing…

AN HON. MEMBER: And in blood.

MR. BARBER: …and

almost in blood, that never again will the government be subject to the

embarrassment of the Seaboard fiasco, which required a special session

of this Legislature. I understand the strictest orders deputies have

received for a long time went out from the minister to guarantee that

such embarrassment would not be suffered again. I congratulate him for

the initiative and I understand his precaution. We'll support the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the member for the remark, Mr. Speaker. I do move second reading of Bill 47.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker. I ask leave to refer Bill 47 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

47, Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act. 1980. read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT. 1980

The House in committee on Bill 47; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

47, Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Barrett

Howard

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Mussallem

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Brown

Hanson

Mitchell

Hyndman

NAYS — 1

Barber

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading on Bill 60. Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1980

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, as the members are

aware, is traditional in this House. It contains amendments, some of

them minor and some of them not so minor, with respect to a range of

statutes under the responsibility of several ministers. It is more

appropriately dealt with in the section-by-section debate in committee.

So saying, I move second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Speaker, I would just comment that that is the appropriate course of

action with a bill such as this, which doesn't mean that we endorse the

concept of lumping all and sundry into one bill and seeking to say that

it then has any principle. You have got a multiplicity of principles in

here and some of them have no principles whatsoever. But in terms of

being able to deal with them at the appropriate stage, obviously

committee stage is the way to go.

[ Page 4104 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

60, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I call second reading of Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

HOLIDAY SHOPPING REGULATION ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The question of the regulation of shopping hours in this and other

jurisdictions has been the subject of concern and consideration in a

variety of ways for many, many years. In the research into this entire

subject it was found that the first attempt on the part of government

to regulate shopping hours in any regard began back in the middle of

the fifteenth century. The principal concern which has been expressed

with respect to holiday shopping regulation, however, has, of course,

centred around Sunday. This legislation is introduced within the limits

of the Lord's Day Act, the federal statute which permits provinces, by

their own legislation, to deal with those aspects of business

enterprise which are not covered under the federal act. The matter has

come to the attention of government on a number of occasions. The

Lord's Day Act, as has been so often stated, is an antique, archaic and

unenforceable piece of legislation at the provincial level. The

difficulty of establishing whether or not any particular business

activity falls within the very general words of the Lord's Day Act,

plus the insignificant penalties for breach of that statute, combine to

contribute to its unenforceability.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

matter was reviewed by the government of British Columbia back in 1975,

and it was believed at that time that authority existed through

municipal bylaws to deal with the matter of Sunday shop-closing.

Careful consideration of that opinion, however, Mr. Speaker, raises

serious questions as to its validity. As a consequence, in 1976 the

Attorney-General began to consider this matter in depth. Examination

was made of the various legislative attempts which had been introduced

over the years, in this province and other jurisdictions, to deal with

this particular matter. It was concluded that there were three options.

One

was to provide that with respect to holidays, including Sundays, all

business enterprise should cease. The second option, obviously, was

that all businesses should be allowed to function on any holiday,

including a Sunday. The third option was that there should be some

control, throughout the province, exercised in a way which would be

understandable throughout the various communities in British Columbia.

When

considering that option we examined the approach which had been taken

in the province of Ontario, where a provincial standard was established

subject, in certain limited respects, to modification at the municipal

level. We found, when considering the Ontario approach, that since

their legislation has been in place the government of the province has

received repeated and growing numbers of requests to expand the numbers

and classes of businesses which should be permitted to be open on

holidays in that province. The list has grown to an additional 25

classes of business that have made serious representation to the

government of Ontario for the opening of the legislation and the

expansion of the list of permitted classes of business.

the course of the examination, we considered, to the extent that any

flexibility is permitted in the shopping hours in this province, that

it has been bestowed upon the municipalities under the Municipal Act.

Therefore, considering the Ontario experience and what has been the

limited experience in this province, and taking into account that in

1979 the Union of British Columbia Municipalities at its annual

convention dealt with this subject and motions were passed indicating

that 60 percent of the municipalities in the province desired to have

the opportunity to regulate these matters within the municipality, the

government was encouraged, in considering the third option — that is,

having some regulation of retail operations on holidays — to have that

regulation placed in the hands of municipal governments. Throughout

this province it would enable them to take into account the special

needs and wishes of their residents and to provide for those residents

the particular services which they felt were essential.

order to ensure that this important subject was not treated lightly, a

provision was made for the matter to be placed before the electors in

the municipalities for their assent before any such bylaw could be

introduced. That legislation was introduced in this House. For the

first time the people of the province of British Columbia had the

opportunity of considering a specific bill which would touch upon the

matter of holiday shopping regulation and, in particular, the impact it

would have on Sundays.

I was not surprised, and I don't

think any member of this House would have been surprised, at the

response. Quite obviously the regulation of holiday shopping — and in

particular on Sundays — is a matter of serious concern to a large

segment of the people in this province.

Church groups made strong representations about the legislation.

There

was an ad hoc committee established composed of representatives of

church organizations throughout the province; the trade unions, of

course, were concerned about persons who were being required to work on

Sundays; and retail merchants, who believed that six days of shopping

activity were certainly sufficient, made their representations.

Representations

were also received from municipalities. It became clear that the

municipalities, having seen the opportunity which was extended to them

and recognizing the problems that it could create for them in the

preparation and adoption of a bylaw which would permit even limited

retail operations in the municipalities, would be severe.

a consequence, the government, having reviewed all of these matters,

and recognizing that this was the first opportunity that the people of

British Columbia, throughout the length and breadth of the province,

had had to focus their attention on this particular issue, felt it

appropriate to respond by withdrawing the previous legislation and

bringing forth Bill 56, which we now have before us.

