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)

FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2793 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act (Bill 120). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2793

Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 119). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 2793

Securities Amendment Act, 1974 (bill 116). Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 2793

An Act to Amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act (Bill

125). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 2793

Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974

(Bill 10). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 2793

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2794

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2794

Mr. McGeer — 2794

Mrs. Jordan — 2795

Mr. Gardom — 2796

Mr. Wallace — 2797

Division on amendment to

section 4 — 2797

Report and third reading — 2797

Transit Services Act (Bill 70). Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2797

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2798

Mr. McGeer — 2798

Mr. McClelland — 2798

Mr. Wallace — 2798

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2799

Mr. Smith — 2799

Mr. McGeer — 2799

Mr. Wallace — 2800

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2801

Mrs. Jordan — 2801

Division on amendment to

section 2 — 2801

section 2.

Mr. McClelland — 2803

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2804

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2806

Mr. Fraser — 2807

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2807

Mr. McClelland — 2807

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2807

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2809

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2810

Mr. Gardom — 2810

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2812

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2812

Mr. McClelland — 2812

Mr. Wallace — 2812

Mr. Phillips — 2813

Mr. Curtis — 2813

section 2.

Mr. McClelland — 2814

Mr. Wallace — 2814

Mr. Gibson — 2814

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2815

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2815

Mr. Phillips — 2815

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 2816

Division on amendment to

section 2 . — 2816

section 5.

Mr. Gibson — 2816

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2816

Amendment to

section 10.

Mr. Gibson — 2817

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2817

section 11.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2817

Mr. Wallace — 2817

Mr. Fraser — 2818

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2818

Mr. Gardom — 2818

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2818

Mr. McGeer — 2818

Mr. Cummings — 2819

Royal assent to bills — 2820

FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon Members, the Hon. Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) raised a point — really, a point of privilege — as to the means by which complaint is made on breaches of

privilege, and words that are complained about in the House. In

effect, he asked for some direction and advice on the question.

He referred to the matter earlier in this session dealing with

a complaint of a breach of privilege involving the Member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

The practice in Britain is set out in May in the 17th

edition, page 463. I think it would be a salutary practice in

this House henceforward, where a complaint is made of breach of

privilege relating to statements made in the House, that a

motion that the words be taken down be made to the Speaker. On

breaches of privilege interruption can take place immediately,

as Members know.

Of course we have a system here of taking the words down in

any event. A clerk takes possession of them, and then the

matter is gone into as to the words — providing the Speaker

finds when that complaint is made that the words to be taken

down indeed constitute a prima facie case that should be

proceeded with.

This will obviate the difficulty raised by the Hon. Member

for Columbia River and make it clear that the words that are

taken down and complained of are dealt with in the manner set

forth by the authorities. I make that clarification because the

matter has come up not only in his remarks but in the press

since.

Introduction of bills.

FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC

SERVICES COMMISSION ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forensic Psychiatric

Services Commission Act .

Bill 120 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Mr. King, Bill 119, Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act,

1974 , introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Amendment

Act, 1974.

Bill 116 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL

INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 125,

An Act to Amend the

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act , introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

BURRARD INLET (THIRD CROSSING)

FUND AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

the bill as has been described before and yesterday is in

considerable measure bookkeeping. But there is one respect in

which it represents the going back on a very clear obligation

to the people of the North Shore. This defect could be largely

remedied were it provided that the moneys originally

appropriated, and continued in this renamed bill, should

continue to be for the improvement of service of transportation

between Vancouver and the North Shore.

I would suggest to the government that this is a matter of

faith and not really a matter of substance, because they are

going to be spending funds in excess of this magnitude in any

event.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move that

section 4 should

be amended by striking out all the

[ Page

2794 ]

words after "or services" and adding the following words:

"As may be required to provide for improvements of service in

transportation between the North Shore and Vancouver."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that amendment on the order paper, or have

you got a copy of it for us?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It doesn't have to

be.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I'd like to speak in favour of

the amendment. The bill is unfortunate in one respect: it does

not continue the obligation to the residents of the North Shore

who now number some 140,000 and who will, in 1985, according to

good surveys given to us, number over 200,000. We're

going to need to spend money in that area.

The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the

previously committed moneys will be spent for the purposes

originally intended, at least with respect to improving

transportation and improving rapid transit between the North

Shore and the City of Vancouver.

The government's plans for having houses built on land which

is not valuable for agriculture will in no way succeed unless

there is encouragement for housing and transportation links to

areas which are at the moment either woodland or wasteland. The

North Shore is one area which is not agricultural and which

would provide some of the opportunities talked about by the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).

Therefore, we think this amendment, which would be a

confirmation of commitment, is a very valuable one and one we

should certainly have every Member of this House endorse.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): While I can recognize the good

intentions of a Member attempting to fight for his own area, it

is the responsibility of the government to provide mass transit

for all of the Province of British Columbia. The question of

just providing this amount of funds for mass transit for the

North Shore does not hold water, if I may use that expression,

in that there was an attempt to have a capital expenditure for

a bridge to serve automobiles. We're now saying that we don't

see the automobile being serviced by taxpayers' money as a

priority for mass transit.

Therefore, we are taking these funds and putting them into a pool of funds

for all the people of British Columbia for the initiation of mass transit for

all the people of the province. It's just as simple as that. There's no way

we are going to designate funds for mass transit for one particular area. All

people in the province have a right to mass transit, and this is the first step

toward ensuring that for all the people of the whole province.

Who most needs it? Anybody who goes to work back and forth

every day and needs to have an opportunity of getting in a bus

or subway or a ferry service or something else.

If I was a backbench MLA and I was a Liberal, I'd fight for

that particular angle too, because you'll never be elected in

any other areas anyway. But the point is that we've served the

whole province. That's why we've got 38 and you've got

five.

This motion proves again that their vision is tunnel vision,

if I may use a phrase. They haven't been able to bridge their

vision to the rest of the province. So there it is again, so

early in the morning, that we get evidence the Liberals only

see one thing. I suppose they put in an amendment to save West

Vancouver–Howe Sound and North Vancouver–Capilano, and to heck

with North Vancouver–Seymour. We won't stand for that, so

therefore we reject this amendment.

MR. GARDOM: Streetcars don't float.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "A Streetcar named Desire" is what you're....

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, that

was a very fine political speech by the Premier...

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was a political motion.

MR. McGEER: ...on a political bill. And he admits that it's

a political bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: But it's not serving the people of British

Columbia, Mr. Chairman. That's why the socialists will never

again have 38 seats in this assembly. Never again!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: The people will learn in four short years — if

the Premier decides to go that long — the inadequacy of the

socialists given power.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: It's a continuation of discrimination against

the North Shore, political discrimination against the North

Shore...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

[ Page 2795 ]

MR. McGEER: ...which might be tolerable were it not working

against the interests of the majority of people in British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Withdraw. My mother-in-law lives over

there. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now we know. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Proof positive. That is a shocking

admission.

MR. McGEER: I hope Shirley isn't up in the gallery.

(Laughter.)

The people of the North Shore have been paying taxes for

adequate transit for over 20 years in this province. That's the

length of time when transportation facilities to the North

Shore have been inadequate. The people from the North Shore

carried the bridge system when it was a money loser. That Lions

Gate Bridge was only taken over by the former Premier in order

to reduce the embarrassment he had at all the bridges he made

in this province under the toll authority that were losing

money. Then all the tolls were removed, but the people still

continued to pay for their share of adequate transportation

through the gasoline tax which now brings in well in excess of

$100 million a year. Adequate transportation to the North Shore

has been paid for over and over and over again in taxes.

You may go ahead and say that rapid transit is for all of

the people of British Columbia, but it isn't. Rapid transit is

only for those people who live in densely crowded areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. McGEER: They're the only ones who will use it and they

don't occupy the vast bulk of British Columbia. It's only those

who are confined to a small area.

I say once more that the province has no decent plan for

rapid transit because the only kind of rapid transit we have,

even in the most densely crowded areas of British Columbia, is

the automobile. I don't want to discourage the government one

bit from improving and improving substantially the bus service

they provide and from introducing public transit into those

growth areas where public transit is now lacking. I would

certainly include the Premier's own riding which is

inadequately served by transit. Were we a government, we would

see that his riding was adequately looked after.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): That's an easy

promise.

MR. McGEER: Oh, it may be an easy promise to you, but don't

be over-confident, Mr. Minister. Certainly if I were in your

position I wouldn't be politically confident at all. I don't

think a lot of Members in this House have anything to be

politically confident about.

What we should be addressing ourselves to are the real needs

of the Province of British Columbia. The fact that that

particular area provides the third gateway to the Interior

means that it is for all the people of British Columbia in a

much more definitive way than the vague transit plans the

government has so far come up with, which to my way of thinking

are not plans at all.

An adequate crossing will be built sooner or later. I

suppose as long as the NDP government remains in office it will

be later. But when it is built, people will look back and

wonder what on earth was wrong with the Bennett government and

the Barrett government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I just want to speak in

relation to the debate that has taken place since the amendment

was introduced and condemn the government. The government's

policy on transportation here since taking office is the

subject of more suspicion than almost any of their other

policies. Why not make clear to the public exactly what the

policy of the government is?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't you want transit in Vernon?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes I do, and I'll come to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We should be dealing with the amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They want it just for North Vancouver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: I'm dealing with the speeches that have been

made to the amendment when the Premier of this province got up

and waxed the NDP cradle of love, saying that his position was

for rapid transit for all of British Columbia. He did it

beautifully.

Then the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) got up and said rapid transit should be in the areas of

dense population and referred specifically to North Vancouver.

I fully support assistance to North Vancouver in terms of rapid

transit and the metropolitan area. The government should come

clean on its policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

[ Page 2796 ]

MRS. JORDAN: But at that time, after his NDP cradle of love

the Premier gave a few minutes ago, he completely agreed with

the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey and said, "That's

right. That's right." So within a matter of five minutes the

Premier of this province got up and indicated publicly and to

the media and to this House that he was for rapid transit for

all the people in the province.

When the Hon. Member pointed out that the need should be

only in the densely populated areas, the Premier says, "That's

right. That's right." I want to know, in speaking to this

amendment, the government's policy in this relationship.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: It is. This government is guilty of secretive

and dictatorial actions in relation to rapid transit in the

metropolitan area and particularly in the North Vancouver

situation.

Mr. Premier, if you have a policy, through you, Mr.

Chairman, come clean with the people in this province. Come

clean with the municipalities all over British Columbia, not

just in North Vancouver, although indeed you should come clean

with them.

Communities all over this province are redesigning,

redeveloping and spending large sums of money in their downtown

core areas, and they must know what the government's intentions

are in relation to transportation assistance in the future

because, while North Vancouver is in dire need and the lower

mainland metropolitan area is in dire need, these communities

must plan for the automobile and the use of the automobile.

Many communities now are spending thousands and thousands of

dollars a year in subsidizing transportation. If they redesign

their downtown area as the one in Vernon is, then they must

know if the government is going to come up with a policy of

cost-sharing for them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want the Member to speak either for

or against the amendment. You're getting far beyond that.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm relating my remarks to the

debate that has taken place....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want you to relate your remarks to the

amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: So come clean, Mr. Premier; stop this secretive love feast

that's going on and stop being so dictatorial at the end of the love feast.,

Give the councils and the elected people in this province your policy. Solicit

their help so that it reflects the wishes and needs of the people, so that they

can get on with their planning. Don't duplicate service or waste money on programmes

that have to be altered because of a government's erratic and late policy on

rapid transit.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the $27 million that was set aside by the

former administration, Mr. Chairman, was an insufficient amount

of money to build a crossing. As a matter of fact, it would

probably have been the only bridge in the world that one would

not have been able to get on or get off.

But had that $27 million been put into an interest-bearing

situation, the interest today would have come in at around $13

million to $17 million or $18 million, and there would have

been around $45 million ready and available to at least launch

the project. That would still have been completely insufficient

funds.

To give the former administration credit, they did at least

recognize the need and they labelled something to fulfil that

need and to provide a cure not only for transit to North

Vancouver from Vancouver and vice versa, but in order to

provide a proper and adequate gateway to the north.

But, once again, the bill that we have here which this

amendment is seeking to rectify, Mr. Chairman, is "trust us"

stuff, without legislative sanction, without legislative vote

and without public scrutiny. We're again leaving it up to the

cabinet or to the Minister of Finance to make up his mind,

large or small though it may be — or their collective minds,

large or small may they be — as to when, where or how rapid

transit or transit funds can be expended in the Province of

British Columbia — without any cost projections, without any

plans, without any programmes that have ever been made

public.

This is again a classic example of government in the

Province of British Columbia being behind the red door of

cabinet. It's another denial of public accountability. The

Premier, in support of the bill and in his-support of the

amendment, has not advanced to anybody any programmes that the

government has in mind. We don't know what they're going to do

with this money and he's talking about public transit for all

of B.C.

Well, great heavens, is he thinking of subways in Alert Bay

or Namu or something like that? As the former lady Member well

indicated, we haven't even had an expression of woolly thinking

from the government. All they're asking to do here, Mr.

Chairman, is once again give unto themselves complete and total

power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. GARDOM: Socialism is not creeping in the Province of

British Columbia; it's raging forward. And the people,

fortunately, are becoming disturbed — more disturbed every

day.

[ Page 2797 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you a Member of the B.C. Liberal Party

or the federal Liberal Party?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): On the amendment, Mr. Chairman,

I feel also that a commitment was made to the North Shore. I

said yesterday that there is no doubt that a third crossing is

required and that the attitude of the government is wrong in

leaving the implication in this bill that the third crossing

will no longer be considered, and that in place of that we have

some very diffuse, vague definition relating to services, or

transit facilities, or services in the province as may be

required.

I think that this, as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

has just pointed out, is the very vague but nevertheless

extremely authoritative kind of power which is to be placed, in

this section, Mr. Chairman, on the Member of the executive

council administering the Transit Services Act . So here

again we have the House being asked to give enormous power and

authority without any real definition of the guidelines and, in

fact, breaking a commitment which was previously made that the

residents on the North Shore would be guaranteed a third

crossing.

For these very basic reasons, which are really a repetition

of the reasons I stated yesterday, we certainly would support

the amendment.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Anderson, D.A.

Schroeder

Smith

Wallace

Morrison

Jordan

Curtis

McClelland

Fraser

Gibson

Richter

McGeer

Gardom

Phillips

NAYS — 30

Hall

D'Arcy

King

Macdonald

Cummings

Cocke

Barrett

Gorst

Lorimer

Dailly

Lockstead

Steves

Nimsick

Gabelmann

Barnes

Stupich

Skelly

Anderson, G.H.

Hartley

Nicolson

Rolston

Calder

Lauk

Kelly

Brown

Radford

Webster

Sanford

Young

Lewis

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: 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 10, Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment

Act, 1974 , reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order. I wonder, if by leave of

the House, the division on

section 4 could be recorded?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. GIBSON: The most difficult aspect of this

section is the

fact that the Minister has extraordinarily, broad powers to

delve into, and plan for, and shape, and formulate the

transportation patterns of municipalities all over British

Columbia. Yet he is in no way required by this legislation to

do this in consultation with the particular municipality,

regional district or whatever local government might be

applicable.

Because of the tremendous import of transportation problems

in not only influencing the current convenience of citizens of

our metropolitan areas but at the same time influencing in the

most pervasive ways the development patterns of those

metropolitan areas, it seems to me that the Minister should be

required under this legislation to carry on his planning in

consultation with the municipal governments and not leave it to

the good fortune that this particular Minister of the day might

have good intentions of that regard....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I want to draw to the Member's

attention that you're discussing the principle of the bill

which has been dealt with and passed.

MR. GIBSON: No sir, I'm not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You haven't drawn attention to anything in

section 2.

[ Page 2798 ]

MR. GIBSON: I'm about to move a very specific amendment to

section 2 (a).

section 2 (

a) currently reads that the Minister

has the power,

"to investigate, research, design, and plan public

passenger transportation systems for the Province or for any

municipality or regional district thereof."

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have an amendment to move on

section

MR. GIBSON: I have. That is precisely the point I was

speaking to. There are very strong and currently unregulated

planning powers of the Minister, planning which is not simply

planning but has weight in implementation terms under the

powers of this Minister in other areas. Therefore, the point I

was making is that this planning should not go forward in a

vacuum but that not only the Minister of today but the

Ministers of the future, whose names we cannot at this time

know, should be specifically governed by this legislation to

consult.

Therefore, I move that

section 2 (

a) should be amended by

adding, "in consultation with that municipality or regional

district." And

section 2 (

b) should be amended by adding, "in

consultation with local government."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion you've sent us here hasn't a

signature on it.

MR. GIBSON: It has on the first page.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It hasn't on either page, as I see it. We'll

get some signatures on it. It would appear that it's in

order.

On the amendment to

section 2.

MR. McGEER: ...from the Minister. We presume he will accept

the amendment. But until he gives us an indication that he's

prepared to work with the cities and municipalities — even if

the meetings have to be in camera — we should really speak more

strongly in favour of the amendment by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano just in case the Minister hasn't yet made up

his mind. We know he is noted for his quick and decisive

action, but he was just a little slow on the uptake.

May I say that we questioned the Minister during his

estimates regarding the statement he had made that the local

taxpayer was going to be dunned a minimum of two mills for

these public transit plans. I'm not sure....

AN HON. MEMBER: Maximum.

MR. McGEER: Well, it always turns out that the minimum is

the maximum and then we revise it up from there.

Mr. Chairman, I can't quite understand, in reading through

this bill, whether the bill gives the power of the government

through the agency it's going to establish to make that levy

against the will of the municipality or regional district. I

suspect it does. He says no, but I don't see anywhere where it

says no. The Minister certainly indicated otherwise in his

public statements.

We do know that if the amendment of the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano was to be accepted, this problem wouldn't

exist. Of course, the NDP government is very broad-minded about

these excellent amendments brought in by opposition Members.

While we're confident the Minister will accept this amendment,

we would just like him to give an indication for those in the

backbench who are waiting for the signal.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): ...wait for the Minister to

give that indication. This is an excellent amendment and one

which should be supported by every Member in this House. The

Minister, who among the municipal people is rapidly becoming

known as Dr. No-no, is taking too much upon himself again in

this bill. Secret talks about transit; secret talks among his

own staff apparently; never allowing the municipalities to take

part. We can't allow that to continue to happen.

This classic takeover bill, again the like of which we're

seeing over and over and over again, can't be allowed to

continue. We must get back to the principle that local

government does know in many instances, in most instances, what

is best for the local community. Certainly local government

must be consulted at every step of the way in the concern as

important as transit of all kinds in all parts of the

province.

So, Mr. Chairman, we certainly support this amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it's obvious the Minister is

collecting titles every day. He has been entitled to the name

of Caeser Augustus and Dr. No-no and Rip van Winkle so far in

this session.

But seriously, this particular part of this

section to which

the amendment relates is the focus of much of the criticism

that this party has directed against the bill. That statement,

2 (a), which was quoted by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano pointed out very well that there's

tremendous authority in

section 2 (

a) but no commitment or

obligation whatever for the Minister to discuss it with the

municipalities or the regions.

I can almost predict what the Minister is going to say when

he does get up. He is going to say: "Well, of

[ Page 2799 ]

course it's implicit in this bill that we would consult with

the municipalities and the regions." I can almost be certain

that's what he is going to say. It's like his reassurance that,

although there's a lot of power in this bill, they are not

going to use it all. I quoted yesterday from the Minister from

a newspaper clipping in the Province that, of course, he

wouldn't use all the power in the bill. Well, similarly, by

omission as well as commission, we have concern about this bill

that the guarantee of consultation is omitted from this bill.

The amendment tries to make it obligatory for the Minister to

consult with the municipalities and regions.

When the Minister gets up and assures us that he will, I

think we have to recall the events that have been discussed

already in this debate, where the Minister was already very

concerned with certain Vancouver regional district officials

whom he accused of revealing private information to the media.

And when he was disturbed on this score he simply said: "Well,

we won't have any more meetings, and we'll do the planning and

we'll tell you what's good for transit in Vancouver."

The fact is that it's on the record, Mr. Chairman, that this

Minister in the past has shown an authoritarian attitude to the

municipalities and regions and has said that if certain

conditions which he, in his own wisdom, considers necessary are

not met, then there just won't be any more meetings, and any

planning and implementation of transit services will be decided

by him.

Now that is a very dangerous attitude by any Minister in any

government. For us then to come up with the Transit Services

Act , and — to look at subsections 2(

a) and 2(b) — realize

that in fact he is simply trying to put into legislation what

he said to the media a few weeks ago and quoted in the press, I

think really is just a little more than we are prepared to

accept.

If, in fact, the Minister does get up and say, "Well, of

course. I will consult with the municipalities and the regions," my simple request is: let's put it in the bill.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It will

be a surprise to you to hear me say we are always in full

consultation with every municipality and city in which transit

facilities are coming along. However, I am not prepared to give

the municipalities a veto power over the provincial — and most

important — area of transit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: In the transit services, we will be delivering services

to the whole of the province. We cannot allow veto power to be given to one

community in this; so I completely reject the amendment.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It is obvious from the

remarks of the Minister that he would consider this amendment

veto power in the hands of the elected municipal officials, but

he makes no reference to the veto power that he holds within

his own hands right at the present time. The manner in which

this bill is written places the municipalities at the mercy of

the provincial government with respect to the development of

rapid transit in this province. They will be told the costs as

a matter of fact and they will be expected to pay their fair

share of that cost.

I am sure that every municipality that has a problem of

traffic in and through their borders is concerned about some

form of mass transit, rapid transit, to move people in and out

of the cities. They are as concerned as the provincial

government is about it, and this is why we should spell out in

the statute that they will be consulted on any matters that

affect the taxpayers they represent.

What you are asking for here is the power of taxation

without representation, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: You know, it is funny the number of remarks we

get from the sidelines in debates like this, but few pertinent

points that these same Members make on their feet on the floor

of the House.

I repeat: what you have asked for here is the power of

taxation without representation. And if things don't go as well

as you might expect, you'll turn around and with that same

power say, "Well, the municipal officials are the ones you have

to talk to if your mill rates go up."

Certainly, if it is fair for the provincial government to

have the power of veto, it should be fair for the local

municipal representatives to have that same power. But this

amendment suggests that there should be no power of veto in the

hands of anybody and that you should on a fair basis consult

with these people, and write it into the statutes so they know

where they stand.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would be good

enough just to pass the amendment over to the Minister so that

he can read it, because I don't think he understood it.

The amendment didn't say that the regional districts or the

cities and municipalities should have veto power. It said that

the Minister should consult with them before he went ahead. We

know that the Minister, or at least we suspect that the

Minister maybe introduces bills without reading them,

because

[ Page 2800 ]

that seemed to be the problem he had with the Island Trust

Act he introduced earlier on. I don't think he had read it

before he brought it into the House. When he did, he decided to

make some changes.

Perhaps if he were to read this amendment....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the bill.

MR. McGEER: Yes, well, or the bill, too. He would realize

the value of it. Mr. Chairman, nobody wants the regional

district to have a veto power over the Minister — least of all

the Members of the opposition. No Member of the opposition

would draft or suggest an irresponsible amendment of that

kind.

So we ask the Minister to read the amendment, if he didn't

quite grasp the meaning of it. I think he was trying to think

very hard of reasons he could give for not accepting it. We're

not trying to humble the government; we're trying to make an

honest and constructive suggestion, one that is going to help

the Minister out.

Just let me say for all the backbenchers here who might have

understood it better than the Minister: this is in no way a

veto power. No one would suggest that. The idea is just to

consult.

Now the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings)

is shaking his head.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Are you against consultation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: It will remove that paranoia that some cities

and municipalities might have that the Minister was trying to

dictate to them. This is really in the very best interests of

the Minister and of the government. I would appeal, Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister doesn't understand it right now, for

the government backbenchers to support it, because the Minister

will eventually grasp the import of this and the fact that we

are trying to help him.

So the Minister really just didn't know what he was doing.

We still believe the amendment is in the best interests of the

NDP government, and we urge the backbenchers to support it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this government sought office on

the slogan that it would be an open government. The term "open

government" to my mind inherently implies that the people will

be consulted, particularly in relation to legislation which is

to intimately affect almost, if not all, every citizen. That is

my main reason for supporting this amendment.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think that it is a rather weak-kneed reason the

Minister gave to equate the word "consultation" with "veto." I think that any

kind of objective approach to the use of the word "consultation" simply means

that you discuss with individuals concerned the issue of the moment. In this

case the issue happens to be the development of transit facilities and services

of the widest scale and greatest possible ramification in

section 2(

a) and 2(b).

I think it is rather unfair of the Minister to stand up and

say that the reason he cannot accept this amendment is that he

cannot accept veto powers in municipalities and regions. We

never asked for that, and the amendment doesn't ask for that,

and I'm not asking for that now — nor would I ever.

The importance of government is mutual cooperation among

all the levels of government. We pay all this lip-service to

national federal cooperation, and to the importance of

cooperation between the provincial government and the

municipalities and the regions. That is all we are asking in

this amendment.

I just say again, Mr. Chairman, that the record shows that

that kind of mutual cooperation has not pertained in recent

months. For the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) to chirp at my

elbow that of course this harmonious cooperation and great

consultation already exists, I just happen to disagree with

him. And not just my disagreement should be recorded but the

kind of quotations that I read from the newspaper the other day

in another debate.

If the Minister in fact does agree that consultation is

important....

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Ask ICBC.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, let's not get onto that, Bob. That would

take the whole week if we discuss ICBC; I think that we can

almost guarantee that that will take a week in fact.

But to return to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, since I know

you....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Oak Bay has the

floor.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always appreciate

the Chairman coming to my defence — not that that happens very

often.

These points really pervade this whole transit legislation.

Because we've complained about the power in the bill, we are

seeking some of the safeguards for other levels of government

and other groups and individuals who are likely to be very

intimately affected by the kind of plans that are implemented

by this Minister.

[ Page 2801 ]

I think, therefore, this amendment is not only very apt and

reasonable but it should not be rejected on the basis that by

consulting with the municipalities you would be giving them

some kind of veto power. We all know on this side of the House,

as does the Minister, that the provincial government is a

senior level of government and that municipalities are a

creature of the provincial government. We know all that; that's

basic. So the amendment, even if it sounded that way, could not

possibly give veto powers to a lower level of government over a

senior level of government. The Minister knows that.

If he is promising that he will consult, there is no valid,

objective, intelligent reason why he cannot accept this

amendment. I hope he would reconsider it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a good point, Mr. Chairman. It is

quite possible for us in committee to stand a particular

section to go on to others and return to this one.

The Minister, from his statement, did not understand, in my

view, the amendment as proposed by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano. He didn't understand the relatively

innocuous amendment which would simply guarantee something that

he says is happening in any event. If it is happening in any

event, obviously no harm can come to him from putting into

writing something which exists in practice. If it doesn't, as

was said by the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer), the cities and municipalities and regional districts

who do feel they've had their rights trampled somewhat by the

government will at least have some reassurance. Whether it's

only psychological or not, it's at least important to them.

I recommend to the Minister, without making a formal motion — he can do this — that we stand the section, proceed with

sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, and

then return to it. In that period of time his assistant, who is

writing so industriously, will have had an opportunity of going

through this, looking at the actual wording of it and pointing

out to the Minister that, really and truly, an amendment of

this nature only shows his good will. It does nothing to his

powers in any event. It would certainly be of some

psychological assistance to municipal officials who feel

threatened by the centralization in Victoria.

MRS. JORDAN: It constantly amazes me that in bill after bill brought

into this House by this government, that amendment after amendment put forth

by all parties in the opposition — and many of the bills deal solely with the

matter of consultations with the various public elected bodies — this government

has consistently shown not a tendency but a determined pattern to dominate,

dominate, dominate. They have a God-knows-best attitude and they relate it strongly

in their legislation. There's no question in their minds who the good Lord is.

I quite agree with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

when he says that this government was elected on a false

premise which they put forth themselves that they were a

government of the people, that they believed in consultation

and that they would move and bend with the will of the people.

That was not true and it's reflected over and over again in

their legislation and in their actions and in this bill.

This is another example, if the government doesn't accept

this amendment in this section, of forcing more shotgun

marriages in the provinces, and, furthermore, a shotgun

marriage which has a poor chance of survival at the best, as

we've seen in other instances where the government has applied

it. This is a chauvinistic marriage and that Minister has a

straight, downright cold, chauvinistic attitude in these

marriages he is making with the municipalities all over the

province. He's boss. They will do what he says and they'll love

him for it. That isn't true, Mr. Chairman, and it's foolish and

irresponsible of the Minister and his government to even try

and bring this about.

I spoke before in the debate on another amendment when I

asked the government to come clean with the municipalities and

the regional districts in this province as to what their

transportation policy is. I would just add to that further in

terms of telling the Minister, if he doesn't know — and he

should know — that municipality after municipality around this

province have been planning the future of their transportation

systems in accord with the Department of Highways which was

started by the former administration.

They were setting up to study the main transit areas and the

internal transit areas of their municipalities and regions and

the province. They all have their own planners; they all have

their own advisory planning commission; they all have their own

regional districts; they all have their own input mechanisms.

Many of these programmes are very far advanced. But these

municipalities have had no word from this government as to

what, in fact, might even be their view to be considered by the

municipality in relation to transportation services in not only

the metropolitan areas but the smaller cities of this province

such as Kamloops, Vernon, Nelson, Fort St. John.

Mr. Minister, it's going to mean a duplication of planning

and a waste of the public's money. It could well mean a

duplication of service because private industry is in there now

in many of the transportation areas in the smaller communities.

They are in there in cooperation with these municipalities;

the municipalities are offering assistance to these

[ Page 2802 ]

private transportation firms with rigid controls in order to

provide a service for the people within the area.

What, Mr. Minister, is going to happen to these plans? Why

don't you come clean? Why don't you be open? What is going to

happen to these private people who are all small people who

have invested money in buses and repair shops and have

cooperated through mutual discussion with their municipalities

and regional districts in providing a service? What is to

happen to them when big daddy comes along and puts the clamp

on?

The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) says "harmonious

discussion." We've had example after example of what this

government considers "harmonious discussion." I refer

specifically to the "harmonious discussion" that led to

voluntary binding arbitration between the nurses and this

government. The nurses made it very clear they got an

ultimatum: "Do this or else." — arm-twisting in that instance

in what the government calls "harmonious discussion." Plateau

Mills takeover....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I think the Member knows that she is

supposed to be dealing with the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman; I'm pointing out why this

amendment must be accepted. There must be consultation. Unless

it's put in law, this government is incapable of "harmonious

discussions." It is only capable of a chauvinistic attitude and

a dictatorial attitude that is evident in this bill and so many

of their other bills and in the actions that I am mentioning.

In Plateau Mills they said "harmonious discussion," and

the Mayor of Terrace accused them of arm-twisting.

The North Vancouver council in relation of transit.

Discussions? The council was planning for use of properties in

its own municipality. The government knew this. The council was

dealing with private individuals and their planners to work out

this plan, and the government knew this. Then the government

went in and made an improper proposition to the council in

terms of asking them to hoodwink the individuals involved, and

the council refused. Still the government didn't say anything,

until one day North Vancouver and the individuals involved and

the planners involved woke up to find that this harmonious,

consultative type of government had taken over the land.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say again, with proof — just three instances — that

this government is incapable of acting in a harmonious manner and that it must

be written in the legislation that they do consult with the various municipalities.

Not six years from now but they consult with them now and come clean so the

municipalities can plan their own problems.

In all municipalities the parking problem in the downtown

area is one of the most acute concerns they have. Certainly,

the downtown cores of many small municipalities are ripe now

for assistance to go into a central core type of electric

motor, non-polluting transportation. It is far less expensive

than underground parking in a small area and it means that

parkades can be built and parking areas could be provided

outside the core area, which again would prove less expensive

in terms of land acquisition and less disruptive to the

downtown core. The core could be dedicated not to parkades but

to small, people-oriented shopping centres and the carrying on

of a people-oriented commercial trade.

I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment. I again

deplore the fact that so many of the amendments must be of this

nature...the government should know better. That kindly

Minister, that little Sleepy of the Seven Dwarfs, should indeed

be one of the Ministers most aware of why this amendment should

be accepted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Stupich

Brown

Calder

Cummings

Sanford

D'Arcy

Young

Cocke

Radford

Lorimer

King

Gabelmann

Skelly

Nicolson

Gorst

Lockstead

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Lewis

Kelly

Webster

MR. GARDOM: I would move as an amendment to

section 2 that

there be added, as subsection (1), the following:

"Any acquisition of the Minister hereunder shall be for

proper compensation, and in the event that the amount of such

compensation cannot be agreed upon, it shall then be fixed

pursuant to the provisions of the Arbitration Act ."

The obvious purpose of the amendment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you can wait until we

[ Page

2803 ]

see if the amendment is in order.

MR. GARDOM: The obvious purpose of the amendment, Mr.

Chairman, is to ensure that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't recognized you yet. We're just

checking to see if the amendment's in order.

I rule the amendment out of order on the basis that it

involves the expenditure of public funds.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, I would just draw to the

attention of the Chair that it has been the practice of this

government to expropriate without compensation. I find it

extremely unfortunate that the Chair has made a ruling such as

this which is denying people an opportunity to see that they

receive compensation for expropriation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: Fast draw of the north — that's what we've got

here.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this bill is not a message bill....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I'm on a point of order. I'm pointing out

to you that this is not a message bill; it's a bill from the

Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. If it's out of order to

make an amendment amending what he introduced, then of course

his bill is totally out of order, because it itself would

offend a ruling that the Clerk — who doesn't understand the

rules — has put in your ear.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: I suggest you're running the House by a double

standard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: You have to be consistent in this House. If it's

a message bill it's a different thing — but this is the Hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I've ruled that the amendment is out of

order. You may appeal that ruling if you wish.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Fidel Barrett! Grow a moustache!

AN HON. MEMBER: Confiscation without compensation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): On a point of order,

in the first place I'd like that Member over there in the

comer, in the darkest place in this House, to withdraw his

remark. He is the most miserable man I have ever seen and he

knows it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Further, that learned man over there....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You've asked the Member to withdraw....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You've asked a Member to withdraw a

statement.

HON. MR. COCKE: I tried to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Member made a statement that insulted

other Members in this House, he should withdraw.

MR. PHILLIPS: If they don't want to be called their true

name, I'll withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't have a qualified withdrawal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Consider the source.

HON. MR. COCKE: Fascist. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're back to

section 2 of Bill 70.

MR. McCLELLAND: I, too, lament the fact that the Chair saw

fit to rule that amendment out of order, because it was a good

amendment, one which would have protected the rights of the

people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That amendment is out of order. You can

appeal that, or deal with

section 2.

[ Page 2804 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I fully intend to deal

with

section 2. The Minister has been asked a number of times,

by myself and yesterday by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser),

what the government's intention is with regard to

interprovincial bus lines. I've asked the question half a dozen

times in this House, and so far the Minister has refused to

answer.

Section 2 (

e) gives the government the opportunity to

purchase lines of buses, or "otherwise acquire" — those

fantastic words which appear so many times in this bill. Lines

of buses, Mr. Chairman. What are the government's plans with

regard to that kind of bus service? Will we be establishing

either in the near future or at any time under the terms of

this bill a bus transportation system to serve this province

from point to point, from Vancouver to Prince George, from

Kamloops to Quesnel?

What is going to be the status of Greyhound Bus Lines in

this province following the passage of this bill? Does the

government intend to cancel the operating franchise that

Greyhound Bus Lines has with this government now? I think those

questions have been asked enough times now. It's time we got

some straight and honest answers from this Minister with regard

to the plans of this government for intraprovincial bus

service.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Although the amendment had been

regretfully ruled out of order, the problem still remains. In

fact, that's why it remains. We can certainly discuss the

unfortunate fact that we have no guarantee here that there will

be fair payment. If people keep telling us....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As many people seem to think this

government is being very fair in expropriation, I'd like to

refer the Attorney-General to a case I brought to his attention

back in February. I sent him a letter dated February 1 in which

I said: "I thank you for your interest in this matter and for

the helpful and sympathetic response from your assistant." That

was the end of sympathy and response.

This is the case of a Mr. Baumgartner, under

chapter 261 of

the Revised Statutes of British Columbia. I'll say no

more but this: here is a man who has had his land expropriated

or thinks he has.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): He's out of order in

bringing up expropriation under this particular section.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Are you on a point of order? I

want to remind the Member on his feel that you're dealing with

section 2 of Bill 70, not some other bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Exactly, Mr. Chairman; you've put your

finger right on it. It's this type of legislation which leads

to the case of people like Baumgartner. You've put your finger

on it. It's

section 2. We happily have this flim-flam from

Members opposite about how: "Oh, we wouldn't possibly. Us? We

wouldn't dream of taking anything away from anybody without due

compensation. Sure, you can't find provisions there which

guarantee it, but, oh, we wouldn't do that." Then you come to

chapter 261 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia

and you come to the case of Baumgartner — and it's being done

by that government.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would ask

that you ask that Member under what statute that person is

being expropriated and in what way it bears upon this

particular section. I wish you to rule him out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want the Member to deal with just

this

section that's before the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right; that's what I'm trying to

do. The fact of the matter is that when you don't have clear

provisions, you get into a situation... And I did name the

bill as I should. I gave the number of the Act for the Hon.

Minister of Housing: No. 261, title being, Municipalities

Enabling and Validating Act . It's 261. I gave that to you

twice before — now four times. You can look it up; it's in the

statutes. You can look up the case of Baumgartner. But it's

this problem we face. Now, the plea is obviously different.

You have ruled, Mr. Chairman — and I'm not questioning your

ruling. Had we done that, we would have questioned the Chair in

the traditional manner. You are ruling that we cannot bring in

an amendment which might cause financial cost to the Crown. But

surely all opposition parties have the right to urge the Crown

to put in an amendment similar to the one that was ruled out of

order because of the fact he sits on this side of the House and

not in the cabinet.

As far as the statement of the Premier, I trust he'll

reconsider it because, in actual fact, the Baumgartner case is

worth looking at. There are problems which arise with

expropriation. I shouldn't even say that is an expropriation

case; that is simply a taking-away case.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Second

[ Page

2805 ]

Member for Victoria; are you finished or are you going to

continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I wonder whether the Premier is going

to withdraw his remark because it was unfair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What remark?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The remark that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if you don't remember what you said

twice....

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no expropriation power in this

Act....

MR. GARDOM: Oh, get away!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Has the Second Member for Victoria a

point to make on

section 2?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Absolute nonsense!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, your difficulties in

maintaining order stem from the fact that the government is

sure it's always right. It's not always right. Indeed, the

Attorney-General had to accept an amendment not so long ago

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

Williams) of an error in the drafting of the bill. That's

right, and that's within the last week. It was a drafting

error.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What has that to do

with this?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your belief and the Premier's belief that if anyone

disputes anything he says or his

interpretation of a statute.... "Anyone who

interprets the statute differently is lying," was the gist of his words. Now,

that's not necessarily so. People can dispute this, and this is why we have

courts, as the Attorney-General well knows. Lawyers analyzing problems come

up with different

interpretations of both fact and, of course, the law in particular.

This is why we have a judicial system; this is why I reject the concept that

the government is always right and you need to have no legislative provisions

and protection for the average citizen.

Our job here in our system is to try and make sure that

citizens' rights are protected from the executive. You can see

this morning the attitude of the government. If anybody

disputes it, if anybody has a different

interpretation of this

particular

section 2, then they're lying. Now, that's not so. I

think that the Premier is not only showing ill temper....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you really believe that this bill has

expropriation powers? Do you really believe that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you want to get on your feet and argue

later on? I will make my speech and you can make yours. I

personally believe there's enough doubt in this matter — and

I'm not a lawyer as you seem to fancy yourself as being — that

there may be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ask your lawyer friends. There is no power

to expropriate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member for Victoria please

continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have there the arrogance of the

government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're backing off, huh? Now you're

backing off.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I'd like the Second Member for

Victoria to be able to complete his remarks.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So would I. You have here the arrogance

of the government. If you dispute an

interpretation of

an Act,

you must be lying. That's the statement of the Premier in this

particular

section on expropriation. What we are requesting,

what I am trying to get across — and I regret that the Premier

is between me and the Minister of Municipal Affairs — is that

there is some need to guarantee fair play to the citizens who

may lose a business, the land or anything else by reason of

government action, however you wish to interpret the word

"expropriate." They can lose it; they can be put out of

business in that respect; they can lose real property; they can

lose their source of income. It's there, otherwise the Minister

would have taken a very different tack in his

[ Page 2806 ]

speech earlier. What we're asking for is a guarantee.

Why we need it — and I trust Members will think of this — is

because of cases like the Baumgartner case. I'm not saying it's

identical in all points. It's not the same Act; it's Act 261.

It's somewhat different in that regard. It is a case of a man

who feels his property, which he purchased in good faith, which

was registered, I understand, at the land registry office, has

been taken away from him under a statute of the Province of

British Columbia and he feels aggrieved.

All we suggest is, in this great machinery of government, in

the 30,000 civil servants that we have, injustice can occur to

individuals. Our job in the Legislature is to try and write in

the guarantees and protections for citizens which will give

them some sort of recourse in the case of ill treatment. Ill

treatment does occur from time to time, even with the best

intentioned government — and I'm not sure that this one is.

The government's attitude that it knows best and others who

dispute any of its

interpretations with respect to

section 2,

expropriation, of this Bill 70, must be liars is a type of

arrogance which only underlines in red many, many times the

need for legislative protection by this House against actions

of the executive.

If we have to go through a theoretical discussion of the

distinction between the executive and he Legislature as

legislators — and that includes the backbench — to protect

individual citizens from arrogant government, I will do so. I

trust I don't have to.

We are proposing here a reasonable proposal to protect. We

can listen to a reasoned argument from the Attorney-General,

who was so far wrong in Bill 41, so there were powers of

compensation that didn't exist. We can listen to a reasoned

exposition from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. But simply

to have remarks hurled across the floor, as has been done by

the Premier, is absurd. What we want is to get some sort of

protection in here. If the government is true to its word, true

to what it said about there being no need for it because people

are protected, then it may be redundant, just as the previous

amendment put forward by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was claimed by the government

to be redundant.

We think it may be necessary, and we wish to argue that

point. The arrogance of the government this morning proves that

if we can't at least discuss these things in this House, what

chance has the citizen of the province who may not have the

means to hire lawyers, and may not have the means to even go to

court? What chance has he against dictatorial bureaucracy?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member talks about arrogance of

government. There is also an arrogance and ignorance of opposition Members.

At no time have you brought evidence into this House to indicate that you've

done a single lick of research on this issue. As a matter of fact, that's the

kindest and most charitable statement I could make. The Member over there, who's

a lawyer, is hurling remarks like "Castro" and everything else across the floor.

Every lawyer in this province knows very well that these words — "otherwise

acquire land" — do not include the power to expropriate. Five minutes worth

of research....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, Mr. Chairman, they want to

yell, they want to holler, they want to talk about arrogance,

but they're not prepared to do a lick of honest research and

consult with any lawyer who will tell you, absolutely, that

these words — "otherwise acquire land" — do not give the power

to expropriate.

You talk about arrogance. You talk about smear. That group

has deliberately tried to create fear in this province around

these words in an attempt to smear a government saying that

they're socialist and taking away the ordinary rights of

people. Legislation passed by the federal government and

legislation passed by the former government has these words,

and the

interpretation in court has always been that there's no

right to expropriate. You come in here with your right-wing

smears and attempt to scare people when legislative protections

have been guaranteed even by the former government, the

Socreds, who were not known for having access to courts.

I find that your performance is geared to one thing and one

thing alone: deliberate smears against the government without

doing the most charitable thing that I could say — a lick of

research. You come in here and attempt to smear this government

as taking away people's rights. You come in here and attempt to

smear them as being ignorant. You attack the Attorney-General

as if he never passed law school, when he's one of the most

respected Attorney-Generals this province has ever had.

You talk about name calling. The performance of the Liberal

Party is one of scandalous, cheap, verbal attack with no

respect whatsoever for this House or for the traditions or the

courts of the province. I get a little bit steamed up, as may

be evident this morning, when I see the performance and hear

the performance of a so-called lawyer and would-be lawyer when

they try to leave a distorted impression with this House that

these words mean expropriation. They do not, they never have,

and they never will. It's the old bogey man smear tactic by a

group that is so far down the political ladder that they have

absolutely nothing positive to contribute to this

Legislature!

[ Page 2807 ]

There isn't a single lawyer in this province who would tell

you that these words mean the right to expropriate. Yet you

come in here and try to deliberately create an atmosphere of

fear. You've made no effort to give a positive contribution in

this debate. I find it pretty scandalous, especially when

people aspire to hit the bench, and they take with them these

kind of attitudes. If you've got something to offer the House

positively, offer it. But don't leave the deliberate impression

on something that you know very well with five minutes'

research, if you care to do it, doesn't exist.

I tell you this and I say it again — anyone who deliberately

goes out and says that this gives the power to expropriate, and

hasn't taken the time to do the time to do the research, is

absolutely lying.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I certainly

appreciate the remarks on this subject, but I want to make the

point that they don't have to have the power to expropriate.

I'm referring to the licenced public passenger carriers in this

province. All you have to do is cancel their licence, as they

get their licence from this government. I would like to see the

Minister of Municipal Affairs say that he is not going to

cancel the licence of the private enterprise carriers of this

province and that they will continue to operate.

What I am saying is you don't need powers of expropriation;

you already have them in a backdoor way by the fact that they

have to get a yearly public passenger licence from the

authority of this government. All you have to say is you

decline to issue that licence and then put your own buses on,

and an outfit like Greyhound would have to go on a closed-door

operation from the B.C.-Alberta boundary into Vancouver and

back. They would have no pick up and delivery privileges

between those points of the B.C.-Alberta boundary and the

termination — Vancouver or wherever you decided to

terminate.

I have no shares in the Greyhound bus line, but I want to

tell you that they have the expertise, the people, the

experience, and they don't run just in the little lowland

Fraser Valley. They run all over this province and have for

years. The people of this province from Hope north all through

the Kootenays and the Cariboo and the north appreciate their

experience and they don't want to see them put out of business

and then taken over by the civic stage lines who don't even

know how to put a set of chains on. They'd even get stuck when

there was a cloud in the sky! They have no idea how to operate

under the conditions that Greyhound has to operate.

I would like to hear the Minister say that clearly here they have no intention

to put Greyhound or other private enterprise bus line out of business, because

this bill certainly gives them the authority to do just that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does it have the right to expropriate? No,

it does not.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the last remarks are the kinds

of remarks that you would expect from a person supporting a

government that was not prepared to provide services for people

in this particular area. Public transit went down the drain the

last 20 years. This government and this Minister are trying to

get together a transit service that will provide that service

for people, and all we hear are catcalls and insults from

across the House for a government that is endeavouring to do

its best for the people of this province, raising all sorts of

straw men, fighting for the private companies and so on. What

have the private companies to worry about? Most of them have

gone out of business in the last 20 years. Where are they?

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that this kind of fallacious,

specious argument has been the history in the last few months

in this House and I wonder when we're going to get over that

kind of foolishness.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, you are your usual consistent

self. Despite the histrionics by the Premier and the Minister

of defence, the question isn't of expropriation at all — it's

of compensation. It really doesn't have anything to do with

expropriation because if you allow expropriation, the person

who's being expropriated at least has some access to the

courts. But in the kind of backdoor takeovers that this

government is becoming famous for, like the Insurance

Corporation, there isn't any hope for compensation. When the

government has the opportunity to cancel licences with a

stroke. of a pen, that's expropriation of the worst kind,

without any access to the courts.

I don't wonder that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) are

pretty touchy on this subject, because they're standing by and

watching the municipality of Surrey expropriate $1 million

worth of private land with no compensation today, with the full

knowledge of these two Ministers of your government — not much

wonder, Mr. Chairman, that these two Members are touchy about

the subject of expropriation without compensation.

Mr. Chairman, if you won't accept this amendment, there must

be some other method by which we can ensure that there will be

no backdoor takeovers by this government any longer without any

compensation to the people involved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to just read from the

1971 Report on Expropriation by the Law Reform Commission of

British Columbia. I

[ Page 2808 ]

want to read this to my lawyer friend, because I'm just a

humble social worker. I don't have the brilliance or the

deviousness of some lawyer's approach, but I'd like to read

what the Law Reform Commission says on this very point. I want

to point out that there's a deliberate attempt by the

opposition to create an atmosphere of hate in this province by

making statements that are not true and leaving impressions

that are absolutely false.

This is what the Law Reform Commission said. Mr. Chairman,

they don't want to hear what the Law Reform Commission itself

said, but I'll read page 16:

" 'Otherwise acquire' — the mere granting of power to

purchase or otherwise acquire lands cannot be regarded as conferring

power to expropriate."

AN HON. MEMBER: How many members are lawyers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No one. Well, Davie Fulton was one at one

time. He's on the bench, and he's a learned judge. Are you

attacking the judges of this land now?

Do you know no limits? You've attacked the laws, the courts,

and now the judges. Is that the kind of approach we're getting — because you can't have power you attack the very court system

and Her Majesty's courts? Attacking the Queen on top of it!

How far will they go, Mr. Chairman? First it was the

lawyers, then it's the courts. Now the bench and Her Majesty.

Oh, Mr. Chairman, I am so shocked! Ending up attacking Her

Majesty! I don't want her to hear.... Don't write this down!

Don't write it down. I don't want her to find out about

this.

But look what else it says in here:

"No one would seriously suggest that every company

incorporated under the Companies Act has the power to expropriate

merely because among the ancillary powers normally given the companies

included in

section 22...."

You didn't take five minutes out to do some research. You

deliberately attempt to create an atmosphere of smear.

MR. FRASER: Davie can make mistakes too, you know.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've been known to make

mistakes. I'm only human. That's why I go to the library on

occasion and check the law. And what do I find when I check the

law? The opposition not only makes mistakes, but they don't

even make an effort to correct themselves. Oh, shame!

And now as a social worker I have to publicly castigate them for not making

an effort to correct themselves.

MR. FRASER: What's the matter with the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Can we get back to

section 2?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly. They are right here and I'll go

on to read:

"Where a similar power to purchase or otherwise acquire is

granted to a Minister of the Crown" — all lawyers listen — "and

there art. no other provisions indicating that an expropriation

power has been given, "

as this bill has, Mr. lawyer Member,

"it is difficult to believe that a court would hold that

expropriation powers have been created."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have made no effort. It is the

opinion of the Law Reform Commission in this province and

you're just abandoning it? Mr. Chairman, they cannot quote a

single case to contradict the position of the Law Reform

Commission of this province. They are deliberately creating an

atmosphere that is based on no research, and if they've ever

been exposed they've been exposed this morning as a phony

bunch. A phony bunch!

MR. FRASER: A vicious attack!

HON. MR. BARRETT: A vicious attack? I'm being kind,

I'm trying to help educate — and that's the reward I get for my

patience. Oh!

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

mentioned a case of expropriation in Surrey. Who's Bob Wenman?

We almost forgot. They forgot him in a hurry because he used to

be a Socred MLA. He's on the Surrey council. He voted for that

expropriation.

HON. MR. COCKE: And Vogel introduced it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Introduced it? Oh, my goodness! Why do we

have to bring these things out publicly? I'm sorry I said it,

but those Socreds are expropriating without compensation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't let the word get out. Don't let the

word get out what they're doing! I don't want anybody to know

that the Socred & Wenman and Vogel are expropriating

without

[ Page 2809 ]

compensation. Ohhh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we deal with

section 2?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we've had a lot said by the

Premier, little of it relevant to the problem we face.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What we are talking about, you fail to

understand, I think, Mr. Chairman, is that we are discussing

Bill 70,

section 2. A number of examples have been given by

government speakers, but not many of them are relevant. An

example I gave simply indicated that at the present time, under

the laws of this province, people are having land taken from

them under

chapter 261 of the Revised Statutes of British

Columbia without compensation.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I'll read two short

sentences from this letter to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald). "I said at that time: 'This is not a case of

expropriation. Even the latter would ensure some recompense.' "

It's a case — and I'm not quoting here but I have it down here — of confiscation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact is that, as is typical with

non-lawyers who dabble in the law, the Premier gets all huffed

up by one particular word. If it comes down specifically on the

word "expropriation" — and that's the only way that you can

take away property from a person — perhaps he has some

validity.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, "perhaps". Now you're backing off. Oh,

"perhaps" we're right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, come on! The Premier typically did

not....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, "perhaps" now, uh? Oh, perhaps now

you're changing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier seems to think once again

as a non-lawyer that he's stumbled on something which makes sense. The problem

is that there are ways of taking away property, there are ways of taking away

a person's ability to earn a living, as has been pointed out by the Member for

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), which may not be expropriation. In the case of Baumgartner

it's a case of confiscation, not expropriation. The reason we want to put in

a provision of the nature of the one raised by the Member....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stick to the point.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's got nothing to do with this

section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Come on, Alex, you know full well....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, whether the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) or Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) feel

offended as the Premier apparently did, I don't know, but the

fact of the matter is that legislation exists on the books of

the Province of British Columbia which does lead to a person

who claims to have had his purchase of land registered in the

Land Registry Office receiving no compensation, according to

him, for that land when it is taken away under

chapter 261.

Now, it is a pretty simple proposition to ask that in this

particular bill the government write in provisions for

compensation which are in no way onerous or burdensome on the

government, but which do protect individual citizens who might

be affected by it. That is all we are asking. We can talk about

former Members of the House. We can happily go along on to Law

Reform Commission reports, which, as has been pointed out, is

the opinion of that commission.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't do any research.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Let's not forget the very first words

that the Premier quoted from that, which stated that alone....

Now, the fact is that those words often occur with other

sections of the statute which may give them force for

expropriation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They don't in this one and you haven't

spent five minutes on it. It's a cheap, political phony issue

and you've been exposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You are so phony on this, and you know it.

If it was from the Socreds I could understand it, but you

should know better.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I might take exception to

the Premier's words more if I respected him more, but I don't,

and I find that

[ Page 2810 ]

typical of the way he attempts to avoid the issue that was

raised. The issue is simple. If in the

interpretation of this

Act by the courts it turns out that people can have property,

real or otherwise...if they can have their right or ability

to earn their living impaired, just compensation should be

paid.

Now, that's the point of the Member's amendment which was

ruled out of order. The point of discussing this with the

government is to try to persuade them that a government which

genuinely believes in people should incorporate into

legislation fail-safe provisions just in case the justices

interpret this Act in a way which would give the government

power that the Premier claims it hasn't got. I'm not sure.

Time after time courts have looked at legislation made by

legislatures or parliaments and they have come to conclusions

different from those which the legislators had in their minds

when they passed those Acts. We wouldn't have half the

amendments that we do today, were it not for that problem, Mr.

Chairman. You know that. Everybody in this room knows that. So

this is why you try and work in the fail-safe provisions — so

that we can guarantee individual citizens rights against

governments which they believe to be extremely centralist and

which, indeed, has turned out in many instances in municipal

affairs to have disregarded local authorities and individual

people.

That's the purpose for putting forward an amendment which

you rightly ruled out of order. It's the purpose of us, at this

stage, arguing with the government, asking them to put it into

the legislation, because we can't do it but they can.

Irrelevant attacks by the Premier on us or anybody else are

not particularly of much concern. The fact of the matter is

that in

section 2 of Bill 70 we would like to see some sort of

provision put in for compensation just in case there is any

difficulty as we have described.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would like to say that I am somewhat

surprised at the obvious concerted effort to delay and hinder

the total programme of transit in this province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you talking about the Premier?

HON. MR. LORIMER: But I want to assure the people of this

province that this programme of transit is going to go forward

vigorously, and that we hope to provide transit services for

the people in communities of the province, many of whom have no

automobiles to move about and are dependent on transit, and

irrespective of the roadblocks that are thrown in our way we

shall try and carry on and provide the services as quickly as

possible.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked about Greyhound. There are no

plans to remove Greyhound.

However, Greyhound, as you know, has stopped services in

certain areas. And those services have to be picked up. For

instance they dropped the area between Prince Rupert and Prince

George, which was subsequently picked up be a private

operation. So there may be need to provide that type of service

in areas in the province.

But there is no intention, certainly at this time, of

dealing with Greyhound at all. They seem to be providing a very

good service at the moment.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, when the Hon. Premier was posing

questions to the House as to whether things are true or are

they not true, a very good question to pose to the Premier and

to the other Members of the Government is: is it or is it not

true that this government has confiscated in the Province of

British Columbia without compensation? The answer to that

happens to be yes, because that's exactly what happened with

the insurance industry.

And is it or is it not true that British Columbia has the

most arbitrary powers of expropriation of any area outside of

the Soviet Union? The answer to that question is also correct,

Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, that was an opinion that was

considered and at one point stated many, many years ago by Mr.

Justice Thorsen.

Since then we've had the benefit in this province of the

Clyne royal commission on expropriation. We've had the benefit

of the very great and a very remarkable in-depth study of the

Law Reform Commission. I see its report is dated 1971, Mr.

Chairman, and we're now into 1974. It was the firm

recommendation of both the Clyne commission of some years ago

and of the Law Reform Commission that we have a single statute

dealing with expropriation in the province and that fair

compensation be provided.

It was considered at all times by these learned gentlemen

and the many people who assisted them in their endeavours that

we've had a hodge-podge of confusion of arbitrariness, of

unfairness and of powers that you'd never hope to find — yet

indeed are existent in a democratic society. They have tried to

cure all that and the government has absolutely sat on it. This

is one of the reasons we are having the confusions that we're

having today.

The Premier made a great point out of quoting from the

report of the Law Reform Commission. When he's referring to

these otherwise acquired

definitions, that's only an expression

of opinion. It is in the grey area. The thing has never been

tested per se in accordance with the provisions as indicated in

this particular statute.

Also, the

summary of remarks to the report of the Law Reform

Commission are certainly worth drawing

[ Page 2811 ]

to the attention of the Premier, who claims to have been

exceptionally well read on the point. It says that a general

expropriation statute be enacted embodying the proposals on

procedure and compensation — and compensation! — put forward in

this report.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: No, no, you're missing the point, Mr. Premier.

It is not separate from this Act. And I would be very happy if

the Hon. Chairman would return my amendment to me; I can't even

get that back. It's been confiscated at this point. Or would

you please at least read it to the House? Would you mind

reading my amendment to the House now? I'd like to refer to it

and you've got the only copy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your amendment is ruled out of order. And you

can....

MR. GARDOM: Then return it; I'd like it back. Trot it over

here. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's part of the records here and you should

have a copy of it. If you don't I have a copy.

MR. GARDOM: As you see, it's done in longhand and we don't

have carbon paper at our desks, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure you'll be able to get a copy of it

later.

MR. GARDOM: It's not provided by the Speaker, I guess.

MR. BARRETT: You just thought it up on the way.

MR. GARDOM: Carrying on, Mr. Chairman, I would draw to the

attention....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is now the property of the House and it

stays here. You should be dealing with section....

MR. GARDOM: Then you might refer to it. I'm dealing with

exactly the same points as the Premier dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are dealing with

section 2 of Bill 70;

that's what you should be dealing with.

MR. GARDOM: Indeed I am; indeed I am. And I'm also dealing

with the points raised by the Hon. Premier. I have certainly

the right to do that.

We find the Law Reform Commission reporting, Mr. Chairman, that in determining

compensation payable the provisions of the general statute would apply. But

this is a very important statement here which says — and this is the crux of

the matter before us this morning in this

section — on page 182:

"The various statutory positions which create or might

appear to create expropriating powers be reviewed and revised

when necessary to ensure the statutory language creating those

powers clearly and expressly demonstrate intention to confer

those powers."

Now this is one of the reasons that we have confusion here

this morning. It is open to court decision as to whether the

words "otherwise acquire" constitute expropriation. It is also

open to the government to make an offer that an independent

person could not afford to refuse — much along the lines of the

Godfather.

It is also open to the government, as it has done with the

insurance corporation, to close the doors of a lawful,

law-abiding, tax-paying, non-polluting, democratically

-operating occupation. That power is there.

We think it's most unfair, if we are in this shade of grey,

if the government has these powers — as was illustrated by the

Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), and as was illustrated by the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) when he talked about

whether they are going to take over Greyhound Bus Lines. You

can do that by saying to Greyhound Bus Lines, "Thou shall not

operate in the Province of British Columbia." That is what

happened to the insurance industry.

This is a democratic society. They weren't compensated;

their doors were closed. Not yet, you can't function in the

Province of British Columbia — lawful people, law-abiding

people, in a democratic society. You Castroized the insurance

industry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on. Oh!

M R. GARDOM: Yes, you did. Did you compensate them? Is it or is it not

true that you didn't offer them 10 cents worth of compensation? Not a nickel;

you just shut them up. And you can do exactly the same thing with Joe's Taxi,

Terry's Transit or Greyhound Bus Lines.

What we have asked you to do here is something that the

Premier in essence — although he doesn't see it, unfortunately — is arguing for. He says: "We can't expropriate; we'll

compensate." If he means what he says, let him bring in an

amendment to his message bill and provide due and fair

compensation for any purchases or acquisitions.

Mr. Chairman, if these amounts cannot be agreed upon....

There are no built-in checks or balances, that the amounts have

to be agreed upon in here. We know the' might of this

government and how they

[ Page 2812 ]

snap their fingers and make their decisions — and crack the

whip — without research.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Okay, but build in a check and balance and say to the general public that if the government comes in with its

heavy hand and says, "We're going to purchase, or maybe things

are going to be a little tough for you," and they

disagree with the price.... Maybe the private sector might be

asking too much. Maybe the government might be offering to pay

too little. Both of those ills can occasion. In all fairness,

put it into arbitration.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come off it!

MR. GARDOM: Put it into arbitration; that is what is

contemplated under the provisions of this very excellent report

of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. They said:

"Let there be a check and let there be a balance, and if the

government offers an outrageously low price and if the private

sector requests an outrageously high price, put it to

arbitration."

Let facts and figures be presented on oath. Let there be

evidence; let there be proper assessments and appraisals. And

let the individual, who's entitled to the best break of all — surely to goodness, in a democratic society — let him be

entitled to his fair share and to a fair break.

That's the reason we're opposing the section. The Premier's

arguments support, in essence, our opposition to it. He says

there's no expropriative power here. Well, unfortunately — or

fortunately, I should say — he is not the court of this land.

There may well be. There may well be; I tend to think there is.

I would say there is. But that's something to be determined by

a court.

Why put people to the expense, inconvenience, time and

trouble of having to go to a court to see that their rights are

protected, when all he's got to do is to put a provision in

here that fair compensation will be paid for the acquisition of

any assets called for within the provisions of this

statute?

If that is too much to ask, we are in, without any question,

the heaviest of hands of state socialism. They're becoming not

only government supreme, as is demonstrated later on in this

statute, but cabinet supreme. The supremacy of the backbench — the elected representatives — is disappearing in the Province

of B.C. and to the secretariat, which is the cabinet. The

secretariat, the politburo, is now running the Province of

B.C.

MR. GIBSON: On a different aspect of

section 2, I have a very brief amendment

which I think is surely only the result of government drafting oversight because

the Minister has said in the past that this is his policy. That relates to the

disposition of assets which is provided for under

section 2(d). There was some

discussion in a case earlier this year with respect to the disposition of certain

Crown assets by public tender. The Minister, if I recall rightly — he can correct

me on this — made a statement that that was his general policy.

I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that

section 2(

d) be

amended by adding words at the end, "through public

tender."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you provide us with a signed copy of that

amendment?

I'll allow you to speak on your amendment if you wish while

we are considering whether or not it's in order. Have you got

some remarks to make on it?

MR. GIBSON: I've said all I had to say on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment proposed here is that in

section

2(

d) you add the words, "through public tender " at the end of

the sentence.

The amendment seems in order.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I have already stated that the policy of

the government is to sell by public tender. I reject the

amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Briefly, in support of it.

That Minister stands up and is totally contradictory. He

stands up and accepts the principle of going to public tender

and yet rejects the kind of amendment which would ensure that

every government and every Minister following him would also

have to go to public tender. He tells us in this House that he

accepts the concept of public tender and yet his attitude in

the past has been one of a totally different attitude than that

which he tells us in this House today.

In the matter of a disposal of Crown assets for B.C. Hydro,

no public tender. In the matter of a purchase of buses from the

Western Flyer Company of Manitoba, no public tender. All we

want in this House is the assurance on paper over somebody's

signature that you will go to public tender from now on. It's a

simple assurance which you should be able to accept easily

because of your stated comments in the House earlier.

MR. WALLACE: This is just more evidence of the kind of

situation we had earlier on in this debate where the Minister

gives verbal assurance that a certain policy will be followed,

whether it's consultation with the municipalities or putting

matters of a disposal of Crown assets out to public tender.

We're asking on this side of the House to formally put it in

writing. I think it's a standard

[ Page

2813 ]

acceptance in any modern society that when you really mean

something you put it in writing and sign it. When you buy a

home or marry your wife or do any of the important things in

life, you put it in writing and you sign a document.

Surely in the highest court in the land, in the federal or

provincial Legislature of this land, if a man or a cabinet,

with the authority they have, really, sincerely believe in a

certain policy or a certain procedure or practise and stand in

this House and say they believe in it and this is how things

will be done in future, I just am at a loss to understand why a

simple phrase cannot be written into the legislation such as

the two particular amendments that have been accepted in

principle by the Minister but rejected in practise.

I can't say that I'm anything but dismayed that we would

have the Minister say, yes, he'll consult with the

municipalities; yes, these matters will always go to tender,

and not put it in the bill. I can recall a year ago we came up

with other amendments of a similar nature in other bills which

were turned down by this government on exactly the same kind of

point. The government says, "Well, this is what we will do

anyway."

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Scott, do you

always tell the truth?

MR. WALLACE: Yes. I don't know why the big man from Little

Mountain is so sensitive about putting in writing those things

that he believes. I'm sure that, when you sell your ice cream,

you sell it by signed contract — or do you just make your ice

cream contracts by verbal agreement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Oak Bay has the floor

and was dealing with

section 2. He actually should be dealing

with the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: I was trying to deal with

section 2. We're

having trouble from Dairy Queen on the other side of the House,

Mr. Chairman.

But seriously, this is a principle, whether it's

specifically this amendment or any other similar amendment in

the future. It is very difficult or contradictory, as said by

the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), that a Minister should

stand up and accept a principle which is very important — the

principle of submitting government business of one kind or

another to public tender — and say that he believes in it and

that it will be government policy, and all we are asking is to

put that in the bill in writing. In any area of human affairs

where an important commitment is made or where some

responsibility is accepted by a politician or anyone in

business, it is just the most automatic, accepted, reasonable

thing to put it in writing.

I think this amendment eminently sums up the position of the

opposition parties. I hope again that the Minister will

reconsider.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to

lend my support to the amendment. One of the reasons that this

side of the House is leery of the government is because of the

actions of that government since they came to office.

We can look back over the record and the Premier, standing

on his feet, shouting, ranting and raving. But we still don't

hear the Premier any longer saying, "Trust us." He knows we

don't trust him. It has been his actions that have made us so

leery. When we ask the government to put in writing their

intentions, we know then they can change it with an amendment

in a few months anyway. But at least it would be down in

writing.

But to give the amount of power that is in this

section to

that Minister bothers us. One of the reasons is that all you

have to do is look at Bill 75. Retroactive legislation. It

enforces landlords to give money back to tenants. Retroactive

legislation. That's one of your bills, Mr.

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that one of my bills?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, you're supposed to be on the amendment

section 2.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking to the principle of the amendment,

Mr. Chairman. We want to see it in writing; we want it added.

To be quite truthful with you, we no longer trust your

government. We want to see it in writing. It has been the

actions of the government that have given us this mistrust. All

you have to do is look at the land bill, look at the insurance

takeover, look at the purchases without tender, look at the

entire record of the government. No wonder we want it down in

writing, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. COCKE: We've just heard from the dark side of the

moon.

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

speaking to the amendment and in support of it. The brief

statement of rejection by the Minister a few moments ago

demonstrates an incredible and unexpected inflexibility in my

view. Certainly, when he is involved in his other

responsibilities as Minister of Municipal Affairs, he is

charged with enforcing

an Act for municipalities which makes it

very clear that, when a municipality is disposing of material

or goods or equipment of one kind or another, it must do so by

public tender.

This position taken by the Minister this morning

[ Page 2814 ]

takes us back to the very old days in this province. I would

have expected in something as straightforward and appropriate

as this that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would have

accepted the amendment of the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

I really wonder if the Minister wouldn't like to reconsider

the position he took fairly arbitrarily just a few moments ago.

Perhaps he is considering it now with his cabinet colleagues.

Whether we trust this Minister and this transit organization

over the next few months is beside the point. As I understand

it, if we trusted everyone we would have very few laws.

So let's get it in here not only for the present, but for

the short and long-term future. I urge the Minister to

reconsider his position and accept this extremely important

amendment.

Amendment to

section 2 negatived.

section 2.

MR. McCLELLAND: One brief comment before

section 2 passes

and I'd like to thank the Minister for finally telling us and

assuring us that he has no intention of canceling the

opposition franchise of Greyhound and also admitting to us that

he does intend to go into the intra-provincial bus line

business and from the looks of the bill we also will be going

into the manufacture of buses, probably a money-losing

operation like Western Flyer and I guess, because of

Section

f(2), we can also expect to be going into the restaurant and

hotel business as well and I'd just ask the Minister, Mr.

Chairman, when and where we can expect the first Lorimer Hilton

to be erected?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't think this year.

MR. WALLACE: I have no wish to prolong the debate but I do

think, as I mentioned in the comment yesterday, restaurants and

hotels are a little peripheral, to say the least, in the whole

business of transit services. Again, I'm like the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), I think the rather

flippant answers and the short contradictory answers that the

Minister's giving really isn't doing justice to this

debate.

In other words, we've all acknowledged that there is a real

problem in our burgeoning urban areas of transit, but hotels

and restaurants to be built or operated or managed by

government, I would submit, is a very peripheral matter

compared to the very basic business of providing transit

avenues and lanes of cars or buses or trains or

what-have-you.

We are accused of being too apprehensive about powers and

the scope of legislation in this bill and in others, and

yesterday somebody shouted from the other side "Quote to us

what your concerns are. Where is the power?" The power is right here for the

government to get at the restaurant and hotel business when the

bill is actually transit and transportation of people that

we're talking about, not accommodation of the people once they

get to where they're going. I just feel that when the Member

for....

HON. MR. KING: What about the restaurants on the ferry?

MR. WALLACE: ...well, the restaurant on the ferry is in the

act of being transported....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...and restaurants in bus....

MR. WALLACE: ...I think you can't compare the.... Well,

what about hotels if you want to be so picayune about it. What

about hotels?

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it's the other side that's

picayune.

MR. WALLACE: I say that the government should deal with the

moving of people without these other areas which are much more

appropriately dealt with in the private sector of the economy

and not by government-run and operated or state-controlled

hotels and restaurants. I would accept, as the Minister of

Labour has interjected, that a restaurant on a ferry makes a

lot of sense and if the ferry is being operated by the

government, then, of course, the restaurant obviously is an

integral part of that. But this power in this bill deals just

in

section f (2) just says 11 passengers' depots,

waiting-rooms, restaurants, hotels." It doesn't necessarily

define them as being part of the transportation system. It just

leaves the power wide open to the government to do as and when

it wants by entering into the hotel and restaurant business. I

wonder if the Minister would be a little more detailed on what

their plans are. Or is it that the facilities will, in fact, be

restricted to such areas as ferries?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped the Minister could

give some kind of reply to the question from the Hon.

Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to remind the Member that this

debate took place in principle and replies were provided then.

It's very difficult to separate the debate but I suggest to you

that you deal with the business of

section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, we're in committee now. We can ask

the Minister questions. He can hopefully give us answers. The

Hon. Member for Oak

[ Page 2815 ]

Bay (Mr. Wallace) was just talking about

Section f, which I

was about to stand on, and

Section f provides the Minister the

power to enter into the operation of business including the

hotel business.

I was about to say, before you interrupted me, that I wish

he had given some notice of his intention in that because it

relates to another clause which I wish to discuss, namely

Section 2 (

j) which, Mr. Chairman, gives the Minister the power

to become a manufacturer — manufacturer in constructing rapid

transit vehicles, which is generally speaking considered one of

the heavy industrial applications on this continent.

This is a proposal that the Minister should be given this

authority on a blank cheque without even any suggestion "of

intent to this House, as to how such a potentially immense

industrial undertaking should be looked after; whether he has

any proposal to do it or not; whether he wants to develop a

system in British Columbia of manufacturing all-Canadian buses,

that might be a wonderful thing.

Section j might be used for wonderful purposes, Mr.

Chairman, but we have no declaration of intent from the

Minister at all and it seems to me that if he and this

government want to get into the manufacturing business on

transit vehicles, that deserves a bill of its own which would

be discussed on its own merits and I therefore move that

Section 2 (

j) be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you got a signed copy of that amendment?

On the amendment. It is an order to delete

section 2 (j).

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think I could answer. As far as hotels

are concerned I don't anticipate any construction of hotels, at

this stage, but certainly the restaurants

part I think it's

necessary and will be necessary at bus stations and so forth.

But as far as J is concerned, at the present time I don't think

we intend to manufacture from start to finish immediately.

But I think there is an area here which I hope to be looking

into this summer, as to the feasibility of completing from the

shell upwards, in other words, farming out seat manufacturing,

and that sort of thing and electrifying the bus and have it

assembled in British Columbia. Possibly some of these

sub-trades being performed in a variety of parts in the

Interior of the province. That is the manufacturing aspect of

it at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the words of

the Minister. We don't know whether it's going to be called

"Lorimer's Villa" or whether it's going to called "Slumber

Lodge," with Suite No.1 reserved for cabinet Ministers.

We don't know, but the fact of the matter is that the principle of

having a bill which allows total power for construction of

hotels and restaurants, construction of vehicles, as well as

taking over transit companies, is one that obviously we will

have difficulty with.

On the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) we simply think that if you

haven't done the studies yet as you admitted, you said you

should have been looking at feasibility this summer. If it

hasn't been done yet, for heaven's sake just accept the

amendment. You can always come back and amend this bill later

if you need powers later on after you've done your assessments.

After you've looked at the feasibility studies which, by your

own admission, from what I gathered you said, have not yet even

been considered.

HON. MR. LORIMER: What did I say hasn't been considered?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the feasibility has not really been

considered....

HON. MR. LORIMER: More delays.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it may be more delays. That's true

because you're entering into an area.... Yes, it may be true

there may be delays because there has to be an amendment in the

fall session of the Legislature but if you're not doing

studies, I gather, until the summer, there really is no great

delaying at all in which to proceed. We dislike and we repeat

this time after time, we dislike granting powers on the vague

assurances of Ministers that these powers, of course, will

probably not be used. We don't know who will use them. We don't

know what subsequent government will be using them and we'll be

perfectly willing to consider any proposal you come forward

with, after you've done your feasibility studies, after you

determine whether it's a good idea or not.

But to ask us in this Legislature, all of us, backbench as

well as opposition, to give you powers beforehand is certainly

the wrong way of going about it and I urge you to consider the

amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I also rise to support the amendment. I think

when you're considering this amendment and the reason we're

concerned and would like to see the amendment passed, all you

have to do, Mr. Chairman, is take a look at

section 12 of this

bill, where "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by order

authorize the company to carry out on behalf of the Minister

any or all of the duties of the Minister under this Act for

this purpose and authorize the company to exercise the power

and authority conferred upon it by the Minister."

[ Page 2816 ]

In other words, this Minister can give this company the $76

million that he has and it can go off and do anything that it

really wants to do. This is really what we're concerned about.

This doesn't even have to go back to the Minister, doesn't have

to go back to the executive council, and doesn't have to go

back to this Legislature; $76 million for the company just for

starters. It's

section 12 coordinated with these other sections

that really bothers.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. Give the $76 million to this company and

this company can do all of these things, go into the

restaurants, the hotels, construct the buses, do whatever they

want to. The company doesn't even have to come back to the

Minister. The Minister just says: "Go ahead and do it. We don't

care where you do it."

It's the company who will automatically take on the powers,

go into municipalities and take another look at

section 7 where

this company under the power given to it by the Minister can go

into a municipality, completely disregard the authorities in

that municipality, put up the power lines, do anything without

any consultation with municipal authorities.

So it's really the company that's going to be formed under

section 12 that gives us more concern. I think that it would

only be in respect of the parliamentary system that the

Minister should accept some of these safeguards that we're

trying to have built in here. The government says "Trust us," but if they want us to trust them, why don't they prove

trustworthy?

Amendment negatived.

section 2.

MR. WALLACE: In further respect to

section 2 and in the

light of the Minister's statement a few minutes ago that he

does not anticipate building hotels, I would move an amendment

section 2(f)(2) that the word "hotels" be deleted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Chabot

McClelland

Anderson, D.A.

Jordan

Morrison

Gardom

Fraser

Schroeder

Gibson

Phillips

McGeer

Wallace

Richter

Curtis

NAYS — 28

Hall

Brown

Lockstead

Macdonald

Sanford

Gorst

Barrett

Cummings

Rolston

Dailly

Lorimer

Anderson G.H.

Strachan

Cocke

Barnes

Nimsick

King

Steves

Stupich

Young

Kelly

Hartley

Nicolson

Webster

Calder

Skelly

Lewis

Gabelmann

MR. WALLACE: I ask that you request the division be recorded

when you report to the House Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. GIBSON: Just a brief question for the Minister. This

would appear to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council power

to fix the fares on all passenger traffic carried by public

passenger transportation systems established under this Act.

Does that include public transportation systems which might be

established under

section 3 of this Act which would be operated

by municipalities? In other words, is the Minister asking for

power to fix the fares on municipal bus lines as well as lines

which might be run by his transit authority?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, the local municipalities have their

own fare, although in the case of West Vancouver it's been by

agreement between the Hydro operation and West Vancouver

operation.

MR. GIBSON: Could I suggest then, Mr. Minister, that this

section as it is currently written would appear to give the

Minister power to fix municipal bus line operation fares, and I

wonder if the Minister would be agreeable to an amendment which

would rule that out of order by making it specific that this

applies only to systems operated by the province?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, there's no intention here to interfere

with any municipal bus lines. There's very few left. I don't

think there's going to be any left because they've all come to

us asking us to take them over, so I don't think it's an issue,

as a matter of fact. The only one that will be left as I

understand it will be the West Vancouver bus line and they want

to carry on, and by agreement they're going to carry on.

They've agreed to the proposition of having their fares

structured the same as B.C. Hydro. I don't know of any other

municipal bus line that will be operating in the province.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

[ Page 2817 ]

section 10.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks on second reading I

noted that I would be moving amendments under this section, the

reporting section, on the grounds that where the tremendous

amount of discretionary authority is conveyed by a bill, the

opposite side of that coin should be detailed reporting

requirements.

I therefore move

section 10 be amended by adding the

following words: "This report shall include detailed accounting

of (

a) service, profit and loss on major passenger routes; (

b) consultation with local governments; (

c) planning studies

undertaken, completed, and in progress and summaries thereof;

(

d) economic and demographic impacts of major new

transportation routes or systems; (

e) major changes in capital,

operating practices and personnel over the year."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you a signed copy of that amendment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a point of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If this was imposing additional duties

of the Crown, it would be out of order, but it seems to me that

it really isn't because it already says that there has to be a

financial statement of operations. So really it is in the

section anyway.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what the

amendment...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I haven't really raised a point of

order. I said let the thing go to a vote because we feel it is

in the

section anyway.

MR. GIBSON: What the amendment is seeking to do is make it

abundantly clear that these matters are included in the

section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are accepting that it is in order.

Amendment negatived.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of

provisions in it which we are unable to accept.

The first is, of course, that "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by order

establish a corporation." We prefer to have, and we think it would be proper

to have, of course, this Legislature, not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

form corporations.

The second point, of course, is 11(5). The provisions there

appear to be in conflict with sections 23 and 24 of the

Constitution Act which forbids this double-dipping into the

public purse by MLAs, and I think that while they might be

entitled to reasonable expenses, a payment to them is clearly

out of order.

The 11(7) is "the Companies Act does not apply to this

company." Here again we have an example of the government

setting up its own corporation in a preferred position

vis-à-vis other corporations, because of course they do not

have to abide by the law which other corporations do, namely

the Companies Act of British Columbia.

I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, for these reasons,

that

section 11 be deleted in entirety. The thing that we can

do instead if there is a need for a corporation to proceed with

transit, is of course, use B.C. Hydro which is already being

used.

The Minister has made it clear that there is unlikely to be

any other municipal authority, except perhaps the West

Vancouver one, and he indicated that he did not intend to take

that over. So therefore the Crown corporation is already in

existence, and the B.C. Hydro would seem to be the vehicle for

such government increase in activity in this area, and I would

think that this

section 11 is redundant for that reason.

I would move that

section 11 be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That kind of amendment is out of order in that

the proper procedure is to vote against the

section if you want

the whole thing deleted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we will be voting against this

section for basically the same reasons, that this British

Columbia Transit Company as proposed in

section 11 is

ill-defined and again has authority and privileges in the

subsections which we think should be in separate

legislation.

We are very concerned that in repeated pieces of

legislation, time after time the government is setting up

various companies to which the Companies Act does not apply,

and it seems to us that there's one set of ground rules for

private companies doing business .in this province and a

completely different set of ground rules for government

companies.

We feel that if the government feels that it is necessary to

have a Companies Act for private enterprise, the same

and observation of the Companies Act regulations should apply

to any company set up by the government.

We also feel, as has already been stated by many

[ Page 2818 ]

Members of the opposition, and specify this as another

example, I think the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has

often asked why are we concerned about the power, and we've

been mocked a little bit about the use of the phrase "broad

sweeping powers," and I'm just taking this opportunity

to point out again that

section 11(

l) gives a degree of power

and authority to the cabinet which we feel it should not

have.

This is an honest difference of opinion between the two

sides of the House. We believe in this party that to set up a

transit company which undoubtedly will have a great deal of

authority and the spending of a great deal of public money,

should be set up by a separate statute of this Legislature.

This opposition's responsibility would be carried out in

discussing, debating and criticizing such a specific separate

statute, giving a great deal more detail of the functions,

structure and all the other details of such a company with that

degree of authority and power.

Therefore we do oppose this section.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask what

qualifications do these five members of this transit company

have to have? Are there any guidelines, or do they have to have

any qualifica