1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 759 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

Bill (No. 13) intituled

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act was read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 14) intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act was

committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Bill (No. 15) intituled Jury Act was committed, reported complete

with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting

after today.

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:-

Bill (No. 16) intituled

An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Bill (No. 17) intituled

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act.

Bill (No. 18) intituled

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act.

Bill (No. 19) intituled Corrections Act.

Bill (No. 20) intituled

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act

was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to

be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 22) intituled

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act was

committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be

considered at the next sitting after today.

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:-

Bill (No. 23) intituled

An Act to Amend the Chiropractic Act.

Bill (No. 26) intituled

An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964.

Bill (No. 27) intituled Land Act was committed, sections 1 to 28 reported complete without amendment.

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

By leave of the House, on the motion of the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, the

House reverted to "Presenting Reports by Standing and Special

Committees."

Mr. W.F. Jefcoat presented the Report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, as follows:–

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Agriculture begs leave to report as follows:

Pursuant to motion of February 17, 1970, your Committee was ordered convened to study the following matter:–

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to study the following:–

(1) The benefits or otherwise of separate classification of highly

specialized commercial farms, marginal farms, hobby or retirement

farms, and other such groupings when considering public programmes:

(2) Efficiencies which might be accomplished in off-farm sector

relating to the supply and marketing channels handling the food, the

processing, the merchandising, and the financing.

The Committee to hear representations from the food and agricultural

industry, organizations, and individuals, and report its findings to

this House.

Ninety-one requests were mailed to food processors, wholesalers, and

various food producer and agriculture organizations. A total of five

briefs were presented to the Committee. These briefs were presented by

the following:–

(1) Federation of Agriculture:

(2) British Columbia Turkey Breeders:

(3) British Columbia Region of National Farmer's Union:

(4) Western Food Processors:

(5) British Columbia Egg Marketing Board.

Based upon the submissions to the Committee it would appear that the

average income to the producer is too low, and that they do not receive

an adequate share of the consumer price of products. It is for this

reason that this Committee wanted to hear from processors, wholesalers,

and retailers. Their submissions are essential if the Committee is to

establish where the consumer dollar is applied.

The Committee is very disappointed with the lack of interest shown

both last year and this year. It is essential that the Committee

receive reports from the processors and marketing groups as well as

producers. This lack of cooperation and information has prevented the

Committee from completing a meaningful report. Therefore, the following

recommendations are made:–

(1) That the Minister review the terms of reference and recommend,

at an early date, terms for next year, subject to the approval of the

Legislature:

(2) That these terms of reference be spelled out to all sectors of

the industry throughout the year recommending that they be prepared to

appear before the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture in 1971:

(3) The Committee further recommends that food processing, marketing

organizations, and producers, be notified by the Committee of the terms

of reference and requested to appear early in the next Session.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

W.F. JEFCOAT, Chairman.

The report was taken as read and received.

Mr. H.P. Capozzi presented the Report of the Special Committee on Automobile Insurance, as follows:–

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Special Committee on Automobile Insurance begs leave to report as follows:–

The organizational meeting was held on Thursday, February 5, 1970.

Mr. Capozzi was elected as Chairman and Mr. McDiarmid as Secretary.

The Committee received briefs and the following people appeared before the Committee:–

February 17, 1970: Mr. W.D. Mitchell, Mr. Ed Thompson, Mr. F.W. Barchard, general manager, transportation division,

[ Page 760 ]

British Columbia Hydro; Mr. Byron Straight, actuary.

February 24, 1970: Mr. Carl Wilcken, actuary, Insurance Bureau of Canada.

February 26, 1970: Mr. Ed Lewis, British Columbia manager, British

Columbia Economical Mutual Insurance Company; Mr. Ron Hunt, president,

Victoria Insurance Agents' Association; Mr. Gordon Root,

public-relations counsel, British Columbia Automobile Agents.

March 3,1970: Mr. Brian Williams, Mr. Lyle Woodley, Mr. Kenneth Burnett, British Columbia division, Canadian Bar Association.

March 5, 1970: Mr. Baines, vice-president, Independent Insurance

Conference of Canada; Mr. Price, local chairman, Independent Insurance

Conference of Canada; Mr. Robert Parkin, chairman, facility.

March 10, 1970: Mr. R. B. Stocks, manager, British Columbia

Federation of Agriculture; Mr. Norman Binyon, chairman, Canadian

Independent Adjusters' Confederation of British Columbia; Mr. Blair

Baillie, past president, Canadian Independent Adjusters' Confederation

of British Columbia.

March 12, 1970: Mr. Donald Martin, general manager, Canadian Royal

Insurance Group; Mr. Norman Manning, Guardian Union Royal Exchange; Mr.

Chamberlain, actuary for this group; Mr. Ray Hadfield, Superintendent,

Motor-vehicle Branch.

March 17, 1970: Mr. H.D. Vanam, president, Canadian Indemnity

Company, Winnipeg; Mr. John S. McGuiness, John S. McGuiness Associates,

consulting actuaries.

March 18, 1970: Mr. Jack Robertson, president, Insurance Agents of

British Columbia; Mr. Bill Longman, president, Central Surveyors

Incorporated; Mr. Rudkin, president, Wesco Insurance.

The Committee is grateful to Mr. Thomas Cantell, Superintendent of

Insurance, who attended all meetings and provided a great deal of

valuable information to the Committee.

(1) To consider whether

section 14 of

chapter 20 of the Statutes of

British Columbia, 1969, which provides inter alia that no action shall

be brought against any person for recovery of damages to property

occasioned in an accident involving a motor-vehicle exceeding two

hundred and fifty dollars and costs, should be proclaimed in force or

amended and, if so, to what extent:

The no-fault coverage proposed under

section 79 of Bill (No. 75)

suggests that possible savings could be attained through the

elimination of certain legal fees and adjustment costs. It further

suggests that restricting the recovery of claims for damage to vehicles

of less than $250 to Small Debts Court would make people more

responsible for their own accidents and repairs.

While in theory this has some justification, it became clear that the following could result:–

While the public might appreciate the reduction that could result in

insurance costs, there would be considerable ill feeling when an

accident occurred and the individual who was not at fault was obliged

to go to Small Debts Court for the first $250 damage. If uninsured the

individual would have no recourse to recover any additional damage.

This

section if implemented could in effect require everyone to self

insure for all damage over $250.

In the case of property damage it would deprive a resident of all

right to recover damages to property in excess of $250 simply because

he may have been involved in an accident involving a motor-vehicle. At

the same time, the owner of the vehicle would have no responsibility

for damage done by his motor-vehicle over $250 even where he was at

fault and no matter how irresponsible his actions might have been.

The possible result is that insurance premiums for property damage

would be determined not by the driving standards of the individual who

is insured but by the driving standards of the most irresponsible

motorists.

It could also complicate the position of both residents and

non-residents as to render it most difficult for them to clarify their

rights while at the same time placing non-residents in a somewhat more

favourable position than residents.

The brief submitted by the Victoria Insurance Agents' Association is

very comprehensive and is attached for consideration. The essential

theme in this presentation is contained in the following:–

"Legislation of this kind which largely removes the burden of paying

for property damage caused through negligence from the guilty to the

innocent is not likely to prove to be in the best interests of the

public."

It is therefore the recommendation of the Committee that

section 79 of Bill (No. 75) not be implemented at this time.

The Committee recommends that consideration and additional study be

given to the following proposal of the insurance law subsection,

British Columbia Branch, Canadian Bar Association, whereby the right of

subrogation in respect to motor-vehicle damage would be withdrawn from

insurers licensed to do business in the Province of British Columbia.

This envisages the retention of the individual's right to sue either

for his deductible, or if he does not wish to carry collision coverage,

then for the full amount of damage to his property. In other words, the

law would be left as it is and all persons would have the right to sue

or be sued in tort as heretofore, save and except that no insurer would

have a subrogated right of action. This could result in a reduction in

insurance premiums on the compulsory auto insurance coverage because

(

a) those carriers of the compulsory insurance would no longer be

required to pay for property damage to other vehicles where such

vehicles are insured and (

b) investigation and adjustment expenses

would be significantly reduced.

The Committee further recommends that the Automobile Board be asked

to study a proposal whereby the cost of the compulsory package for

third party liability would not be increased on a per accident basis,

but a "deductible" amount would be inserted as a responsibility of the

insured after each accident. Any unsettled claim would be paid from the

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund and the insured's driver's licence would

be suspended until the Fund had been reimbursed.

In the event the Legislature decided to implement

section 79 the

Committee submits that the

section should be amended as follows:-

A. Property damage in

section 79 (1) should be limited to motor-vehicles.

B. That there should be no recovery in excess of $150 (replacing the

$250 limit) for damage to a motor-vehicle, with a limit of $300 for any

one occurrence.

C. The problems raised above created by

section 79 (2) involving the

rights of non-residents should be exhaustively studied and some

solution found before the Proclamation.

(2) To consider whether the accident benefits described in the

Second

Schedule to the Insurance Act should apply to a motor carrier as

defined in the Motor Carrier Act:

There is quite a basic difference between the position of

[ Page 761 ]

the private automobile and the public transit operator.

The private owner generally decides who will ride with him and under circumstances which he either condones or agrees to.

The public transit operation is largely restricted to movements in

high-density traffic and requires the carriage of a large number of

passengers who are standing or moving about and board or disembark

under varying conditions. Under the best of circumstances it would be

difficult for the operator to determine the authenticity or the extent

of any injuries which might occur.

In view of the circumstances and problems involved the Committee

recommends that the Disability Income

Schedule of the Insurance Act

should not be made applicable to passengers travelling on, boarding, or

alighting from public passenger vehicles. It is understood that this

exemption does not apply to the death benefits nor in any way would

exempt any other vehicles owned or operated by transit operators, nor

interfere with normal tort liability.

(3) To consider whether automobile insurance premiums in British

Columbia, including the premium charged for accident benefits, are

commensurate with the risks assumed:

The services of a qualified actuary, Mr. Byron Straight, F.C.I.A., F.G.A.P., A.S.A., were retained by the Committee.

Mr. Straight was asked

(

a) to do a general survey of premium rates:

(

b) to determine whether automobile insurance premiums could be

reduced if the insurers allowed in advance for the investment income on

unearned premiums and open claim liabilities:

(

c) to examine the premium increases (over 1969 rates) adopted by

all the companies for the new death and disability income benefits. The

results of Mr. Straight's reports are attached.

In the opinion of the Committee based on the questioning of the

individuals and groups appearing before the Committee and on the

reports submitted by Mr. Straight the following conclusions can be

drawn:–

(1) While the rates in general show a certain conformity (this is to

be expected since they are derived from the same actuarial base, the

Green Book) there is a variance as a result of competition:

(2) That the consideration of investment income in the calculation

of insurance rates could lead to a reduction of 4 to 5 per cent:

(3) By reducing the estimated length of disability the disability

income portion of the costs in the new accident benefit rates could be

reduced from 20 to 25 per cent resulting in a reduction in the

estimated total costs of the new benefit claims by about 10 per cent:

(4) By increasing the division of the premium dollar from 67 cents

for "loss" and 33 cents for "expense" to 69 cents for "loss" and 31

cents for "expense" a further adjustment could be achieved. The

Committee believes that in respect of the premium for the compulsory

policy a more equitable division of the premium dollar should be 75

cents for "loss" and 25 cents for "expense":

(5) Since the estimated number of automobiles that presently do not

carry the compulsory package ranges between 5 to 10 per cent, and since

the total cost of all claims, insured and uninsured, is therefore borne

by the insured the cost of the compulsory package could be reduced by 5

to 10 per cent by requiring proof of coverage when licence plates are

purchased:

(6) While the problem of covering farm vehicles for limited highway

use seems to have been solved by the special rates introduced by the

company, a sample of these rates is attached, it is hoped the proposed

Automobile Board would further clarify this position.

In view of the possible reductions suggested it is the

recommendations of the Committee that

section 250M of Bill (No. 74) be

proclaimed, the Automobile Insurance Board be established, an actuary

be employed, and the companies be asked to justify their rates for the

present compulsory package and be required to obtain approval for

future changes in these rates. This Board should be asked to study the

cost and ramifications of various proposals whereby the compulsory

package or portions of it could be operated by other than the industry.

It is further recommended that the Motor-vehicle Branch institute a

procedure whereby proof of insurance, compulsory package only would be

required, when licence plates are issued. In the opinion of the

Committee the Government has a definite responsibility to assure that

the costs for the compulsory package are as low as possible since it

should not legislate for excess profits, but it becomes more apparent

that even though the major costs of automobile insurance are in the

property damage and collision costs the majority of the driving public

wants the right to decide what kind and how much collision coverage he

places on his automobile.

There were many suggestions put forward as to how collision and

property damage costs could possibly be reduced: (

a) Reduction of

agents' commission; (

b) reduction of claims costs; (

c) elimination of

duplication of paper work; (

d) standardization of forms and

endorsements; and (

e) reduction of adjustment expenses.

The Committee was dismayed to learn how little is being done by the

insurance industry (

a) to exert pressure on the auto industry to

manufacture safer cars; (

b) to encourage defensive driving courses and

offer reduced premiums for graduates; and (

c) to reduce claims costs,

adjustment expenses, and excessive motor-vehicle damage claims.

The Committee felt that better control and policing is required by

the companies to reduce costs of claims. Since the insurance companies

base their rates on the Green Book, which in turn is based on the

claims costs of the preceding year, there is no real pressure on the

companies to reduce costs. There is, however, considerable evidence

that the pressure of the auto-repair industry, the agent, and the

automobile owner himself on the adjuster and the insurer is a definite

factor in increasing costs. It is hoped that the industry would become

its own watchdog and take steps to reduce claims costs, duplication,

and commission expenses.

Fundamentally, however, the public must realize that the cost of

automobile insurance merely reflects in dollars the real problem of

human suffering, and accidents that careless and irresponsible drivers

cause. There cannot be significant changes in rates until there are

safer cars and safer drivers.

The Committee was extremely perturbed to note the almost 20 per cent increase in accidents in 1969.

The Committee believes that the Automobile Insurance Board should be

given powers to investigate insurance costs and that the following

programmes should be instituted:–

(1) Driver training in all schools:

(2) Defensive-driving courses become a requirement for all major violators of the point system:

(3) Motor-vehicle testing be mandatory on a Province wide basis:

(4) Legislation be introduced requiring interim payments

[ Page 762 ]

for property damage in clear liability cases:

(5) Legislation be introduced requiring one month's notice to the

claimant in order for insurance companies or their representatives to

avail themselves of statutory limitations.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

H.P. CAPOZZI, Chairman.

The report was taken as read and received.

The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 79. (An Act to Amend the Health Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 79. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the Bill, in general, has some

provisions in it that allow the Lieutenant-Governor to change the

powers and duties of the Union Board of Health, and we see no objection

to that particular principle.

But there is a marked departure from the other aspects of the Bill,

short as it is, that deserve some comment and I think criticism, and

that is the proposal that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall have

the power to impose, levy, and recover charges for public health

services, including tests and inspections.

Well now, this is a marked departure, and it seems to be typical of

the actions of this Government, Mr. Speaker, throughout this Session.

They have, in Bill after Bill taken the same attitude as they do here,

and that is to impose upon either individuals, the local taxpayer, or

upon the municipalities or districts, financial responsibility that

formerly has been the responsibility of the Provincial Government.

Indeed, in some fields they've increased the local or individual costs,

without bearing a fair share of the burden in terms of past

performance, and it seems to me a very backward, a very reactionary

step to impose or give the power, in this case, the power to impose

charges or levies upon the persons in the local areas who have health

units.

The ramifications of it are really quite extensive. It means that

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can impose a charge every time a

sanitary inspector does an inspection. It means every time a parent

with a child goes to a child health clinic at a health unit, there a

charge can be imposed. It means that every time the Government takes a

test at the Willow Centre or any other centre indeed, for venereal

disease, test of water, a test for tuberculosis, or any of a number of

other laboratory tests, that the local citizen is going to receive a

bill. Now this is quite subversive of the notion that public health

services, financed at the Provincial level, should be deteriorated by

this type of deterrent fee. When you get down to it, we have the

Premier of this Province telling us that he is against any greater

deterrent fee on hospital beds, that a dollar a day is all that he is

in favour of charging, but at the same time allowing the Minister of

Health to propose that there be a deterrent fee on those members of the

public that need and require and use the public health clinics.

I think this is a serious step, and one that should be opposed by

this House. And the reason is that it is hard enough to get members of

the public to take an interest in preventative health, to take an

interest in these laboratory tests, or taking their children to the

well-baby clinics, or getting inspections of the plumbing, of the

sanitation, of the local restaurant, the local boarding-house, or of

the other sanitary facilities of the community, without deterring them

from doing that which only can benefit the community and the Province

as a whole.

What is more fair than that the Provincial treasury should bear the

principal cost of these services? They are uniform, they are all over

the Province, they are useful to anybody within the Province, and there

are no boundaries to disease. It follows from that, that the

traditional policy that has governed the conduct of public health in

this Province should be maintained, and anyone who suggests that they

are doing a service to public health by a deterrent charge on the

public is obviously going to reap the whirlwind. If it's going to

reduce the incidence of public participation in health units, and at

the same time cause an increase in the amount of disease, the amount of

incidence of child ill health, the lack of proper care by mothers

before their children are born, the ones that used to go to the

well-baby clinics, if it is going to increase the amount of venereal

disease or tuberculosis because of people being deterred from taking

the tests that they should take, then we are paying a price that far

outweighs any benefit to the treasury by imposing these levies and

charges upon the public.

Of course, I do not know the intention of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, nor does this House. It does no good for the Minister to tell

us what they intend. Once this is passed into law the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council can do as he wishes. So, I suggest it's

a bad principle to accept, and I certainly oppose that particular

principle in the Bill. For that reason I'm opposed to the Bill as a

whole, because it's a most vital principle and it's a wrong principle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I find I must agree with the

member who has just taken his seat on the matter of the power which is

being taken to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to impose levies for

services which are in the public health field. This seems to me a

backward step in public health and one which this House should very

seriously consider before accepting. The public health service in this

Province has done a great job over the years. There is great need for

improvement, and I'm concerned that the power to impose levies and

recover charges for public health services is one which we may come to

regret.

We have a problem facing this Province, particularly the women of

this Province, and it arises from what has for many years been

considered to be a simple childhood disease, and that's measles. Now a

vaccine has been discovered for the so-called red measles which is a

disease, Mr. Speaker, which we all receive during childhood, and that

has been made free to the people in this Province.

But, it has now been found, Mr. Speaker, that a more serious problem results from what was once considered to be

[ Page 763 ]

a minor disease, the so-called German measles, more

correctly called rubella, and while this doesn't have any particular

significance, maybe, to adults it certainly has very serious

consequences for the children who are born to mothers who contract this

disease during pregnancy.

Now, one of the significant advances which has been made in very

recent months is the discovery of a vaccine for rubella, which is not

yet approved for use in Canada, but of equal significance, Mr. Speaker,

is the fact that a test has been found for the purpose of determining

whether or not a woman has previously contracted this so-called minor

disease.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish the honourable member would reach his

point, because the matters he is discussing now are far from the

principles of this Bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of public

health and tests. Because, every seven years on the North American

continent we are faced with an epidemic of rubella, and this is a

public health measure.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, how does the honourable member relate that to principle of this Bill?

MR. WILLIAMS: The principle of this Bill is the fact that we

are levying a charge for the tests which are essential to know whether

or not a woman should or should not receive the vaccines which are

likely to become available in the next 30 days for the women of this

Province. When you consider that the offspring of women who contract

this disease suffer deafness, blindness, and mental defect, and in some

cases all three, it is a serious consequence to those young children

and to the parents who bear them, and therefore it is a public health

measure, and to suggest that perhaps the department should levy a

charge for tests of this kind is, I believe, something which this

Assembly should not accept.

Now, in addition, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the other main principle

of the Bill, and that is the exercise of the power of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to determine what will happen to Union

Boards of Health, whether the powers of a Union Board of Health should

be placed in the hands of a regional district, or not, and whether that

decision should be left in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council. I find a serious lack in this Bill in that there appears to be

no requirement that before making any such decision, the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council would communicate with or receive the

opinions of those municipalities and those school districts who today

support a Union Board of Health.

I think in the community in which I live that we have one Union

Board of Health which is supported by the three municipalities, and two

school districts, and yet we also find that the community in which I

reside is part of a larger metropolitan community, which also has

another Board of Health known as the Metropolitan Board. Yet there are

many municipalities within that same area which are not part of any

Union Board of Health, but they are all in the same Regional District.

I wonder what kind of examination is to be made by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council before he determines, in his wisdom,

whether or not he will take away from the powers of the North Shore

Union Board of Health and take away the powers of the Metropolitan

Board of Health, and place them under the hands of the regional

district, and join all the municipalities together in the exercise of

those functions, and whether or not he will destroy the staffs of those

Union Boards, whether or not he will destroy the programmes that they

have undertaken, and whether they will place them under the

responsibility of the Region, and ensure that all those programmes are

carried out or not, is not shown in this Bill. It seems to me that

before this broad power should be given to the Cabinet, that we need

greater definition of the way in which this power will be exercised.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: You want me to withdraw this section?

MR. WILLIAMS: No I don't. I'm just asking you for some explanation.

MR. LOFFMARK: The whole thing started over with your Union Board of Health.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh yes. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's always my Union

Board of Health. You'll have the opportunity to answer, Mr. Minister.

But you didn't answer, but you didn't make any such statement when you

were….

MR. LOFFMARK: The most irresponsible speech I ever heard in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well now, isn't that interesting.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'm going to ask the honourable the Minister to withdraw those remarks.

MR. LOFFMARK: I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's

significant the way the Minister of Health and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, who has castigated the Union Board of Health over

the years, will respond to the kind of speech that I'm making tonight.

Mr. Speaker, you see the Minister has not been listening. He thinks

I'm criticising, in some way, the suggestion that he is making. But,

I'm only asking questions as to how far you are prepared to go, Mr.

Minister. Because I find that when you introduced this Bill in second

reading there was something lacking in the candour that you had with

this House, you were lacking in candour when you tell us what the

purpose of this Bill is. And when you read the explanatory notes in this Bill, they don't tell us what you really intend. In any….

…No, no, the responsibility is yours. The responsibility is for

you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to tell this House fairly,

fairly, what your programme is.

The fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has got some problem with

the Capital Regional District, and he needs to cure that problem and

cure it pretty quickly, has caused him to introduce this Bill and this

section. But the programme that he has for the regional district in the

Victoria area is one which is only an interim programme, and he hasn't

got any idea of the way in which his department will carry out the same

programme for the other Union Boards of Health in this Province. If he

had, Mr. Speaker, I'm certain that the Minister would have been the

first to have told us when he introduced this Bill of the great reforms

he was going to make in the public health service of this Province, but

[ Page 764 ]

didn't do it. No, he just wants to hold the power in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make certain decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Greater and greater powers.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, greater and greater power to exercise if, as, and when, the regional district or any grouping of municipalities.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the words are very significant.

He's not prepared to say that he'll give it to the whole regional

district. He can carve out some municipalities in the district,

whichever are convenient to him. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I think

that the members need to consider very carefully where we are going

with Union Boards of Health in this Province, and where the Minister

will force us to go if this legislation is allowed to pass.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the withdrawal of this Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MR. SPEAKER: The Bill may only be withdrawn by leave, I understand. One moment, please.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: It is not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill, Mr. Speaker. Will not be moving second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do that now.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree that the Bill can't be withdrawn at this

point, that it would require the leave of the House, which is obviously

not forthcoming. Nevertheless, the Government has expressed its

intention not to proceed with the Bill, so it would indicate, in these

circumstances, that the need for debate is somewhat futile.

MR. BENNETT: I move adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment. We have four people on their feet

at once. Shall I get up, and then everyone will sit down. Now one

moment, please. A motion for adjournment is always in order and must be

accepted by the Chair, there's no alternative.

MR. D. BARRETT: Point of Order.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Newcastle

was recognized and was on his feet. He was not asked to withdraw from

his feet. I am saying in terms of my point of order that the Premier

did not have the floor, the member from Cowichan-Newcastle did, and I

am asking that the normal rules of the House prevail. When a member has

the floor, he has not been asked to yield, and I ask that the courtesy

of the member having the floor continue as always.

MR. SPEAKER: There were three members on their feet at the

time. One moment please, I think there is no reason for excitement over

a simple procedural matter. There were three members on their feet at

once, as honourable members will recall. I recognized the Premier, not

the honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat. The Premier at that time

said that he was going to withdraw the Bill, and resumed his chair. I

said that the Bill could not be withdrawn because it was in the

possession of the House, without leave of the House. Now under those

circumstances, there were at that time, another three members on their

feet. I had recognized no one at that time. However, the Premier got to

his feet again, and without being recognized, asked for adjournment of

the debate.

I have not put the motion, and now I will recognize the honourable

the Leader of the Opposition. But I will explain to the House the

futility of debate, and I want the debate confined to the principle of

the Bill, not the procedural action which has just taken place. Proceed.

MR. BARRETT: The principle of the Bill is an important one,

and I will confine myself to my notes and not make any comment about

the matter preceding the use of my notes.

For the first time that I can recall in this House, I have been here

ten years, this is the first time that we have had a major debate on a

regressive step in the public health field. This Province has always

been viewed in Canada as one of the most progressive Provinces in the

field of public health, and tonight for the first time, I have heard

members speak in a critical manner of what was proposed by the

Minister. The member from Burnaby-Edmonds covered one section, or one

principle of the Bill which has a number of principles, and the member

from North Vancouver covered another.

But the principle covered by the member from North Vancouver reveals

— West Van — reveals a pattern, a pattern that frightens me as a member

of this Legislature, and that pattern is one of bringing in legislation

that is essentially threatening in nature. The principle of this Bill

is to take in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that is

the Minister, the power to make all decisions over the Union Boards of

Health, and we have never entertained that concept before in this

Legislature. As early as the first public health legislation was passed

in this House, we have always looked upon local participation and local

autonomy.

We must ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, why this new principle in this

Bill? Why the direct hand of the Minister and the interference of the

system that has worked so well up to now? Mr. Speaker, there is a

pattern, as my good friend reminds me, and I intend to point out. There

is a pattern of threatening local boards through legislation. We have

had one Bill already attacking an un-named hospital board, and now we

have a Bill attacking an un-named Union Board of Health.

Mr. Speaker, Government is to be responsible. Opposition is to be

responsible. But how can we be responsible in this Legislature when we

are presented with legislation that attacks unnamed Boards with

un-named charges, Mr. Speaker? Hardly the way to govern, and the

Minister having found his foot in a bear-trap is being rescued by the

Premier, and I will say no more about that.

But I want to say, in terms of the other principle of this Bill,

that is the whole matter of introducing a concept that we have never

had under public health before in British Columbia, fee for service.

Deterrent fees that threaten the fabric of one of the nation's best

pre-natal health care programmes, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we do

have one of the best pre-natal health clinics free in British Columbia,

but

[ Page 765 ]

with a deterrent, Mr. Speaker, who will go without the pre-natal

service? It will be the low-income groups. The cancer smear service,

Mr. Speaker, that too is threatened. Who will go without, Mr. Speaker?

Again, the low-income group. The family planning programmes, Mr.

Speaker, that in spite of stupid, rigid Federal laws has shown some

progressive light here in British Columbia. Who will go without family

planning, Mr. Speaker? The low income group.

Mr. Speaker, the member says I am out of order. Mr. Speaker, I refer

the member to

section 2 of this Bill and the explanatory notes. The

explanatory notes of this Bill say, Mr. Speaker, "The purpose of this

Bill is to empower the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make

regulations authorizing charges for tests and inspection services

provided under the Act (section 2), and to enable a representative of a

Regional Board to be appointed to a Union Board of Health." Mr.

Speaker, that means fee for service that already has been provided by

the citizens of this Province without interference by Cabinet, without

interference by Lieutenant-Governor and Order-in-Council.

I can list the rest, Mr. Member. The venereal disease programme

mentioned by the member of Burnaby-Edmonds. Three years ago we had a

serious epidemic of venereal disease in this Province, and if it were

not for the aggressive free programmes of the public health service we

would not have arrested that very serious outbreak of venereal disease,

and I recall the former Minister of Health spending almost an hour in

this House, outlining the programme his department was taking in that

particular area. In terms of the tuberculosis control, the X-Ray

clinics, Mr. Speaker, that is what is threatened here. And Mr. Speaker,

why I am taking just a little bit longer of my time, even though we

know the consequences of the action of the Government around this Bill,

I want to warn the members that we must get a statement from the

Minister of Health tonight whether or not he really intended this

concept to go through, or what is the long-term aim of his department.

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that also would be threatened by this

Bill, is the fact that we have been cutting back on public health

nursing staff. Mr. Speaker, in my own constituency of Coquitlam we are

short, short of public health services, short of home nursing services,

Mr. Speaker, that with a deterrent fee would only increase hospital use

because preventative service was not done in the homes of the aged. Mr.

Speaker, people must be served in their homes by public health nurses.

Public health nurses have kept people, older people, in their

environment and out of institutions for years, and in conjunction with

community sponsored programmes such as Meals on Wheels, the public

health nurses provided that extra measure of health care to keep a

senior citizen in their own home.

Mr. Speaker, the whole area of public school education, the whole

area of public school education with the public health nurse has

provided free, up to the introduction of this Bill, a complete

comprehensive service of examination at the local level on a

preventative basis for health services.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that one of the most positive

debates we have heard in this House was around the subject of shifting

the whole medicare plan away from fee for service to salaries for

doctors. Why is an argument taking place, and what is its relationship

with this Bill? The relationship simply is this. When there is no

deterrent of a fee for service, Mr. Speaker, prevention is the message

of the service, people come to the service to prevent illness. The

service is provided to prevent illness, and to detect it, and to stop

epidemics, and to provide the kind of home-care service that doesn't

lead to additional costs later on.

I urge the House, Mr. Speaker, and all the members of this House, to

appreciate the depth of service that the public health department has

given, and how that depth of service would be interfered with, with

this Bill in terms of charging fees for people.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying this, the rich can pay, the middle

income group can pay, Mr. Speaker, but the people who need it most — the low-income groups, the pensioners, and welfare recipients, will be

the ones who suffer if this concept is allowed to travel abroad beyond

this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, because of the

irresponsible action taken by both Opposition groups in this House,

this night, I move the adjournment of this debate until the next

sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion, are you ready for the

question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the

Ayes have it.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:-

YEAS — 46

Messieurs

Wallace

Barrett

Peterson

Merilees

Dailly, Mrs.

Black

Marshall

Vogel

Fraser

Cocke

LeCours

Campbell, B.

Hartley

Chabot

Wolfe

Lorimer

Little

Smith

Hall

Jefcoat

McDiarmid

Williams, R. A.

Tisdalle

Skillings

Calder

Bruch

Chant

Wenman

McCarthy, Mrs.

Loffmark

Kripps, Mrs.

Jordan, Mrs.

Gaglardi

Price

Dawson, Mrs.

Campbell, D.R.J.

Macdonald

Kiernan

Brothers

Strachan

Williston

Shelford

Dowding

Bennett

Richter

Nimsick

NAYS — 4

Messieurs

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L. A.

Clark

PAIR:

Messieurs

Mussallem

Brousson

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on the

[ Page 766 ]

second Reading of Bill No. 82, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 82. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we support the Bill on

second reading, and it does make some gesture in the direction of the

control of automobile exhaust fumes, and the Attorney-General, in

opening the matter, said that this had been a problem in California. I

want to tell him, Mr. Speaker, very frankly, this is a problem, and a

worse problem right now in the Province of British Columbia. Not worse,

but comparatively speaking. The problem of automobile pollution is a

very clear and present danger to the health of the people of British

Columbia at the present time.

Now it's all very well for the Attorney-General to bring in this

Bill, but I tell him he is right now, as of this moment, five years

behind the State of California in the United States of America. Five

years behind. What we're doing in this Bill is not implementing

legislation to require the installation of fume control devices on

automobiles, but we are saying that the Government may, in its wisdom,

pass regulations to control these noxious fumes that are obviously

deleterious to human health — by regulation in other words, promises,

promises, promises, that's what this Bill is, instead of the realistic

legislation we are entitled to expect, which would require and require

now as a matter of law, the installation of safety pollution control

devices on automobiles. This Bill just gives the promise that there may

be regulation in the future that will govern exhaust emissions.

This isn't the whole problem, Mr. Speaker. The whole problem of

automobile fumes and the pollution they cause is something that has to

be tackled in terms of rapid transit, in terms of the cubic capacity of

the motor-vehicles that are made in Detroit and Windsor and Oshawa — 300 horsepower. Capacities far beyond showing any respect for speed or

health, high horsepower motors that create pollution and danger to life

and limb, that create potentials of speed that can't be enjoyed in any

case on our highways.

I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he must proceed not

only five years after California, where these auto control devices have

proved to be not an answer to the problem, a palliative but not a cure,

but he must proceed also into the direction of restricting the high

horsepowered cars on our highways, taxing them more heavily than the

small models with low cubic capacity, that for all their want of

virility and speed and power and all the rest of it, as status symbols,

are nevertheless more healthy in the human environment and take far

less space in the parking lot.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has begun in a direction which

we support, but it is only a niggardly step in the right direction.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has

not raised too much that needs reply except this, that I would not want

to be associated in any way with his scare tactics of describing this

Province as something worse, proportionately, in terms of air pollution

from motor vehicles than the Los Angeles area. Anyone who suggests

that, anyone who suggests that, Mr. Speaker, is employing scare tactics

or they simply don't know what they're talking about — simply don't

know what they're talking about, because you only need to visit the Los

Angeles area. He says we're five years behind.

Compare Los Angeles to British Columbia any day of the week and

you'll find that there is no comparison in terms of air pollution from

motor-vehicles. The problem hardly exists here compared to the Los

Angeles area, and if you consider the atmospheric conditions there,

inclusion of air currents which results in the non-dispersal of it,

it's something entirely different and the member, had he done any

investigation into this at all, would surely know that.

Nevertheless, we are concerned with this area, and we are taking

these steps, Mr. Speaker, and it's a wonder, with the kind of talk

we've heard from the Opposition this night, that if they really felt

this in years gone by — they say we're five years behind — why didn't

they come forward with legislation? Why didn't they make proposals? Why

didn't they make proposals in the past? None. None. The member — I'll

have to accept that argument, Mr. Speaker, he has had trouble on the

way to the polls. But that trouble, that trouble they've had in the

past is nothing compared to the trouble they're going to have in the

future. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is the second reading of Bill No. 82,

An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act. All those in favour say Aye.

Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill No. 83. (An Act to Amend and Repeal Certain Provisions

of the Statute Law)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 83. The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the member from Cowichan-Newcastle….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Malahat.

MR. BARRETT: Malahat. (applause) I am anticipating the usual

redistribution announced by the Premier in his great democratic

fashion. Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of that member, I wish to

announce that although we are not supporting this Bill, we will not

oppose it because there is no principle, it's a matter of sections. We

will deal with it

section by

section and allow it to go through reading

at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

Bill (No. 27) intituled Land Act was recommitted, reported complete

with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting

after today.

Bill (No. 28) intituled

An Act to Amend the Land Surveyors Act was

committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Bill (No. 29) intituled Age of Majority Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as

[ Page 767 ]

reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 30) intituled Professional Corporations Act was committed,

reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at

the next sitting after today.

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:-

Bill (No. 33) intituled Litter Act.

Bill (No. 34) intituled

An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act.

Bill (No. 35) intituled

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act.

Bill (No. 37) intituled

An Act to Amend the Forest Act was

committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be

considered at the next sitting after today.

The House continued to sit after midnight.

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:-

Bill (No. 36) intituled

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act.

Bill (No. 38) intituled British Columbia Professional Foresters Act.

Bill (No. 39) intituled

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act.

Bill (No. 40) intituled Mineral Processing Act.

The House adjourned at 12.35 a.m.