This

legislation accommodates the concerns of those people who recognize

that there has been, over the years, a level of retail activity carried

on in our various communities

[ Page 4105 ]

which has become accepted. It recognizes that that acceptance is almost universal throughout the province.

There

is also the recognition that it should be unnecessary for a

municipality to enact a bylaw and to obtain the assent of its electors

to such a bylaw to provide for those classes of retail operation which

appear to have become accepted within the community. It also recognizes

that there are exceptions which may arise in various areas or

communities of this province where, by reason of weather, the kind of

activities which take place in particular areas of the province

throughout the year, or at varying times of the year, there may be the

need for — indeed, the desire on the part of people who visit those

areas to have — shopping opportunities.

Therefore in Bill 56

the government has proposed that a standard be established which will

be province-wide, and the

schedule to this legislation lists those

classes of retail business which may be open to the public and offer

their goods for sale on holidays. The holidays, of course, are defined

in the legislation. The bill goes on to provide, as did the previous

legislation, that if a municipality desires to expand beyond the

scheduled list by specifying by bylaw certain additional classes of

retail business which should be open in that community, then it may

propose such a bylaw, but, as in the previous bill, in order for it to

be enacted, it will require the assent of the electors in that

municipality. The classification technique for retail businesses for

inclusion in such a bylaw would give the municipality the right to

designate a particular area within the municipality where businesses

can be carried on. This is to accommodate those communities which have

had developed within them shopping areas which are principally designed

for the tourists who come to the community.

Of course, the

bill does not and cannot touch those retail businesses which the Lord's

Day Act of Canada permits to be open; they must continue. But the

principal areas touched by that bill have been largely replaced by this

legislation, at least to the extent that it touches upon the retail

industry.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that those retail

businesses which will be open are those which we have come to recognize

as being necessary for the conduct of day-to-day life in this province:

small food stores; fresh fruit and vegetables: drugstores with the

hygienic, cosmetic and therapeutic goods which they normally sell;

automobile servicing; the servicing of holidaying travelers, whether it

be the supplying of goods, servicing of vehicles, or providing meals

and living accommodation.

Of course, on holidays it has

become a part of our way of life that pursuits of educational,

recreational, and cultural activities carry on. Holidays are an

opportunity for people to take advantage of many of the special

features in our society, so such educational, cultural, recreational

and amusement functions are allowed to continue, That last aspect is

included in the legislation because there is doubt as to whether or not

they are proscribed by the Lord's Day Act of Canada.

I think

that the exercise of introducing Bill 8 and then withdrawing it and

replacing it with this legislation has been a good one. There will be

those who will suggest that the government has been obliged to change

its mind; if that is the way you look at it, so be it. I think,

however, that in the legislative process there have been a number of

occasions when, quite properly, persons affected by legislation and

persons who have a particular interest in it have made their views

known in such a way to government and to the members of the Legislature

so that changes are introduced, and this is a part of the process we

should never lose.

I certainly make no apologies in any

respect for having taken a second, careful look at Bill 8 and modifying

it based upon sincere and responsible representations made from the

people of this province. In so saying, I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition does not intend to support this

so-called new piece of legislation, primarily because it is not a new

piece of legislation, in our opinion. The reasons for our opposition to

the first piece of legislation still remain. The basis of our

opposition was that the government should not allow each municipality,

city, village, etc., in our province to be able to go to referendum and

set their own regulations re the holiday shopping hours. We believe

it's going to create a mess when you have one municipality with certain

shops open and others not. That was our basic concern. At the time, we

said this government does not have the courage to face up to this. So

what we have here is a presentation to the opposition and the people of

the province of a so-called new bill. Unfortunately, I think many

people who objected to the first bill, along with the opposition,

actually think, because of the type of presentation of this bill, that

they really have a major change, but they have not.

We are

still going to have problems in this province with the appearance of

open shopping hours in one area — late shopping hours, etc., on

holidays particularly — and then the closing in the neighbouring

municipality. So I don't understand why the Attorney-General even

bothered to bring this bill back before the House. I find it rather

ironic that the Attorney-General suggests to this House that the first

bill was simply an exercise for public involvement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say that.

MRS. DAILLY:

The Attorney-General says he didn't say that. May I say that my

interpretation, and the

interpretation of many people sitting here,

would be that he did. There was an implication that they brought in

this bill, sat on it and then made a change — we dispute that any

change was made, of course — and it was a marvellous exercise in the

public being able to approach government. That's a very interesting

excuse, Mr. Speaker, for very unpopular legislation. The government

realized that the legislation, as they worded it, was unpopular —

finally, after they had had thousands of letters written to them.

But

I must repeat the irony of this whole exercise: basically nothing has

been changed. It makes you wonder what has happened over there. Were

there arguments in the caucus? Was this supposed to be just a

palliative measure, hoping people would think the government had

listened to them? They have not listened to the people of the province

who wrote. Basically we consider that it is going to open up the whole

province for a chaotic mess on holidays and Sundays. That's why we

object to it strenuously, as we did with the first piece of legislation.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, there's no essential difference between this bill and the

first offering of the government. This bill offends people of

fundamentalist Christian belief, and I think that party would be well

advised to look back at their roots. I well remember the roots of a

very good friend of mine, a fine Baptist lady. The first I ever heard

of Social Credit was when I was playing canasta with her son and she

came home from a meeting where she had met people like Lyle Wicks and

Mr. Chant and had heard of a newcomer

[ Page 4106 ]

the movement, W.A.C. Bennett, and speculations and things around that

time, the very early fifties. She explained to me that the party was a

combination of Christian belief and political purpose.

For those people there can be no greater signal that this is a party that has lost its original roots and thinking.

Whether

I agree or disagree with that aspect of it, I think that a party that

has no philosophy is simply a party of opportunism and has no other

belief than that. They brought in something which they appeared to

believe in at one time; now they're trying to convince people that they

have changed and that they have responded to certain public pressures.

In the first instance, they have offended people of fundamental

Christian belief.

I heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) say: "Listen to the people."

Well, I certainly do listen to the people who are most fundamentally

involved and affected by this kind of legislation, the people employed

in the Safeways, the Super-Valus and the many other retail outlets who

do not presently have to work on Sunday. At least there is maybe one

day when husband and wife.... Today, especially with the cost of

housing, people absolutely depend on two salaries in a family. It is

the one day that two people in a family can be together with their

children.

This bill allows municipalities and regional districts to opt out. In the areas outside of the lower mainland.... Certainly

the problems in the lower mainland are very obvious. What happens if

Richmond opts for it? What kind of pressure does that place on

Vancouver, Burnaby, Delta and other surrounding areas?

Under

this act, if a regional district opts to expand its terms of reference

to Sunday shopping, in, my riding there will be eight municipalities

under pressure to conform to the kind of precedent that would be set by

a regional district, in order to prevent fringe development. So there

will be a domino effect.

Why do we bother to have a

provincial government if there are not some powers that rest most

responsibly with the provincial government? Surely this is one of them.

It is desirable to have a uniformity of standards in a case such as

this. I cannot think of an instance when I have been seriously

inconvenienced by a Sunday closing of some particular type of

enterprise indigenous to one particular part of the province and not to

another.

Mr. Speaker, I think that there should be

strict adherence to this schedule. I look at this schedule; I think

it's a reasonable schedule. There should not be an opting out —

municipality by municipality — a domino effect, or the tremendous

pressure that could be created if a regional district were to come up

with a decision that could virtually force.... In my area, the Regional

District of Central Kootenay, it could force eight other municipalities

to follow suit simply because it would be against their interest to

allow and encourage fringe development beyond their own borders. It is

desirable to maintain viable centres of development along the

traditionally created areas, and this is a.... I don't know what the

minister is doing. I think that, because of Harry Hammer, and the way

in which he's managed to cause problems for the city of Vancouver or

the lower mainland, we have somehow taken this rather small, rather

manageable problem and tried to deal with it in the most compromising,

weak-kneed way, and this is the result. This result is going to lead to

changing Canada.... One of the things I'm proud about in Canada.... One

of the things I'm struck by when I visit the United States is the

absolute wide-openness. If you go to The Bon in Seattle, or some other

store, look at how empty those stores are on Sunday. It's just an added

expense. Eventually, when this domino effect runs its full course — it

might not happen in the next year or two, but it eventually will —

we'll see empty stores on Sunday, after the novelty has worn off. We

will be paying for it as consumers, and we'll be paying heavily.

this piece of legislation is just simply abrogating the responsibility

of a provincial government. What we might as well do is have only two

levels of government. If we're not going to stand up here and say that

this is one area where the provincial government has to set a standard

around the province, we might as well just bow right out of the picture

and have a federal government and city-states, and nothing in between.

Forget

about whether we should have jurisdiction over resources. If we can't

exert our jurisdiction in an area as simple and obvious as this, then I

don't think we need use our legislative powers at all. For that reason,

because I believe that we do have a role to play as a provincial

government, and because this begs off the question, I certainly will be

voting against this bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I would also

like to rise and add my voice in opposition to this bill, for one main

reason. Basically the Lord's Day Act and the shopping closing act was a

labour holiday. It was a labour holiday for the unorganized, the one-,

two- and three-family businesses. It was a chance for people to have at

least one day in a week to be together as a family.

When you

study this particular bill, the dangers and complete chaotic conditions

that will happen throughout the province.... In my own riding we have a

possibility of six different shopping regulations. It's not only a

regional district, but it's an electoral area within a regional area.

In my own riding not only do I have one municipality, but I have five

electoral areas. In some municipalities you can buy certain goods; in

another electoral area you'll be able to buy other goods. But nowhere

will there be any consistency. Nor will there be any regulation that

will be enforceable for either society or those who are called on to

enforce it — the police. As they drive around in one area there'll be a

boundary where in one place you can buy tools and across the street you

can buy lumber, but you can't buy lumber on one side of the street and

you can't buy a shovel on the other. That is exactly what you're going

to have. According to the section, it is the electoral area within the

regional district. Each of these electoral areas can set up their

bylaws and what they want to add to

schedule 8.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine trying to enforce some thing like that? This bill

also allows drugstores to stay open, but what are the drugstores selling today?

Are you going to enforce closing off all the various sections of a drugstore

that are selling articles not in this schedule, that are not hygienic or pharmaceutical

goods? Take what the drugstores are selling today: cameras, binoculars, stereo

cassette decks, calculators, plumbing supplies, tools, oil, car parts.

You will have chaotic conditions in allowing so many variations of what can

be sold, what areas can sell it, what type of businesses can be left open. Maybe

it is not intended to be that way, but when it actually comes to enforcement,

unless

[ Page 4107 ]

there is something in the bill that closes off sections of drugstores, you are going to have it wide open.

you are going to have it wide open, let's have it wide open throughout

the province. If you are going to maintain some type of order, let's

have that order. Either the whole province enjoys the right to one day

off work.... Employees who are not unionized, not organized and not

militant, because of their employment in a business that is not

organized, are forced to come to work, to break up their families, to

do things to maintain an economic standard of living that they have

grown accustomed to. As the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)

said, because of the high cost of homes today, so many have to work.

Let's not make it any harder for those people who have to work. Let's

not leave that thin little crack where a wedge can be put in to break a

standard of living, to break us down to everyone working. That is a

cost that I don't think society can afford.

I don't think

society needs the extra days to spend money shopping. I know that if I

need anything — if I need lumber, if I need tools, if I need cement, if

I need oil — I can get it. But when you leave this wide open....

When

you have a drugstore which is selling oil, plumbing supplies, cassette

recorders and furniture, and across the street you have some other

store that is selling nursery supplies — shrubs and plants; I think

they're going to be selling not only shrubs and plants, but also

fertilizer, shovels and everything that goes along with it; again, it

will be in the hardware business — it's going to be chaotic for the

police or for any bylaw enforcement officer who has to enforce it.

say that if we're going to have legislation, let's have legislation

that covers all of British Columbia; let's have legislation that is

fair; let's have legislation that is just. Let us not allow the chaotic

conditions this legislation is going to cause when it's enforced, as it

will be over the years, in a haphazard manner.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, may I just say a couple of things in closing about the

remarks from the members. I wish to assure the member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly) that Bill 8 was never introduced simply as an exercise,

and I didn't mean to suggest that. Very careful consideration was

given, as I said, to a number of options that were available, and the

selection was made based upon what was considered to be an appropriate

and acceptable way of dealing with this matter of holiday shopping

regulation.

I'm delighted there was the response that there

was; I'm delighted that there were thousands of letters, because it

gave the government the clear opportunity to consider the option it had

selected, and to make a change. Now the member says it's not a change.

The member has said there will be chaos. I've never known a party so

concerned with chaos. They want to regulate everything from here in

Victoria: nothing can be done unless Victoria says. But it means that

these members have not listened to the people who came to these

buildings and who wrote letters about this problem. Who came? The

municipal people came and said: "We would like you to prescribe a

standard. We have no objection to assuming our responsibility, but

prescribe a standard, so that we aren't obliged to respond to pressures

within the municipality for those services which already have been

accepted in our communities."

Who else came to these buildings? The ad hoc committee, which included representatives

of the merchant community, supporting a province-wide standard. The Retail Merchants'

Association say: "Our members don't want to be open on Sunday."

They don't have to be open on Sunday. Where is the pressure going to come for

such a bylaw, Mr. Speaker? What will motivate a municipality to introduce a

bylaw? The businessman's vote? But it was the businessmen who came to these

buildings and wrote these letters through their association, saying: "We

don't want to be open on Sunday."

That

raises another question. During the course of some of the

representations made to government over these past several weeks, a

suggestion was mentioned across the floor by the member for Burnaby

North — the businessman's pressure. Mr. Speaker, I reject the

suggestion that the duly elected councils of our municipalities respond

to pressure groups of this kind. It is an absolute criticism — the

worst kind of criticism the member could possibly make — that her

municipal council is going to respond to the very narrow interest of

some merchant who wants to stay open on Sunday.

I have this

to say, Mr. Speaker: if any municipal council were to respond to such

narrow interests, then the voters in the municipality, under this

legislation, are given the opportunity to tell the council that that's

not good enough. You can't pass a bylaw unless the public agrees.

That's what the opposition is against. They don't want to hear the

views of the public on matters as important as this.

Mr.

Speaker. we have established throughout the length and breadth of the

province a standard of retaiI operations to which we have become

accustomed. Over the years we have given opportunities for the

extension of that, if any particular area of the province, through

their municipality, deems it appropriate. I'm afraid the members are

misreading entirely the authority with respect to regional districts,

and I would urge that they carefully consider the bill before it comes

to committee.

The member raised one important point,

however, with regard to drugstores and all the things that they sell. I

just want you to know and remember that you can't run a department

store calling it a drugstore and beat this act. It's quite clear. If

anyone believes that they can, I welcome the opportunity of advising

them to look at the

section of the bill which provides for the penalty.

MR. MITCHELL: Try and enforce it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Oh, it's very easily enforceable, Mr. Member. If you have any merchants

in your area who run department stores and call them drugstores, I

suggest that you caution them against being the first ones to be tested

under this legislation. I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

[ Page 4108 ]

NAYS — 12

Barrett

Howard

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Sanford

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 56, Holiday Shopping Regulation Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Bill 13 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (MUNICIPAL)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Bill 27 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

MINES ACT

Bill 39 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 54.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to move second reading of Bill 54. I would

like to say a few words in advance of anyone else wishing to comment on

this very popular, very positive, very excellent piece of legislation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The fundamental principle of

the democratic process is the proposition that one person should have

one vote in any election, and that there must be representation for

taxation. Property owners have long had the right to vote in whatever

municipality in which they pay taxes. Five years ago the same right was

granted to residential tenants. Tenants in residential buildings

receive the same right to vote as do homeowners. The residential tenant

in one municipality can vote; if that same tenant owns property in

another municipality he can vote there as well.

When we in

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs began developing the downtown

revitalization program to assist small business, we quickly learned

that this same small business that was expected to pay directly or

indirectly for those improvements of particular benefit to their area

would not be allowed a vote on the proposals for which they would be

expected to pay.

In any downtown revitalization program the

downtown merchants are taxed on the basis of frontage tax, parcel tax,

business tax or other taxes to pay for many of the improvements. These

improvements may include parkades, miniparks, special sidewalks or

street lighting, yet the small merchants who lease space would not be

eligible to vote in the referendum.

Picture a situation

where $5 million in improvements is planned. Twenty merchants would be

required to pay for the improvements, yet only the seven prostitutes

who live in the specified area for the tax would be eligible to vote in

the referendum. We want to ensure that under all circumstances there

will be one person, one vote in any municipal election. I will,

therefore, be introducing several amendments — they're on the order

paper now — to satisfy, once and for all, that we have the assurance of

one person, one vote in any municipal election. If the owner of a

tenant business qualifies as a resident or an owner, he is not entitled

to register or vote a second time as a tenant. It is interesting to

note that some municipal leaders, while persistently calling for fair

and democratic rights for all citizens, would deny a renter of a

commercial property the universally accepted rights of a renter of a

house or apartment. Both groups pay local taxes, one through a landlord

with business paying every penny of every increase — a requirement

generally a condition of the lease or rental agreement — via regular

taxes, frontage taxes, parcel taxes, business taxes, licence fees and

other special levies. Take just the business tax. If this tax was

removed, residential taxes would increase by more than $25 million this

year throughout British Columbia.

I say what's fair is fair.

It is the same basic argument that shook America's thirteen colonies

over 200 years ago when they rebelled against taxation without

representation. Perhaps socialist people do not believe that the

business tenant, as a taxpayer, should be granted the rights given all

others. Perhaps they don't consider them as equals. Perhaps they only

talk about caring for the small businessman when it suits their

political purpose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Len Friesen.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Maybe that's why they use a constituent of mine, Leonard Friesen, who

fronts for the NDP under whatever title suits the day. Maybe now we'll

know, when they vote on this amendment, if they care enough about small

business people — the same people who pay to keep democracy — by

whether they vote yes. I wonder how they will vote.

Isn't it

strange how only a few weeks ago this same NDP and their inside

official Surrey small business front shouted concern about the small

business people having some say in holiday or Sunday shopping, and are

now saying they can have this say — not directly but through

contributing to some political party that would do it differently?

Shouldn't these business people have instead the opportunity of a vote

on that question as well?

It is true that there has not been

great pressure on government to bring about this change. It is true

that we've not been lobbied by mayors or councils. It is true that the

world will carry on with or without this change and all of us may

continue to enjoy a good night's sleep. But it is also true that

democracy did not spring up overnight. It was built over many, many

years by people who believe in rights and are not afraid to buck the

opposition, to take the lead and add another building block to a system

that must be preserved. This amendment is such a block. It is fair. It

is right. Denying

[ Page 4109 ]

someone

the opportunity to help select the trustees for his contribution or the

right to vote for or against a proposal that bears directly on his

business or his ability to do business or to continue in business

should be foreign to a free country.

I certainly hope that

we will hear from all opposition members on this most important

question. I believe that businesses everywhere — my mail, telegrams and

telephone calls would indicate — are extremely concerned about this

passing through the House, about them too now having at least some say

in how the dollars are spent in the community in which they pay taxes,

about having some say in the local referendums where they are required

to pay for improvements in their area, about having some say on Sunday

or holiday shopping which definitely affects them as well as their

employees and all the constituents. Mr. Speaker, I ask the opposition

members: why should these people not have the right to vote, the right

to a say in those most important questions that affect them? Really,

they can only express it at the time of referendums or elections.

There

are other sections to this bill that I would like to touch upon very

briefly.

Section 1 of the amendment act provides that a synopsis of

letters patent may be published in a newspaper. The act previously

required that the full text of letters patent be published both in the

provincial Gazette and in the

newspaper. Letters patent are generally legalistic documents not really

suitable for conveying information to the public. They are also very

expensive to publish. The amendment retains the requirement to publish

the full text in the Gazette .

The

amendment in

section 3 provides that the election in each municipality

or electoral area of a regional district is a separate election. A

court decision had implied that a person resident in one municipality

who owned property in another member municipality of the same regional

district could not vote for a director of the electoral area if he

voted in the first municipality. This amendment will permit such a

person to qualify in a city as a resident and in the electoral area as

a non-resident property owner. Without the amendment the concept of

permitting a non-resident owner to vote would be meaningless.

Furthermore, the conduct of regional elections would become almost

hopelessly complicated.

Section 4 of the amendment act is

parallel to the amendment in

section 2. It places the owner of a

personal corporation in the same position as an individually owned

business, which is that of a tenant.

The amendment in

section 5 clearly makes it an offence to file a false voter's

registration form. There have been allegations made, particularly with

respect to those people who register on polling day, that unqualified

people were being brought to the polls. Fines under the

section can

range up to $2,000. A technical amendment,

section 6, ensures

sufficient time for a person to file an objection at the court of

revision to a name on the voters' list. At present, the date of the

posting of the list is the same as the deadline for the filing of

objections.

Furthermore,

section 7 clarifies that it is the

new list posted on September 15 and not the last list certified by the

court of revision that is subject to objection.

The

amendment act provides that in any municipality that has a Sunday

sports bylaw, or subsequently adopts such a bylaw, Sunday horse racing

will be permitted, A parallel amendment of the Vancouver Charter is

contained in

section 18.

As a number of municipalities have

adopted a biannual election system, the use of the words "annual

election" in the Municipal Act had raised some doubt whether a

municipality on the biannual system could hold a referendum in an

off-year, or even if they could hold a referendum at all, inasmuch as

they do not have annual elections. The amendment in

section 9 clarifies

the authority to hold a referendum at the time that annual elections

would ordinarily be held.

Section 10 grants tax exemptions

to floating drydocks having a lift capacity in excess of 20,000 tonnes.

This is a great exemption for all such floating drydocks. It is

currently significant inasmuch as it is part of the arrangement with

respect to the construction of the Burrard floating drydock as

negotiated between the federal and provincial governments.

Under

section 11 the amendment act clarifies that it is the collector under

the Municipal Act, and not the assessor under the Assessment Act, who

is responsible for the frontage tax assessment roll. When the

assessment function was transferred from the municipalities to the

assessment authority, the assessor became the assessor under the

Assessment Act, and not under the Municipal Act.

The

assessment authority is responsible for the real property assessment

rolls, but not for the frontage tax rolls, unless the municipality

contracts with the assessment authority in that regard.

Section 12 has the effect of reinstating a fixed licence year for commercial vehicle licences.

Under

section 13 the amendment act deals with the amendment of land-use

contracts existing prior to the repeal of the land-use contract

authority in the Municipal Act. The current means of amending the old

land-use contract is cumbersome and expensive, involving court

application. We provide for a change.

Section 14 is consequential to the land-use act amendment procedure.

Section

16 permits councils to allow stores to remain open for 21 business days

before Christmas, rather than the previous seven business days.

There

is also a

section to deal with unsightly premises. This certainly is

all very positive, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that we might have

good support and quick passage of an excellent piece of legislation.

MR. BARBER: For the benefit of the minister who hopes for a quick debate, I would advise him that I rise as the designated speaker.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: And hitter.

There

are five principal reasons why we are opposed to this bill. First of

all. It offends against the important and broad principle of one man,

one vote. Secondly, it has no connection whatever with the ancient

notion of no taxation without representation. That argument is

demonstrably hollow, false and contradictory. Thirdly, this bill is an

attempt to create a new form of gerrymandering in British Columbia, by

rigging not the electoral boundaries but the very voters' list itself.

Fourthly, we are opposed to it because the government absolutely will

not understand the difference between enfranchising human beings and

enfranchising property, and because the government deliberately and

wilfully misrepresents the historical arguments in favour of

enfranchising human beings called tenants on the basis not of their

ownership but of their citizenship.

Finally, we are opposed to the bill because it is, for all practical purposes, now unworkable in sections 2, 3 and 4. It

[ Page 4110 ]

has

been made unworkable by the commendable statements made by the mayor

and council of Vancouver, who have refused an amendment to the

Vancouver Charter. It has been made unworkable because the home-rule

tradition in the largest metropolitan area of this province now denies

a general application of the principles of sections 2, 3 and 4 of this

bill. Precisely because the bill offends against those five arguments

and those five principles, it cannot possibly be supported by the

official opposition.

I I'll deal at some length with one of

these issues. It is the issue created by a government which has

attempted overnight to artificially establish a new class of electors.

This is the issue of gerrymandering 1980 style created by Social

Credit. Let me illustrate what we mean by this new kind of

gerrymandering. Everyone knows about Gracie's Finger, the Eckardt

report and the 76 percent Social Credit population that was added to

Little Mountain riding, for God knows what purposes. Everyone knows

about the excellent work of Elbridge Gerry, the former governor of

Massachusetts, and state after state in the American union, wherein

gerrymandering — the rigging and rearranging for political advantage of

electoral boundaries — was attempted. Everyone who's a student of

Canadian politics knows what happened when Ross Thatcher attempted the

same thing in the province of Saskatchewan. We are familiar with

gerrymandering and with attempts to rig electoral boundaries to the

benefit of the government of the day. This is a new kind of

gerrymandering; it's an attempt to rig the voters' list itself. Let me

illustrate how that would work.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to have some

comments from the opposition member, but how this relates to the bill

before us is beyond me. There is no mention of electoral boundaries

anywhere in this bill. We are talking about the right of a person who

pays taxes to vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister,

you are now entering into debate. However, your point is well taken.

Great latitude is extended to all speakers in second reading of a bill,

but we must at least contain latitude to what is contained in the bill.

I'm sure the hon. first member for Victoria is quite aware of how to do

that.

MR. BARBER: I thank you for your support, Mr. Speaker.

all know what rigging electoral boundaries means. We're all familiar

with the sordid current history of attempts to do that in various

jurisdictions.

What this bill does, however, is something

really quite new. It creates a new class of elector which has

traditionally identified itself with Social Credit in this province.

I'm talking about business electors. In the last few years, we are

pleased to note, that has begun to change — I think, to a large extent,

because small business has begun to realize that Social Credit is no

longer its friend and that big business is the only friend Social

Credit has left. Nonetheless, I think it is basically and arguably the

case that business in this province tends to identify with Social

Credit, to support Social Credit financially and politically, and to

support the Social Credit civic machine that has always dominated local

politics in this province — certainly for the last 30 years. Let me

illustrate the political consequence of that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Where are your colleagues?

MR. BARBER: Oh, they'll be here.

the Social Credit civic machine were worried about its continuing

success in local government elections across the province, it is

conceivable that they might ask the Socred provincial machine to help

them out. Now how could they do that? Well, it would be a relatively

easy matter to do that by enfranchising overnight a large and

artificially-created new class of electors who previously never had a

vote and who, if granted the vote, could be expected by and large to

vote for the Socred civic machine.

Well, sure enough, that's

exactly what's happened. Sure enough, we see created a new class of

elector that did not previously exist and which can be expected to

vote, by and large, Social Credit.

In Victoria, the mayor of

our community has estimated that some 5,000 new business electors will

be added overnight to the voters' list in this particular city.

Vancouver, the figure — and I separate this from the concern about the

Vancouver Charter — may well exceed 25,000. In fact, in Vancouver it is

estimated that there are some 29,631 licensed businesses which may in

whole, or in great part, be able to take advantage of this new

provision.

The rigging of the voters' list I'm referring to

— deliberate, planned and intentional — has been the result of two

principal occurrences in the last five and ten years in this province.

First of all, Social Credit's civic machine has begun losing its grip.

In local community after local community persons who are not identified

with the Social Credit Party have become elected to local office.

Persons who are not sponsored by the Social Credit machine have won,

and won again, elected office in the towns, cities and municipalities

of this province.

