1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 5043 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Reduction of B.C. sales

tax on building materials. Mr. Phillips — 5043

Coroner's report on death of Mrs. Mary Jones. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5044

Clarification of union and BCR management negotiations. Mr. Wallace — 5044

Jericho School facilities report. Mr. McClelland — 5044

Boycott on U.S.S.R. turbines. Mr. Gardom — 5045

Forestry takeover investigated. Hon. Mr. Hall — 5045

Auxiliary power for ferry terminal. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 5045

Lease arrangements for Crown land. Mr. Fraser — 5045

Duncan courthouse roof repairs. Mr. Chabot — 5045

Request by insurance agents for meeting with Minister. Mrs. Jordan — 5046

Teacher/trustee settlements to date. Mr. Schroeder — 5046

Motion Adjournment of the House on matter of public importance.

Mr. Phillips — 5046

Mr. Speaker — 5046

Mr. Phillips — 5047

Mr. Speaker — 5047

Hon. Mr. King — 5049

Mr. Speaker — 5049

Mr. Schroeder — 5049

Mr. Speaker — 5049

Mr. Phillips — 5049

Hon. Mr. King — 5050

Mr. Chabot — 5051

Mr. Speaker — 5051

Mr. Phillips — 5051

Timber Products Stabilization Act (Bill 171). Committee

stage.

On the amendment to

section 20 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5051

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5051

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5052

section 20 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5052

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5052

Mr. Phillips — 5052

Mr. Gibson — 5054

Amendment to

section 20 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5054

Division on amendment to

section 20 as amended — 5054

Division on

section 20 as amended — 5054

section 21.

Mr. Chabot — 5055

Amendment to the title.

Mr. Wallace — 5055

Report stage — 5055

Division on third reading — 5056

Motion Adjournment of the House on matter of public importance.

Mr. Speaker — 5056

Mr. Phillips — 5056

Mr. Speaker — 5056

Mr. Phillips — 5057

Hon. Mr. King — 5057

Division on motion to revert to orders of the day — 5059

Statute Law Amendment Act (Bill 178). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 10.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5059

section 10 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5059

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 5061

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5063

Mr. Gardom — 5063

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 5064

Mr. Gardom — 5064

Mr. Morrison — 5056

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 5066

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5066

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5066

Mr. Gardom — 5067

section 12.

Mr. Wallace — 5067

Amendment to

section 12.

Mr. Wallace — 5069

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5069

Mr. Gardom — 5069

Division on amendment to

section 12 — 5069

section 14.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5070

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5070

Amendment to

section 15.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5070

section 18.

Mr. Curtis — 5070

Report and third reading — 5071

Night sitting

Royal assent to bills — 5071

Appendix — 5072

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

I would like the gallery to bid a very nice welcome to Mr. Gus

Beurling, formerly of Nahmint Bay — a great friend of fishermen

in the Province of British Columbia.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure the House would want to join with me in

recording our great sorrow at the death yesterday of U Thant,

former Secretary-General to the United Nations, who as we all

know served greatly in the cause of world peace. I'm sure we

would like it on the record that the whole House regrets his

untimely passing.

Mr. Speaker: I will see that it is so recorded.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to ask leave, under standing order 35, to move the

adjournment of the House for the purpose of....

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the Hon. Member? The

time that we have appointed is before entering upon orders of

the day, after question period.

Mr. Phillips: Is this a change from...?

Mr. Speaker: No. That's the way we have been doing

it. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

will appreciate that fact, as recently as the other day.

Mr. Phillips: I was just referring to Hansard

October 17, 1973, where I introduced a matter of urgent public

importance directly after introduction of bills. However, I'll

certainly abide by your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: We've established that "before entering upon

orders of the day" is the way it says in standing orders, and

we therefore have been following after introduction of bills,

question period, then after that, all motions of urgency.

Mr. Phillips: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We'll certainly bear it in mind when

that time comes.

Oral questions.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): To the Provincial

Secretary, Mr. Speaker....

Mr. Phillips: Are we into the question period?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. You and he had both risen, I

thought, on the question period. I was recognizing him next,

but I can go back again, I suppose.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, thank you for that.

Mr. Speaker: I try to follow a format of going down

the line, as it were, from each party for questions.

REDUCTION OF B.C. SALES TAX

ON BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr. Phillips: Well, a question, Mr. Speaker, to the

acting Minister of Finance. I'd like to ask the Minister....

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Is the Minister of Agriculture the

acting Minister of Finance? Thank you, Madam House Leader.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the

fact and promises made by the Minister of Finance, the Premier,

that if Ottawa took the tax off building materials, he would

take the sales tax off of building materials in British

Columbia, and in view of the fact that the federal government

has reduced the tax from 11 and 12 per cent to 5 per cent, is

the Province of British Columbia going to respond and reduce

the sales tax on building materials in the province from 5 per

cent to 2 per cent, which would be an equal percentage?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is out of order. It is asking

for a statement of government policy for the future.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr.

Speaker: yesterday....

Mr. Phillips: If I may interrupt for a moment....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, not again. (Laughter.) It's

the third time.

Mr. Phillips: That question was based on previous

statements made by the Minister of Finance — made right here in

this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The question is, now you are asking him

to give a statement of future policy of the government on the

matter that has not yet been announced by the government....

[ Page 5044 ]

An Hon. Member: Yes, it has.

Mr. Speaker: No, no. With respect, there's been no

announcement, that I know of, that the government is going to

do something on which you are questioning...in regard to your

question at all. The usual rule is that you are not to ask

questions about matters of future policy.

Mr. Phillips: I certainly want to abide by it; I

don't want to disrupt the House. But the statements were made

by the Minister of Finance in this Legislature, so it's already

stated policy. All I'm asking him is when they're going to act

on it. When is he going to act on it?

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker: it isn't a statement that was made by the

Premier, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). He said

that if they removed the 11 per cent, we would consider it.

They have not done that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria, I

think, has tried three times now.

CORONER'S REPORT ON

DEATH OF MRS. MARY JONES

Mr. D.A. Anderson: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr.

Speaker: yesterday the Provincial Secretary told the House that

immediately following question period he would ask the

Attorney-General's department if they would have objections to

tabling the coroner's report on the death of Mrs. Mary Jones

and the reasons for the department's dropping of the

manslaughter charges against one John Sanucci. May I ask him

now whether he's in a position to table the report and provide

information as to why the manslaughter charges were not

proceeded with?

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Thank you, Mr.

Member. I intend to publish, or table, depending on what

happens today, both the pathologist's report and the coroner's

report, as soon as we get it. We have not yet received it,

although we have had information about it.

As far as the charges are concerned, in view of what has

happened yesterday, and the judge's deliberations today, I'm

not at liberty to comment any further as the matter is sub

judice.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Not the previous decisions,

though.

CLARIFICATION OF UNION AND

BCR MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. G.S. Wallace: (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Labour: I wonder if he could clarify a reply which

he gave to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

yesterday, who inquired about the situation on the B.C.

Railroad and the stoppage of service. The Minister replied in

Hansard :

I want him to know that the parties are meeting and

negotiations are under way.

My question arises from a discussion which my office has had

with the B.C. Railroad public relations office today, where a

Mr. Armstrong stated that there has been no negotiations

between the union and BCR management since the certification

vote last Thursday.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker,

that's quite correct. I did make that statement on the basis of

information I had received from the Mediation Services Branch

of the Department of Labour. I did discover this morning that

there had not, in fact, been a meeting take place yesterday, so

I'm sorry for that wrong impression I gave. It was based on a

report from the mediation services.

Mr. Wallace: Just quite supplementary, Mr.

Speaker.

I appreciate the Minister's reply very much. Can he bring us

up to date on when there will be negotiations, because of the

serious complications arising from this present work

stoppage?

Hon. Mr. King: I've been informed, Mr. Speaker, that

the railway management has contacted the union and indicated

their willingness to-resume negotiations, but at the present

time there are no plans to actually come together for further

meetings.

JERICHO SCHOOL FACILITIES REPORT

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): A question to the

Minister of Education. About three months ago the Minister

received a report from Mr. Ben Chud regarding the Jericho

School facilities. In that report Mr. Chud recommended that a

13-member board be set up within three months. I think that

that was the term he used. That's two months ago, and I wonder

whether the Minister is prepared to act upon this

recommendation and, if so, when. I understand the parents still

feel that there's an urgent situation at Jericho School.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Yes, the department officials are

now preparing a recommendation, in consultation with me, with

reference to the report

[ Page 5045 ]

which will be presented to cabinet. I realize that the

parents are concerned about the time element, but I'm waiting

to ascertain whether legislation would be required to initiate

the board, if the government so desires. We are keeping in

contact with the parents to inform them of these problems which

arise. You can't often immediately restructure something

without legislation. We're keeping in touch with the

department, and the cabinet will be given a full recommendation

very shortly.

Mr. McClelland: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. With

regard to the staff situation at Jericho, I understand that

there are some parents who are teaching on staff at Jericho who

don't have any real educational qualifications. Is there a

problem still in getting staff to fill positions at the school,

and are there parents there who have had to fill in because of

deficiency of qualified staff?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I'm not aware whether there are or

not, Mr. Member. We have made available the funds for the

hiring of additional staff.

BOYCOTT ON USSR TURBINES

Mr. Gardom: A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Seeing as how it's the

policy, Mr. Minister, of your government to take South African

wines off the shelf by virtue of the discriminatory practices

of that country, is the Hon. Minister prepared to give his

assurance that B.C. Hydro will not be putting U.S.S.R.

turbines into dams in this province in view of the fact of the

Soviets' continuous persecution of the Jewish people? They're

continuing to imprison political dissidents without fair trial

and are still prohibiting free elections. And none of the goods

in question are going to be union-produced.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources): A pretty good question, Mr. Speaker. It

should be taken with notice.

FORESTRY TAKEOVER INVESTIGATED

Hon. Mr. Hall: The other day, Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question by

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) which I took as

notice on behalf of the Attorney-General and his staff regarding the takeover

bid that was well published in yesterday's newspapers. I want to advise the

House and the Member that the information contained in the articles in the morning

Province , and more particularly on page 27 of the November 25 issue of The Vancouver

Sun , has been brought to the attention of the superintendent of brokers. We

had a number of meetings yesterday about this matter, and his office is looking

into the circumstances of the takeover bid to ensure that the laws of this province

were adhered to.

AUXILIARY POWER FOR

FERRY TERMINAL

Hon. Mr. Strachan (Minister of Transport and

Communications): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a question

by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Ms. Curtis) about an

auxiliary power service at the ferry terminals to eliminate any

future hold-up because of a power failure. Well, our very

efficient, first-rate ferry service was ready away ahead of all

of us and has an auxiliary service installed, which was

actually used last Sunday evening for the first time.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): On that

point, my thanks to the Minister for answering the question,

Could he explain to the House whether this is one terminal,

two, or most terminals? The problem is quite widespread in the

event of a major power outage. The Minister mentioned privately

yesterday that it was at Tsawwassen, but at what other

terminals does this apply?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: It will go into all terminals. I'm

not sure which one. I think it's in all now, as a matter of

fact — the four main terminals.

LEASE ARRANGEMENTS

FOR CROWN LAND

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): This question is for the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. He announced a

new policy on disposal of provincial Crown land in rural and

semi-rural areas of the province. Will this disposal be by

leasing only, or will there also be an option to purchase?

Hon. R.A. Williams: That's a matter that's currently

under review, Mr. Speaker. There's no firm decision in that

regard.

DUNCAN COURTHOUSE ROOF REPAIRS

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Minister of Public Works. Regarding the Duncan

courthouse roof repairs, is the work to be undertaken by the

department substantially similar to the specifications provided

in the original tenders called?

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): The

answer is no.

Mr. Chabot: A supplementary question, Under the

circumstances, in view of the different

[ Page 5046 ]

specifications, what objections does the Minister have in

calling tenders under the new specifications?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: We called tenders and we prepared

first an estimate in house, which was $17,000. We called

tenders, and in calling tenders we notified the trade. We were

assured that there would be considerable interest. When we

opened tenders, there was one tender being offered by the same

firm that installed the roof some four or five years

previously. The tender was almost three times what our estimate

was. Our estimate was $17,000; the tender was $47,000.

Unless there are two or more tenders, or unless the one

tender would be competitive with what we anticipated, or with

what our estimate would be, then we don't accept that tender.

We feel that this is by far in the best interests of getting

the greatest value for the taxpayers' dollar. Because of this,

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy and I were on the roof of the Duncan

courthouse (laughter) the morning after we looked at the

tenders. The roof was repaired for less than $2,000.

REQUEST BY INSURANCE AGENTS

FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): My question is to

the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. Would the

Minister confirm that his office and he himself received a

letter delivered by hand on November 20, 1974, from the

insurance agents of British Columbia requesting a meeting?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes, I think I did.

Mrs. Jordan: Has the Minister answered this letter

yet?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No.

Mrs. Jordan: Supplementary. Does the Minister intend

to answer this letter and this request by these agents to meet

with them to discuss their current problems in light of the

excess loads that ICBC is putting on them over and above the

initial contract?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I usually answer all my mail,

sooner or later.

Mrs. Jordan: When? When they're out of business?

TEACHER/TRUSTEE SETTLEMENTS TO DATE

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): This question is for

the Minister of Education. Can the Minister advise the House how many settlements have taken

place in the teacher/trustee...?

Interjection.

Mr. Schroeder: Oh, I'll start all over again. This

question is for the Minister of Education. Can the Minister

please advise the House how many settlements have taken place

in the teacher/school board salary dispute since the coming

into effect retroactively of Bill 173 on November 13?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I haven't had a report from the

conciliators yet. But what I have had to date is very promising

and certainly vindicates the legislation we brought in, which

shows that a number of boards and trustees have gotten

together. Specifically, your answer: two more, I believe, have

settled at this time outside of the group that had not allied

themselves with the provincial group. I understand — and this

is just a general understanding — that there are a number of

others that are actually talking to each other, which I think

should make us very pleased.

Mr. Schroeder: Supplementary. That means that two out

of 68 have settled.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 35 I

ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose

of discussing a definite matter of urgent public

importance.

Mr. Speaker: Would you hand the matter up to me,

please?

Mr. Phillips: Do I not have an opportunity to read

into the record...?

Mr. Speaker: Well, I mentioned previously that there

have been a number of statements to the effect that the matter

should be handed up to the Speaker at the time you ask for the....

Mr. Phillips: I'll hand it up to you and read it at

the same time.

Mr. Speaker: You haven't got two copies?

Mr. Phillips: Well, certainly I have. I say I'll hand

it up and read it at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: Right, thank you very much.

Mr. Phillips: Great cooperation, certainly.

Mr. Speaker: I know we get along very well.

(Laughter.)

[ Page 5047 ]

Mr. Phillips: Request for immediate action by the

government in the strike on the British Columbia Railway. A

request for immediate action by this government on this matter

has reached my office, and the offices of other Members of....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member has a

point of order?

Hon. Mr. Hall: Is this a press release?

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): No, he's reading

from a statement.

Mr. Phillips: How facetious can you be? (Laughter.)

How facetious can that Minister be? I'm reading from a

statement that I prepared....

Mr. Speaker: I've had the opportunity to read the

statement as far as I could. In the meantime I would point out

to the Hon. Member that the rule clearly says that you state

the matter and you do not include in it, according to all the

authorities, an argument with regard to the matter or all the

evidence that you would otherwise offer in a debate on the

motion.

Therefore, all you do is state the particular matter that

you consider to be an emergency that requires debate at this

time.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, in all due fairness to

you, do you not consider a wire from a municipality in my

constituency that says:

70 PER CENT OF WORK FORCE OUT OF WORK IN CHETWYND DUE TO B.C.

RAIL STRIKE. GOVERNMENT INDECISION AND FAILURE TO SETTLE MATTER IS COSTING TAXPAYERS

MILLIONS, HAS CRIPPLED THE ECONOMY OF CHETWYND.

Do you not consider that matter certainly well within the

jurisdiction of...?

Mr. Speaker: What I was saying to the Hon. Member is:

that constitutes an argument on the case rather than a

statement of the matter. What I'm suggesting is that what the

Hon. Member is trying to do....

Mr. Phillips: Oh, Mr. Speaker, please, please, come

on now — be fair.

Mr. Speaker: What the Hon. Member is trying to do is

to argue the case before the House before he states the matter.

The matter, simply, as I see it from your statement, is that

there is a strike on the railway which you say is so serious

that the House should adjourn its ordinary business to discuss

it at this time.

Mr. Phillips: That's what I'm saying — yes.

Mr. Speaker: But I don't suppose that you would want

to go into all the arguments of why it's important in terms of

how many people are out of work, other than the fact that it's

a serious matter and that you have stated 70 per cent of the

work force are out of work in Chetwynd.

Mr. Phillips: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Now, anything else in regard to the

statement of the urgency of the matter?

Mr. Phillips: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. The lumber

industry in this province, which is the No. I industry, has its

livelihood threatened by this strike. Rising unemployment in

this province is going to be increased by this strike.

This railway is the lifeline of the interior of the

province. The government, through the services of the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) was able to avert a

threatened strike in the ferry system, and I'd like to know why

there is no action by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

who is a director of the British Columbia Railway — why

negotiations are not going on.

This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It's a specific

matter; it's certainly urgent and well within the

administrative jurisdiction of this government to solve the

matter. Unlike previous matters of urgent public importance

raised in this House, there is a specific telegram, which I've

referred to, outlining the effects of this strike on just one

community.

I think, in all fairness to the economy of this province,

this government and you should allow at least the House to vote

on whether they consider it a matter of urgent public

importance or not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There are two aspects of it that have to

be considered by the Speaker before he can put the matter to

the House for debate.

The first question is: is there a competent administrative

method already provided in law for the dealing with disputes?

We've had this matter settled several times on the matter of

strikes. It's always been held, as I recall, that the matter,

if it is within the competence and the administrative

jurisdiction of some department, or some board or commission,

then it's not generally for the government to interfere with

the normal working of the statute that deals with that

subject.

Now, there have been several work-stoppage cases that we've

had where that very point has been decided.

The other aspect that has to concern the Speaker

[ Page 5048 ]

is whether this is the first opportunity in which the matter

could have been raised, because if it's a continuing thing

that's going to go on for some time — has been going on for a

number of days — then this is not the first opportunity,

therefore there is not the urgency of debate.

Now, those are the two factors it appears to me that I have

to consider.

Mr. Phillips: Yes. In all due respect to your

unbiased ruling, I would suggest to you that it could have been

brought up yesterday. However, there was a statement made by

the Minister of Labour whereby he told this Legislature that

there were negotiations going on. So after we learn today that

there are no negotiations — less than 10 minutes later — I

don't know how I could possibly bring it up any sooner, after

what the Minister said, that there were no negotiations going

on. Now....

An Hon. Member: He apologized.

Mr. Phillips: Last year, on October 17, in a similar

situation, you ruled that I could not raise this matter in the

House because we were going to have a debate on the labour

bill.

Mr. Speaker: That's right.

Mr. Phillips: And it was during that labour bill that

I was under tremendous odds in the House, able to relate the

railway strike to the labour bill, if you will recall.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, 15 minutes after you made your

motion you were debating it in the regular debate.

Mr. Phillips: Yes. No, it was about an hour and a

half later — it wasn't until 5 o'clock that the strike went

on.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry. I was not aware of the

specific time.

Mr. Phillips: Now this is a specific matter. Mr.

Speaker, you must realize that this might also be the last time

I would have, the opportunity to bring this matter to the

Legislature, because in all probability we will be adjourning

or proroguing tonight — at least, I'm sure you hope so.

This is the last opportunity, and in all fairness to the

people who are hurt by this strike, the lumber industry, grain — it's impossible to move grain — as I said, this railway is

the lifeline of this province. Mr. Speaker, in all due respect,

I think if you were going to be completely unbiased and....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You are suggesting that

I'm not...?

Mr. Phillips: No, no, no, no! Oh, no. Now, you know

better than that.

Mr. Speaker: Well, then don't even put it as a

possible proposition (laughter) because if I think that you're

suggesting that I should make my decision on the basis of

whether you think I'm biased or not, then the whole business of

having a referee just disappears — you might as well forget the

rules of the House.

Mr. Phillips: No, no, perish the thought. But I'm

saying, sir, to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is unemployment in

this province: the lumber industry is hurting; grain farmers

are hurting; the world is starving and we can't move because

this is the lifeblood.

Now the government, through their administrative powers was

able to carry on negotiations in the ferry system, which

affects the lower mainland, the seacoast, Vancouver Island and

the Sunshine Coast, et cetera. That's important, and I certainly

don't take away from that, Mr. Speaker, but this affects the

entire economy of the whole province.

Through the graces of the Provincial Secretary, that ferry

system was kept operating while negotiations carried on, and it

is well within the administrative jurisdiction of this

government to see that those railway workers go back to work

and that negotiation can carry on during that period of time.

That's why I think we should have a debate and allow the

Minister....

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me. May I ask...the Hon. Member

is suggesting that although it is within the normal

administrative competence and duty of some board or other, that

is under the Labour Relations Act?

Mr. Phillips: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: ...that there is no law that deals

with this at the present time and therefore the House is free

to debate it?

An Hon. Member: There is no law that can resolve

it.

Mr. Phillips: There's no law that can resolve it. All

of the normal course of laws have run their course, and the

Minister has already said....

If we were allowed to debate this very, very vital and

important issue, maybe the Minister could advise us, or maybe

we could suggest to him during the term of debate that he send

over some people from

[ Page 5049 ]

Victoria — the Labour Relations Board — and see if we can

get these people back to work.

Now, it seems to me that I'm doing all the debating; I'd

like other Members, and on the government side of the House....

An Hon. Member: The Labour Relations Board can't do

it.

Mr. Speaker: I hope you're helping me, but I'm not

too sure.

Mr. Phillips: That could be brought out during the

debate.

Mr. Speaker: What I want to know is this, and maybe

the Hon. Minister of Labour can give me the information I need:

whether there is at the present time any competent authority

with the power and the duty under statute, at the proper time,

and in accordance with the rules of collective bargaining, to

deal with the subject — that is, the legal point. Is there an

administrative body that has the duty charged by this House

that they would perform in their normal course?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for South

Peace River is rather confused as to the procedures.

There is no law which compels people to work in this

province. The union has exhausted the procedures which exist

under current legislation in order to exercise their right to

strike, and certainly this government is not a party to any law

which would force workers to abandon that strike right and

force them to continue working.

We have a branch of the Department of Labour, namely the

Mediation Services, which is normally available to the parties

to assist them in their negotiations. Mediation offices are

standing by, willing and ready to assist the parties, but it is

basically the responsibilities of the two parties in

negotiations to resolve their own dispute.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that this situation

is a valid matter of emergency at this point in time. I have

not received one telegram at the moment. If the Member for

South Peace River feels obliged to respond to the telegram he's

received, why, perhaps he'd like to offer his services as the

mediator to the parties. But that's strictly up to him.

I've received no indication from industries or from any

individuals, indeed, in the north, which would indicate and

support the idea that an emergency exists in the north at this

time.

Mr. Speaker: If you look, Hon. Members, at May in the 16th edition —

I happen to have it handy — pages 372-373. There two aspects of it which I have

to consider. One of them is that if must not be a matter that involves the ordinary

administration of the law.

Now, the Hon. Minister of Labour has indicated the method

that is used in law, by statute, to deal with the matter, and

that would, in effect, by interfering if anything came out of

this proposed debate in terms of what you want to do. If what

you want to do is proposed to this House that there be some

legislation, then the proper course would not be to debate it

in this method but to put a bill before the House.

Therefore, the second point is that it must not be a matter

involving legislation. So you are prevented by the rule in

May , at page 373, halfway down the page, where it says:

"It must not involve legislation." Therefore, the proper method

is to apply to change the law if you don't like the present

law.

As far as the matter of administration of the statute is

concerned, if your point was that the statute is not being

administered, then that might be an arguing point as to why

there should be a debate. But debate of this kind does not lead

anywhere, except draw attention to a matter.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): A point of order.

According to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, then there is no such

thing as a matter of urgent importance. If there is a statute

to care for the problem, then it cannot be brought in as a

matter of urgent importance. And you have just ruled that if it

is a matter of changing some law in order to make some

suggestion or to provide some vehicle for the care of it

possible, then also it is ruled out. So you have just ruled

that there is no such thing as a matter of urgent

importance.

Mr. Speaker: No, I must differ with the Hon. Member,

that I have said many times, and drawing on the authorities

that have stated it many times, the matter may be urgent, and

certainly I quite agree with the Member that it is an urgent

matter; it is always an urgent matter when there is a cessation

of work which affects the public.

That is not what I have to deal with, and I tried to point

this out many times. I have to decide on the urgency of debate.

Is there another way it can be done than by interrupting the

normal business of the House and putting this ahead of

everything else the House has laid out for itself to do? Before

I determine that, I have to know whether there is another

method which can be used, such as legislation, or

alternatively, whether there is already an administrative body

charged with the duty, by this House, to carry out its

duties.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, may I just respond to the

words from the Minister of Labour? And in all

[ Page 5050 ]

humbleness from me, I feel you have predetermined the

results of this debate, however, there is a way, and it could

come out in the debate.

There has been no mediation officer requested by the

government. The reason the railway is out on strike in the

first place is because he didn't do his job as Minister of

Labour and the government and the railway have not bargained in

good faith. Had they bargained in good faith like they did on

the ferry strike.... I'm certainly not asking him to bring in

any law to force these people back to work. All I am asking is

for a debate on this very urgent matter so that we can discuss

it in a normal, intelligent way, search out ways, bring out and

point out to the government the problems with the economy of

this province, how important this is to all segments of the

economy of the province. Maybe in debate on this urgent, very

urgent matter, very specific matter...maybe through debate on

the matter we can come up with some solution.

I'm certainly not advocating that the right to strike of

these people be taken away. Not at all. I'm not proposing

legislation to force them back to work like that Minister

brought into this Legislature, either.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A point of order.

An Hon. Member: Is the Member in order?

Mr. Speaker: No, he's not, actually. But I want to

hear every point of view on this. I welcome any statements on

points of order because it helps me in this matter. Now, the

Hon. Minister of Labour on that point.

Hon. Mr. King: On a point of order, the Member

suggested that proper collective bargaining had not taken

place, that a mediation officer had not been involved in the

dispute. I noticed he was consulting with his colleague, the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), and I hope he didn't

receive the advice from those quarters, because if they knew

the law in the province pertaining to collective bargaining,

there is no trade union that is allowed to take strike action

until mediation has been exhausted. And a mediation officer,

indeed, was involved in that dispute for 10 days.

Mr. Schroeder: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Yes?

Mr. Schroeder: The question is: is the Minister in

order?

Mr. Speaker: Well, the question is: he is giving information to the

Speaker, as both sides have been doing — both the Member for South Peace River

and the Minister of Labour — have been clearing up a matter that is part of

the thing I have to determine, and that is whether there is urgency of debate,

and whether it affects the normal administration of the law set out in the statutes.

I've heard from both sides on the matter, and I cannot be

convinced from what has been said that the normal

administration of the law should be interfered with at the

present time in that things have been happening that should be

happening in that field.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, if I may finalize my

comments, there was improper information given to the House and

I think that is a valid point of order.

Mr. Schroeder: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Schroeder: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is

that I also have, it seems to me, a lot of difficulty getting

your attention. I have reference in this directory to a fine

distributor of a hearing aid.

Mr. Speaker: Now, I'm sure a personal remark is not

called for in the House. I'm trying to hear the information

that I'm being supplied with in order to make the proper

decision, and I've been getting that information from both the

Minister of Labour and from the Member for South Peace

River.

On the point of order, nobody has shown me yet that we

should interfere with the normal administration of the statute,

which is the one that binds this dispute. Now if you could show

me why we should interfere with the normal administration of

the statute, I'd be delighted to consider it. In view of that,

I would like to postpone the decision on this matter until 3:30

or whatever time I am permitted back in the chair by what order

of events are taking place, to tell you what I have decided in

view of the things I have heard from the Members who have

spoken.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I was on a point of

order, and I would like to conclude my remarks.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Well, may the Hon. Minister precede you,

then we'll hear from the Member for Columbia River?

Hon. Mr. King: Simply it's not to debate this

situation, but to clarify the comments that I understood the

Member for South Peace River to make — that no mediation had

been involved in the dispute, and that improper collective

bargaining had taken place. Now, that is in violation of the

law, those suggestions, and they are quite improper and quite

untrue.

[ Page 5051 ]

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, you

suggested that you are seeking information that would justify

the ability of this chamber to discuss this matter of urgency.

I think the Minister of Labour has made the point quite clearly

that there is a need for this debate at this time.

The Minister said that collective bargaining has gone

through its proper course, that mediation officers have been

involved in this dispute, and that now there is an impasse

between management and labour, that the strike is on and there

is nothing further which the legislation that he, or his

department administers, can do to resolve this dispute.

Therefore I think that brings the matter around to the

question of whether there is urgency of debate. Certainly, in

view of those statements made by the Minister — that the strike

is here and now, and that there is nothing further can be done

by his department — there is an urgent need for the debate to

take place to attempt to resolve the impasse that is affecting

the economy of the entire Province of British Columbia. I think

it is of extreme importance. I don't think it is a matter that

should be delayed until 3:30, It is a matter that could easily

be put to the Members in the House under standing order 35.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I thank the Hon. Member for his

contribution. I think I've heard ample representation. Normally

I don't suppose Speakers do this, but I think it is a good

practice to find out what all the aspects are. I'd like to put

the matter over until a convenient time after 3:30.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, may I add one more

statement which might help in your deliberations? — the fact

that if we don't have a debate on this this afternoon and find

a way of solving this strike and treating the workers on the

British Columbia Railway fairly, why, I can see in the future

that we might be back here in a couple of weeks debating the

same thing in this House, with legislation which would force

the railway back from strike. I think you can avoid that by

allowing debate on this very important matter this afternoon.

I'll just leave that with you for consideration while you are

in your office consulting May.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Public

bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Committee on Bill 171.

TIMBER PRODUCTS STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 171; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

On the amendment to

section 20.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: To refresh your memory as to what

the amendment is about, Mr. Chairman, when we closed last night

I was inquiring of the Minister why in this

section 20 we have

the word "shall". The

section reads:

"Upon the requisition of the minister, the Minister of

Finance shall pay such moneys as may be required to the

administration of, or for any of the purposes, of this

Act."

It is an obligatory requirement of the Minister of Finance

to pay whatever amount of money is requested from the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who,

presumably, is the designated Minister in this instance.

The amendment would be to switch the word "may" for the word

"shall" so that in a bill, which is otherwise totally

unfettered in the way of checks and balances, in a bill which

grants these very, very broad powers over so many aspects of

the forest industry in British Columbia, that at least we have

a final check of some sort, anyway, in that the Minister of

Finance can question expenditures and moneys which are

requested by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

Last night the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) no doubt correctly indicated

that he and the Minister of Finance are the best of friends. We

hope that one day, perhaps, either this Minister or some other

Minister may well be in a position where they act a little more

independently of the Minister of Finance. Or perhaps I should

rephrase that, Mr. Chairman: we hope the day will come when the

Minister of Finance acts a little more independently of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Therefore, we think that this particular

section should be

altered so that at least the power is left to the Finance

department to say, "No, halt, you've gone too far, Spend no

more," rather than leave it totally unfettered in the

hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

Therefore, I move the amendment to substitute the word "may"

for the word "shall" in the first line of

section 21.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources): It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon.

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) should at long last

express this concern because he has been willing to live with

other statutes with similar wording. I would draw the Hon.

Member's attention to the Administration of Justice Act

which

[ Page 5052 ]

passed this House. I would remind him of the Recreational

Land Green Belt Encouragement Act, which was brought in by a

former government with the same kind of wording. The Unified

Family Court Act, or the Transit Services Act, or the Debtor

Assistance Act, or the Assessment Authority of British Columbia

Act, or the Institute of Technology (British Columbia) Act, or

the Trade Practices Act, brought in by the Minister for

Consumer Services.

In all these instances, generally the opposition has

accepted this standard drafting clause. It's strange that their

memory is so short.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that

the Minister is now intervening in this debate, unlike last

night when he sat so silent. Perhaps he failed to realize the

distinction between this Act and so many others. Many of the

Acts he mentioned, passed by the previous administration, we

questioned and have commented upon and have voted against. He

knows that.

Many of the Acts that he has referred to are different in

this sense: the Act has some limitation. The Act itself may

limit the expenditure or scope or powers. But in this Act — and

this is the reason I gave for the amendment — we find virtually

unlimited powers. It's because of this that we offer a parting

shot in the second to last

section of this particular bill: the

very minor suggestion that "may" shall be substituted for the

word "shall".

Had this Act been written in full of nice, good, proper

curbs, and checks and balances, and limitations on powers and

the possibility of abuse, had there been possibilities for

accounting with a reasonable length of time, had there been

some upper limitation on borrowing, and things of that nature,

maybe it, wouldn't be necessary to have the word "may"

substituted for the word "shall."

But because this Act is totally unfettered in its grasp for

power, in view of the fact that the Minister and the board

involved have virtually total control over the industry without

further reference to the Legislature, I would just like to

think that the final, minor, little amendment to give at least

the Minister of Finance some control would be accepted by all

concerned. I'm sure the Minister is going to accept it right

now.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I'm pleased to hear the Hon.

Member's comments. I intended to draft a wire to send to China

to the Premier to advise him of the faith of the Member for

Victoria with respect to his judgment, if not my own.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I shall be happy to translate that wire for the Minister,

if he wishes, but I think the amendment certainly is in order and should be

accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): On

section

20, I just have a short question of the Minister. Why did he find it necessary

to put in subsection (2)?

Hon. R.A. Williams: It's simply authorization

throughout the time period up until the date noted for

expenditures.

Mr. Gibson: It's up to March 31, 1976. I would have

thought this could have been included in next year's estimates

so that it can be debated at that time.

Hon. R.A. Williams: We think this is the more

realistic data in terms of experience.

Mr. Gibson: If I could just get a clarification, Mr.

Chairman: is the Minister saying that it's too late at this

date to put anything into the estimates for the next fiscal

year? I can't believe he's saying that.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I think you'd have to check with

the Minister of Finance.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gibson: But presumably you're responsible for

this piece of legislation, Mr. Minister, so I would have hoped

that you had already checked with the Minister of Finance.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Yes, and he finds this quite

acceptable.

Mr. Gibson: Well, I think he's made a mistake, then,

because this may well deny this House the right to discuss this

appropriation next spring.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Well, maybe you should send the

wire to China.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman,

I don't want to be repetitious on this subject, but this is a

point in the whole bill that, as I've said before, really

usurps the Legislature itself. Now, this Minister will go to

the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance shall give

him whatever moneys he requests to run this all-powerful timber

products board which he is setting up.

This allows the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources to effectually do what he wanted to do in the first

place, and that is, take taxpayers' money to buy up private

concerns in the forest industry and the lumber industry in

British Columbia with complete disregard to the Legislature,

without coming back to the Legislature. There are no limits

[ Page

5053 ]

on the amount of money that the Minister of Finance shall

give to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, And

with that money which the Minister of Finance shall give to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to finance this

all-powerful board, the powers of which we have debated in this

Legislature for the last several days, this Minister can buy

shares in individual lumber operations, he can acquire land, he

can also put in debt the taxpayers of British Columbia by

borrowing money backed by the government, which makes the

taxpayers responsible.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, this is without reference

whatsoever to this Legislature.

Hon. R.A. Williams: No, no.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, the Minister says no. Well, I'd

like the Minister to tell me if I'm wrong. I've got big ears

and I'm certainly willing to listen.

But by the Minister's actions in not answering questions,

during committee stage on this bill, he has shown a great deal

of arrogance towards the Legislature. He has no respect for the

Legislature, and that's why he wants to have his own powerful

committee which can get money from the Minister of Finance

without seeking the authority of this Legislature. As I said

yesterday, this Minister is setting up for himself a complete

little empire over which he will be the sole dictator in the

Province of British Columbia, backed by all of the resources of

the Province of British Columbia. That Minister will appoint

and pay whatever wages to his flunkies that he puts on this

board.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Be more careful with your

language; that's not nice.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I've seen the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources operate. I've watched the operation

of this government in putting their political hacks in

positions of high responsibility, without qualifications, and

high salaries in the past 2 1/2 years. I've also witnessed an

increase of over 8,000 in the civil service of this province.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) says this is par for

the course. We're going to appoint political people to these

positions; it's done in other jurisdictions. He made a blatant

statement in the Legislature that this was taking place, but

with complete disregard for the Legislature.

As I said yesterday, this Minister could cut down his

estimates going through this Legislature because he can, in

essence, get enough money through this board to run his

department. He can even run the Forest Service through this

department because of the unspecified powers.

I think that we are seeing here today, as we pass this bill, more erosion of

the democratic system here in British Columbia. I think, Mr. Chairman, that

democracy is on trial in this Legislature here today. Democracy is on trial.

Our whole democratic system of requesting funds from the Queen, the basis of

the Legislature, the basis of the estimates, is being eroded away here in this

Legislature today.

We've seen it in other Acts and we are seeing it again

today. I think it's a sorry shame, Mr. Chairman, because the

people of the Province of British Columbia did not ask for this

and they did not give this government the right to do this in

August of 1972.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Let's just check with them.

Mr. Phillips: They did not give this government the

right...

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: ...to take away and erode....

Some Hon. Members: Let's go. Let's go now.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: They did not give this government the

right to erode the democratic process in this province, which

is happening as this bill passes through.

I hope that the people of the Province of British Columbia

will realize that the democratic system in British Columbia is

going out the window and down the drain here today. (Laughter.)

Out the window and down the drain.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Make up your mind. Now which is

it?

Mr. Phillips: Well, it is both going out the window

and down the drain.

We have seen when the legislation was passed in this

Legislature to curb debate. We saw a little bit of democracy

die that day. Now, we are not only going to be allowed to

debate the estimates but the Minister is taking away the power

of this Legislature, the power in the estimates....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Member

sometime relate his remarks to the amendment?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair is not saying his

[ Page 5054 ]

remarks are irrelevant; it's simply asking him to relate

....

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, the principle involved in

section 20 of this bill is the whole principle of democracy. I

think you'll have to agree with me; it's the whole principle of

democracy. A Minister no longer has to come to the Crown to ask

for funds to run his department. This is the whole principle

involved. As I say, this government was not given the authority

to completely erode our democratic system, to ride roughshod

over the democratic principles when they were elected to office

in August of 1972.

Hon. R.A. Williams: It still kind of grinds, doesn't

it?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, it'll take years and

years to get democracy back on the rails here in British

Columbia after the next election. It'll take years to strip

away the powers given to those infamous cabinet Ministers who

now rule with an iron fist without even having to come to this

Legislature to seek funds.

This

section of this Act says that the Minister of Finance

shall give to this dictator any funds that he requires. It's a

sad and sorry day, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure that you are as

aggrieved as I am to see this happening in what we once thought

was a democratic province.

Mr. Gibson: The Minister just wants to take this bill

on a submarine trip once it passes this Legislature. He just

wants to put it under the surface for a year-and-a-half, and

that's exactly what he can do in between this

section 20 and

section 16 dealing with reports.

We may not have another chance to hear officially or to

discuss this forest products board in this Legislature until

the spring of 1976, a year-and-a-half from now. We probably

won't have that opportunity. By spring of 1975, this board and

the cabinet under this Act will presumably have moved in

important ways to change the structure of the forest industry

in British Columbia. They will certainly have moved in respect

of chips, and the forest products board will presumably be

established.

Progress or whatever is going wrong should be reviewed next

spring. We should not have to wait until the spring of 1976. I

would hope that the Minister would accept that elementary

principle of democracy which has been developed over many

centuries; that the Legislature has a chance to look at

government activities at least once a year.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move, that in

section 20(2)

the numeral "1976" be changed to "1975."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is an amendment

before the committee, and the Hon. Member proposing this has an

amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Gibson: What amendment? We're on the section.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Would the Hon.

Member pass the amendment up?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 26

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Gorst

Mr. Gibson: Leave to record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Section 20 as amended approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 27

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 15

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

[ Page 5055 ]

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, when

reporting to the Speaker, would you please report that the

division took place in committee and ask leave for reporting in

the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Chabot: On

section 21, Mr. Chairman.

Section 21

deals with the question of proclamation. Well, I could put an

amendment in all right, but I would hope that this wouldn't be

proclaimed right away. I would think that September 1, 1977

would be a good day of proclamation. By that time there'll be a

new government in British Columbia to deal with this

legislation.

Just a few more words, now that it's the last opportunity of

speaking on this bill. I want to say how much I resent the

extreme arrogance displayed by the Minister during this

legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member may

confine his remarks strictly to the words contained in

section

21 of this Act.

Mr. Chabot: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The date of proclamation.

Mr. Chabot: Talking about the proclamation and the

advisability of it being proclaimed now or at a later date, I

think that many of the Members of this assembly have expressed

extreme concern regarding certain sections of this legislation.

Whether they should be proclaimed or not is another matter.

But, nevertheless, I certainly resent the kind of silence

and the kind of unwillingness on the part of that Minister to

answer questions; the kind of arrogance he displays during

this legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Section 21 approved.

On the title.

Mr. G.S. Wallace: (Oak Bay): Yes, Mr. Chairman, a

great deal of the dissension and argument in this bill has been

focused around the purpose of this bill. The Minister has gone

a considerable distance in trying to satisfy the complaints of

the opposition on that regard by insisting in the definition

section that it is just log and wood chips that are concerned.

I think there would be nothing more reasonable and coherent in

our considerations if the bill should, in fact, be titled "Log

and Wood Chips Stabilization Act."

I have an amendment on the order paper. I so move that

amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 27

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, could you ask leave

of the House to have this division recorded in the Journals ?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Title approved.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 171, Timber Products Stabilization Act, reported

complete with amendments.

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

the House.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third

time?

Hon. R.A. Williams: With leave of the House now, Mr.

Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 171, Timber Stabilization Act, read a third time and

passed on the following division:

[ Page 5056 ]

YEAS — 29

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 14

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, at the beginning of the

day's proceedings, I promised to deal with this question raised

by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

relating to a stoppage of work on the B.C. Railway, an

industrial dispute on which further information has been

received today. I've tried to find the authorities that guide

the Speaker in deciding whether or not the test is met with

regard to urgency of debate required under the standing order.

Just to summarize briefly how the usual rule in standing order

35 has been interpreted in the past, I quote from the Hon. Hugh

Shantz, who was Speaker on February 12, 1959. He indicated in

the Journals of that year at page 64:

"I do not feel that the matter raised by the Hon. First

Member for Burnaby comes within the scope of standing order 35.

I refer you to two or three quotes from Beauchesne's

Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th Edition : 'The

definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion

of which a Member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the

House under standing order 26' — which is the federal one —

'must involve the administrative responsibility of the

government.'

"The definite matter of urgent public importance, for the

discussion of which the adjournment of the House may be moved

under standing order 26, must be so pressing that public

interest will suffer if it is not given immediate

attention.

"Urgency within this rule does not apply to the matter itself

but it means urgency of debate when the ordinary opportunities provided by the

rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough,

and public interest demands that the discussions take place immediately."

The matter requested for discussion — and this is his

decision in the matter that I present to him at that time — in

my opinion, has not been brought up at the earliest possible

moment, The withdrawal of this service has been a known

possibility for several weeks and could therefore have been

brought forward at an earlier date and, in fact, could have

been discussed in ordinary debate before now.

Further, it was announced earlier this week that the

Attorney-General was going to Ottawa today, and instructions

could have been given to him by this House before this. So he

rejected the application that I had made on that occasion. The

pertinency of this is, however, that although ordinary

industrial disputes are a matter for ordinary administration of

the law, we are faced here with something that none of the

Members have raised in this discussion, but to which I have

given consideration. That is that Members of this government

sit on the board.

So quite apart from the Labour Relations Board and the

ordinary administration of the law, there is a question of

urgency of debate where the Members are in the House who are on

the board of the B.C. Railway. Therefore I feel that the matter

is for the House to determine under the standing orders rather

than through the Speaker, because it is not an ordinary dispute

involving other parties but involving a board composed of

Members of the government.

From that point of view, I have to ask under standing order

35 whether Members give leave for the adjournment of the House

for the purpose of debating a specific matter of urgent

importance, namely the cessation of work on the B.C. Rail at

the present time and the consequent public dislocation

resulting there from.

Shall leave be granted? How many support the leave?

More than nine do. Will the Hon. Member put his motion,

which I have already stated?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, will you just give me time

to complete...? I have made the motion verbally. Do you want

me to write it out?

Mr. Speaker: I wish you'd do that. But, actually, may

I phrase it for you? You move that the House do adjourn to

discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely

the cessation of work on the B.C. Railway.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do

adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely

the stoppage of work on the British Columbia Railway.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Does the Hon.

[ Page 5057 ]

Member wish to speak on the motion?

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have stated

previously this afternoon, the British Columbia Railway is

really the lifeline of the interior and northern parts of this

province.

This also has a great bearing on the economy, not only of

the lower mainland but even of the economy on Vancouver Island.

This railway, which is basically a resource railway, moves the

materials to and from sawmills and pulp mills. The railway was

constructed basically as a resource railway, and industry has

located along the right-of-way on this railway.

In most of the towns and cities and municipalities along the

railway there have been industrial complexes built up. Indeed

the whole growth in the central interior and northern parts of

this railway was built up on the basis of the Pacific Great

Eastern Railway. Towns such as Chetwynd, Fort Nelson, Mackenzie

are completely dependent on the British Columbia Railway for

their livelihood and the livelihood of the workers in the

industries there.

At the present time the lumber industry elsewhere in the

world is at an all-time low. If we see the stoppage of that

small lumber market which we presently have, that will mean the

complete cessation of work in our pulp mills and work in those

lumber industries and sawmills which are presently going

on.

In a province where the labour force has one of the largest

percentages of any province of Canada of unemployment, with

predictions that this rate of unemployment will grow during the

winter months, it is the responsibility of this government to

discuss this matter and see if there is any way that we can, as

a Legislature, offer to the workers on the British Columbia

Railway a guarantee that we will bargain in good faith, that we

will have their interests at heart.

Mr. Speaker, I don't propose that this Legislature should

force these workers back to work. But by debating it this

afternoon, if the Minister and the other Members of this

Legislature who are directors on the British Columbia Railway

can make statements that the workers on the British Columbia

Railway will be treated equally with workers on the national

railways in Canada.... The Minister has the power to send

mediators over through the Department of Labour and give

assurance — using the same methods, Mr. Speaker, as were used

by the offices of the Provincial Secretary in telling those

engineers on the ferry system that negotiations would continue

in good faith — that their interests would be looked after.

This Legislature has the power to do that. Those Ministers who

are directors on the British Columbia Railway have the power to

do that.

What really concerns me, Mr. Speaker — and I appreciate you allowing this debate

to go on — is that if some settlement or some assurance or some conclusions

are riot reached here this afternoon, we will be back in this Legislature in

two weeks debating a bill which will actually force those workers back to work,

because an emergency situation in the economy of British Columbia will exist

at that time if the strike is not settled.

We have had two bills pass through

this Legislature — one to put the firefighters back to work where an emergency

existed. Indeed, we will have an emergency of greater proportions where the

livelihood and the lives of citizens of this province will be at stake. We have

also had legislation to force the elevator construction industry back to work.

In my estimation, although the situation that existed in the elevator strike

was grave, it does not have anywhere near the economic proportions that a strike

on the railway would.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King), who is a director of the British Columbia Railway, to

give us some assurance and to assure the workers of the British

Columbia Railway that the government will certainly see that

the workers on the British Columbia Railway are treated equally

as well as the workers on the national railways.

We also must consider not only the lumber industry and those

employed in the lumber industry, but we must also consider the

movement of food stuffs, sugar and grain — grain particularly

from the Peace River area — all of the goods and services that

are supplied to the north and central parts of this

province.

As I said, there are areas such as, specifically, Fort

Nelson where the trucking industry has given way to the railway

and the railway takes in the supplies to that particular area.

Actually, the entire well-being, not only of the workers but of

everybody in that community, depends on British Columbia

Railway.

In the community of Chetwynd, as I mentioned previously, Mr.

Speaker, 70 per cent of the work force is out of work in that

particular community.

There are other areas along the line that will be equally

hard put. So I urge the Minister of Labour to give us some

assurance that some definite positive action.... He has the

administrative ability to assure this Legislature that members

on that railway will be treated equally with members elsewhere

and that the railways will again roll.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): I indicated

earlier in response to the motion from the Hon. Member that I

did not consider this a valid matter of urgent importance at

this time.

It certainly is a matter of importance but, quite frankly, I

see little benefit of indulging in a debate on a labour dispute

within this legislative forum, because strike action by workers

is part of the collective bargaining system which is recognized

throughout the western world, and whenever that

[ Page 5058 ]

right is exercised, there is inevitably disruption which

flows to the public.

The Member for South Peace River indicated that the

Legislature has taken action in the past with respect to

certain strikes in this province, and that's quite correct. But

in those cases, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the issues were much

more grave. In the firefighters' dispute we had a valid matter

of the very safety of the life and limb of citizens of this

province which the government has a clear responsibility to

protect. What we are looking at with respect to the railway

strike is economic disruption and hardship, undoubtedly, but

hardly a matter of life and limb.

Mr. Speaker, the elevator constructors' dispute was an

exercise in voluntary arbitration between the parties, whereby

they had agreed and undertaken to abide by an arbitration

system, of their own volition. When one of the parties to that

commitment violated his obligation, I was duty-bound, as the

referee of that commitment, to ensure that it was complied

with. That was not an initiative taken in light of the

disruption in the industry; it was an initiative taken through

the obligation that I had to hold the parties to an agreement

that had been achieved under the auspices of the Department of

Labour. So it's quite a different situation than the one we're

dealing with today.

I have sympathy for the Member for South Peace River. I know

that his constituency is affected in an adverse way. However,

the Member has indicated by his comments today that he lacks an

understanding of the dynamics of collective bargaining, the

whole dynamics of industrial relations in this province. That's

an additional reason, Mr. Speaker, why I see no particular

benefit. Indeed, I see only the danger of statements emanating

from this chamber which could serve to inflame the climate for

a possible settlement on the railway.

I question very strongly the wisdom of intervening and

interrupting the professional degree of mediation services that

are available from the department in favour of political

comment by people who may be suffering in their constituency

but who have no expertise to contribute anything meaningful to

a solution to this dispute.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that in light of this, in light of

the fact that there are other initiatives available to the

Department of Labour should the parties request assistance....

There's the availability of industrial inquiry commissions,

provided both parties agree. There is the availability of

further mediation if the parties agree. These services are

available on a high professional basis in a much more effective

way than could be contributed by political comment.

In light of that, and through my support for the collective bargaining system,

which implies a faith in the responsibility of the parties across the bargaining

table to recognize the impact their action is having on the community, to soberly

consider the need for resolution and to avail themselves of the services that

can be provided to them, I am confident that the matter will be resolved in

a satisfactory way to all concerned.

In light of that, Mr. Speaker, according to standing order

33, I move that this House do now revert to orders of the

day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The motion is always in

order, and there's no debate for the motion. If the House does

not agree with the motion, it can....

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: If the House does not agree with the

motion under standing order 33, it can continue on this

matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Standing order 33: "A motion for reading

or proceeding to the Orders of the Day shall have precedence to

any motion before the House."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: "No amendment to or debate on this

motion shall be allowed."

So I have to put the motion, when it's proposed in the

House, that we revert to the standing orders of the day.

Some Hon. Members: Closure, closure!

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it

is regrettable that the Minister of Labour uses a form of

closure to stifle debate...

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Smith: ...on a very important matter. Northern

British Columbia will hear about this, I'll tell you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The motion is always in order for the standing orders.

[ Page 5059 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Gardom

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

the House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 178, Mr. Speaker,

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 178; Mr. Gabelmann in the

chair.

section 10.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I would

like to move the amendment standing in the name of the

Attorney-General on page 19 of today's orders of the day. (See

appendix.)

Mr. Chairman: The amendment as printed adds a new 10(

a) to

section 10.

Amendment approved.

section 10 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman,

section 10 is an amendment to the Motor

Vehicle Act and it essentially provides the Royal Bank, the lender of last resort,

with the ability to collect its debts for failure to repay on loans by way of

having the threat of suspension of a driver's licence. We were discussing this

previously, Mr. Chairman, and would like just to review why the Royal Bank finds

itself in this curious position, and why we are giving them a right and threat

and club to hold over the heads of defaulting debtors such as we give no other

private lender in the Province of British Columbia.

First, let's go over the background as to what happened and

why the NDP government finds itself in bed with the Royal Bank;

why the NDP government which previously, in other debates, has

constantly repeated that it was on the side of the small

people, now finds itself very much on the side of the biggest

in the land against the small people.

Mr. Chairman, you'll recall when the ICBC was set up and

there was some discussion and dispute as to time payments and

the possibility of buying short-term insurance, the Minister

made the statement that there would be no problem because money

would be loaned and the person involved could then buy their

insurance for the year. So, as a result, the Royal Bank entered

in, eager to get government business — its first crack at

government business; the Royal Bank is the landlord of ICBC — came in with the great plan that they would offer, without any

question, credit to anyone wishing to buy insurance. As the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

said in a recent press release, "The Royal Bank of Canada has

provided premium loans to any and every motorist who applied,

without exception," Mr. Strachan said. I quote his press

release of October 31, 1974.

So the Royal Bank, in its enthusiasm for the government

honey pot, decided to do this great thing for the government —

provide money, loans, for every single person who wished to buy

insurance. You will remember we had a few questions about the

$100 limit, and things of that nature, but essentially that is

what they did. They thought they were going to get a very

substantial amount of business because previously a fair number

of people had bought their insurance on a time-payment plan.

They expected 40 per cent of the business, but instead they

wound up with 5. I would just like to illustrate why they've

got no more than 5 per cent, namely the 62,000 policies which

were issued.

They didn't get much more business because all they would

allow the agents for filling out the forms for the Royal Bank

was $1. They gave them $1 to fill out the forms and handle all

the paper work for the Royal Bank. So the agents, when a person

came before them — remember these were very busy times for the

agents — when a person came before them saying, "We would like

to borrow money; we can't pay this right away." the agent would

say, "Fine, go and see your bank. Get out of here and go and

see a finance company, credit union or bank, and borrow money

and come back and give us the cheque." And so, for most of the

borrowers, this was done. They were set out to save the agent

the work of filling out all the Royal Bank forms, for which he

only received $1.

Now, if a person came back, Mr. Chairman, to the

[ Page 5060 ]

agent and said, "Look, I tried to get money at the bank. My

own bank won't lend me a dollar. They know I'm a bad risk. I

tried the finance company. They said no way. I tried the credit

union. They said, 'Where have you been? You've never been a

member of ours before so we are not going to help you,'" only

then did the Royal Bank step in. Without any check of credit,

what they did was issue the loan. The agents filled out the

forms for them, and some 62,000 policies were issued in this

way.

I want to point out that the Royal Bank became the lender of

last resort in this instance, and they picked up a large

proportion of very bad debts. Who are these people? Well, we

found out that 3,500 of them only made the down payment, and

these delinquent debts all went out to collection. We have

heard that the Royal Bank lost $750,000 on this bad business;

this bad business which they entered into simply to get the

goodwill of the Minister and the government so they could then

become the ICBC bank and all could be dealt with by the one

bank and the one company.

So you see what happened. The good accounts went elsewhere,

because it wasn't in the agents' interest to fill out the

paperwork for the Royal Bank. They said, "Look, go away, find

the money elsewhere and come back." If the person was any good

as a risk, that is what happened. But 62,000 of them did take

out the Royal Bank loan, and many, many of these defaulted.

Now, who are we dealing with? We are dealing essentially

with the 62,000 British Columbians who are the least able to

pay. We are dealing with the 62,000 British Columbians who are

probably the poorest on the economic ladder. A larger

percentage of these will be Indian than is normal in the

regular driving public — a substantially larger proportion will

be Indian, Mr. Chairman.

A substantially larger proportion will be welfare people —

people who have fallen on hard times and now find themselves on

welfare. But most of these people you could generalize by

saying they are essentially, in the economic sense,

underprivileged — through perhaps no fault of their own, through

perhaps their own fault; we don't know. But they are the

underprivileged, economically. Obviously they are the people

who are not paying back, and they are the people whom the Royal

Bank has suddenly discovered it is losing money on — $750,000 —

and the Royal Bank naturally wants its money back.

But let's just think a bit about the Royal Bank. The profits on loans of the

Royal Bank were up 67 per cent over last year. They are not exactly going broke,

and the Premier tells us this on numerous occasions. The Royal Bank went into

this scheme with the Minister and ICBC to get government business, and it got

government business. It got plenty of government business — all the ICBC accounts.

Every agent in B.C. had to open the Royal Bank account,

except those who phoned down to Atlanta, Georgia. They had a

choice of phoning down to Atlanta, Georgia, every time they

made a deposit, or dealing with the Royal Bank. That's called a

Hobson's choice.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The fact is that the Royal Bank

did get a large slice of business, and the price they paid was

taking up 60,000 bad loans. Now we have the Minister coming in

and saying, "Well, we're going to have this

section to allow us

to take away the driver's licence of anybody who owes money to

the Royal."

We say on this side of the House, which I think is fair,

that if the Royal Bank makes bad loans it's tough lines on the

Royal Bank. It's their bad judgment, their bad business sense,

and they've got all the normal avenues of collection just as

every other lender in the province has. But why should we add

in the club of suspension of a driver's licence when that

driver's licence is not related to the insurance on any

particular vehicle? This is not a case of them having borrowed

money for the driver's licence or the driver's certificate;

this is the case of them having borrowed money for the vehicle.

We say that the two things are separate. They're treated

separately by ICBC, they're treated separately by the Motor

Vehicle Branch and by the Minister. They've always been treated

separately before in this way.

When it comes down to the question of giving the Royal Bank,

that enormously powerful private financial institution, extra

muscle to muscle these people who are the 62,000 least

privileged in our society, we say no and we ask why. The fact

is that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) can

make all sorts of jokes about the people who have taken loans

from the Royal Bank to pay their insurance.

I wonder what the attitude of the Attorney-General is. We

know he's out of the House, but what about the attitude that he

expressed during the

Summary Convictions Amendment Act of June,

1974, when he talked about those people who are forced to pay

fines because they're poor? These are the same people we're

talking of here. Their licences are to be taken away from them

because they're poor. There will be a far higher percentage of

Indian and minorities, a far higher percentage of people on

welfare, a far higher percentage of people who've fallen on

hard times in the Province of British Columbia through no fault

of their own. These are the people whom you are treating in a

discriminatory fashion so that the Royal Bank can have an extra

means of collection.

I wonder why, when we had this discussion on the

[ Page 5061 ]

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, the Attorney-General

spoke feelingly about the fact that the law up to that time and

still now is unjust to the poor. There is a different justice

for those who can afford to pay fines, and those who can't are

forced to go to jail.

The Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings)

expressed the same sentiment. There was a lengthy intervention

by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams), who I think again spoke eloquently along the lines

that the Attorney-General had set at the outset of the debate,

saying that when you're dealing with the more unfortunate in

society, you shouldn't force them into jail simply because they

don't have money. We say that when you're dealing with the

unfortunate in society, you shouldn't give the Royal Bank any

more powers of collection than they have with any other

person.

We think that in the case of this insurance loan which has

been made by the Royal Bank, the Royal Bank should simply

suffer the consequences of any bad debts that it has accrued.

It has received benefits in other forms. It has received ICBC

business. It's the landlord of ICBC; it's the banker of ICBC.

Why in addition should we put forward amendments such as this

and vote on amendments such as this to give it extra power to

collect from the poor people? It has not been justified by the

Minister; it has not been justified by any government Member. I

just totally fail to see why we have to treat this person

differently.

What does it mean in realistic terms? It means that that

debt takes priority over just about everything else that that

person spends money on. If he has a family and he needs his

driver's licence to get to work and back, the kids will get

less because he has to pay off that driver's debt insurance

loan or lose his driver's licence. He won't treat that debt

like every other debt. It will get immediate priority because

in our society driving, although a privilege, as the Minister

says, has become a necessity for most people in terms of their

work.

So that debt takes total priority over other things. The

Royal Bank takes priority over his kids, and that's where the

money goes. That's what the Royal Bank wants. I'm not blaming

them for wanting to get the extra power and muscle to lean upon

people who have borrowed money from them and failed to pay. I'm

simply saying that there's no reason for the government, the

Legislature or the people of British Columbia to be involved in

giving that bank extra muscle to lean upon these people.

I cannot understand what has happened to the government. In the

Summary Convictions

Amendment Act debate, page 3650 of Hansard June 3 of this year, we discussed

at great length the need for flexibility, and the need for making it easy on

people who were poor when it came to this question of payment. We were talking

them of payment of fines. We now find them turning right around and putting

in provisions which harm the poor and aid the rich. I just cannot understand

this total reversal of policy. I cannot understand the need for this amendment

and I would urge that it be defeated.

The Minister in his press release pointed out that it was

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia which had

arranged premium financing through the Royal Bank.

"The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has made it

easy and convenient for motorists to buy their automobile

insurance by accepting uncertified cheques and by arranging a

premium finance plan through the Royal Bank of Canada which

provided premium loans to any and every motorist who applied

without exception."

Perhaps the time has come for the Minister to tell us what

that agreement was with the Royal Bank. Perhaps the time has

come for him to explain why it is necessary now and what

commitment was made to the Royal Bank which makes it necessary

for the Royal Bank to be put in this enormously preferred

position over any other lender in the Province of British

Columbia? What deal was made? What agreement did the Minister

come to with that bank which leads him now, after the bank has

lost money, to lean upon the poor, the Indians, the people on

welfare, the unfortunate, with the least ability to pay? What

is it that causes him to come down on the side of the biggest

corporation and ignore the problems of the small person?

We're not suggesting that these loans be forgiven; we're not

suggesting that the Royal Bank not have a right to collect. We

are simply saying: why is it they get a special privilege

denied every other debtor in British Columbia?

I think if the Minister cannot explain that to satisfaction

of this House, this

section 10 should be defeated. It should be

defeated because the provision is unjust. It's discriminatory

in favour of the Royal Bank among all other lenders in the

province. It discriminates against the poorest and weakest

section of our society.

Hon. Mr. Strachan (Minister of Transport and

Communications): Mr. Chairman, the Member who sat down, as

other Members, made a great many mistakes in what he has stated

to this House.

First of all, the Royal Bank, to the best of my knowledge,

is not the landlord of ICBC.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: To the best of my knowledge, the

Royal Bank is not the landlord of

[ Page 5062 ]

ICBC.

The next thing, the Royal Bank had the ICBC business before

there was any financing planned. They bid for that business,

with, I think, seven or eight other institutions.

Mr. Gardom: Did they bid for the financing plan?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No. They bid for the business of

ICBC and came in with the lowest bid. That's why they got that

business, so you were wrong on that point.

Did they bid for the finance plan? They were the only bank

that would provide it. Every other bank turned it down.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Just a moment. You say this is a

new procedure. As a matter of fact, the private insurance

companies used to have an organization called CAIFO, operated

by the private insurance companies, through which the agents

financed automobile insurance. If any individual defaulted or

fell in arrears on their payments to the CAIFO company, the

insurance was cancelled. And the superintendent of motor

vehicles was informed that that person's insurance was

cancelled. Therefore, he could no longer legally use that

vehicle. The right to drive that vehicle was taken away from

him.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That's what I said. The right to

drive that vehicle was taken away from him. That was a

pre-existing situation. Because they had failed or were unable

for one reason or another to pay their insurance.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'll get to that in a minute. I've

got it all down here. This was the situation which existed

before.

The poor people you speak of who had agreed to make a

payment lost the plates off that licence. The RCMP were sent

around to pick up the plates.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No. I'll get to that in a minute,

I said. I'm now talking about the situation that existed. The

"poor people" you speak of — the defaulters — under the private

insurance operations lost their licence plates....

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes, they did. They couldn't

legally drive that vehicle without insurance.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Oh, yes they could. Yes, they

could. Yes, they could and they did. They did. That vehicle was

uninsured. It was against the law to put that vehicle on the

road, and because they couldn't make the payments, that was a

pre-existing situation.

Now, the Member said that there were about 5 per cent of the

people who finished up with the Royal Bank. I want to remind

this House of a

section we passed earlier in this same statute.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey said that under that

amendment — I think it was

section 1 — ICBC was going to pick

up $6 million.

Now, uninsured or hit-and-run drivers...we know from the

records that there were about 5 per cent of the people of this

province, who, despite the fact that there was a law since '68

which said that you cannot operate a motor vehicle without

insurance, were illegally operating a motor vehicle. And most

of the hit-and-run cases, when they were finally caught up to,

had hit-and-run because they had no insurance, and they knew

they had no insurance. So that's about the five per cent.

You see, they were able to do this because at that time you

could get your vehicle plates without having to buy insurance

at the same time. Then we changed the system. You can no longer

get your plates or your valid decals without at the same time

buying insurance.

It's that same 5 per cent who were driving illegally in the

past who found they couldn't get their plates any more without

at the same time buying insurance, who took advantage of this

particular proposal, and they are driving without paying their

insurance. That's what they are doing now. It's the same figure — the same percentage — 5 per cent, and that was the estimate

we had of uninsured drivers prior to the incorporation of

ICBC.

Under previous systems — under the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund — every policy holder had to pay. We had to pay about 3

per cent on every policy in order to make up for that uninsured

driver.

Here's a thing...you talk about cancelling...here's a

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund notice that was sent out in

September of this year. This was somebody who owed $24,000 to

the Traffic Victims' Indemnity Fund, and remember, we'd already

paid for it; every policy holder had already paid for it, but

they're still collecting it.

"Our records indicate that your payments are now two months

in arrears. Would you please bring your account up to date

within 10 days and thereby avoid suspension of your

[ Page 5063 ]

driver's licence."

That's the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund — sending out

letters like this...suspension of your driver's licence.

An Hon. Member: They won't pay the claims that

occur.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Because they won't pay the

$24,000. This is the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund telling

them they'll get their driver's licence cancelled. This isn't

ICBC; this isn't the government.

First of all, the first thing I want to draw your attention

to is the fact that this

section makes no reference to the

Royal Bank at all. And as to the question as to whether we are

going to allow people to continue to drive cars who are not

validly meeting their commitments to pay for the insurance,

because somewhere down the line all the rest of the people of

this province are going to have to pay for that. It's the same

as the pre-existing situation: if you hadn't made your

payments, they'd get on again at the licence plates.

There's now insurance attached to the driver's licence, and

that has nothing whatever to do with the Royal Bank. They are

no part of that financing.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That's right. That's right, but if

they write an NSF cheque, as many of them have done, then I

want the right to take away that driver's licence, because he

has defaulted on that insurance part. Many of the people who

had points.... Remember we don't put the additional costs on

the car any more — it goes on the driver's premium. And they

just write an NSF cheque, they've got the form and they're

clutching the licence, and they're home free. So the licence

part has nothing whatever to do with the Royal Bank.

But if there is a case of hardship, a special case, that can

certainly be drawn to attention, as

section 4 of the Act

says:

"The Superintendent may at any time during the term of the

suspension of a licence made under this section, if it is his

opinion advisable to do so, reduce or cancel the remaining

period of the suspension."

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, no. But there is that

section there

which, if there is an individual case where somebody needs it

for their work, or so on, the superintendent can reduce or

suspend....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, I don't think so. In my

opinion, no, and my advice is no. If it shows up that it does.... My advice is no, that

section there gives the

superintendent the opportunity. So that takes care of any real

changes. So I think I have indicated to you why this is in, and

why this amendment should pass.

Hon. Mr. Hall: There is one thing that should be

cleared up, in view of the gloomy remarks of the leader of the

Liberal Party — that there is no intention whatsoever on the

part of the government, the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia or the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to take any

action whatsoever, that would be allowed by this section, on

any person who is in arrears of a debt incurred for the

licence, the premiums, the certificates, or any of those things

in the year 1974 to 1975.

But, I agree entirely with what the Liberal leader said,

that the Royal Bank will take its burnps and grinds and its hard

lines. That was a deal that was made — a proper, commercial,

corporate arrangement between two companies, and that stands. I

think just to make sure the Liberal leader has all the

information he requires to join into this debate, he should

know that.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): It was indeed

a pleasure this afternoon to have a rational and calm approach

from the Hon. Minister to this point, Mr. Chairman, but the

fact that continues to give us a great deal of concern is the

possibility of error.

The Minister referred to subsection 4 of the statute wherein

the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles does have a degree of

discretion, but unfortunately we're not considering subsection

4; we're considering subsection 7, and in the two lines from

the end it's very, very clear: "The Superintendent shall

suspend the registration and licence of any person" and so

forth and so on. So it appears to be mandatory.

Perhaps if the Hon. Minister would change that "shall" for

"may", we could overcome a lot of the difficulties we're

talking about today, because there is one factor that has not

been made effectively clear by any speaker yet in this debate,

and perhaps I will fall into the same category,

unfortunately.

But I will try to do my level best to explain the point:

that is the problems of error, Mr. Minister. We find in no end

of the statutes that you are passing at the present time that

you're granting unto yourselves almost a totality of Cabinet

discretion, but we're not granting enough discretion to those

people who have to regulate the statutes, and particularly the

judiciary.

We have found already, Mr. Minister, that people are being

convicted by computer in this province, and it's terribly

wrong. We have found already, according to a newspaper account — Jack Wasserman's column a

[ Page 5064 ]

couple of days ago — where an individual was convicted

because he didn't happen to have a valid driver's certificate,

that the Judge didn't follow the law — he rendered a fine of

$15

whereas a mandatory fine of $250 is called for under the

statute.

That type of legislation is embarrassing the judiciary. It's

embarrassing the people who have to enforce the laws of this

province, and it's totally wrong insofar as this subject is

concerned. Totally wrong. That's why we wish to make sure that

there's an absolute safeguard here. Eliminate any grey

areas.

If you wish to bring in this amendment, and you wish to have

it definitely done on a discretionary basis, please don't in

one

section of one statute find one subsection of it that it's

discretionary, and in the other subsection it's mandatory. Let

is be discretionary throughout.

The other point that I mentioned to you, Mr. Minister: we

are into a serious situation in this province. Laws have got to

be clear; they've got to be concise; they've got to be capable

of being interpreted and they have to be enforced. The ICBC

laws, insofar as these driver's certificates are concerned, are

an absolute disgrace. If you're not prepared to grant amnesty

to these people, I think that's totally appalling.

Are you going to suggest that these people can come to you

on their hands and knees and plead for some degree of

compassion? I wish you'd mention that to the House today. This

is one of the reasons that I emphasize in a discussion such as

this: please do not take away the discretion; and make it

abundantly clear that the discretion will continue. It is your

view, as you stated on your feet, that the discretion is

there.

Well, I may be incorrect, but I differ with you, because I

see the word "shall" in there, and it's pretty clear to me what

"shall" means under statutory

interpretation. I would suggest

that the Hon. Minister, if he wishes this

section to go through.... Unfortunately, with the power of government, you're going

to put it through anyway, but don't force-feed it through. Go

ahead and just change that word to "shall" in subsection

(7).

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No.

Mr. Gardom: "Shall" to "may" is what I intended to

say.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, I don't think the Member....

As I say, in my opinion,

section 4 gives the superintendent —

not me, the superintendent — the right to....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I know it says that under (7), but then the reaction

against (7) lies not with me but with the superintendent, and he may. Now I

think you'd agree with me, Mr. Member, that if an individual obviously is being

a deadbeat — has the money to pay and just simply hasn't been paying — he should

get hit with the law.

Mr. Gardom: I agree totally.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That's right, and this is why I

don't want to make it mandatory that the superintendent shall

do this. I think it's discretionary with the superintendent,

not with me. So if it is a case where it's an economic

impossibility for some reason or other, then he has that

discretion in there. But I don't want a deadbeat to get away

with it, and I'm sure you don't.

Mr. Gardom: I don't, but I also don't wish to find an

innocent person subject to an unfortunate

interpretation, which

capacity is completely available within the definition of this

statute as it now stands.

Will you accept an amendment to subsection (7) to change

that word "shall" to "may" and say that the superintendent of

motor vehicles "may" exercise his discretion, and make it

abundantly clear? Then it complements what you've stated to the

House. It complements what you've stated to the House this

afternoon.

This isn't a political matter; it's a question of

interpretation. You've said that it shall be discretionary. I

agree with you, but the subsection unfortunately does not grant

that right, Mr. Minister. Look at the bottom line; read it. It

says: "shall suspend the registration and licence." Say that

the superintendent "may" suspend the registration and licence,

and you've accomplished what we're both talking about.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I think the Member indicated

earlier that it does not apply to the current year.

Mr. Gardom: No, that was the Minister.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes, the other Minister said that.

Now we are now in the process of re-examining every section. I

think we should just pass this amendment and get on with it,

because I'm convinced that the discretion is there. We're

examining every clause to see what amendments should be

prepared for the next session....

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Minister, whatever is your fear to

say what you mean? I can't fathom your refusal.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'll explain it to you.

[ Page

5065 ]

Mr. Gardom: Well, if it's something the public

shouldn't hear, something we have to hear in the back room, I

don't want to hear it. Tell the public right here, right now;

what is behind your reasoning? You say to make it

discretionary. We say "Hooray, make it discretionary;" and you

won't do it.

Mr. Minister, is the word "shall" discretionary in the

statute? Ask any of your legal advisers. You've got the Deputy

Attorney-General in the House right now; go and have a word

with him and hoist it for two minutes.

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I found

this discussion fascinating and interesting this afternoon. I'm

pleased to see that the Minister is quite willing to listen to

the various problems which this

section creates. I'd like to

bring to his attention how this

section can compound a problem

which is already occurring in the Motor Vehicle Branch to do

with the suspension of drivers' licences for non-payment.

I want to talk to you about what is currently happening and

how this additional power can compound a problem which is now

occurring.

I'd like to bring to your attention the case of a young

university student in a university in Vancouver, who spent

three and a half hours in jail because he apparently neglected

to notify the Motor Vehicle Branch of a change of address

within 10 days. Now obviously we have deadbeats who aren't

prepared to pay their bills. who are prepared even to go to the

extent of giving you NSF cheques, who are obviously not

prepared to tell you where they move when they move; and this

is the point I'm leading up to.

But here is a young university student issued with a summons

for his arrest, never notified of the fact that this summons

had been issued. The summons is here, the warrant for the

arrest of a person charged with an offence. The offence is the

failure to notify the Motor Vehicle Branch of a change of

address. Now I took out my own driver's licence, which, I must

confess, is one of the old ones. I don't need to buy one until

next year. But nowhere on my driver's licence does it say that

I must notify you within 10 days that I have moved or that, if

I fail to notify you, it's an offence that I can end up in jail

with.

I also looked at my own auto driver's insurance form which,

granted, does have a place for change of address on it, but it

doesn't say that it's an offence. It doesn't anywhere say that

I can end up in jail for not having notified you.

Now this young individual had a minor motor vehicle accident where someone

actually ran into him. He wasn't even in the car. He went down to the police

station to report the accident, and from the police station he phoned the Motor

Vehicle Branch.... I'm sorry, he phoned the ICBC. He asked if he could have

his car, and they said: "I'm sorry, you can't have it, because the police have

seized your car."

So he said: "Seized! Why has my car been seized?"

"Seized because of an outstanding warrant for arrest."

That's a warrant for arrest for failure to notify.

Not only that, they said: "Please don't leave the office,

" and they sent two officers from the main downtown

police station to the office where he was, and they put him in

the paddy wagon. They didn't even put him in a private police

car, an unmarked car; they put him in a paddy wagon. They took

him down and they threw him in jail. He sat there for three and

a half hours.

They wouldn't take a cheque from him. This young man had

plenty of money in the bank. They refused to take a cheque from

him. They refused even to let anyone go around the corner to

the office where the bank was to see if the cheque was good.

They allowed him one phone call, one phone call only.

Fortunately he found somebody home who came down, and they

took $20 from him as a bond — a $20 bond before they let him

out of jail three and a half hours later.

On top of that, they summoned him to go to court, The young

individual hired a lawyer and went to court. On the day the

court was convened there was nothing on the docket to indicate

that he was being charged. Nothing. So he said to the judge:

"What am I here for?" The judge said: "Well, the charges have

been dropped." Nobody told him. He wasn't notified.

Do you know the irony of the whole thing? He lived where he

said he lived. He was at the address where he said he was

during the period in which he was charged. Absolutely

incredible! Now here's a young man who's a university law

student, and when he's finished he has to sign a statement to

say whether he ever had been arrested — yes or no. This poor

fellow is going to have to say yes, he was arrested, and to

this day he is unable to get an answer from the court to say

that he was arrested improperly or illegally. He has no

reply.

I'd just love to read into the record the lawyer's letter to

the court which up to this moment is not answered. Now you may

think that this is irrelevant to what we're discussing, but it

is exactly what can happen to an individual who chooses — not

as this young man did, who didn't notify you because he was

where he said he was — that maybe he isn't going to tell you.

Not only is he going to lose his driver's licence, not only is

he going to lose the insurance on his car; he could very well

end up in jail.

I think this is a very dangerous section, and I think it

should be looked at again a little more carefully before we so

glibly pass it this afternoon.

[ Page 5066 ]

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Chairman, I didn't raise a

point of order when the Member was speaking. That case

obviously did not relate to this section, but I wanted to hear

the case.

Mr. Morrison: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That kind of law enforcement is

totally unjustified. That kind of law enforcement is totally

unjustified and certainly I would not be a party — and I am

sure the Attorney-General's office would not be a party — to

that kind of law enforcement. I would like the details of the

case to follow it up. But, as I say, it didn't relate to this

section.

Hon. Mr. Hall: I won't discuss the relevance of the

Member's speech, because it's the kind of information we want.

It's the kind of information that can be sent to the office of

even the acting Attorney-General if he wants to. The fact of

the matter is that that kind of action, of course, is entirely

out of order, and nobody can justify it and nobody would seek

to do so. Let me just remind the Member of one thing: it is

because of the passage of legislation by this government that

that young gentleman and yourself can have some recourse about

what's happened — which you couldn't do before.

Mr. Chairman: Having had that little exchange now

from both sides, I would like to remind Members that that

subject is out of order. I let it go because it seemed

partially relevant, although it really was out of order. I'd

like, if possible, now to get back to

section 10.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I think that while the subject

might have been out of order, the idea there are errors made is

certainly in order.

That was the point being made by the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

I have in my hand my temporary licence which expires in four

days, and 90 days will have gone by. I only hope the Minister

will get me another licence so I'm not breaking the law on the

weekend when I try and drive. I applied for the licence August

30 and I'm still waiting for it. Probably there is some foul-up

in the computer somewhere.

In any event, back to the section. The Minister has been, I

think, far more considerate than previously on this section,

and we appreciate that.

However, in his decision he talked about the insurance on the vehicle and the

need to take that vehicle off the road to take the plates off that vehicle if

it were not insured. That's fine. No question about that. But in actual fact,

to be relevant to this debate, the Minister would have had to talk about the

driver's licence, which he did towards the end.

It is that particular point which we would like to zero in

on because that's precisely what

section 10 does. It takes away

the driver's licence for a debt which is incurred for a

different subject, namely for the insurance of the vehicle.

It's not a debt, as the Minister pointed out, for the driver's

certificate. If there were any debt for the driver's

certificate, perhaps this

section might have some relevance.

But because the Minister has clearly distinguished between the

automobile insurance, the driver's certificate and the driver's

licence, I think he has probably destroyed his own case for

putting in this section.

The three things are separate. The driver's licence and the

driver's certificate are not related to an individual vehicle

which may or may not to insured and for which the driver

concerned may or may not have borrowed money.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

We appreciate also the statement by the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) that this is not to be brought into effect

until 1975-76. There is nothing in the bill to indicate that

the date of proclamation will be delayed, but we appreciate his

statement there. We wonder, in view of that fact, whether it

would not be possible to just drop this

section until we get

the omnibus bill in the spring. Every session we have this type

of omnibus bill. Every session we have a few pages of odds and

ends, some of which are fairly far-reaching but nevertheless

are relatively small amendments which deal with a great number

of statutes.

We think that the amendment to the Motor-vehicle Act, as the

Provincial Secretary has pointed out, is not really for this

year anyway; it is for the future. We think it should be

dropped so that the whole question we have raised could be

properly examined by the law officers of the Crown. The whole

principle of trying to get at deadbeats but at the same time

making it mandatory on the superintendent of insurance to go

after others should be looked into further.

It is easy to talk about the deadbeats who are trying to

avoid paying money when they have money in the bank or to talk

about the people who are responsible for hit-and-run, and to

take all these people, lump them all together, and categorize

all the people in the position of being unable to pay their

Royal Bank loans as being either deadbeats or those who would

otherwise be involved in hit-and-run.

But the fact of the matter is that there are others involved

in this area. We cannot lump everybody together, using coloured

words such as "deadbeat" or the "hit-and-run driver." We have

to distinguish and we have to make it clear that there are some

who will

[ Page 5067 ]

be treated unjustly by this particular provision.

We also have to make it clear that what we are doing for the

Royal Bank in this instance is doing something for which we are

quite unwilling — and rightly unwilling — to do for any other

lender in the Province of British Columbia with respect to

other debts.

The insurance on the automobile, as the Minister has stated,

for which Royal Bank money was borrowed, is something separate

from the driver's licence. The two things simply have to be

considered separately. His statement did not indicate to me

that they were treated the same previously. Indeed, the only

licence he talked about was the vehicle licence and not the

driver's licence.

It's clear that we are extending the law with

section 10. We

are extending it in a way which will work hardship on the

section of the population least able to fight back. We think

that

section 10, in view of the Provincial Secretary's

statement, should simply be stood over for a number of months

until we've had a chance to look into it properly, until the

law officers of the Crown have had a chance to took into the

principle involved here, and until the backbench of the NDP

government caucus has had an opportunity to check into why the

Royal Bank is getting preferred treatment. At that time, if

it's still considered to be necessary, let the government bring

it in again.

But at this stage, according to what the Provincial

Secretary has said, it's unnecessary anyway. I would most

strongly urge the government to withdraw this or,

alternatively, that we vote it down.

Mr. Gardom: The Provincial Secretary in his remarks

welcomed the opposition to give him some examples of problems.

He has said, "We're prepared to have open ears," or

words to that general effect. This is the type of situation,

Mr. Chairman, that we wish to overcome. We wish to overcome the

problem of error and, in this, we have a problem of error in

the amendment that is proposed.

Here is a situation of error. It's about four lines. It's a

letter from a lady who says she is a widow over 70 years of

age. She lives on the combined income of less than $300 a

month. She says she purchased her car insurance amounting to

$141, at which time she was assured that was all that was

required of her. She did that in February of this year.

"On the morning of November 9, I had a minor accident as I

was coming out of a supermarket. The police didn't give me a

ticket or lay any charges. They merely asked me to fill out

forms which they had given me and take them to their office as

well as to the ICBC, which I did."

And this 70-year-old widow

continues:

"At the office of the ICBC I was asked for my driver's certificate

which I had never had. I was then instructed to go to the Motor Vehicle Branch

in Richmond and procure it, informing me that my claim could not be honoured

without it."

She had paid $141 for her insurance. She's over 70, she

lives on an income of less than $300 a month, and she can't

collect. She says this:

"They did find out, however, that the computer had made an

error in my birth date."

Now, that's not right. Those kind of

wrongs should be eliminated. That's why we're suggesting this,

Mr. Minister. It complements the statements that you and the

Provincial Secretary made; it complements the unfortunate

analogies that I've had to present to the House this afternoon,

and also the First Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

Let there be no grey areas in this amendment at all and

change the word "shall" to "may" in subsection 7. We'll know

then that the superintendent of motor vehicles will have

without any question of a doubt an unqualified discretion to

cancel.

The Minister says, "Are we prepared to see the people who

wish to flout the law and cheat the system get off scot free?"

Certainly not. And the superintendent of motor vehicles is the

person to exercise that discretion. But make sure you give it

to him in completely unfettered form,

section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

Mr. Wallace:

Section 12 contains subsection 8(

b) where the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council may extend the

judge's term under subsection (1). This matter, I believe, has

been raised in the House before and it's worthy of being raised

again.

Fundamental to our system is total independence of the

judiciary. Any legislation which interferes with that basic

principle holds some very serious possible consequences for the

impartiality of justice in this province.

We've had examples recently in another country south of the

border where the attempts of government to corrupt the

judiciary have occurred. One of the cases brought to my

attention was the attempt by the President of the United States

to offer the directorship of the FBI to the judge in charge of

the Daniel Ellsberg case.

If a judge at the age of 65 depends on cabinet approval,

should he wish to continue beyond the ago 65, it simply means

this: as the age of 65 approaches for a