1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1047 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill M202). Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1047

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill M201). Second reading.

Mr. Ree –– 1048

Mr. Lauk –– 1048

Mrs. Wallace –– 1049

Mr. Lea –– 1049

Mr. Cocke –– 1050

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1050

Mr. Ree –– 1050

Financial Information Act (Amendment Act), 1983 (Bill M203).

Mr. Skelly –– 1051

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1052

An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places (Bill M204). Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 1052

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1053

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

Mrs. Dailly –– 1054

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

Hon. Mr. Phillips moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

MR. HOWARD: I want to raise with Your Honour a point of order based upon the provisions in May's Parliamentary Practice

relating to the manner of proceeding on business in the House. As I

recall, there are three foundations for Mr. Speaker to rule on matters:

one, is on the basis of previous decisions; another is on the basis of

standing orders; and the third is upon the basis of new situations

arising which give Mr. Speaker the opportunity to make rulings of a

nature which might differ from previous Speakers' rulings.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I'm listening to a

point of order by the member for Skeena. I would appreciate the

opportunity of hearing his remarks without interruptions.

MR. HOWARD: As I said, new situations that arise give Mr.

Speaker the chance to make decisions interpreting the new situation and

giving different

interpretations to the standing orders, or countering

previous decisions. It's a process of maintaining a modern and

up-to-date attitude about proceedings in the chamber. I submit that the

government has embarked upon a set of activities that should entice Mr.

Speaker to operate under the new-situation concept, as permitted in

May's Parliamentary Practice .

Without going into detail about it, let's recount the matter of the government

calling business since the introduction of the budget. We had a budget debate

for three or four days; that was put to one side. We went to Bill 3 and had

a debate on that for a while; that was put to one side. Bill 6 was put to one

side. Bill 7 was introduced for second reading and put to one side. Bills 9,

13, 25, 31 — there may have been others that I have missed. Then we got back

on the budget last week. Now the government seems intent on putting aside what

appears to be the final day of debate on the budget. Now it wants to proceed

back to deal with public bills and orders.

While the government may claim that under standing orders it has the

right to call business as it sees fit, I submit to you that it's an

intrusion on the part of the government. It's a misuse of that standing

order to call bills as it sees fit in order to completely upset the

progress of business in this House. I think Your Honour should take

that under consideration and rule that the government does not have

that untrammelled right to play hop, skip and jump with every item of

business before the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's

certainly a very novel premise raised by the House Leader for the

official opposition. He talks about the progress of business. It would

seem to me, as a result of the conduct of the official opposition in

this current session, that the principal intention is obstructing as

opposed to opposing. I think an opposition in deed has a responsibility

to oppose, but not to obstruct. It's straight obstructionism.

I would ask for leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, allow me first to comment very

briefly. The suggestion by the member for Skeena, if accepted by the

Chair, would place the Chair in the very awkward and possibly dangerous

position of having to determine the order of business and in fact of

running the government, which from time to time might be the wish of

the Chair, but which certainly does not fall within its ambit. I'm sure

that upon reflection hon. members will realize what a very difficult

job it would be for the Chair to accept such a recommendation,

notwithstanding the wishes of those....

MR. HOWARD: I would certainly be one who is at this moment

prepared to accept your desire to run the government's affairs.

Somebody should have that opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Nonetheless, it would hardly be in keeping with the role of the Chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M202.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would have to draw to your

attention, and I'm sure with a great deal of regret, that

section 2 of

the bill imposes an additional obligation on the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and encroaches upon the prerogative of

the Crown as per the ruling of Mr. Speaker Whittaker. reported in the Journals , November 24, 1939, at page 63.

MR. SPEAKER: On that particular matter, hon. member....

[10:15]

[ Page 1048 ]

MR. HOWARD: On the point of order raised by the person who

passes himself off as the Government Leader, there is no provision in

this bill that entails the expenditure of public funds. A complete

misreading of the bill could probably draw one to that conclusion, but

I submit that the bill must be read as to what it contains and not what

somebody thinks or wishes that it contain. I submit to Your Honour that

it is perfectly in order, especially since it entails no public

expenditure, no demand upon the treasury, but simply seeks to establish

an arrangement in a certain part of this province for the creation of

jobs. The government, by raising a point of order about the particular

bill, saying that it does seek to spend public funds, is simply using

that as a camouflage for its denial of the opportunity to create jobs

in this province. That is the sole purpose behind the government's

spurious claim, dating back to some prewar time in 1939, that it seeks

to spend public funds; it does not.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on numerous occasions virtually

identical words have been used, and it has been found in the past that

the establishment of a council would in fact put an impost on the

Crown. Therefore the Chair would rule that the motion is out of order.

MR. HOWARD: That is an appealable decision, Mr. Speaker, and thus appealed.

MR. SPEAKER: The decision, hon. members, of the Chair has been challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS –– 31

Chabot

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS –– 19

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Passarell

Blencoe

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M 201, Mr. Speaker.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides an amendment to the

Estate Administration Act. Under the Estate Administration Act there is

a formula for the division of an estate where a person dies intestate.

In the instance where there are two or more persons, one of which is

the spouse of the deceased, that formula provides that the spouse shall

receive the first $20,000 of the estate and thereafter the balance

shall be divided among the spouse and children.