Social Credit has always used local

government as a farm team. Social Credit has always, from that farm

team called local government, managed to promote its more or less able

representatives to provincial office. Now that's fair enough when it's

open and up front. It's a bit much to suffer the hypocrisy of those

same Socreds who tell us that local governments should be non-partisan,

when they in fact have been Socreds all along, and have simply chosen

to deny it.

But what happened, starting five and ten years

ago, is that the Socred control of local government in this province

began to slip, and persons were elected to UBCM who did not represent

the machine — and the machine found itself increasingly less able to

predict the outcome of municipal elections in favour of the Social

Credit-backed organizations that have always dominated local government

in this province. A second thing that happened was, of course, at the

convention of the New Democratic Party in Penticton last year. At that

time the New Democratic Party chose to create a system whereby persons,

if they wish, may run under the banner "New Democrat" for local office.

Now we know that Social Credit candidates have done that for years and

years and years…

HON. MR. FRASER: Party politics.

MR. BARBER: …says the former mayor of Quesnel, who tells us we shouldn't pay attention to party affiliations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I wonder if all hon. members would come to order. I will once again

remind the hon. first member for Victoria that, although great latitude

is allowed, we should stick to the principle within the bill. I am sure

the hon. member is aware of that. Further, it is a custom of this

[ Page 4111 ]

House that parliamentary language be maintained at all times.

MR. BARBER: I thank you again for your support, Mr. Speaker.

I have said, one of the five important reasons why we oppose this bill

— and I am referring, of course, to sections 2, 3 and 4 of the bill;

there are other sections that are inoffensive and that we do not oppose

— is that this is a new kind of gerrymandering attempted by Social

Credit because of the disarray of their local machine and its

increasing failure to get their local candidates elected.

The

second thing that has happened in the last decade, as I mentioned, that

clearly provoked the government to bring in this bill was a decision

taken openly and in public by the New Democratic Party at convention to

establish a system whereby — accountably, openly and democratically —

persons may, with the consent of their local riding associations, run

under the banner "New Democrat" locally. Now Social Credit would have

us believe that their friends and pals in local government have never

run under the Socred banner locally; but of course that's false. They

have not run under the name, but they've run with the machine. They

have not run under the banner, but they have had the support. Social

Credit has always used local government as its farm team for the

provincial aspirations they've held.

HON. MR. SMITH: What are you doing? The same thing.

MR. BARBER:

That's right, except we're doing it openly. You guys have tried to deny

it for 30 years, and that's the difference. We do it up front.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill, hon. members.

MR. BARBER:

What this has to do with the bill is that it has to explain in part the

motivation of the coalition to bring this in at this point in time.

Because, you see, the machine is losing ground locally. The Socred

machine is losing elections locally and the Socred machine is in

sufficient trouble that it has to shore itself up by creating a new

class of electors who, the government hopes, will by and large support

Social Credit. Indeed, in the past that's been the case; it may be the

case for a little while to come yet, before small business finally

realizes that the big-business orientation of Social Credit hurts its

own cause — but that's a different issue.

A new class of

electors is being created. That class of electors will have two votes

or more at municipal election time. One can imagine the horror that

Social Credit would have expressed if we, when in government, had

decided to give two votes to every certified trade unionist in this

province. No doubt we could have found some equally ludicrous

rationalization as that offered this morning by the minister to justify

it. But of course, had we done that, our intentions would have been the

same as the government's intentions clearly are this morning. If we had

decided to give two votes to every registered trade unionist in the

province, that would have been for one reason only: to materially

affect the outcome of the next municipal elections. Of course, we

didn't do that; we didn't and wouldn't do that, because that would be a

trespass and an offence. It is politically the equivalent, Mr.

Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Do

you detect the government is uncomfortable with this bill, Mr. Speaker?

Maybe it's because the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was right

when he talked to a radio reporter and said it was going to be pulled.

The

New Democratic Party did not in fact attempt to give two votes to trade

unionists or create in any kind of rigged or gerrymandered way....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get your hands out of your pockets.

MR. BARBER: Put your hand over your mouth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Will the House please come to order. I would once again

remind the hon. first member for Victoria that we are on Bill 54.

MR. BARBER: That's right. I'm well aware of it, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

If we could discuss the principle of Bill 54 and try to avoid personal

allusions to other hon. members which are unparliamentary, then, I

think. the House would proceed in an orderly manner and in a

parliamentary fashion.

MR. BARBER: I thank you a third time for your support, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue — with your protection.

This

is an attempt to rig the outcome of municipal elections on behalf of

the Social Credit civic machine; this is an attempt to thwart the

democratic will of all of the people by giving some of the people two

votes — or more. This is an attempt to rig elections that is not

acceptable to the people of British Columbia.

It's now a

matter of public record that the mayor of Vancouver has come out in

strenuous opposition to this bill. On the Friday on which the bill was

introduced, it was suggested that the mayor of Vancouver might be the

single most delighted beneficiary of its rigged intentions. Why is

that? Because the mayor of Vancouver, a former law partner of the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and, by and

large, as one can take it, a supporter of this government — he's

certainly no New Democrat — was advised that the intention of the bill

was to get him re-elected by creating a new class of elector that

likely and historically would support and has supported Social Credit.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is still talking, Mr. Speaker. I thought you ordered him to desist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will all hon. members please come to order. Interruptions are quite unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. I'm grateful for your protection. It's time number four: I'll keep a little list here.

[ Page 4112 ]

The

mayor of Vancouver, to his credit, said that he would have no part of

such ballot-rigging; he would have no part of such an attempt to twist

undemocratically and distort unfairly the outcome of an election in his

own jurisdiction. The mayor of Vancouver, to his credit, said that the

government is dead wrong to attempt to give any vote whatever to

property. The mayor of Vancouver said that's an old system that should

have been discarded long ago. The mayor of Vancouver was well aware

that the accusation could be made that he was the intended beneficiary

of this rigged voters' list that will result from these provisions of

Bill 54. To his credit, the mayor of Vancouver has repudiated the

attempts of Social Credit to do that in his city. But I'll get to that

issue in a moment.

The first issue of the five issues I will

be raising at some length in this debate, as the designated speaker, is

that there can be no rational justification for the clear political

agenda that Social Credit has set itself here. Let me make the point

again. Our government never attempted to give two votes to trade

unionists; why does this government want to give two votes to business?

We have sufficient respect for trade unionists that we would never

compromise them like that. Why are you compromising your pals in

business this way, and why did you attempt to compromise Jack Volrich?

Continuing

with the issue of gerrymandering, if it's now the case that Social

Credit is prepared to resort to the second kind of gerrymandering —

rigging the voters' list — as well as clearly rigging the electoral

boundaries, but that's another issue....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, please. I must once again caution you that language must

be parliamentary. We are not allowed to allude to other hon. members.

Will the hon. member take in mind what parliamentary language is. I'm

sure he is aware of parliamentary debate.

MR. BARBER:

The well-documented attempt by Social Credit to redesign electoral

boundaries in a way favourable only to itself is one kind of

gerrymandering. This is a new kind of gerrymandering. One has to ask

why they go to the trouble. Is it just for the benefit of Jack Volrich?

Mr. Volrich says no, he doesn't want that kind of help, he doesn't wish

that kind of support, and he refuses to have such an undemocratic

provision written into the Vancouver Charter. Fortunately, because of

the home-rule traditions associated with amendments to that charter, we

can anticipate that the Vancouver Charter will not, at least in this

session, be amended by this undemocratic government. So thank God we

have one courageous mayor and council to stand up and say no to the

gerrymandering of the voters' list that will certainly result from the

passage of this bill.

But one has to ask whether or not the

Socreds are in trouble elsewhere. I'm advised that they're in trouble

in Kamloops. I'm told by media in Kamloops that the mayor of Kamloops,

for perhaps the same reasons that the mayor of Vancouver was required

to do so, has now come out in opposition to the bill. Why? Well, I

expect it is because, at least in part, he does not want anyone saying

that it is his wish to be re-elected on false pretences when he comes

up for re-election. The mayor of Kamloops — who is, to say the least,

not a New Democrat — has apparently taken the same position as the

mayor of Vancouver and has said: "I cannot support, honour or respect

this attempt to give property a vote." The mayor of New Westminster,

who most certainly is not a New Democrat, has also said the same thing,

to his credit. The mayor of New Westminster, I am advised, has said

that he does not want his municipality to suffer the distortion and

misrepresentation of the popular will by creating a special class of

privilege that has two or more votes. When the mayors of Vancouver,

Kamloops and New Westminster find something in common and find it

commonly antagonistic, you have to wonder what Social Credit is up to

here.

We can only presume that those who follow the outcome

of civic elections have drawn the correct conclusion. The Socred

machine is in trouble. The Socred machine is in chaos. The Socred

machine is losing ground. The Socred machine locally is suffering the

same clear troubles that the Socred machine provincially has been

suffering for the last year. Thus we begin to come to some

understanding of why the desperate measures represented by this bill

have had to be taken.

If the Socred machine was in good

shape, as it appears to have been in 1975, we wouldn't have seen this

bill. If it was in good shape in 1976, as it might have been, this bill

would not have come forward. If it was in good shape in 1977 the Socred

machine might not have needed the provisions of this bill. If it was in

good shape in 1978 it might not have required the rigging — I should

say redesigning — of the voters' list implicit in this bill. If it was

in good shape in 1979 they may not have found it necessary to buck up

their friends in local government by bringing in this amendment to Bill

However, in 1980 — they have had five years to do it —

they now find their civic machine in such trouble, disrepair and

disrepute that it has become necessary to bring in a provision which

materially, it can be argued, will benefit local Socred candidates in

local office. If they're desperate enough to do that this year, how

much more desperate will they be next year when their machine continues

to fall apart, as does their provincial administration?

I see the Attorney-General is agreeing.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER:

Do I hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

saying that they will accept the motion? Thus I needn't worry about

losing my place in the debate.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I remember what happened to Bill King that time.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the House please come to order. I am sure the member is aware of the rules. There is no reason for concern.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm always cautious.

Mr. Barber moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.

[ Page

4113 ]

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

44 The Hon. A.V. Fraser to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 44) intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 27: In the proposed

section 27 by renumbering paragraph (

c) as paragraph (

d) and by adding the following paragraph:

"(

c) in subsection (2) by striking out 'subject matter of the Act as'

and substituting 'subject matter of the Act, as they may be', and".

Section 33.1: The following is added as

section 33.1:

"33.1.

Section 218 is repealed and the following substituted:

" Motorcycle

safety helmets

"218.

(1) A person who operates or rides as a passenger on a motorcycle without

properly wearing a safety helmet commits an offence.

"

(2) In subsection (1), 'safety helmet' means a helmet that

(

a) is designed for use by a person while operating or riding as a passenger on a motorcycle,

(

b) consists of a hard, smooth shell that

(

i) is lined with protective padding material, or

(ii) has some other means of absorbing kinetic energy on impact and to

which is securely attached a strap designed to fasten under the

wearer's chin, and

(

c) conforms to any standards for safety helmets that have been prescribed

under

section 85(1)(x).

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada