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, JUNE 4, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3679 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Privilege Correction of printed Hansard . Ms. Sanford — 3679

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Conflict of interest of Mines department employee.

Mr. Richter — 3679

Provincial involvement in electric kettle study. Mr. Curtis — 3679

Change of name of Canada Manpower. Mrs. Jordan — 3680

Viewfield road property purchase. Hon. Mr. Hartley answers — 3681

Reduction from Mincome for election work. Mrs. Webster — 3681

No illegal operations at Plateau Mills. Mr. Fraser — 3681

Approval for pulp- shipment to Saskatchewan, Mr. Chabot — 3681

Details of hop field workers' accident.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald answers — 3681

Officials travelling on European transit tour. Mr. Curtis — 3681

Forest development road activity north of Hazelton.

Mr. Chabot — 3682

Penalties and procedures re Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization

Act. Mr. Curtis — 3682

Fire Marshall Amendment Act, 1974. (Bill 100). Committee, report and third

reading — 3682

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1974. (Bill 103). Committee and report stage

— 3682

Municipal Amendment Act, 1974. (Bill 142). Committee

stage.

section 14.

Mr. Curtis — 3683

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3683

section 22.

Mr. Gibson — 3683

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3683

Report and third reading — 3683

Statutes Act. (Bill 111). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3683

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3684

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3684

Securities Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 116). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3685

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3685

Mr. Cummings — 3686

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3686

Land Registry Amendment Act, 1974. (Bill 121). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3687

Mr. Gibson — 3687

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974. (No. 2.) (Bill

121).

Second reading Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3687

Mr. Smith — 3688

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3688

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1974 ' . (Bill 124). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3688

Companies Amendment Act, 1974. (Bill 127). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3689

Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1974.

(Bill 109). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3689

Mr. McClelland — 3690

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3691

Mr. Fraser — 3691

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3691

Tuberculosis Institutions Amendment Act, 1974. (Bill 113).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3692

Committee of supply: Department of Transport and

Communications estimates.

On vote 235.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3692

Mr. McClelland — 3693

Mr. Gibson — 3694

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3700

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3700

Point of order Suspension of Mr. D.A. Anderson from the service of the House

— 3702

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Department of Transport and

Communications estimates.

On vote 235.

Mr. Smith — 3702

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3703

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3703

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3705

Mrs. Jordan — 3707

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3709

Mrs. Jordan — 3709

On vote 239.

Mr. Curtis — 3710

Mr. Morrison — 3710

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3710

Mrs. Jordan — 3710

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3711

Mr. Curtis — 3711

On vote 242.

Mr. Morrison — 3711

Mr. McGeer — 3711

Mr. Curtis — 3712

Mr. Chabot — 3712

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3712

Mr. Morrison — 3713

On vote 245.

Mr. Morrison — 3713

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3713

Mr. Fraser — 3713

Mr. McGeer — 3713

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3714

Mr. Morrison — 3714

Committee of ways and means — 3715

Supply Act No. 2, 1974. (Bill 148). Introduction, first reading, second reading,

committee, report and third reading — 3716

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1974. (Bin 152). Hon.

Mr. Lorimer. Introduction and first reading — 3716

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I would

like today to ask the House to join with me in welcoming

between 35 and 40 senior citizens from Oliver, along with their

driver, Don Norris.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I have

two announcements. Perhaps the most important is that it's

Ginny Galt's — of the Canadian Press — 23rd birthday. She's

attained the ripe age of 23 and I think that the House should

recognize that.

The second, Mr. Speaker, is that seated on the floor of the

House we have today not only Mr. Epp, the Deputy of Corrections

in my department, who the House has met before, but Chief Judge

Laurie Brahan of the provincial court, who will have to take

off immediately because he is sitting — he does sit around the

province in the provincial court from time to time — he's

sitting now in the City of Victoria.

He has had opportunity to drop into the House during the

lunchtime break. I hope the House will welcome Chief Judge

Laurie Brahan of our own court.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of

privilege today, dealing with a matter which affects many of

the people in my constituency. I would like, with permission of

the House, to correct an error which has appeared in the

printed version of Hansard on page 3416. That's the

Hansard dated May 24, 1974.

When I read the Hansard of that date, I requested

that I be permitted to listen to the tapes downstairs. I have

done that today and I wish also to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

verifying the tapes of that date.

But the Hansard as it is now printed is as follows — and I would like to quote. This is the Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) speaking, and she says as follows:

For the correction of the record I would like to state that, in

fact, it was Mr. Peter Nicholls who suggested that there is

considerable evidence to make apparent that the Comox Valley Star 's receiving unexplained favours….

That's the end of that quote; she was interrupted at that

point. But I would like to correct the record, Mr. Speaker,

because it should not read Mr. Peter Nicholls, but rather Mr.

P.E. Bickle.

Now this is significant for the people of my riding because Mr. Bickle is the

owner of the paper which is published in opposition to the paper referred to

by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member did not

correct the Pinks for that day.

MR. SPEAKER: There's nothing I can do except ask the House

if they will give leave for that record to be corrected in

today's Hansard . It will no doubt appear in today's

Hansard in any event.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The correction? It will be in now, so there's

nothing further the House really has to act on that I can see — unless I can get some assistance on the question from somebody.

I would assume that that corrects the record.

Is there any dispute on the question from the Hon. Member

for North Okanagan?

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

certainly reserve the right to examine the record myself.

MR. SPEAKER: By all means.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OF MINES DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, if I might direct a question to

the Minister of Mines, I would like to ask the Minister how he

is going to avoid a conflict of interest when one Peter Smart,

federal NDP candidate for Esquimalt-Saanich, has appointed one

Mr. Hart Horn, director of mineral resources — and I quote from

the announcement: "Hart Horn, a provincial government employee

in the Department of Mines, has been appointed Smart's campaign

manager."

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I'll take that as notice.

PROVINCIAL INVOLVEMENT

IN ELECTRIC KETTLE STUDY

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Consumer Services: what investigations has the

provincial Department of Consumer Services initiated or what

investigations is it coordinating in any way with the federal

Department of Consumer Affairs on the subject of electric

kettles, which are apparently emitting unsafe quantities of

lead material?

[ Page 3680 ]

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, we are

not taking any action at this time because we believe this to be purely in the

federal jurisdiction of product safety.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister's

department been requested by the federal department or any

federal authority to assist in protecting the public with

respect to supposedly defective kettles? Have you had any

request from Ottawa?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, we have not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I gather from the

earlier comment, then, that the Minister has not offered the

services of her department to Ottawa in this regard.

HON. MS. YOUNG: The federal Minister brought the subject up

so abruptly that he at no time contacted our department to ask

our assistance. At the moment he has handled the whole matter

in his own way. We would be perfectly willing to assist in any

manner we could, and we will go on record at this moment of

offering assistance to the federal Minister.

But we have had no request from the federal government for

any assistance at the federal level as a provincial level.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Telephones work in

both directions between Victoria and Ottawa. This is not a

brand new matter but has been attracting public attention for

several days now.

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

from the answer given that it is not within the administrative

jurisdiction of either the provincial government or this

Minister in view of the fact that it appears to be a matter

falling within the federal field.

MR. CURTIS: Then we differ, Mr. Speaker, in

interpretation

of the responsibilities of the Consumer Services department of

this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Obviously the extent of that cannot be really

debated in the House.

NAME CHANGE OF

CANADA MANPOWER TO HUMAN RESOURCES

MRS. JORDAN: I would prefer to address my question to the Hon. Premier,

but in view of the fact that he is not here again I will address it to the Hon.

Minister of Human Resources. In view of the fact that the federal government

announced today at a meeting in the east that they were contemplating changing

the name of Canada Manpower to the federal Department of Human Resources, does

the Minister propose to register a protest with Ottawa at this overlapping of

names with the obvious conflict…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Are you fellows finished your speeches?

…and confusion that is going to result for the people of

British Columbia when they wish to avail themselves of either

one's services?

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

I'll ask David Lewis to make it a national issue in terms of

the election. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Canada would do

well without David Lewis. What we want is a Minister who will

look after the people of British Columbia. We have a….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I would like a responsible answer from

that Minister. As a supplementary, does he…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I am standing and you are

supposed to be sitting. If you want us to go immediately to the

switch-off of the mikes we can easily oblige you. The point is

that we gave an undertaking that we wouldn't need those,

providing Members would also give an equal undertaking that

they would obey the Chair when it comes to sitting down. The

Hon. Member has ignored it about three times just now. I would

ask the Hon. Member to remember and respect the order of the

Chair.

It is not part of question period to make speeches. There

was no question involved in your statement; it was a speech.

You were called to order three times. I would ask you to please

observe the rules.

MRS. JORDAN: I asked the Minister of Human Resources if he

intends to register a protest to the federal government in

order that there will not be confusion for the people of

British Columbia when they wish to avail themselves of the

services of the British Columbia Human Resources department.

Mr. Speaker, is that clear?

HON. MR. LEVI: The answer is no.

[ Page 3681 ]

DETAILS OF

VIEWFIELD ROAD PURCHASE

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Yesterday I

took as notice a question from the First Member for Victoria

(Mr. Morrison) with regard to the purchase of property on

Viewfield Road. I said we did purchase the property. I now have

the details.

We paid in excess of $400,000 — $425,000. We had more than

one appraisal. There are approximately 1.5 acres of land. There

are two floors of almost a half acre of floor space: 26,196

feet. This is to be used for both warehousing and office space

for the Provincial Museum.

NO REDUCTION FROM MINCOME

FOR WORK IN ELECTIONS

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): A question to the

Minister of Human Resources. I understand that quite a number

of elderly and handicapped people who are on Mincome are

presently working for the federal election. This is what I

would like to ask the Minister: in case they are earning a

small amount of money working on the federal election, will

this be taken from their Mincome payments?

HON. MR. LEVI: No. It will be considered as though it was a

windfall income and there will be no deductions made to either

the handicapped person or the Mincome recipient if people work

as enumerators or poll clerks.

NO ILLEGAL OPERATIONS

AT PLATEAU MILLS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I asked the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources a couple of weeks ago — and I

believe he took the question as notice — what he is doing about

the illegal operations at Plateau Mills. I think by now he has

had time to find out how illegal they really are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did have a group of answers yesterday. I'm sorry that I don't

have the Telex I received last week, I believe, from the Prince George district

forester. But, in essence, it is that there are no movements that are illegal.

APPROVAL FOR POLE

SHIPMENT TO SASKATCHEWAN

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question for the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources. Are there any permits being issued for the shipping

of poles to Saskatchewan when there apparently is a shortage of poles in British

Columbia?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I believe one order-in-council export

was approved in the last week or two. It was mainly in relation

to the problems they have had in Saskatchewan because of

flooding and the replacement of small bridges and the like. So

approval was given in that regard, Mr. Speaker.

DETAILS OF

HOP FIELD WORKERS' ACCIDENT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saanich

and the Islands asked me about an accident on May 30 in which

one person lost their life. The car apparently was going 70

mph; the right rear wheel tire deflated and caused the vehicle

to swerve into the median. I make no further comments about the

facts but an inquiry has been ordered by the coroner. The

Workmen's Compensation Board is concerned with it too and is

making inquiries; the Motor Carrier Commission is also

concerned with the accident. The people concerned were hop

field workers. They are, I understand, represented by a lawyer

in Vancouver so there may be legal proceedings as well.

MR. CURTIS: I wish to thank the Attorney-General for his

prompt answer to that question. Perhaps we could discuss it

privately later.

OFFICIALS TRAVELLING

ON EUROPEAN TRANSIT TOUR

I have a question on another matter to another Minister, if

I may. To the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the subject of

his forthcoming European transit tour, I wonder if the Minister

could now indicate those elected representatives who will be

accompanying him and those provincial government officials who

will be travelling with him on the same tour?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): As far as the municipal delegates I can only go by

what I read in the newspaper; I haven't heard any information

officially by letter or telephone. I understand Mr. Jim

Campbell, chairman of the Capital Regional District, is going,

Walter Hardwick is going for Vancouver, and Vander Zalm for the

Greater Vancouver Regional District.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mayor Vander Zalm. As far as the

provincial staff going, there will be Don Jantzen, my executive

assistant; Victor Parker; Brian Sullivan; and myself.

[ Page 3682 ]

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. Mr. Sullivan is in

Transit with Mr. Parker?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, he is the assistant director.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. Supplementary. Are any other Members

of the Legislature slated to accompany you on this tour?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Not to my knowledge, no. I have had some

volunteers. (Laughter.)

FOREST DEVELOPMENT

ROAD ACTIVITY NORTH OF HAZELTON

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. Yesterday I asked him a question which he

answered regarding the diversion of forest development road

funds from Hazelton to the Plateau Mills region. The bell cut

off the supplementary question.

The supplementary question is: will there be some forestry

development road activity north of the Hazelton area during the

forthcoming season toward the Babine Lake country, which they

have been waiting for for some time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Again, I don't know if the Member knows

the geography that well…

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I know the geography.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: …but it is a fair distance from

Babine to Hazelton. The roads are more oriented to Burns Lake

in the Babine area, as the Member knows. I'm not aware of a

diversion per se. We are carrying out special studies in the

Hazelton area and we have consulting industrial foresters

advising us at this time.

PENALTIES AND PROCEDURES

RE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES INTERIM RENT

STABILIZATION ACT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. With

respect to the Residential Premises Interim Rent

Stabilization Act, has the Minister or his department

received any complaints from municipal authorities with respect

to the absence of prosecution of violators of this Act? Have

there been any requests for action on the part of the

department or complaints about it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not to my personal knowledge. I'll check

the matter.

MR. CURTIS: Would the Minister agree that the Act is, in fact, silent on the question of penalties and

procedures for enforcement of the Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's a legal opinion; you would have

to ask a lawyer that. (Laughter.) I would think, though, that

the

Summary Convictions Act surely applies to all

provincial statutes.

Orders of the day.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker,

I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 100.

FIRE MARSHAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 100; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 30 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 100, Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1974, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 103, Mr. Speaker.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 103; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 10 inclusive approved.

[ Page

3683 ]

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Bill 103,

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1974 ,

reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 142, Mr. Speaker.

The House in committee on Bill 142; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Very briefly to

the Minister: This

section deals with assessment notices, the

assessment roll and notices in connection with the actual

assessment process. I really just want to draw to the

Minister's attention, with all respect, the continuing need for

simplified assessment information in the hands of the property

owner. I think it's correct to say that the Minister has agreed

with this observation in the past and in a standing committee

of this House.

There are still complicating points made on the assessment

notice which serve to confuse many well informed individuals.

They receive this notice and a lot of the information there

really, I suggest, is extraneous; it's not essential in terms

of actually getting something into the hands of the property

owners to tell them precisely what their assessment is going to

be for the forthcoming year.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes, I'm

in agreement with the Hon. Member. This was discussed, as he

knows, in our committee on assessments. We hope that this will

be only for one year because in our committee on taxation one

of the topics that we'll be discussing is these notices that go

out both on assessments and taxation so it's my intention that

this amendment is merely for this one year, that we will

correct it later on.

Sections 14 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Just a question

to the Minister. I've read

section 651, and I wonder if the

Minister would be good enough to advise us why this Act is

repealing it.

HON. MR, LORIMER: These amendments accommodate changes to

the Coroners Ac t.

Section 651 formerly required

municipalities of over 5,000 to pay the cost of the coroner's

inquest. Now under the new Coroners Act of this year,

that will no longer be required; it will be taken over by the

provincial government.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

MR. CURTIS: An observation only, Mr. Chairman, that this is

an excellent refinement of the step taken last year. I think

municipalities will be particularly pleased that as long as

there is evidence that the municipal council through its staff

made every reasonable effort to communicate with residents who

would be affected by this requirement, that it will not be

quashed, or is not subject to being quashed in the courts. I

know this has caused a problem in a number of municipalities.

Frankly, I congratulate the Minister for seeing that this has

been done.

Sections 23 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 142, Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 111, Mr.

Speaker.

STATUTES ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, there

is an

interpretation comparison, Mr. Chairman, and by inference

was using that as something which would some amendments

which

[ Page 3684 ]

have been suggested to that bill, withdraw the bill and

perhaps introduce it in a new form, but that's another subject

matter.

We have actively working on our statutes the former Deputy

Minister of my department, Mr. Gilbert Kennedy, who still has

that status in the department. And we have taken out of the

Interpretation Act the form of statutes, and there are

some minor changes in terms of the enacting provision which are

already in effect. That's the significance, and the only

significance, as I see it, of this bill. I move second

reading.

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

this is a move in the right direction but it's with great

regret that the government hasn't gone far enough in dealing

with statutes, their production, their distribution and the

notice to be given of changes to our law which result from the

actions of this Legislature and of the Lieutenant-Governor

-in-Council.

I would have thought that it might have been appropriate if

the Hon. Attorney-General had considered establishing a

committee on statutory instruments so that some careful review

could be made of the way in which our statutes are being

prepared and in which our orders-in-council are being prepared,

and the wording used in those instruments.

I'm not speaking of a committee of this Legislature; I'm

thinking of a committee which could be supportive of

legislative counsel and of the various solicitors who are now

seconded from the Attorney-General's department to the several

departments of government.

All one has to do is to consider the bills which have been

before the House this year, and which are currently before the

House, to recognize that, depending upon the skill and

experience of the particular legislative draftsman, the bill is

either in conformity with standards which are adopted by

legislative counsel or they are not. It's easy for a person who

has had any experience in reading the bills to recognize those

which emanate from the legislative counsel's office directly

under the responsibility of the Attorney-General or have

emanated from other departments of government. I say directly

under the responsibility of the Attorney-General because I know

that he takes a major interest in the role the legislative

counsel performs, which is a very valuable one.

Now the same applies, as I say, to the preparation of orders-in-council. The

majority of the statutes which we are enacting in this legislature provide for

the use of wider and ever-increasing 'powers of regulation. I think it is important

that those regulations also become uniform in their style and uniform in their

language. All one has to do is read

part II of the B.C. Gazette and again recognize

the differences which arise because persons with different backgrounds and different

experiences in different departments are writing orders-in-council. As a matter

of fact, in some cases I wonder whether the people who are writing orders-in-council

are not functionally illiterate.

However, it seems to me that a committee on statutory

instruments could do much to improve this situation. I would

like to know whether or not the Attorney-General is prepared to

give this some consideration as we bring this legislation

forward now.

I know the Attorney-General's department and Legislative

Counsel have been assisted by a committee of the British

Columbia bar. We know how that functions and we make no

criticism of that technique. However, we also know that the

burden of that work is falling upon one or two individuals,

members of the bar, who work without compensation. It is an

onerous task they perform, one that the people of British

Columbia should be pleased they perform because I am sure it

prevents many mistakes from ever coming before this House, and

heaven's knows, Mr. Speaker, enough of them get here anyway — that is, in the form of legislation.

Now I would seriously suggest to the Attorney-General that

he's established all kinds of commissions; he's got

administration and justice commissions and so on which are

given responsible jobs, but, really, so far as the people of

British Columbia are concerned, little could be of greater

significance than that legislation passed in this House and

order-in-council proclaimed under that legislation be clear

and available.

If I may say one thing in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, on the

question of availability it seems to me that there should be

regularly published those statutes in respect of which

proclamation is given, and particularly those statutes when

only some of the sections have been proclaimed and others are

inoperative.

But frankly, Mr. Speaker, the situation has become such that

with delays in communication there are many people who are

practising law in the Province of British Columbia who are

ill-equipped to advise their clients as to what the law is

because from day to day they are not certain whether the

legislation has been proclaimed or whether individual sections

have been proclaimed. It seems to me that some periodic,

perhaps monthly, news sheet should emanate from the

Attorney-General's department so there could be no doubt that

there will be full knowledge throughout the province of those

laws which are in full force and effect.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made valuable points,

points that have given me concern. I'll be glad to discuss his remarks,

[ Page

3685 ]

as they appear in Hansard , with the legislative

counsel and also with the commissioner for statute law

revision.

I may say that I would hope we could introduce computer

printing in the statute field because that will greatly assist

not only in getting out the statutes quickly, but in terms of

meshing them and producing the finished copies very quickly.

That's the kind of programme I will discuss with my colleague,

because the computer services of the government are under,the

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

But in this whole field of statute printing and assemblage and

so forth, there is a great deal to be offered in terms of

modern computer printing. That is being actively pursued at

least in terms of investigation of this point.

I am glad the Hon. Member mentioned the Canadian bar giving

their assistance in terms of statute preparation — when we have

the opportunity, really, to get them out in time — because this

is a voluntary service and it has been on a confidential basis

that it has been maintained and has to be maintained. I pay

tribute to those people who have voluntarily given of their

time. I'm not going to mention particular names of the chairmen

of that subsection, but they have been of valuable help to

government. It is much better for us to find our statute law

mistakes before they end up in court than to have them

elucidated by a judge in court.

I'd like to say, too, that I want a chance to pay tribute to

legislative counsel…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …even though I'm on second reading of a

bill and not in committee. But Alan Higgenbottam, Phil

Harrington and Alan Rogers — you know, the load of work these

people have had on their hands and in their heads in this

session of the Legislature has been tremendous. Every once in a

while somebody wants them to not only express the thing right

legally, but to help them with the policy, or even to formulate

the policy, or guess what's in the Minister's mind. They have

to be almost sitting psychiatrists with Ministers, and

particularly the Attorney-General in terms of his legislation,

and offer counsel advice as well as draftsmanship.

I pay tribute to them and they are a rare breed. It's hard

to find them. They are shorthanded and I hope to expand that

office in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the question be put.

Motion approved.

Bill 111, Statutes Act , read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 116, Mr. Speaker.

SECURITY AMENDMENTS ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker there is an important side

of the activities of my department which consists of security

regulation and supervision. There has been in the past a

securities commission in the Province of British Columbia, and

because the members will be retiring I want to express my

appreciation for their services. Two of them, of course, are in

government and in the House, which was one of the reasons why

we are making this kind of a change that is contemplated in

this Act, that's Victor DiCastri of my department and Jim Fyles

of the department of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources. The other is Bill Hobbs who is a retired solicitor

from the Attorney-General's department. They have been the

securities commission. But it has rather been, and it is no

fault of these gentlemen, an in-House operation. And Bill

Irwin, the Superintendent of Brokers, of course, has

necessarily had delegated upon him many of the functions that

really belonged to the commission.

So we want to do several things: we want to upgrade the

status of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, which is our only

money-generating institution in British Columbia, competing

with difficulty with the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New

York and Montreal Stock Exchanges. We find that the amount of

venture capital that is raised locally is only about 10 per

cent of that generation which is really required for the

Province of British Columbia. About 90 per cent of it is

generated outside, so we want to give the Vancouver Stock

Exchange status and class and inspire, as we can, a great

degree of confidence in our financial institutions on the part

of the investing public of the province who range from wealthy

people to some people who perhaps shouldn't be speculating at

all. But it's a pretty wide range.

We are establishing in the department the Corporate and

Financial Services Commission. This will be experienced people

who can lend their time, of course, on a part-time basis to act

as a kind of an appeal tribunal, not only over the old

decisions of the Securities Commission but, I'm glad to say,

over the orders and regulations of the Vancouver Stock Exchange

itself.

So we're taking it from being an in-house procedure to a

body to which we will appoint experienced people in this field.

I hope the objectives I have outlined will be realized as we

begin to secure, as it were, additional help in this field.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wonder if

the Attorney-General, when concluding this debate, would

indicate whether or not he sees for

[ Page

3686 ]

the Corporate and Financial Services Commission any

responsibilities other than those related strictly to the

Vancouver Stock Exchange. A seven-man commission to be, in

effect, a regulatory or supervisory body over one stock

exchange seems to be a bit heavy-handed. It may be that the

Attorney-General sees this commission exercising authority over

other areas of corporate or financial service regulation in the

Province of British Columbia.

I know that in the Attorney-General's department he has many

divisions and responsibilities between the Superintendent of

Brokers and Superintendent of Insurance which are passed back

and forth and so on. I'd like to know whether this commission

is likely to exercise a regulatory or supervisory role over

more areas than just the stock exchange.

Truly, Mr. Speaker, when one considers the policies of this

government as enunciated in legislation which we have before

us, I don't see that there'll be much of a problem in

regulating the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It's likely to become

the only stock exchange museum in the world, where no trading

takes place but people can go and say: "Well, this is where it

used to happen. This is where capital was at one time generated

for risk ventures in the Province of British Columbia but

that's all been resolved by actions of the provincial

government. No longer do we have any need for active trading on

the floor of the exchange." Therefore, we could just place the

stock exchange under the library commission or the museum or

something like that.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

I'm pleased to rise to support this bill. People who venture

into the Vancouver Stock Exchange are sometimes taking an awful

chance. They actually get a better deal at the race track

because they return 76 per cent of the money.

Now, there is a need to raise speculative money and a

citizen should have a right to take a flyer, but he shouldn't

be scalped. Some of these brokers should not be allowed to

manipulate the market; they should not be allowed to get the

corner on the market.

You noticed when an amateur managed to corner the market how

quickly they responded to it: they suspended all trading. Well,

this is a little bit back in the history of the Vancouver Stock

Exchange. How about the bunco squad? Well, this is pretty well

a well-known fact. We all know this through the history of the

stock exchange.

How about the washing of stock in the Toronto Stock

Exchange? This was a nice neat way; it was well engineered.

We've had many, many examples of the stock market being

raped.

Basically, I hope this will protect the citizens of British Columbia and actually

of Canada because we do have a fair mining exchange here. I feel the Attorney-General

should be commended for bringing this. Actually, he's a very nice little Attorney-General

and I think he's a nice Minister…

MR. CURTIS: Smear.

MR. CUMMINGS: …and I'm very, very pleased to support it.

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

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I wish you had also said

how great the Minister of industry (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is and how

well he is doing in his portfolio. I know it's not his bill but

he is a great Minister. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, this appellate body will be given broader

functions because we recognize the number of appeals that come

and have formerly been handled in-house in the department, some

under the Companies Act , Societies Act , Trust Companies Ac t,

Investments Contract Ac t, maybe the Personal Information

Reporting Act , things of that kind. So the body will have much

more to do than just look at the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

That, of course, isn't the whole field of securities; there are

many other orders. I appreciate that that's the way we should

go.

It will not be a heavy-handed thing. It will be possibly

some retired people and others, and they'll just meet

occasionally as the need arises. It's not a big bureaucracy in

any sense, but it takes the appellate thing out of government's

hands where increasingly the trend should be in that

direction.

In terms of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, all I can say to

the Hon. Member is: have faith! The exciting things this

government is doing for the Province of British Columbia are

going to generate not only drilling activity in the north but

trading on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Have faith in this province and in

this government!

I move second reading.

Interjections.

Motion approved.

Bill 116, Securities Amendment Act, 1974 , read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill

[ Page 3687 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill might be more

properly considered in committee if the Hon. Members have

questions.

As I see the significant sections, there is a redefinition

of "navigable water" to give the Department of Highways wider

discretion as to those access rights that will be vouched safe

for the people of the province. In law "navigable water" has a

narrow meaning, meaning commercially navigable.

There are greater powers for an approving officer to refuse

approval where land can be subject to flooding or erosion or

land slips.

There is a provision for consolidation of parcels without

the expense of a survey; for example, if somebody is putting

together from subdivided lots one unit in the form of a farm or

something of that kind.

Another significant one is that we're allowing Indian bands

to subdivide their reserve land on what has to be a leasehold

basis. In the past it had to be fee simple so far as the roads

were concerned. Now, because they do not have the fee as such,

we are nevertheless permitting them subdivision rights.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, when the

Minister rose in his place in this House and asked leave to

introduce an amendment to the Land Registry Act , I was

tremendously excited. I raced out to the Sergeant-at-Arms'

office to obtain the earliest possible copy of the bill because

I was anticipating that it would contain something about the

registration of the beneficial nationality of the ownership of

land in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that it didn't.

What we have here is basically a housekeeping Act.

I just want to implore the Minister to bring in that other

legislation quickly: bring it in before the end of this session

because we need it, Mr. Minister. Every day there's more of

British Columbia going into the hands of foreign owners.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that on the principle of this bill

we can't elaborate at any great length on this topic, so I'll

simply make that representation, that very earnest

representation to the Minister.

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

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 121, Land Registry Amendment Act, 1974, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Second reading of Bill 122.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

(No.2)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think we should be proud of our provincial bench

in British Columbia which handles, in terms of the cases and the people who

appear before the court, I think the estimate is 97 per cent of the people or

caseload in the Province of B.C.

I was talking to Chief Judge Laurie Brahan just a short

while ago. He is sitting, as I pointed out, in the City of

Victoria because he visits around and practices as a judge on

the bench when he gets that opportunity, and helps to ease the

caseload.

He had on his docket today some 20 cases this morning — they

were mostly traffic. He has another case load this afternoon.

So it is a hard-working bench, dedicated, increasingly

qualified in terms of legal training, but facing, really, a

massive legal, social and judicial problem, and tackling that

with their judicial institutes, their retraining and their

closely knit liaison without, as I say, any political bench or

any other bench, with the prison services in terms of their

knowledge of it, with the police function and with the

probation services and the parole boards and even the work of

the Departments of Human Resources, Education and Health.

So while they are in a front line, they must nevertheless

tie in with the broader picture, and they are tying in with

that broader picture.

I don't think it is in the bill in terms of its working but

we have improved their salary position to roughly equivalent to

Ontario. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that our judges do not

and are not permitted to earn income outside of their judicial

salary. It would be a bad thing if, as has been the case in the

past, they were still engaging in some kind of private practice

or business enterprise because that would lower their position,

in my opinion, as judges of this court.

We do think that the retirement age should be 65. But at the

same time we do want to take advantage of the services of those

judges who will be between the ages of 65 and 70. They will be

assigned, not by myself, because I am very keenly concerned

that there not be political interference, but they will be

assigned by the chief judge. They will be working actively for

the province. The additional factor that is

[ Page

3688 ]

involved here is mobility because these judges can serve

where the need is greatest, rather than being in any particular

judicial district.

So that is the principle of this bill; that's one of the

main things. The other things that are happening, and are

referred to in the bill, are a pension plan which is better

than the old thing under the Municipal Superannuation

Act , and which is long overdue in terms of the judges.

Because some of them are appointed late in their term of life,

I think we are guaranteeing 10 years minimum and I think it is

3 per cent per year. Also we are thinking in terms of severance

pay for some of those people who have given long service to the

Province of British Columbia. For example there is Judge Evans

up in the Kootenays, who everybody remembers, who gave great

service to the province not only on the bench but in terms of

the social problems surrounding the Doukhobor situation. People

like him would be retiring almost without any kind of pension.

We are working out a system of separation allowance for people

who have given that kind of service as they reach the

retirement age.

We are also looking at our part-time judges — mostly lay

judges — who in some cases are working for $100 a month,

sometimes for more. It has been a kind of a crazy-quilt with no

particular sense to it, so we intend to meet with them and,

depending on the work they are doing, to adjust their

remuneration accordingly.

I take pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of

this bill.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Just a couple of

questions to the Attorney-General. When he closes the debate I

would like to know if he would inform the House how many of the

present judiciary are over the age of 65 and in that area

between 65 and 70; and whether it would be your intention to

allow those judges to continue through until their 70th

birthday before retiring them under the provisions of this

bill, or will they be phased out of the judicial system within

the next year or so and be replaced by other judges coming into

the court system in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't got the figures with me at

the moment. As a matter of fact, I was not too concerned, in introducing this

legislation or helping to formulate it, as to the numbers because I was not

thinking of individuals who might or might not be over this or that line. If

we are thinking in terms of the legally trained judges, the number is relatively

small as I understand. But in terms of the total judiciary in B.C., including

the part-time judges, I would think the number might approach close to 50 people.

It would be in that category. In the case of the trained, I don't think it is

more than 10 or 12. I will try to get that by committee stage if the Member

wishes the exact figure, or I will give it to him separately.

In terms of their use, this depends on a number of factors:

the recommendation of the chief judge; the inclination of the

person concerned as to how much service he wishes to give,

bearing in mind that he will have the pension and it will

probably be a per diem thing, so it is really his volunteering

of services that will be an important factor in the situation.

On that basis, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can decide

who the supernumerary judges should be.

Motion approved.

Bill 122, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (No.

2) , read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. COCKE: Second reading of Bill 124, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the present Real Estate

Act requires sellers of subdivided land to provide a

prospectus to the purchasers containing all the facts about the

land. That is the Act that is now before the Legislature. It

deals also with sellers of strata lots which, in effect, is a

subdivision in the sky, and cooperative corporations which, in

effect, is selling an apartment or a strata lot by means of the

purchase of shares rather than the actual building or title to

the strata lot and it deals with conversions.

We've had a lot of forced conversions in this province where

tenants have been obliged to purchase or get out. We have

protected them within limits in the Landlord and Tenant

Act that is presently on the books, but there are loopholes

there. So we are increasing the prospectus requirements, the

requirements at the local level for municipal approval of

conversions of the three kinds I have mentioned. In addition to

that, we will be legislating in terms of an amendment to the

Landlord and Tenant Act to group these things together

in terms of the rights of tenants, reinforcing the kinds of

protection that are also contained in this bill.

In addition we are dealing in this bill with a problem that has been before

the House before — that is the sale of land of over five parcels which is situated

outside the province but is being sold inside the province. We are providing

in the bill that that kind of sale must be by a proper prospectus, proper provisions

as to the deposit and when that can be recovered, and that it must be through

a duly licenced agent of the Province of British Columbia so

[ Page 3689 ]

someone will be

responsible if it is land in Arizona, Brazil, or wherever it may be. Those are

the basic contents of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 124, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1974 , read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. COCKE: Second reading of Bill 127, Mr. Speaker.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a number of these

amendments would be understood only by lawyers, and they would

not understand them. (Laughter.) A number of the other ones are

significant in terms of draftsmanship and cleaning up a little

bit the Companies Act which has been passed.

The experience of that Companies Act on the whole has

been pretty good but it is still under surveillance. It is a

new departure which we therefore monitor in terms of its

usefulness as a social and business instrument for the

community in British Columbia.

There is one

section in here which I think would be of

importance to refer to the Legislature. That is the one whereby

in the past, in the Companies Act , chartered accountants

and certified general accountants only, were permitted to audit

the books of reporting companies. This was a little unfair to

the industrial accountants who had been doing some of that work

and also to the APAs, who are the accredited public

accountants.

We do not provide holus bolus that these people can engage

in this work, because the standard of accountancy in a province

is very important in the business community, but we do provide

that these people will be able to go before a committee, and if

qualified, then they will be able to practise as accountants in

terms of the reporting companies. I move second reading.

Bill 127, Companies Amendment Act, 1974 , read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Second reading of Bill 109.

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES LICENSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Community Care Facilities Licensing Ac t has been under some

criticism of recent years. Mainly because of the regulations

pursuant to the Act, but we felt that there is need here to not

only do some housekeeping around this Act — that is, you know,

cleaning up some of the sections of the Act that required it,

in wording and so on. But it also, we felt, should be

expanded.

At the present time, there is a Provincial Community Care

Licensing Facility Board, and that's all there is. We feel that

the community should have the right to set up, or we should in

communities have the right to set up local boards that are much

closer to the area, much closer to the scene and who would know

and understand the needs of their particular areas. Now

naturally, they're going to be tied down with regulations that

govern the provincial body, but at the same time, there can be

a much closer touch with the community.

As you know, the Community Care Licensing Boards license

day-care centres, license rest homes, license personal care

homes and a number of other boarding and rooming kinds of

facilities. So it's a very important area, we feel, and always

has to be under very close scrutiny.

At the present time the board is opening up the new

regulations that are now being considered, to the public of the

Province of British Columbia and the public will have input as

to what those new regulations shall be.

For instance, I've heard a great deal of criticism around

how many square feet do you have in a day-care centre for a

child. Should it be 45, or should it be 30, or whatever? A

criticism such as, "if that were the case, I shouldn't have had

children because my home doesn't qualify" et cetera, et

cetera.

Well, what we're trying to do is bring some sense out of the

nonsense that has been pretty well evident in this area. So,

Mr. Speaker, we are, generally speaking, opening the Act up,

giving us the opportunity, as I said, to have the local

community input, local community boards. We'll define that

board and I believe that the Act does that quite well. It gives

us the power, in this new amendment, to pass the administration

of the Act from one department to another by order-in-council,

which we feel is important.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is

intimately involved in the day-to-day activities of this whole

area of community care licensing facilities. So this gives an

opportunity for us to pass that kind of resolution in executive

council and provide that this in fact occurs.

We'll also be able to permit municipalities and regional

districts to handle local licensing matters under the new

amendment. Specifically, let me say that in the Capital

Regional District, we have now passed a great many of the

duties and responsibilities

[ Page 3690 ]

of the Health Department over to the Capital Regional

District. This, I'm sure, will excite them more than it will

excite some areas because if they desire they can grant

community care facilities in this area, licenses in this area.

So I think it's rather important.

Now we also say in this amendment that it will permit either

the Minister of Health, the Minister of Human Resources or the

Minister of Education to appoint board representatives from the

community; rather than before, if you will recall, when it was

always civil servants on this board.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: No, there's nothing wrong with civil

servants, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time we feel that there

should be input from consumers or general people out in the

public. So either of the three Members with power to appoint to

this board will now be able to appoint people from outside of

the civil service, which I think is very important.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: It will be mandatory now, yes. However, Mr.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams),

through you, Mr. Speaker, in the past the only people you could

appoint were civil servants and now that's been altered, so

that we can appoint those people who are not civil

servants.

The board is also going to be given under this new amendment

the power to issue certificates to people who have taken

required courses, schooling in day care and in other areas — pre-school supervisors and the like. In other words, people who

are actually going into the career of service to people in this

way.

The board will also be given the power to establish local

community-care facilities, licensing boards, with the members

of these boards being appointed by the Minister or Ministers as

it's outlined in the Act.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it stops other government departments and

municipalities from moving in on a family operating a

community-care facility in their own dwelling house and there's

been a lot of discussion around that in the past. You know, the

first night there's a couple of boarders, all of a sudden they

descend upon him. Well, this won't be the case and I think that

this new Act, in

section 7(

b) will pretty well stop that kind

of foolishness, where really nobody quite understood where they

were going.

Anyway, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment itself is

pretty well self-evident, the need for it. I think it's the

kind of

an Act that if there's to be a great deal of discussion

in any of the sections, I think that it probably, by virtue of

the fact that it's a bit diverse, would lend itself to

answering questions in the committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I would therefore move second reading of Bill

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a couple of points about

the bill and I agree basically with what the Minister said,

certainly with regard to private homes being used as

community-care facilities. The Minister will recall that I

asked some time ago in the House that community-care facilities

be licensed at the local level because of various problems that

occur because of the centralization of the licensing

procedures.

I bring up the same story again, though, that this side of

the House has been concerned about the expansion of the

bureaucracy again. I wonder whether it's necessary to go this

far to have more boards appointed at salary levels. The

provincial board idea, I think, is a good one and certainly the

community representation, but I wonder why we need to have more

boards at the local level and why the medical health officer

and his staff can't be expanded in a manner by which they could

do the local community licensing.

There is a danger as well, Mr. Speaker, in these kind of

boards just overriding the municipal responsibility which they

have the power to do under the terms of this Act and I would

hope that any such boards would be structured in such a manner,

perhaps even with municipal representation on them, so that

they don't just override bylaws, which are set up by the

municipalities in most instances for a good reason.

A board can come along like this and it may find itself in

conflict and has the power now to really cut the municipal

council out of the action. I would hope that that won't happen.

Perhaps the Minister will consider making sure that there are

representatives from the municipal council as well and perhaps

the local school board too, on these boards if lie's going to

insist on having provincial boards established.

I would hope too, Mr. Speaker, some way or other there's

more concern placed on the attitudes and psychological makeup

of the people who are applying for licenses in this field. Too

often, I think, we get people applying for these kind of

licenses who really haven't looked into the whole operation

correctly, aren't equipped to handle the care of people in

intermediate situations or personal situations, are of the

wrong kind of attitude and psychological makeup and probably

should never be in this business at all.

This is where I find that most of the complaints we get

arise — from individually operated rest homes — because there

was no investigation done into the capability of the people who

are applying to open up these kinds of facilities.

Some way I would hope that the medical health officer would

also be required to have someone from the Mental Health Branch

on this local board as well.

[ Page 3691 ]

With those few reservations, Mr. Speaker, I welcome and this

party welcomes the move into more locally-controlled granting

of community-care facilities licences.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the reason I had the brief

exchange across the floor with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) was because as I read the Act the local boards, once the

decision has been made to appoint them, will be comprised of

individuals who are appointed by three Ministers of the Crown:

the Minister of Health, Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

That would seem to indicate that the local boards are going

to be three in number, that that is going to be their

complement.

Now that may be fine in some communities but I would suspect

that in the City of Vancouver, for example, or in any of the

major urban centres, that a local board consisting of three

members only is going to be hard-pressed to fulfil the

responsibilities which the Minister so clearly outlined would

be theirs.

I wonder if the Minister, in closing the debate, could also

indicate in what way there will be active coordination between

the various local boards. He spoke about the problems whereby,

in one jurisdiction the regulations said there had to be 40

cubic feet in a facility for child, another one 30 and so on.

It would seem to me that it would be unfortunate if these local

boards in exercising their responsibilities, were making

decisions which might interfere or conflict with similar

decisions made by a local board in a neighbouring community.

Again, this would most often apply in the larger urban

centres.

If I have one area of concern with this amendment bill it is

the power that is being given to override municipal bylaws. I

know that in the establishment of community-care facilities

difficulties are encountered in obtaining exemptions or changes

in municipal bylaws, getting permits issued so that the

community-care facility can be established in a residential

area. It is a problem. But the problem is one of communication

between the people who are interested in the establishment of

the facility and of these people who reside in the local area

where that facility will be situated.

Changing the power of granting the licence and overriding

the bylaws from the municipal government to the community board

or the facilities board established under the Act is not going

to make that problem go away. I hope that the Minister and the

board can address themselves to this particular problem.

I think it is unfortunate when, against the stated objections of individuals

in a particular residential area, a community-care facility is allowed to establish

and then there is continuing turmoil which surrounds that facility, interferes

with the performance of its duties and generally creates a very bad situation

in the community.

Municipal councils are affected by decisions of this kind

and I would hate to see the provincial government, through

these boards, putting itself in the same position. It seems to

me that the direction in which we have to move is to clearly

establish the need in the minds of the people in the community

for a special facility and then actively promote the

establishment of such an organization and see to it that it

starts to work with all the backing that it can possibly get.

That, rather than having an order made at the top that this

facility is going to be established and that is it.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I just want to deal with

appointments, really. This bill provides for appointments, but

appointments in general. To this Minister, I wonder why he

doesn't consult with MLAs on different appointments — or does

he? If he doesn't want to do that at least he should have the

courtesy, I think, when they are notified of the MLA getting a

copy of these appointments because you read about them

afterwards if you are fortunate enough to catch them in the

press.

What I'm saying, really, is that this Minister hasn't had

any liaison, certainly in my case. I would appreciate being

advised, if he doesn't want to consult, after he has made the

decision. Really, what I am saying is that things are not

always better with "Coke", as they say. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there were very good points

brought up by the opposition on this particular bill. And I

share a lot of your concerns about the whole area of the

direction to go — whether we should be liberal in this whole

question of licensing, or whether we should be more

confining.

Believe me, there are lots and lots of people on both sides

of that issue, Mr. Speaker, who are not less than eloquent,

because they are talking continually on this whole subject.

But let me just say this to the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland): Mr. Member, you brought up the two very best

reasons yourself for local boards and some more autonomy at the

local level around this whole question of licensing. You know,

despite the appointment and who it should be and how it should

be, we recognize that you don't have to appoint civilians.

For instance, if I wanted to, according to this, my three

appointments as Minister of Health could be three people from

the local health services. I suspect that….

Interjections.

[ Page 3692 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, well, I was just getting to that. I was

just going to say, however, that I had better not do that. We

had better sort of share this thing so that people representing

council or people representing the local health services and

others — really representing the needs of that community — can do

a better job. Frankly we have to have these locals. Where they

are civil servants, of course, they won't be remunerated. Where

it is somebody else…. I don't know; I won't guarantee. We

just have the right here.

What we're saying is that we'll certainly pay any travelling

expense and out-of-pocket expenses. Where we go from there is a

matter that we're going to have to discuss as a cabinet around

this whole question when we're drafting the regulations.

The second thing that you indicated that was very important

was the attitude of the local applicants. We don't know that

attitude of the local. In other words, he might have a bad

attitude and he shouldn't be permitted anything, despite the

fact that he's got a beautiful facility ready and waiting to

serve. But local people only know that guy and what he's

thinking and his record and so on. So that's another reason,

and a good one, that you brought up that says to us: "Let's as

quickly as we can somehow or other decentralize this whole

area."

Also, Mr. Speaker, around the questions that were raised by

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

regarding turmoil around the local facilities and so on, again,

I believe that it's these local people…. And it's not three,

as I read the Act, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we have at least

we have to appoint three each — except for the Minister of

Education, who appoints two.

As I recall the old Act — these are just the amendments….

Maybe I shouldn't make too broad and sweeping a statement on

this because I might be found to be less than truthful. But as

I recall the old Act, it strikes me that there is more breadth

than what is indicated in this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we want to resolve more problems at the local

level, and that's what this is really all about. We want

to provide better opportunities for people at the municipal

council level, the union boards of health and Department of

Education the municipal level, the union boards of health and

the Department of Education one way of going about it.

Regarding the appointments, I'm sorry that there hasn't been

enough consultation with the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser).

I'm sure that I can remedy that, if the Member for Cariboo can

remedy some of his antics when we start discussing things at

the local level. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I have a broad back, but

I don't like it when it's got knives in it.

I welcome all the advice on this Act, Mr. Speaker. I

therefore move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 109, Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment

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

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Second reading of Bill 113, Mr.

Speaker.

TUBERCULOSIS INSTITUTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't really think that

this bill requires a great deal of debate. What we've done here

is that we have said to the municipalities of the Province of

British Columbia that we' will accept, as a provincial

government, full responsibility for tuberculosis in your

communities.

Up to now the communities have been paying their share. That

share, I believe, is something in the order of around $1

million, or something less…. No, it wouldn't be that much.

It's $250,000. I think the whole question is about $1 million,

and the municipalities have been paying 25 per cent of the

total cost.

So what we are saying here is consistent with the health

policies of this government — taking more responsibilities off

the shoulders of the local people.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 113, Tuberculosis Institutions Amendment Act,

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

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 235: Minister's office, $100,716.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I rise on this Minister's

estimates somewhat sadly in that I have to read in the paper

the charges that were raised in the hall after the Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) left these

chambers.

Mr. Chairman, it is saddening; really, I have a hard time

saying the kinds of things that are in my heart. This kind of

pathetic grab for headlines, this real pathetic grab, by

calling a person in this House "liar" or "misleading"….

The term "liar," Mr. Chairman, in this session of

[ Page 3693 ]

the Legislature has been used as a club to pound and smash

away at the parliamentary process in this province. I don't

really think that we have to argue at great length or debate

who was right, wrong or indifferent. We know perfectly well

that anybody can rise in this chamber from day to day — we've

got Hansard now — and he can interpret what someone else

is saying in a slightly different manner than what he meant in

the first place.

Certainly I have never backed off from my original position,

but that's neither here nor there, Mr. Chairman. I don't really

think that this Minister's estimates, any more than the

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) estimates or the

Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich'

s) estimates or the

Premier of this province's estimates, should be carried on and

on and on — not really eliciting information about those

estimates, but trying desperately to assassinate character,

trying desperately to hammer the process of this province.

Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that the Member over there

doesn't like this government, remember this: there will be

other governments later. If you ruin the parliamentary process

now just because of the fact that you don't like the incumbent,

it seems that a terrible disservice has been done to this

entire process.

I, for one, feel that this is so much stronger a process

than the republic process. I feel that it is much stronger than….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

address himself to the Minister's responsibilities.

MR. FRASER: Are you going to vote against the private bills

committee recommendations?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's the exact situation we

have here.

MR. FRASER: You're the one that's wrecked the parliamentary

process.

HON. MR. COCKE: We've been going along accepting charges on

this Minister's estimates, and I just feel that the Members in

this House should all start thinking in terms of their own

conscience and where they are going.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's just one item I wish to raise about

ICBC under this Minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman. It has to

do with non-owned trailers, commercial trailers, There is a

firm in Vancouver — I imagine that there are several of them — which rent out trailers to licensed carriers but don't own any

of them themselves. They own the tractors and rent out the

trailers.

In the past their insurance rate has been based on the

marketable value of the unit, which they buy on a per-time

basis for these non-owned trailers. For instance, if the

estimated cost or value of the trailer is $30,000, then they

get $30,000 worth of insurance. They are considered to be an

overflow carrier for the commercial transport operations. They

buy what I understand is known as a non-owner policy.

The company with which I am concerned — Triple-A Trailer

Services in Vancouver — has, I think, 11 or 12 units on the

highway plus one tractor-train unit. The company has bought 12

policies at a value of $10,000 each for these trailers, for

which they paid a premium of $502 for each of these 12

units.

In the past they have bought their insurance, Mr. Chairman,

on a per-trailer basis. Now they find that ICBC has no policy

for tractor-train units. Instead of getting their insurance,

even though they seem to be paying on a per-trailer basis,

they're getting their insurance based on a per occurrence,

per-accident basis. It doesn't matter how many trailers the

unit happens to be pulling.

So what has happened here is that the company had a

tractor-train unit on the highway pulling two trailers. The

unit was involved in an accident, the trailers were totally

destroyed and when the company went to claim their insurance, a

rebate of their insurance payment, ICBC would only pay them for

one trailer worth $10,000. But they had lost two trailers worth

$20,000. So they are on that occasion S 10,000 out of

pocket.

Now what I want to know from the Minister is whether or not

there are going to be some changes in the ICBC policy so that

these tractor-train units are covered, because the only other

solution for an operator in this kind of circumstance would be

to inflate the value, to double the value of a single unit.

Then, likely, ICBC would come along, if there was a claim

anyway, and say: "I'm sorry, but that's an inflated value and

we can only pay you for what the thing is really worth.

That brings me to another point in the same case. The

tractor which was pulling these units also was totally

demolished. It was insured for $30,000. A premium was paid for

that amount of insurance and ICBC is now saying…. As a

matter of fact, the $30,000 value was confirmed by the people

who sold the trailer. Only six weeks ago it was worth $30,000.

Now ICBC comes along and wants only to pay $20,000 to replace

this unit. So there's another $ 10,000 that this company is

out.

Basically I understand that that's in the hands of a lawyer

now and they are involved with negotiations with ICBC for the

tractor unit. But the trailer unit — there seems to be a vacuum

in ICBC policy here for all of the truckers who pull this kind

of train unit. I'm afraid that if the truckers go to ICBC and

inflate the value of their units and then find themselves

with

[ Page 3694 ]

two trailers demolished, they are going to get into the same

kind of situation where ICBC will say: "I'm sorry, but your

unit is worth only half of what you said it is, and you are

only going to get half payment." That's exactly what's happened

here.

I wonder if the Minister would comment on that policy, or

lack of it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know the details of the case.

It's the first I've heard about it. But as a general principle

I think I can state that if there were two trailers insured and

two trailers are destroyed, two trailers should be paid

for.

MR. McCLELLAND: I agree.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can state that as my opinion of what

the general policy should be.

Insofar as the tractor being insured for $30,000 and they

only want to pay $20,000: as you know, when you get into that

field of valuation and original valuation and depreciated

valuation…. It's probably somewhere in there where the

argument lies.

That can happen in almost any case. It's a normal insurance

practice, really, to compensate for the actual value, not for

what someone said it was. But, certainly, if you send the

details, we'll check into the whole thing.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll have it for you.

MR. GIBSON: At the time of adjournment of debate on the

Minister's estimates last night I was going through some of the

history of the denial of simple justice to the municipalities

of this province in the sense of the guaranteed payment of full

municipal taxes by the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia and the need for this Minister to give them that

guarantee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that he should address his remarks specifically to the

administrative responsibility of this Minister and also that he

should not go over information already given to the House.

Rather, if he has new information, raise that.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, to address the second point

first, clearly I'm not going over information which has been

given to the House. I was up to January 9 in my recital of the

record and I'm proceeding forward from that date.

On the other matter, with respect to the administrative responsibilities of

the Minister, he is, of course, the Minister responsible to this House for the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. It would strike me that his salary

vote is the only place where we can discuss matters related to the administration

of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member that the decision must be clearly his

administrative responsibility alone. If it is a matter that has

to be dealt with in cabinet, it would not, strictly speaking,

be proper to raise it under this Minister's vote.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it's clearly the decision alone of

this Minister whether he makes the recommendation to cabinet

that the ICBC should pay municipal taxes under

section 11 of

the ICBC Act . It's that Minister's decision and no one else's.

He has the power to stand up in this House right now and say he

will do that, or he has the power to say he won't do that.

Therefore, since that's his power, I say it must be debated

under his salary estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue, as long as he

relates his remarks to the administrative responsibility of

this Minster?

MR. GIBSON: Now, at the time of adjournment last night, I

had just commenced to read into the record a very short letter,

dated January 9, to the ICBC from the municipal clerk of the

District of North Vancouver. You may recall I referred to

order-in-council 4265, which was issued in December of 1973, to

allow for the payment of taxes in 1974 only. This letter

commences:

"Order-in-council 4265, dated December 20, 1973, has been

received by the council and concern has been expressed that

payment of municipal taxes is authorized for the year 1974

only.

"The council feels that zoning and construction should not

be proceeded with until there is assurance that the policy will

be continued and full taxes will be paid in subsequent

years.

"Yours very truly."

A very short, simple request, Mr. Chairman. A request that

we have reason to believe from previous correspondence that the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia agrees with in

principle. The bottleneck is that Minister.

This policy was again reaffirmed at a later meeting of

council on March 11. Subsequently, the acting mayor at that

time, Acting Mayor Slattery, wrote to the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) and myself with respect to

this problem on March 12. He sent at that time a copy of the

letter to the Hon. Minister and to another gentleman in the

Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, who

apparently has had some of the

[ Page 3695 ]

negotiating responsibility with respect to this land in

North Vancouver. The letter from Mr. Slattery to the Hon.

Member for North Vancouver–Seymour and myself summarizes in a

reasonable way the history of this dialogue.

A suggestion was made at that time that it would be a good

thing if a meeting could be arranged between members of the

council and the Minister to try and work this out. I want to

stress that nobody in this particular case wants to get into a

wrangle; we just want to get those taxes paid. We're not

looking for a fight.

A meeting in due course was arranged with the Minister, to

no real effect. We have, in an April 1 council meeting, the

council considering the matter again and it again being

unsatisfactory from their point of view — and from my point of

view, Mr. Chairman, I assure you.

I have other internal documentation showing the way in which

the council has been wrestling with this problem, culminating

in a recent letter of May 24 from the mayor to the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia which relates both to the

question of wrecks on the Dollarton Highway property and

specifically to the subject of municipal taxation.

As I related the other day, the mayor indeed did meet with

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and something may

be coming to pass on the wrecks. I certainly hope so, Mr.

Chairman, because the original negotiations for this land

specified that the land would be a clean operation. We have

this quote from The Vancouver Sun of May 13:

"The scene resembles the aftermath of a demolition derby. On Friday, 12 wrecks were parked just off

the highway in full view of two apartment blocks, and a dozen

more damaged cars lay at the rear of the lot.

"Mrs. Davidson, mother of three, said mothers in her block have a constant battle on their hands

keeping young children from playing in the wrecks. She said

there are 74 children on the block."

That's just an example of how the wishes of the municipality

and even commitments to the municipality have been ignored.

This was to be a clean operation with no wrecks, and there it

is with wrecks on it. they're going to get them off, they say.

I say, get them off quickly and then let's get on to the

resolution of that other problem. It's a matter of simple

justice. It's a matter of whether taxpayers in one particular

municipality, whether it's the District of North Vancouver or

any other around the lower mainland or around this province,

should have to absorb the burden of not having taxes paid on a

provincial government installation for the benefit of the

municipal taxpayers in other areas adjacent serviced by those

facilities.

I say, it's the clear policy of this government in other

areas to pay those municipal taxes. The only reason that's not

being done here is a Minister who is just too stubborn to say:

"I will go to the cabinet. I will ask that an open-ended

order-in-council be passed authorizing the payment of taxes not

just in 1974 but in the years beyond." The Minister knows that

can be done. I say that it's simple justice not just to this

municipality but to municipalities all over the province that

he should do that. I hope he will have something to say about

that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I've already explained to

the Member my position on this. That Member has in his

possession internal documents, minutes of meetings of council

held in camera, and a variety of other correspondence. He

referred to a meeting that I had with the members of the

council. When those members left my office, they had a message

to take back to that council. I gathered from them that they

had the correct impression from what I had said. I expected the

matter was solved.

I was disappointed when I received words to the reverse of

that. I did make a commitment and I've made a commitment to

every municipality. As I explained earlier, we set out to be

good corporate citizens. We didn't have to do that; it was a

clear demonstration of our intent. We went through all of the

processes of permits, zoning — anything — to meet all of the

normal requirements of any other citizen, corporate or

otherwise. We found ourselves faced with other demands.

Now, you talk about the wrecks that were there. Okay;

they're there because we had to have a place to put them. Had

we been allowed to build that claim centre, those wrecks

wouldn't have been there. The claim centre would have been

finished long ago and operating as a first-class part of

ICBC.

I have already given a clear indication of my good faith and

that's where the matter sits.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, earlier on, the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cooke) made reference to

statements made in the House previously. He accused the

opposition and me in particular of attacks on the parliamentary

process and a disservice to our system, which in his view is

better than the republican, as though that had a great deal to

do with it.

But never once was there any effort to face up to the real

question which was raised in this House by this particular

matter which he referred to and by another one which was, of

course, the appointment of ICBC agents. The other one was the

handing out of ferry contracts.

The opposition numbers 17 against the government majority.

The government numbers 38. For us to request information from

cabinet Ministers

[ Page 3696 ]

on public matters that we feel are of public importance is

in no way, we feel, an attack upon the parliamentary process.

For us to rise in our seats, as we have done time after time,

to try and get information which should be made public, we

think in no way attacks the parliamentary process but indeed

strengthens it because we are here as the people's

representatives, we are here to question the Crown, the

executive, on precisely what they are doing and how they are

doing it. We are carrying out a role which has been handed down

or developed over the centuries from the time that

parliamentary democracy first began. The Attorney-General seems

to be concerned about this, but it happens to be the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As I said to the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), and as I will say to you, would you

please address your remarks to vote 235?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question that comes is why both he

and the Minister of Transport and Communication (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) refuse to face up to the questions that have been

asked in this House in the one instance since, I think, around

the 18 of February and in the other well before that, indeed,

dating back into last year. Why is it that we are not getting

answers to straightforward questions dealing with the two

issues?

I just fail to see how requests for information, requests

for clarification of Ministerial statements, constitute this

savage attack from this enormous group here in opposition upon

that hard-pressed group over there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for

Victoria has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier perhaps fails to understand

either the need to have….

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Call us all names and get it over

with.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier once more interrupts.

The question is this: why is it that we have, in this case, direct conflict

of testimony and no effort made by the cabinet to clear it up? It is simple

enough to enforce certain rules of the House and not to enforce others, which

are there just as much by custom, by constitution, which require that in cases

where there are such discrepancies, Ministers make reasonable efforts to clear

up the inaccuracies and if they cannot and have shown that indeed they have

failed to be candid with the House, they resign. Those are rules of the House

as well as rules dealing with statements made in this House, and the Premier

should know it.

For example, take the case of the appointments of ICBC

agents. We have clear statements from the man involved, Mr.

Sharpe — the man appointed — that he went to the Minister for

assistance. I quote the Sun of February 20: "'I thought

it could be that he would be a bit of help,' added Don

Sharpe in a telephone interview from his office in Kamloops. He

said there had been nothing in the letter he had written to

Cocke except that 'I just asked him if he could help me.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member shouts, "What's wrong with

that?" The thing that is interesting is that he was, of course,

the only agent appointed at the time, apparently, who did not

qualify. Fair enough — the Minister appoints a friend, the

rules are bent, altered or changed but why is it that the

reason and excuse for this is put upon the Insurance Agents'

Association of British Columbia when, in fact, they made no

such request? That is why, again on the 20th February in a

similar

article in the Sun , the request was made:

"Anderson asked Cocke and Strachan to apologize and withdraw

the answers they had given Tuesday to questions on the same

matter." That is not an enormously difficult request to accede

to if it happens that the information is in fact inaccurate. If

it happens that we get replies to questions, there may be cases….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that I thought he might raise something new, but the

points he has raised have already been raised a number of

times. The Minister has indicated that he has given his full

answer on this matter. I would ask him to either raise

something new or discontinue.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the point is this: I have

been referring to the Sun article, which I did not refer

to yesterday, dealing with this case. I am trying to point out

that the request was made reasonably, that in the light of the

conflicting testimony, we get some explanation for it; or if it

was indeed inaccurate, that the men apologize and withdraw the

answers they have given.

You, Mr. Chairman, who sometimes sits in the chair when the

House is in full session, are fully aware that most of our

difficulties stem from the fact that we are simply not getting

replies to reasonable questions. That was, as I felt then and

feel now, a reasonable question.

[ Page 3697 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that this is

a matter of opinion and the Chair must rule as the standing

orders apply. As the standing orders reads, the matter may not

be repeated over and over again.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have precedents in this, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sure 67 times will be the limit which we won't get to

today. But the question still remains: why is it, when you have

a clear discrepancy in testimony, when you have here a clear

statement made by the Minister dealing with this particular

appointment, you do not get reasonable doubt cleared up by

either of the Ministers?

This is why we in the opposition have to sometimes repeat

certain questions to Ministers who feel they can use their

majority, who feel they can use their position, who feel they

can use the executive power they have to disregard the

parliamentary process in this Legislature. That is precisely

what they are doing. And I submit to you that that probably is

far more destructive of the British parliamentary system than

the opposition raising questions which is their right and their

duty to do, The statement is clear: "When, on the recommendation of the

agents' association, which said that there would not be enough

of them to do the job, they came to us at the end of the year

indicating quite clearly that they just couldn't handle it,

ICBC at that time made a decision to expand the number of

agents who would qualify."

Hamilton, the head of the agents' association, in his

statements had a very different story indeed. It goes back to

this interview that he had on a radio station where he was

interviewed by one Mr. Webster who said: "There is one thing I

want to get back to: did the insurance agents of B.C." — that

is the Sharpe case again — "make any representations to

Strachan on the ICBC to appoint new agents because of attrition

in those who had earlier been qualified as licenced people?"

The reply came back: "No, we did not. None whatsoever." Webster

went on: "Well, as a result of what was said by Strachan as

your representation, six new agents have been appointed and 13

others have been appointed who were in the process of being

qualified are being dropped in error from the list." Hamilton

said: "Nothing to do with any representations by our

association. We have been in touch with them on a daily basis

for a year and a half. "

The question which just defeats me, the question which came up on the 20th February,

which came up when I put this matter on the order paper, as I stated I would

do in an attempt to get it dealt with in that way by a committee, is: why, under

the circumstances we cannot have a Minister recognize his responsibility to

clear up the discrepancy, to come to the House and simply not leave either the

name of Hamilton blackened for having lied on the air or indeed, the name of

the Minister blackened if Hamilton was telling the truth?

Why is it that when we ask questions on this, when we

recommend that there be an apology, if indeed there was a

misstatement of fact, why is it that we get total silence for

virtually three months from the Minister of Health and the

Minister responsible for Autoplan, namely, the Minister of

Transport and Communications?

Is this a destruction of democracy as both Ministers shouted

about? Is this a destruction of democracy to try and find out

what it is that really took place? Are we, in our position in

the opposition, to leave go by statements which clearly say, if

the Minister is truthful, that Mr. Hamilton, the head of the

insurance agents of British Columbia, on that programme did not

tell the truth at all and indeed lied to Webster and the

thousands of people who were listening? That is the question

that I am trying to get to, Mr. Chairman, because of the two

people, they cannot both be correct. Both have knowledge of the

facts, therefore there must be, indeed, deliberate deceit on

the part of one or the other.

You can understand this, Mr. Chairman. There is a statement

made by a member of the public; it can be cleared up in no time

by the Minister. His reputation can be cleared. Yet there is no

effort made to do that thing. Why not?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Maybe he was mistaken.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, there is always the case of

mistake. Yet in almost 100 days no effort was made to correct

the mistake.

The second case is the one that deals with a firm in my

constituency, a company in my constituency which employs

approximately 50 or 55 people, I understand. It was a case of

this firm, which competes for business around the world, which

has tried hard to bring to Victoria a high-income, high-skill,

non-polluting industry. They have tried to have their design

work sold elsewhere as well.

They found that when it came to contracts with the British

Columbia government they were not given the opportunity of

bidding. Yet, the statement was made again in the House that an

opportunity had been made because they had been asked for "the

same thing" as the Seattle firm which got the contract without

tendering.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon.

Member, on this issue as well, that he should try to raise some

new matters since this subject has been canvassed at

length.

[ Page 3698 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, may I remind you of the

decision of the Speaker…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'd just draw to your attention

standing order 43. It says:

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the

attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of

a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition

either of his own arguments or the arguments used by other

Members in debate may direct him to discontinue his

speech."

So I would ask the Hon. Member to….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would refer you to the

decision of the Speaker of the House, Mr. Speaker Dowding, at

the last day of the fall session in which he said this matter

should be discussed during the estimates of the Minister. It

has been raised, as I understand it, just once before in these

estimates.

Now, if repeating a second time a matter on which you cut me

off yesterday, developing it some length and perhaps requesting

again an answer from the Minister is tedious and repetitious

when it's only the second time it has been raised in the

debate, I will be very surprised indeed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The matter which you were

discussing — these plans for a new ferry and so on — has been

discussed a number of times, not twice. I would ask the Hon.

Member to remember what has already been said and to be sure to

raise new information.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I will certainly remember what has

been said and I will do my best to raise new information. I

would simply remind you, Mr. Chairman, of something which I

believe you are unaware of: namely, the decision of Mr. Speaker

Dowding that this thing should be raised at this time during

the estimates of this particular Minister. It has been raised,

I understand, during these estimates in debate but once before,

yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is correct in

that it should be raised during estimates. However, it has to

be done within the rules of the House and the committee. I'm

simply cautioning him that he should raise some new matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I appreciate the Chairman's caution. I'm happy

to carry on, and perhaps he can judge for himself rather than anticipate problems

which may or may not exist. I again refer him to the decision of Mr. Speaker

Dowding. That perhaps may be tedious and repetitious but I understand that you

haven't looked at it yet.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The company in question is a Victoria

firm employing approximately 55 people. They are engaged as

marine architects. They're attempting to get business,

naturally in British Columbia but also elsewhere as well.

They've done work for people in other parts of the world and

their reputation obviously is an important factor.

The company naturally wanted to be in competition for

British Columbia ships because they feel, naturally, if they

can sell at home, the possibility of them selling elsewhere

will be enhanced. In turn, if they fail to win domestic

contracts, clients overseas may well question their abilities

to do work for them.

You understand that, Mr. Chairman; it's a very important

fact that the reputation of the firm is at stake in this area.

Careless and inaccurate statements by the Minister or other

people can damage that reputation very substantially.

When I asked the Minister on September 24 whether or not

there had been tenders called so that this British Columbia

naval architects firm could have an opportunity to compete and

bid on the proposed new ferries, the Minister indicated the

competitive estimates for design had been obtained from two

firms. On May 24 this was reported to him.

Now, he said in Hansard , page 168:

Competitive estimates were obtained…from the Victoria,

B.C., naval architects, CELL (Case Existological Laboratories Ltd.) for design

fees for a trailer ship and a 274-car ferry.

He added that:

The same thing…

Mark those words.

…was asked of another firm and we find that the amount of

money being asked to provide this and the time required to do the job is much

less with the firm whose plans were in this place the other day.

I just remind you once more of the fact that we would not

even have known of this other firm being involved had it not

been for an accidental visit to a committee room by a Member of

the press corps who stumbled by accident onto the entire

designs, the models, the rest, which had been laid out for the

Minister's viewing, presumably, and other people's viewing as

well. The public, ourselves and the press would have had no

knowledge of this had it not been for that accident.

Anyway, I stress for you, Mr. Chairman, the words, "the same

thing." The same thing was never asked of those two firms.

That's the critical point.

Later on, I questioned the Minister further on that. I think

it took six questions to get him to admit that, in fact, some

contract had been given to the Seattle firm, a contract for $

10,000 for preliminary

[ Page 3699 ]

design sketches.

On October 24 the Minister announced to the press that the

Seattle firm had been awarded the $577,000 contract to design

these two ferries, 376 cars apiece and the trailer ferry. He

indicated in that press report that the Seattle firm had

received the contract because its bid was more than $100,000

lower than that of CELL, it had promised to prepare the designs

in one-third of the time and nine of the B.C. ferries now in

operation were based on its design.

Now, that simply didn't coincide with information I had in

my possession. So I asked the Minister then and I asked him

subsequently on at least six occasions to table the May 24

report which he referred to as the report which indicated that

he had received competitive estimates for design from two

firms. He indicated that there was a May 24 report, and he has

since then never released it to me or anybody else. claims,

with, I think, a certain amount of justification — and I've

tabled letters in the House on this as you are well aware, Mr.

Chairman — that the parameters given to the two firms were

quite different and the procedure used was quite different.

The B.C. firm was asked at a luncheon meeting and then by

telephone to give a rough estimate of the cost of ferries of a

particular size and configuration. The firm will use the ferry

authority and the Highways department's own cost schedules to

determine what their fee should be — just exactly what was laid

down by the department itself. The Department of Highways'

manual concerning consulting engineers was the one in use.

That's what an engineering firm can charge in cases such as

this.

The claim of the Minister that the Canadian firm was

charging $100,000 too much can be challenged for two reasons:

(1) It's a fixed government set proportion of total cost.

(2) It's simply not true. Later information provided by CELL

indicated that the difference could conceivably be $15,000,

which would be higher in the case of CELL.

Then we come to the second aspect: the question of time. I

refer you once more to the statement made earlier that it would

take three times as long. Well, it turns out that instead of

three times as long, you're dealing with the question of 15

days: the difference between 75 days and 90 days. Indeed, since

the tender call for the ferries was mailed from the Minister's

office on January 10, which is just a week short of the three

months from the time the design contract was awarded, it is

clear that the three-month quote by the Canadian firm was not

much longer and certainly not three times as long.

The firm in question, as far as competence, was the one that designed the stretching

of the B.C. ferries. If it was capable of stretching ferries and capable of

doing that job, it seems very curious that it lacked the capability of putting

in another bid on the ferries themselves. Certainly, in light of the Minister's

statement that the firm itself had been already asked for bids, it seems curious

that his department apparently changed its mind as to the competence….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon.

Member that I'm sure he appreciates the spirit of the standing

orders. I believe the intention of this particular standing

order is to avoid having the House hear over and over again the

same facts repeated. It doesn't matter if it's once or twice or

several times, I think it takes up the time of the committee. I

would therefore ask the Hon. Member to try to raise new matters

rather than keep repeating matters that are already on

record.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I can quote from letters not yet

quoted: the Nickum-Spaulding letter which was tabled in the

House on October 10 and dated May 18, 1973; Case Existological

Laboratories, dated May 8, 1973 and tabled November 6, 1973; we

have the Premier's letter of November 2, 1973 to the Case

Existological Laboratories; we have the letter from Mr. Weston,

operations manager — this one was not tabled in the House — to

Nickum and Spaulding Associates Inc., naval architects and

marine engineers, 71 Columbia Street, Seattle, Washington,

dated May 31, 1973; a letter from Peter Hart, director of

operations of CELL, to Mr. Weston, operations manager of the

ferries.

I could quote from these, which I don't believe have been

quoted from before. But the question remains the same whether I

quote from them or not, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is that reasonable questions have been asked.

Statements have been made: in the one case damaging to the

reputation of an individual; in the other case damaging to the

reputation of a firm. Both these deserve some sort of

clarification; both demand it.

The Ministers in question have decided over the months and

months and months on both these issues that they will be

silent. Their response in the House yesterday as well as today

is one of attack, absurd attack, on the fact that this

requesting of information to clear the name of companies, to

set the records straight, to clear the names of the individuals

and set the records straight there, as well as to clear the

name of the insurance agents' association, the professional

association, is somehow anti-democratic.

Well, I challenge that view most strongly.

MR. CUMMINGS: Smear, smear!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member follows suit of the Minister.

He simply yells "Smear" whenever there are questions which

Ministers appear unwilling

[ Page 3700 ]

or unable to answer. But the questions remain, and we are

sent here to ask this type of question. We're sent here to do

what we can to find out what the truth is or otherwise of these

statements that are made. We're sent here to make sure that the

people have an opportunity of questioning the executive; and we

represent the people and we are questioning those with

executive responsibility in running this province.

They have made statements which are damaging to individuals.

They have made statements which are damaging to companies. They

have made statements which are damaging to professional

associations. There is simply no way that the statements they

have made can be anything more than what I said yesterday. On

the one hand you have evasions, evasions of questions. Then

there is the question in the case of CELL and in the case of

the agents' association — what appears to be deliberate

evasion. And that is unavoidable.

We have the opportunity of setting the record straight. I

appeal to them again to do so, because if they do not set the

record straight, we're simply abusing and using this House to

attack individuals, companies as well as professional

associations, in a way which is thoroughly unpardonable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member made a remark

which I would just ask him to clarify. He said that it

"appears" the Minister is making deliberate evasions. I would

ask him to temper his remarks. I think that this is

unparliamentary. It is unparliamentary indirectly as it is

directly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is also equally unparliamentary for

Ministers to make statements damaging to individuals and make

no effort to clear it up, and you, Mr. Chairman, perhaps should

point that out to them too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair applies the rules.

Any Member may rise on a point of order or state a point of

order at any time. I'm simply drawing to the attention of the

Hon. Member that he's coming very close to making a deliberate

attack on a Member of this House, and I'm just asking him to….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I stated yesterday, there

are questions which are unanswered which need to be answered. As I stated back

on February 20 when this thing first came up with respect to one of these two

issues, if inaccurate statements have been made by Ministers, apologies are

due. Explanations are due. They were due then and they are due now. If we don't

get them, the conclusion is inescapable that it was deliberate and it was not

truthful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member…?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, the Member says I don't

answer questions. Then he says when I do answer them — which

indicates that he was wrong in saying I don't answer them — that he doesn't like my answers.

Now, Mr. Chairman, yesterday that Member in this House,

while he was speaking, made a statement that was absolutely

wrong, but I'm not going to indulge in the kind of actions that

he's indulging in. I have described to him the situation as I

saw it. He refuses to accept that. That's his privilege.

I have never attacked any firm in this House, nor did I

attack the individual he's referring to. At no time did I

attack them, undermine them or anything else. He won't accept

my answers. I described the situation as I saw it in both

cases. I've answered.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the Member has my sympathy. He

really has, because all we get is this continual, scurrilous

character assassination. Even though I have set out the facts

as I've seen them, he won't accept them. That's his right. But

that doesn't give him the right to continue this scurrilous

character assassination.

As I say, I'm sorry for the Member, and I suggest he go talk

to his doctor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask Hon. Members of the

House to remember that in the parliamentary tradition it is the

thing to treat each other as honourable Members. I would ask

that both the Member for Victoria and the Hon. Minister obey

the spirit of this principle.

I would ask the Hon. Second Member for Victoria to

continue.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the questions we raised

simply are not being answered. In a contemptuous manner they

are being rejected.

The fact is, was the firm of CELL asked to put in bids on

the same thing as that American firm, as stated by the

Minister? Is that true or not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just point out that the

Hon. Member did indicate sometime during his speech that he had

asked some of these questions about six times. I recall that

these questions have been asked a number of times.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The six-time question was a…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 3701 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …request for the May 24 report, which

would set the record straight at least one way or the

other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He has it and he won't give it to us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

In accordance with the standing orders of the House I would

ask the Hon. Member to raise some new information, I will give

him one more chance; otherwise, I will have to ask you to

discontinue your speech. Will the Hon. Member continue? But do

not repeat questions which have been repeated already a number

of times.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Some questions, Mr. Chairman, get

repeated because they are fundamental questions, and the

question of truth or otherwise is a fundamental one. That is

why it gets repeated.

The firm in question, according to the Minister, was asked

to put in bids on the same thing. Now this, according to all

correspondence, is not so. According to the statement of the

company, it is not so.

The one document which could probably throw some light on

it, the May 24 document, the Minister refuses to make public.

He refuses to deal with the issue of this particular case. That

is why the question has come up again. It has come up

frequently because he won't deal with the issue.

The issue is whether or not he, in his mind, or at least

when he answered in Hansard on page 168 — the date was

September 24 — when he said the same thing was asked of another

firm, and we find that the amount of money being asked to

provide this and the time required to do the job is much less

with the firm whose plans were in the place the other day….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: We want to know if it is true or

otherwise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I did caution the Member now twice. I will ask

the Hon. Member to discontinue his speech.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of discontinuing

questioning on this particular matter, which goes fundamentally to the roots

as to whether that Minister is or is not telling the truth.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated and remain

seated?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot remain seated

and let the vote go by without having some answers to these

questions, and you know that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The statements are clear. The opportunity

for correction is clear. The opportunity has been given time

after time, and we are simply not getting replies. These are

pretty fundamental questions.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The reason they are fundamental is that

we want to know, and we have the opportunity of finding out in

this House, representing the people, to ask this type of

question. I just fail to see, Mr. Chairman, why these questions

— repeated rarely in comparison with some other questions asked

in this House — cannot be answered.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee I cautioned

the Hon. Member not to be repetitious. We allowed him

considerable latitude. Then I asked the Hon. Member to

discontinue his speech. He refused to obey the Chair and he

continued to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Does the Hon. Member disagree with that summation?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The summation is correct, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has, on quite a number of

occasions, set himself as the judge of his actions — and the

jury, as it were, of his actions — in the House, contrary to

the rules of this House and contrary to the orders of the

Chair.

It is not the content of his remarks that is the

[ Page

3702 ]

concern of the Chair. What is of concern is the disobedience

to the order of the Chair, which basically, I think, undermines

the system which we enjoy in this province and in Commonwealth

countries.

There are certain ways of doing things in parliament of long

tradition. If this conduct continues, as it has now on five

occasions in this session, not only will it lead to a new

Guinness Book record, but it will do great harm to the

parliamentary system.

In view of that circumstance, I have no alternative but to

ask the Hon. Member to apologize to the House. Will the Hon.

Member do so?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will never apologize for requesting the

truth from Ministers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that is the question. The

question is apologizing, really, to the House when you attack

the Chair by your conduct. You do, in effect, undermine the

system and you do an offence to all the House. I would

therefore ask you to apologize to the House for disregarding

the orders of the Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the system is undermined

more when Ministers do not tell the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: In view of that, I have no course but to view

the refusal of the Member to discontinue his conduct…. I

take it you will not obey the order of the Chair when he asks

you to desist. Is that correct?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not under these circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: I have no other course open to me, in view of

this continued refusal, but to apply the next remedy that I

have and the House has in defence of its privileges and in

defence of its rights. I must therefore name you: David

Anderson, I name you for your conduct. I call upon the House

for some remedy.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been

said, and the naming that has taken place, I therefore move

that the House dispense with the services of the Hon. Member

until tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member absent himself in the

event there may be some debate? But please stay within call. Is

there any debate on the motion?

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you call the Hon. Member back? I would

ask the Hon. Member to stand at his place. It is usual on a

motion of this kind that the Hon. Member be suspended from the

services of the House within the precincts for a period of five

days on the first offence. And on this occasion, the House has

determined that it shall be for one day. I assume that this

means that you return to the House at the next sitting,

tomorrow. In the circumstances I hereby order you to absent

yourself from the service of the House, including the

buildings, until tomorrow.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 235: Minister's office, $100,716.

MR. SMITH: There is a matter that I wish to bring to the

attention of the Minister, one which is causing a great deal of

concern to a number of small businesses in the Province of

British Columbia. The businesses I refer to are the private

adjusters who for many years provided a service to the public

by making their professional skills and service available to

the total insurance industry, both the general and auto field,

in the servicing of claims.

Now, as I understand it, there is a minimum of at least 26

small adjusting firms in the Province of British Columbia with

30 or 40 offices scattered throughout the province that

presently are on the verge of bankruptcy. The reason for that

-is the fact that they have been told by ICBC that their

services will not be used by the Crown corporation in adjusting

any claims in the Province of British Columbia.

Now, if that was being done to save money for the taxpayers

of the province, because after all it's a Crown corporation, it

would seem reasonable for the Minister and the management of

the corporation to make that decision. But in the Peace River

country alone we now have a staff of 12 people, all paid by

ICBC, adjusting nothing but ICBC claims. They are doing part of

the work that a staff of six adjusters was able to do under the

private enterprise system.

It's obvious that the cost to the insured people in the

Province of British Columbia is certainly higher for providing

only part of the service that private industry was able to do

on behalf of insurance industry generally before the advent of

ICBC.

I think that a government and a political party which has

always claimed to be in favour of the little man is doing a

great disservice by not using these

[ Page 3703 ]

people who elect to remain independent businessmen in the

field of adjusting claims. In most areas of the province,

particularly in the rural areas, the majority of adjusting work

is in the field of auto insurance claims. They had no voice in

whether or not they would like t