This provision was last increased to $20,000 in 1966, and it has

been $20,000 since then. We all recognize that since 1966 there has

been great inflation and the same $20,000 would actually be equal to

$62,960 as of the close of 1982. During the year there are quite a few

estates in this province processed through administration: that is,

where the deceased has died intestate, without a will. In Victoria

alone in 1982 there were over 200 such estates that went to

administration under the Estate Administration Act. In Vancouver there

were over 500. There are a large number of people dying intestate

without wills, who have not provided for the devolution of their

estates.

There are a number of instances in which the sole asset of an estate

could be the residence of the family. With inflation, we are all

cognizant of the increase in the value of houses; it could end up with

a mother having a very small percentage interest in the actual family

household. This would be an instance, probably, in which the house was

in the father's name, the father has passed away, and the wife ends up

with a very small proportion of interest in the house. She could, in

certain circumstances, be forced to dispose of the house to the

detriment of the whole family.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I've heard the explanation of

the private member who has introduced Bill M201, and point out to Your

Honour that any increase in exemption under an estate reduces the

revenue to the Crown. It is therefore improperly in the hands....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true, Gary.

MR. LAUK: Oh, you idiot, of course it's true.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Order! Withdraw. Show a little respect in here.

MR. LAUK: Well, maybe we can give him an IQ test.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw and apologize to the

member, but I am sick and tired of the House Leader constantly,

patronizingly chortling over there while we have legitimate points of

order to make. He seldom rises to his feet on a point of order; he sits

in his chair and says: "Order, order, order." He's a most irritating

gentlemen, the George Hees of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are on a point of order. The point of order is...?

[ Page 1049 ]

MR. LAUK: As I was saying, if Your Honour will note, certain

probate fees are based upon the amounts of estates, and if estates are

exempted.... For example, if it's increased from $20,000 to $65,000, or

if there is a....

Section 2 says that the sum that may be exempt from

administration by the court is increased to $10,000. Then probate fees,

of course, will not be paid to the Crown, and therefore that reduces

revenue to the Crown. It is not properly a bill in the hands of a

private member.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. members, on the point of order raised by the second member for

Vancouver Centre, it would appear that the Probate Fee Act was

repealed, and therefore the point of order by the member would not be

appropriate in this particular case.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, I should have said

"fees and other charges"; the strict phrase "probate fees" no longer

applies, of course. But there are other charges for the administration

of an estate which flow to the Crown, and that of course is the point

that I wanted to make.

[10:30]

MR. REE: On the same point of order, I suggest that the hon.

second member for Vancouver Centre read the bill and read the act. The

increase from $20,000 to $65,000 on the devolution of an estate does

not have anything to do with any fees that are charged. The estate

would still go through administration in the probate office. The estate

would not be diminished in any way, shape or form. It has to be handled

and processed.

With respect to the other increase, it has nothing to do with

exemption from administration. If he would read the statute and read

the amendment — if he would take that time, instead of being

obstructionist in this House and holding up business.... It just

provides a simpler method of handling the estate through the probate

administration office. It would still be done, but by way of an

affidavit rather than a formal filing and having to go into court.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. REE: May I speak to the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: As soon as the Chair has made the decision, hon. member — that is, that the debate will be permitted to continue.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano continues.

MR. REE: In speaking to the point of order, I have basically

spoken to the second aspect of the bill: that is, the increase from

$5,000 to $10,000. In a sense it is analogous to the other increase

from $20,000 to $65,000. I hope to speak to individual sections when

the bill is dealt with in committee in which case I have additional

information as to the positions in other provinces and when they were

raised in those provinces; however, I don't think I have basically

spoken to it. The bill is there to try to bring legislation up to

current financial times, with the inflation we've had since 1966.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. LAUK: We've canvassed this bill very carefully. If it's

in order and in the hands of my friend, the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Capilano, we think it's a good idea and we're going to

support it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I think the member has raised a

first-class suggestion. On behalf of my colleague the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Smith), I would like to inform the House that the government

will support the bill.

I would also like to thank the member for his lesson and instruction to the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: If you would stop acting like the chief justice of the court of appeal, I wouldn't take you up on it.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, certainly I support this bill, but

I would like to take this opportunity to deal with a question that

relates to the content of the bill.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano, who introduced the bill,

spoke about the number of people who die without having a will. This is

a point we can discuss in relation to this bill. Over the years I have

discussed with the now House Leader when he was the Attorney-General,

and Allan Williams when he was the Attorney-General, and with the

present Attorney-General, the need to legalize holograph wills in

British Columbia. If we were to move in that direction we would find

that not as many people were dying without having made their own

declaration of an estate. It certainly relates to this bill. The point

has been made about the number of cases where it has been necessary to

handle an estate in this manner, and the amount of property and dollars

involved over the years. If along with doing what is very essential in

this bill — upping the dollar values to relate more to today's costs —

we were also to consider making it easier for people who are injured,

or who find themselves suddenly faced with impending death, to write a

will, it would mean fewer problems with these kinds of estates where

there is no dispensation of the property. It's unfortunate that this

happens. Sure, you can say that people should have a will, but it just

doesn't happen. Obviously it doesn't happen, as pointed out by the

mover of the bill.

In discussing this. I would like to make the point about the need

for introduction of holograph wills in British Columbia, as exists in

nearly every other province in British Columbia. It gives people who

find themselves facing imminent death and in the position of not having

made a will the opportunity to draft a will that is legal and binding

under the laws of British Columbia.

While we support this bill, I wanted to take this opportunity to make that point on the floor of the Legislature.

MR. LEA: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the only reason I'm

rising is that it looks like a good excuse to say something I've wanted

to say for a while. This is going to separate the House exactly between

lawyers and non-lawyers; on both sides of the House the lawyers are

going to be mad at me.

One of the things I found out in 1978, when my father died, is that

when you go to a lawyer they charge you a percentage of the estate as

their fee. It's not based at all on productivity or on the amount of

work done.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Clerks and everyone are listening to me

today. I think it is an injustice in itself that lawyers should have

every right to charge for all of the work that they do. But to have a

flat, across-the-board rate would be one thing. Whap! I think it's one

of those things that lawyers

[ Page 1050 ]

should do themselves; if they don't, possibly we should do it for them.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. I think that attacking an

entire profession which has been the backbone of this province, simply

because of a personal pique of the hon. member for Prince Rupert, who's

too cheap to pay a reasonable fee, is going beyond the pale. I'm glad

he concluded his remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair cannot concur with the point.

MR. COCKE: I rise also in support of this bill. I think it's

long overdue. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that it does not go

far enough. If you think in terms of the inflation factor and the fact

that the spousal — the first $20,000 claim on an estate — has been in

force for many years, I would suggest that it should go higher. In any

event, this is a step in the right direction.

As far as the increase from $5,000 to $10,000, again, Mr. Speaker, I

think that that also is something that should have been greater. But

this is the kind of thing that I think we can all agree with. I would

hope that the government are going to accept this as part of the

statutes of the province of British Columbia. I know that had it been

introduced by an opposition member, the chances would be about as thin

as those of a snowball in Hades, but there is a chance because the

member who introduced it is a supporter of the government. Therefore I

suggest that it should become part of our statutes of B.C.

The member for Prince Rupert made a rather good point. He talked in

terms of lawyers and their contribution to winding up an estate. It

strikes me often that the system that is used — the percentage system —

is something you would expect in sales, where if a car is sold for a

couple of thousand dollars, or $10,000, or whatever, then the salesman

gets a percentage of that. I don't think it should be the same with

wills. I know the percentage drops when the estate becomes rather high

— that is, the overall percentage drops at that point — but it strikes

me that there should be a new way of doing it. I'm not sure exactly

how, but I think that the lawyers, with their infinite wisdom, as

expressed by the member for Vancouver Centre, could probably get their

minds together and devise a way that the public could accept as being

one that would be just a little less usurious, in terms of estates.

Again, I would hope that the government would accept the bill. I

expect the government will adjourn debate on the bill. If they do, Mr.

Speaker, I think that they haven't thought it through themselves. This

is a step that's needed. It's needed now and, as a matter of fact, we

should go a further step with respect to this whole question of

administering and cleaning up an estate. With that, I say I support the

bill.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's very reassuring to hear some unanimity

in this House on this subject. I have pleasure, really, in

congratulating the member who has brought this in as a private member's

bill. I think that it's a well overdue adjustment to the levels and

rights of spouses on intestacies and that he's very much to be

commended for pointing out the inadequacy and archaic nature of the

previous amounts.

I also think that it's very healthy to have some social legislative

reform brought into this House by the private member's route. Seldom

have we passed a private member's bill, in my limited experience here.

I was the recipient of one such bill, when I first became a member,

that was passed and on which I had bipartisan support. I had support

then from the then first member for Victoria, Charles Barber, and it

was passed. It was the University of Victoria Foundation Bill. I think

this is a good route and am delighted the government is going to accept

the amendments of the member.

MR. REE: I would like to thank the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Smith) and the members of the opposition for indicating their support

for this piece of legislation. I might make a comment to the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I am quite able to answer the

questions that were posed by the member from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

with respect to commissions on fees. I don't require that member for

Vancouver Centre to defend me. I would go for other counsel if I did

require such assistance.

Since you raised the issue, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, if you

look at the commission scale of fees for administration, it has a

bearing on ability to pay.

MR. LEA: I wasn't talking about that.

MR. REE: You were talking about commissions on estates. That

does have a bearing on ability to pay if it is set on a percentage

basis. If it is a smaller estate, it is a smaller fee.

[10:45]

MR. LEA: Oh, you lawyers! Come on.

MR. REE: The other member for Vancouver Island raised the

question of holograph wills and what not. There are some wills that are

imperfect as far as the Wills Act is concerned. That can be proved by

administration with wills annexed, but it does not go quite as far as

you would like. There are various difficulties with our estate. I know

I had one at one time where the spouse of the beneficiary witnessed the

will. The beneficiary was a step-daughter and the will was invalidated

because the spouse had witnessed the signing of the will. The will then

went by administration, and because she was a step-daughter she never

did benefit from the will. We had to go after 12 beneficiaries. The 11

beneficiaries we were able to locate assigned their interest back to

the person whom the deceased really wanted.

AN HON. MEMBER: The lawyers did well on that one.

MR. REE: No, the lawyers did not do too well on that, Mr.

Member, because there was a commission fee. At that time the will was

only worth $25,000, which was a fair bit of money at that time, because

it goes back to the fifties. It involved a great deal of time and

effort, and being on a commission-percentage basis the lawyer did not

benefit for the work.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the members who spoke to this bill. I

move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House....

MR. SPEAKER: There is a seconding motion prior to that.

MR. REE: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[ Page 1051 ]

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

MR. REE: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call Bill M203.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT

(AMENDMENT ACT), 1983

MR. SKELLY: I'm pleased that this bill is coming up in the

House while the government and the opposition are in a mood to

cooperate in the passage of private members' bills.

As those members who have read the bill will note, it is simply a

housekeeping piece of legislation. The bill intends to place the

Insurance Corporation Act under a list of corporations included in the

Financial Information Act. The Financial Information Act requires such

corporations as B.C. Hydro and such operations as the Workers'

Compensation Board to provide an annual list of all payments over $500.

The reason I'd like this bill examined by the government and,

hopefully, passed is that it places the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia under that list and requires it to disclose its

payments over $500, so that the government will be aware of who is

receiving money from the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

This will also make it possible for both the municipal and the

provincial governments to take steps to prosecute body shops and

automobile repair shops that violate municipal zoning bylaws,

business-licensing laws, or the provisions of the Factory Act, the

Workers Compensation Act and the Fire Services Act and regulations.

Because certain body shops and certain automobile repair shops are now

allowed to operate without regulation, it results in unfair competition

between those so-called backyard body shops and repair shops and the

repair shops that conform with all provincial, federal and local

legislation. I'm sure the government, as well as the opposition, would

not like to see that type of unfair competition carry on.

For example, through lack of inspection under the Factory Act and

the Workers Compensation Act, this type of unlicensed operation puts

workers in danger. In many cases these workers are dealing with

dangerous substances, with paints and chemicals used in auto-body

repair and in auto repair. As a result, these workers are exposed to

dangers from the use of those chemicals. Also, people in private houses

and buildings are exposed to the same danger, because these illegal

operations continue in contravention of the labour standards and the

fire marshal regulations. It also puts neighbourhoods in danger where

backyarders operate in contravention of local zoning bylaws. A small,

illegal body-shop operator or automobile-repair-shop operator may be

doing business in a residential neighbourhood, without the necessary

setback requirements and without the necessary building construction or

protection requirements, and as a result he puts whole neighbourhoods

in danger from the explosion of inflammable chemicals or from the

spread of hazardous chemicals in residential areas.

That concern prompted me to present this bill: through the

availability of ICBC payment information, to allow local governments to

find out who these illegal body-shop and repair-shop operators are, so

that in the event they are violating local zoning requirements or

business-licensing codes, those local governments can obtain that

information through ICBC disclosures and track down these illegal

operators and prosecute them or else explain the local legislation to

them and allow them to comply. It also allows the provincial government

to identify these illegal operators and to explain to them the

provisions of the Factory Act, the Workers Compensation Act and other

statutes that are available to protect workers in business enterprises.

It really gives local governments and the provincial government the

opportunity to enforce regulations and legislation against backyard

bodyshop and repair operators in order to ensure some equity in

competition between licensed operators and those who operate out of

their back yard.

Another reason that prompted me to present the bill was that it is a

cause of employment. Backyard operators obviously do not have the same

type of overhead as legitimate body shop and auto repair operators.

They can do it out of their basements or out of their garage, often

putting neighbourhoods in peril, as I stated before. The basis of

competition between the body shop operators and those who do it on a

backyard basis is unfair. Over the last few months I've been writing to

both the Minister of Finance and the minister responsible for ICBC. the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), and they

have suggested that they don't want to be involved in directing ICBC's

business to a particular operator. I can understand the reasoning

behind that. It would affect competition between body shop and repair

operators unfairly, so I can understand the reason behind that.

[11:00]

But the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs also stated in

one of his letters that there are occasions when a vehicle owner has a

friend or a relative who is a backyarder, whom he wishes to make the

repair and who would be most upset if we refused to make payment

following the completion of satisfactory repair work. This bill does

not affect the work done on damaged automobiles by friends or relatives

of the person who sustained the damage, provided that person is in

conformity to local building, zoning and licensing bylaws or that he

doesn't do it on a regular basis. What this bill provides is an

opportunity for local governments, municipalities and the provincial

government to enforce legislation against those who consistently

violate the building and zoning codes, who violate the business

licensing requirements of a municipality, and who also put their

workers and neighbours in peril by not operating inspected shops under

the fire marshal's regulations and under the Factory Act and the

Workers Compensation Act.

The bill is not designed to limit competition between body shops and

automobile repair operators. It's simply designed to make sure that

that competition is carried on on an equitable basis. So far as I can

see, the bill places no obligations on the Crown; it simply brings ICBC

into line with other corporations whose debts are guaranteed by the

province of British Columbia. Those corporations are listed in the

Financial Information Act. They include B.C. Rail, the Ferry

Corporation, hospital insurance, universities, Workers' Compensation,

etc. So really it corrects a defect in the Financial Information Act by

including the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which, for

some reason, was left out when the Insurance Corporation was set up.

[ Page 1052 ]

I would encourage the government, on the same basis that it accepted

the previous private member's bill, to take a careful look at this

bill. Taking advantage of the spirit of cooperation that appears to

persist in the Legislature today, I would hope that the government

would accept this piece of legislation on a non-partisan basis, to

assist body shop owners and licensed automobile repair shops around the

province and to ensure that competition against them is competition on

a fair basis for ICBC business. On that basis I would move second

reading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've listened to the member's remarks with

respect to Bill M203, an amendment to the Financial Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this bill is regrettably out of

order. I would refer you to the Journals

for March 12, 1918, where on a similar matter Mr. Speaker Keen ruled

that the order for second reading of that particular bill be

discharged. The reason is that the bill before us at the present time

anticipates, or dictates, government policy. Nonetheless, I confirm

that the member and I have exchanged correspondence on this topic. The

member has made some valid points which I would be prepared to pursue

in the course of time.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: I hope you'll take into consideration the fact

that this bill doesn't anticipate government policy or infringe upon

government policy in any way. The government policy as expressed in the

Financial Information Act is that all corporations whose debts are

guaranteed by the province of British Columbia should be included in

the act, and their payments over $500 to any individual or corporation

should be disclosed. So it doesn't conflict with the government policy.

It's simply that through neglect or otherwise the Insurance Corporation

of British Columbia was left off the

schedule of corporations included

under the Financial Information Act. The bill simply attempts to

correct that deficiency, and it doesn't anticipate the government's

policy at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, notwithstanding the argument raised....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: May I conclude, hon. member?

Notwithstanding the arguments or the informational points raised by

both the minister and the member, I think it fair to point out that it

also is clearly an imposition on a Crown agency, which can also be

construed as an obligation on the Crown, and the matter would fail on

that point as well. Hon. members, it would then be necessary for the

Chair to rule that on that particular

section the motion itself would

be out of order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, did I understand that the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) went all the way back to the dim past, 75

years ago, in an attempt to transport an appreciation of things then

into this current, modern day?

MR. SPEAKER: That was one point, hon. member. The Chair,

though, carried that forward a little bit as well on another matter

which was equally effective in ruling the matter out of order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government's

cooperation extends only to government backbenchers, and I challenge

the Chair's ruling on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 17

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M204.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING IN PUBLIC

PLACES

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'll just wait until all the

members who feel that terrible urge to go out in the hall and have

another drag get out of the Legislature.

I was really heartened when we discussed Bill M201 and had unanimity

in the House in accepting that piece of legislation. I was heartened

last year, too, when we actually did get around to discussing this

bill. It's a bill that I've introduced into this House every year since

1978, I believe, and last year we actually did discuss it. I just

happen to have the Hansard of last year's discussion in front

of me, and before the House Leader leaves I would just like to remind

him of his words at that time, when he said:

I think the hon. member has made some very valid points — this was

after I had introduced second reading — and I have to say that from the

point of view of a fair degree of conflict of interest, for both myself

and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). We will give serious

consideration....

Interjection.

[ Page 1053 ]

MRS. WALLACE: This is the undertaking that the House Leader gave last year.

...to the proposal you have made, but for the time being, Madam Member, I

would on my behalf — indeed, on behalf of the hon. member for Mackenzie as well,

I'm sure — move adjournment of this debate....

There was a commitment that you would give serious consideration,

Mr. Minister, and I hope that now that we have the bill before us

again, serious consideration will have changed into complete support.

[11:15]

Here in this chamber, in this particular public place, it is the

policy that we do regulate smoking, and that's certainly government

policy. On B.C. Ferries there are areas set aside where there is to be

no smoking, and that's certainly government policy. I think there is no

question that this bill does agree with established government policy.

It simply says that we're going to ensure that the people who do not

wish to breathe smoke-filled air do not have to breathe smoke-filled

air.

The evidence is now undisputed, I think. New studies have been done

which show that non-smokers inhaling the curling wisp of smoke from the

burning end of even of a low-tar cigarette receive a proportionately

stronger dose of tar than the person who is actually smoking the

cigarette. We're not saying that those people who are addicted to this

weed can't smoke; what we're asking is protection for those of us who

do not smoke from having to breathe their second-hand smoke. That's all

this bill does. I don't want to belabour the point. I spoke briefly on

the thing last year; the arguments are recorded in Hansard . There's no question from the health point of view.

I have a letter here dated March 11 from Dr. Johnstone, chairman of

the communications committee of the British Columbia Medical

Association, commending me on the introduction of the bill once again

and saying that he is passing the information along to Dr. Fred Bass,

who is the chairman of their smoking cessation committee. The B.C.

Medical Association are so convinced of the damage done by cigarette

smoking and smoking generally that they have a smoking cessation

committee set up to deal with this problem.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are just so many reasons why it is important

that we pass this bill and pass it now. We listen to the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who hasn't been able to kick the habit. He's

still out there in the halls with his cigarette, but he stands in this

House and complains about the escalating costs of health care. He's

trying to keep that budget under control and does nothing about one of

the major causes of health problems in this province. If we could

control smoking — and I know that goes beyond the parameters of this

bill.... If we could really bring smoking under control we would cut

down considerably on our health costs in this province. At least this

is a step in that direction, because it does assure that those of us

who do not wish to be polluted with nicotine and tars have the

opportunity to breathe fresh air. That's all the bill does.

The bill is patterned after a piece of legislation in Minnesota that

has been in place for a good many years and has proved to be very

satisfactory. It has done the job. With the amount of support I hear

around this House, I really believe the majority are with me. Let's

forget the politics for once; let's have support.

We've done something we very seldom do: we've passed one private

member's bill with unanimous support. This would really set a

precedent. The government has been under a lot of fire lately, getting

a lot of criticism for not listening, for being very isolated and

determined to do their own thing. What a great thing it would be for

that government if they accepted a bill from an opposition member. It

would really give you people over there a boost, so why not do it? Why

not support this bill? Even the heavy smokers, I'm sure, would agree

that they have their rights and that I have mine. I expect that my good

friend for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), when the cards are down, will

support my bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is with great assurance that this bill is going

to be accepted that I take pleasure in moving second reading.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, about this smoking bill, I

think the member for Cowichan-Malahat makes some very excellent points

again this year. This bill will suppress the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead), the member for Oak Bay (Hon. Mr. Smith), the member from

the Kootenay area....

AN HON. MEMBER: And Columbia River.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Columbia River. I agree that they

shouldn't be around us, breathing smoke around our faces all the time

like they do. One thing that you can say for them, though, is you

always can keep track of the member for Mackenzie and the member for

Oak Bay, because you can always see the trail of smoke behind them. So

you know where they are at least.

Mr. Speaker, we've been doing a number of studies across the country

about the effectiveness of anti-smoking legislation, or

anti-public-smoking legislation. I don't think all the evidence is in

yet. I'd like to remind the member for Cowichan-Malahat that when I was

Minister of Health we attempted an experiment to have the new building

housing the health employees on Blanshard Street as a non-smoking area.

Where else should you start except maybe in the Ministry of Health? We

had the union's agreement and agreement pretty well from everybody. But

it didn't work very well because nobody could enforce it. It has really

deteriorated in the years since. It's very hard to enforce, is what I'm

saying. We're looking at better ways to enforce it.

Even though I have monstrous sympathy with the member for

Cowichan-Malahat and her bill, I must draw to your attention that

because of a number of Speakers' decisions located in volume 3, pages

28, 36 and 37, it violates the rules of this House as a private

members' bill and imposes obligations on the Ministries of Health and

Labour, which would not allow this bill to be in order. Mr. Speaker, I

would ask that you so rule.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order. I want to know if the

minister's remarks prior to your ruling will preclude any further

debate on this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Do you mean I don't get a chance to speak on

this matter at all? I'll have to go elsewhere? I was going to say that

I was going to support this bill, and that I agree that the people

should have rights to non-smoking areas.

[ Page 1054 ]

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You mean I'm not going to have the opportunity

to say that because debate is going to be closed? You mean to tell me

that I'm not going to have the opportunity to say that smoking is a

serious addiction, and I believe that people should have rights to

non-smoking areas? I believe that we should not go into people's homes

or large meetings and light up without asking those people's

permission. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not going to

have that opportunity to say those kinds of things? I'm shocked. But I

do want to say that if I did have the opportunity to say these things,

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly support this bill. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Unless the second member for Surrey is seeking the floor on a point of order, the Chair cannot recognize debate.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, before the ruling is made, can I get a point of clarification on the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, the only point I

could entertain would be a point of order. The member might wish to

raise such in the hopes that it might catch some part of your point.

MR. REID: Okay, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I want a

clarification of the description of the word "smoking." Under the word

"smoking" I would suggest the Speaker would probably have a process of

ruling us out of order, because it refers to construction and

development within the province. It forbids lighted smoking equipment

within any confined area, and that's a tunnel construction project. So,

Mr. Speaker, that would provide you with a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the Minister of Labour is

one, regretfully, hon. members.... As you know, the Chair is not

entitled to an opinion, but if it were.... Hon. member, regretfully the

points raised by the Minister of Labour are correct and there is an

impost on the Crown. As such, the bill does fall in the category of

being out of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Regretfully, I must challenge that ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

[11:30]

YEAS — 33

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 19

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

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

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: standing

orders 82 and 87, the duties of the Clerks related to a bill. Although

a vote has already been taken, I sought the opportunity of bringing it

to the Chair before I was forced to vote on this issue. This has

nothing to do with personal matters. I don't know whether or not 82 and

87 were complied with. Perhaps we will have to wait another year, but

the member would have a case here. I don't know whether or not 82 has

been fully complied with by the desk and I would ask the Speaker to

check on this and come back with a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake to review the matter as raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You are attacking somebody new today, eh?

I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 31.

REGULATIONS ACT

(continued)

MRS. DAILLY: Bill 31 makes some changes which apparently, in

the phrasing of the Attorney-General, who introduced it, are fairly

innocuous. I know that he hoped the opposition would work rather

speedily to move this bill through the House; according to him it is

really an innocuous bill.

The opposition cannot move speedily on this bill, because we don't

consider it innocuous. Therefore it is my responsibility here today to

try to convince the Attorney-General that it is not an innocuous bill,

and that there are areas in it which we hope he will reconsider. When

you try to move something for the sake of efficiency, sometimes as

you're doing that you lose and deny to the people of the province some

of their basic rights. That is primarily the area I want to deal with

in this bill with the Attorney-General.

I'm particularly concerned with the area where many of the

regulations which formerly had to be automatically published will

now.... From what I understand, their publication can be decided upon

by the decision of the registrar. I want to follow through that area,

in some detail, with the Attorney-General. Perhaps I could start with

the area of what this would actually mean when it comes to the matter

of, say, the Health Act, which formerly — that is, if this is passed —

would have had to have printed a number of specific regulations in the Gazette .

May I give you an idea of some of those regulations which may, at the

whim and discretion of a registrar — and perhaps some public servant,

not necessarily the minister — never have to be reinstated again and

placed for the public's view in the Gazette .

[ Page 1055 ]

I thought perhaps I could make some impact on this matter by just —

I hope I'm not boring you too much, Mr. Speaker — reading to you some

of the regulations which heretofore would have had to be printed and

now may not be. It's to do with the public health of the people of this

province. This whole

section —

section 5 of the Health Act, under

Regulations — will apparently be repealed if Bill 31 passes. Here are

some of the regulations which may now never have to appear in the Gazette

for public information. I say "may "; I'm sure that the minister will

assure us, because he is an honourable member of this House, that these

regulations will still be published. The fact is that if this bill

passes through the House there is the distinct possibility that these

regulations will not appear in the Gazette .

Under

section 5 of the Health Act it says: "The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations for the prevention,

treatment, mitigation and suppression of disease and provide for and

regulate" — and then it goes through several; I will read some to you,

Mr. Speaker — "the management, maintenance, functions, duties and

jurisdiction of local boards, health units, health officers and public

health inspectors...." That may not have to be printed now in the Gazette .

The organization of health units. Now we may say: "What is that?"

Some of these have much interest to the public. The basis of my

argument is that there is always some member of the public that is

interested in this, that feels they have a right to this information.

That is the key to my remarks: the right of the public to public

information.

Before I go on reading, if I may digress for a moment.... I do not

yet have the bill on the order paper, but I would like to refer to the

fact that for a number of years in this Legislature I have brought

forward, for the consideration of the Legislature, a

freedom-of-information act — a private member's bill. As you know, such

an act is already a statute in a number of provinces across Canada, as

well as being a federal statute. That is why I am particularly

concerned about Bill 31. I feel that if it were carried to an extreme —

which the new act would allow for — the public of British Columbia

could be denied access to full public information. Once that happens,

we are denying basic rights to the people of this province. Even in the

interest of so-called efficiency and speed, nothing should impede the

right of the public to freedom of information. This is why this act is

of major concern to me.

Mr. Speaker, to make my point I'll go on with those health

regulations, and then I'd like to come back to my basic concern about

the right of the public to freedom of information. Other regulations,

some of which might no longer be printed, would include qualifications

in the way of special training, knowledge or experience for those

persons who may be appointed as medical health officers. I think the

public has a right to know about the background experiences of the

medical health officers who will be appointed.

" ...the prevention and removal of nuisances." Of course, that's a

very interesting one, because some people may have some very strong

ideas on the definition of nuisances. They might even start with

members of the Legislature. Who knows? That was supposed to be

humorous, but obviously it was not.

"...the cleansing, purifying, ventilating and disinfecting of

houses, churches, public and charitable institutions, buildings and

places of assembly, railway stations, carriages and cars...," — I think

the fact that the word "carriages" is here does show that perhaps one

thing that should be changed is the outmoded language in some sections

of the Health Act — "...as well as other public conveyances, by the

owners and occupiers and persons having care of them." We have enough

trouble today with pollution caused by the great increase in

technology. Now we are perhaps not even going to publish, for the

public's information, how they are being protected. If it is not

published, how is the public going to know whether they have a case

against their public health officials for not taking care of them when

it comes to clean air, etc? "...the inspection of hospitals, jails,

orphanages, reformatories, houses, churches, buildings and places of

assembly, railway stations, carriages and cars and all other public

conveyances." Actually, this may not even be published. I don't think I

can publish a note I just received either, but I might at some future

date.

The fact is that these inspections which are very important to all

members of the public and would continue perhaps under the

government.... The problem is that unless they are not published for

our information, how are we going to know whether these inspections

have taken place?

".. the method of the carrying on of all noxious or offensive trades

or business, and the

summary abatement of any nuisance or injury to the public

health or arising or liable to arise from it." As I read some of these,

I must concede that there are some here that perhaps could be eliminated in

view of the changes in our times we live, but that does not get away from my

basic argument, which is that many of these regulations which are necessary

may never be published again.

[11:45]

"...the interment of the dead and the conduct of

funerals." I must admit that I personally cannot see the need for the

publication of this, but perhaps there is someone out there who feels

it's necessary, and I guess it was put in here for some basic purpose.

"...the isolation or placing in any hospital or

building provided for quarantine or isolation purposes of any person

having any infectious or contagious disease or any disease dangerous to

public health." Even with our modern medicine today, with all the

immunization we have, every so often we find that a wave of an

infectious disease will spread across the country again, as witnessed

perhaps by the advent of polio, which people have been concerned about.

I have to express my concern that if such an epidemic took place, I'm

sure our health officials would inform the public, but the fact that

Bill 31 could go through does not make it necessary for publication in

the Gazette .

"...the reporting to a medical health officer by every

medical practitioner of any person under his treatment for any infectious or

contagious disease or any disease dangerous to public health."

This is another major one that may not have to be published under this act.

"...the vaccination of all children born or residing

in the province." That is a whole area which I'm sure that you would

agree with me is an area of great concern to all parents of young

children.

"...the vaccination of all persons entering or

residing in the province not already vaccinated, or not sufficiently

protected by previous vaccination."

"...the supply and quality of vaccine matter."

I have quite a number that carry on, but I have a feeling that

perhaps you may become bored with this recitation. No, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you. But in case you are, I thought I would move onto another

subject to keep your interest: the

[ Page 1056 ]

need to never deny the public of their right to

public information. In doing my research for this I did go, believe it

or not, to a very conservative source. It's a former Conservative

Member of Parliament whom I have a respect for, Mr. Baldwin, the member

for Peace River, who as you perhaps know was a pioneer in pushing for a

freedom of information act, and deserves much credit. Even though he

was not in the government which brought it in, he helped promote the

passage of the Freedom of Information Act in the Houses of Parliament.

He's done a number of articles on this, and I just want to quote

briefly what he had to say. He was really concerned about the increased

use of regulations by government, and he said:

"Information in the hands of the people, freely available,

with the exception of a few clearly defined exemptions, is essential to any

democracy. And it is imperative to the efficient functioning of Parliament."

"It seems to me that there's a general pattern over the centuries for certain

events to repeat themselves. We will always come full circle, and historians

and others who read and remember will pause and think: 'We've been here

before!'

"I would like to think that this would be so in

connection with the continuous battle which covers the relations

between the governed and the governors, the rulers and the ruled.

Certainly, those who rule usually have all the advantage, even in the

so-called democracies. In recent years the advent of the media and the

genuflection to imagery has accentuated this advantage, as has the

enormous increase — and this is the point relevant to the bill, Mr.

Speaker — "in the extent of the right of the rulers to govern by means

of regulations."

So he's making the point that this is prevalent right across Canada,

no matter what party, and that's why the members in the opposition, who

see the present government of British Columbia bringing in a bill which

is giving more and more power for the use of regulations, feel it is

necessary to bring this, and our concern, to the attention of the

government. Mr. Baldwin says the use of regulations, orders-in-council

and decrees is becoming rather dangerous.

"Both these factors are dangerously enhanced by the

government's and bureaucracy's obsession with secrecy, which has

increased the bewilderment, the confusion and the outrage of the rest

of us. In this situation elections are not always the answer or the

leveller which they should be — they may change the rulers but not the

rules."

Mr. Baldwin, the Conservative Member of Parliament is conceding that

all parties have a tendency, once they become government, to do things

in secret more and more. The overuse and the enlargement of the use of

regulations does show this trend, and that is why we are concerned, The

government is asking us to support a bill which is giving them more

opportunity, if they so wish, to govern in secret.

"Deception, lies and concealment, coverup of

everything from stupid, unnecessary spending right through to errors

and corruption is the order of the day."

Remember, I'm quoting a Member of Parliament in Ottawa.

"Legislators caught in the rigid grip of party discipline are all too often inhibited in their role."

I think we saw an example of that in a bill which was brought before

the House just before I got up to speak on this one, and that was in

the example of the bill to prevent smoking. Although they were voting

on the ruling of the Speaker — I'm quite aware of that — I do think

sometimes the rigid grip of party discipline does put an unnecessary

closure on the ability of individual party members to express their

true feelings. I know that if that had gone to a free vote — I

shouldn't be reflecting, perhaps — I'm sure that many members of the

opposition and the government members would have been joined together

in that vote.

I thought Mr. Baldwin made some excellent points which are very applicable to this bill. He says:

"In many instances the information is being taken from

us" — he means the public, and I think this is very important — "paid

for with our money, and then all too frequently used, misused or simply

concealed to our disadvantage. In my travels over the last two years,

I've been greatly heartened by learning that Sweden has had

freedom-of-information legislation for over 200 years."

They've had one for over 200 years, and in the province of British

Columbia in 1983, we are still all part of a legislature which does not

have such a bill on its statutes. I consider it shameful. I certainly

hope it will not be necessary for me to put my own private member's

bill on, and I hope tomorrow the government will bring in theirs. But

if not, Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Attorney-General that I will

therefore have to bring my bill forward — which I know that you are

awaiting very anxiously. I'm sure that the Attorney-General will ensure

that the matter of each individual member having to vote by party

discipline will be completely ignored and I'll have full support for a

bill for freedom of information for the public.

There really is nothing more important than the right of the public

to freedom of information. I don't think there is anyone in this room,

surely, who could deny that. It is out of ignorance and lack of

knowledge that so many of our controversies take place, between

opposition and government and out there in the public generally. I know

that most MLAs, when they sit down to discuss problems and they're out

on a tour, or debating with people, or making public speeches, often

are somewhat taken aback by questions they receive which to their mind

are based on ignorance. But we cannot knock people for approaching us

with problems based on ignorance when we do not give them the full

opportunity at all times to have full public information made available

to them. We know there are many people who will probably not bother to

make use of that, but there are many people out there who would wish

they had far greater access to government information.

Even in this Legislature, which for various reasons often has a very

adversarial and at times very heated style of debate, I cannot help

thinking that on many issues — not on all, I must agree — we could have

a much better atmosphere if the opposition had the opportunity to have

much information made available to them which the government insists on

holding unto itself as its sacred right, instead of having to

constantly keep digging away at government for information which

rightfully should be laid before the House. I really feel it would

change the climate of debate in this Legislature to some degree. I am

not naive enough to think it would change the whole atmosphere

completely, but I do think it might help us all.

Many people have spoken on this need for information. I found a little book in the library called Man's Right to Knowledge and the Free Use Thereof , by Mark Van Doren.

[ Page 1057 ]

This book is full of little phrases that are relevant to the need

for information. In about 1749 someone said: "There is nothing more

frightful than ignorance in action." I think that could be....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Did the Speaker say that? In 1749 our Speaker said: "There's nothing more frightful than ignorance in action."

However, Mr. Speaker, knowing your background, I'm sure you're quite capable of having made such a statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was probably Tommy Douglas.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, perhaps Tommy Douglas said it.

I think that's excellent though, because we know that many of the

demonstrations.... I'm not referring to the ones in this province

dealing with economics; if anything, those have shown the desire of

people to become informed. It is the recent economic action of this

government. I feel somewhat heartened, for although all the facts are

not available, people concerned about the economic situation in this

province, and about what this government is doing, have certainly shown

that they are not going to be stopped because of ignorance.

As a matter of fact, I don't think this province has ever shown more

interest in politics than in its reaction to the recent government

restraint program, which perhaps is the only good thing we can say

about it — that it has brought about a great interest in finding out

about the economic situation of the province. As more information comes

forward I think the government will have to concede that their present

restraint program is obviously not going to work. There again we must

give full credit to the search for knowledge.

As we continue to talk about the need for public information, I

think this act really should be withdrawn. Although the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) considers it innocuous, I feel that

it is not. There are areas in this act that, if carried to an extreme —

and I accept that — could be dangerous to the public of B.C., because

once again it would deny them their right to proper knowledge and

information.

I would therefore at this time move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada