1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 795 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The Honourable L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, being amendments to Bill (No. 107)

intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971 .

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

Bill (No. 4) intituled

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act was committed, reported complete without amendment.

On the motion for third reading of Bill 4, the House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Messieurs

Wallace

Tisdalle

McDiarmid

Ney

Bruch

Capozzi

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

Skillings

Wenman

Jordan, Mrs.

Chant

Kripps, Mrs.

Dawson, Mrs.

Loffmark

Mussallem

Bennett

Gaglardi

Price

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

Vogel

Black

Brothers

LeCours

Fraser

Shelford

Chabot

Campbell, B.

Richter

Jefcoat

Smith

NAYS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

Bill 4 read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 38) intituled Mortgage Brokers Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 49) intituled

An Act to Amend the Department of Highways Act was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 62) intituled

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

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

Bill (No. 70) intituled

An Act to Amend the Police and Prisons Regulation Act .

Bill (No. 71) intituled

An Act to Amend the Controlled Access Highways Act .

Bill (No. 76) intituled

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act .

Bill (No. 77) intituled

An Act to Amend the Provincial Court Act .

Bill (No. 85) intituled

An Act to Amend the Sale of Goods Act .

Bill (No. 89) intituled

An Act to Amend the

Summary Convictions Act .

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Second reading of Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 86, Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited (Non-personal Liability) Mineral Claims Act . The Honourable the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, the

purpose of this bill is to reinstate certain Crown-granted mineral

claims that have been forfeited to the Crown and to revest ownership to

the claims in the former shareholders. Along with this I might say, at

this time, that it was through no fault on the part of the shareholders

that the claims were forfeited. The books of the company were seized at

the orders of the Securities Commission by the RCMP and the

shareholders were not aware, although the tax notices went to the

registered company office, that the taxes were not paid by the officers

who were in a position to do this or who should have been taking care

of the taxes. When this became known, the lands had lapsed in taxation

and were forfeited to the Crown.

Now, since that time, one of the principals has passed away in New

York. The son of the principal is not connected with these claims in

any way, or these mineral claims and has no connection. Since that

time, the Attorney-General's Department has dropped the charges against

the principal and this bill would give security to the shareholders in

relation to their mineral claims. While I am aware, although it is not

stated in this bill, I am aware that the annual general meeting has not

been held. This bill will not be proclaimed until the conditions that

are outlined in it have been met, along with the annual general

meeting, which must be held before we will consider it. The Companies

office, along with my department, are in contact to ascertain this

point. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitiam): Mr. Speaker, I have information

that contradicts what the Minister has just told this House. The

principal, as I know it, is George S. Groves and, according to the last

report filed on the company, under the Companies Act , in this

Province… The last report was filed in 1965 and, according to your

records, the principal is George S. Groves, who was under charge, as I

understand it, for attempting to bleed this particular company. He's in

gaol. The father is dead. Is George S. Groves dead — the 32-year-old?

Senior is dead but he is not a principal in the company. I think that

that's a very sloppy presentation to bring to this House on a very

touchy matter.

[ Page 796 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not enough detail.

MR. BARRETT: To come into

the House and make a presentation as briefly as the Minister has, when

the father of Mr. Groves has died… I think I have some experience in

dealing with the Groves people. After all, it was my surveillance on

the Groves' involvement with Cypress Bowl that had the Government

change its policy on that particular matter. Then, for the Minister to

come into the House and say that 32-year-old George S. Groves is dead,

when it was the father who died and the father was never a principal in

this company. Your own records, Mr. Minister, if you take the trouble

to check with your own Companies Registrar, you will find that it's

George S. Groves of Armonk, New York, USA, whose father passed away.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the Attorney-General should have

a better memory than the Minister of Mines has, because on June 6,

1970, an extradition hearing was launched against Mr. Groves, due to

his behaviour, in this particular instance, with this particular mine.

"A Federal judge has set a tentative date of June 16 for a hearing on

Canada's attempt to extradite a 32-year-old U.S. citizen on a Vancouver

arrest warrant. George S. Groves Jr., formerly of Armonk and Mount

Kisco, New York, surrendered here last Tuesday. Richard Kuh, a New York

lawyer, representing British Columbia and Canada, told Judge Inzer

Wayatt Friday that the Vancouver warrant accused Groves and his father,

now living in Florida, of buying a controlling interest in two

corporations, Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited and Maralgo Mines

Limited. Kuh said, speaking on behalf of the Government of British

Columbia, that the two men 'looted, in effect, the treasury of the

company, took all the securities, sold them and came back to this

country."'

If you had a lawyer on the case, and you've got the records in your

office, how can the Minister come in this House and say that the

principal, by the name of Groves, is dead. His father is dead. The

young Groves did waive extradition… Sunshine Comstock Mines, that's

the mine we're talking about, that's the bill that we're dealing with,

and there is his name on the records provided by your own Government

department. When the extradition opened, there was a detailed story in

the Victoria Daily Colonist , March, 1970. Then we had a report from the

Sun of…

I'd like to know how much the Attorney-General's Department paid

Mr. Kuh for pursuing this matter in New York. How much did it cost the

Attorney-General's Department to… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, maybe, the

Attorney-General will give us the answer. The matter of Mr. Groves'

participation in this particular matter was a subject of much gossip in

the Vancouver area. On November 27, 1969, Alan Fotheringharn stated the

following in his daily column. "The Provincial Government, though it

seems to be unaware of it, has a further interest in the affairs of the

Groves family. Still on the books is an investigation ordered some time

ago by the Attorney-General's Department and the Superintendent of

Brokers into the activities on the Vancouver Stock Exchange of Sunshine

Comstock Mines. Sunshine Comstock was suspended from trading in 1966,

after Vancouver Stock Exchange President Jack Van Luven said Sunshine

had filed a proposal for development that was not acceptable to the

Vancouver Stock Exchange directors and then persisted in disregarding

the ruling."

The Minister never told the House any of this background. What is

the state of their proposals, Mr. Minister? Who are the principals now,

who have alternate proposals that weren't acceptable to Mr. Van Luven?

I don't think you really know enough about this. You don't know the

details obviously.

Sunshine Comstock was a new company formed only four months earlier,

when control of Sunshine Lardeau Mines was bought by International

Securities Limited, New York. The president of Sunshine Comstock,

George S. Groves, still alive and breathing, wrote to the stockholders

from a letterhead, Box 99, Armonk, New York, stating that their new

mining property at Virginia City, 23 miles from Reno, is worth a

considerable fortune " …and we believe the possibilities are

fabulous." They certainly were — for young Mr. Groves — because they

moved the Attorney-General of this Province to hire a lawyer to pursue

Mr. Groves and the lawyer's statement was that, in effect, Mr. Groves

had looted the company (interruption) . Mr. Kuh, K…U…H, a New York

lawyer. No, he's a New York City city-slicker lawyer. "The previous

ownership of the property was one of the first companies listed on the

San Francisco Mining Exchange in 1862. It had not been listed on a

stock exchange for 15 years. B.C. Investigators are still seeking to

talk to George S. Groves." Senior is the brother of Wallace Groves, the

man who wrote that forgotten letter to Lands Minister Ray Williston

about his company taking over Cypress Bowl (interruption) . Now, it was

George S. Groves, Sr. who died, and he is the brother of Wallace

Groves, who is involved in the Grand Bahama's port authority, who lost

$1 1/2 million to the promoters of the Cypress Bowl development through

Alpine Outdoor States Ltd., and that may be the subject of another

court case.

MR. SPEAKER: It may not, however, be a continued subject of this debate.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct, Mr. Speaker. I'll go back to

this gossip column where it says that the man was gaoled for attempted

fraud and stock manipulation — the man who was involved in paying $1

million to the Bahama's Cabinet Minister, Sir Stafford Sands. But, I'm

sorry, Mr. Speaker, that refers to the uncle of the George S. Groves,

who is named in that. Now, Mr. Groves did come back. Mr. Groves waived

extradition and he did come back. He came back to Burnaby on July 7,

last year. "A U.S. citizen waived extradition," and I quote from the

Vancouver Sun . "A U.S. citizen waived extradition from the U.S.

and voluntarily surrendered on charges of stealing securities valued at

$49,000 from two B.C. mines. George S. Groves, 32," the one who is not

dead and who is a director of this mine, "was remanded on bail of

$20,000 when he appeared in court here June 23. Preliminary hearing was

set for July 16." Certainly, the Attorney-General should tell us,

during the second reading of this bill, how his department flubbed

this whole case. The case is still there. Is he still in gaol or is he

out on bail? (Interruption.) He's on bail. Is he in Canada or in the

States?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This cross-questioning is quite irregular.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Speaker, it's quite irregular

and I'm sorry that it took place, but it was necessitated because the

man is still being charged although

[ Page 797 ]

he is dead, according to the Minister of Mines. Senior died and

Senior was never a principal in this company. The Minister of Mines

attempted to tell this House… (interruption) ….he was not a

principal… (interruption) . A director in this

company… (interruption) . You left the impression that the director had

died and that George S. Groves, 32, was still alive and still awaiting

the outcome of a court case in British Columbia. You left the

impression that the charges have been dropped…well, he was never

charged. Senior was never charged. He was never charged, so

don't… (interruption) when you spoke in this House… (interruption) .

He's cross examining me now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite right.

MR. BARRETT: You can't do that, either. I expect the Minister to know a bit more about it. Anyway, let me continue, Mr. Speaker.

"Groves originally surrendered in New York where extradition

proceedings were started. At the New York hearing, lawyer Richard Kuh,

representing B.C. and Canada, alleged Groves and his father bought a

controlling interest." That was the allegation, but it was the boy who

was on the books looted, in effect, the treasury of the companies. RCMP here said that the father was originally charged but the

charges would not be proceeded with, due to his health, but the charges

against the son would proceed," …because he was really the

director (interruption) . Now, look…no, no, no.

The Attorney-General has indicated to this House that young Groves

is out on $20,000 bail. Well, took, I only go by what the

Attorney-General… Don't cross examine me on a three-way deal. We'll

have to rely on what the Attorney-General says. We now get a statement,

that the Attorney-General has given this House, that George S. Groves,

Jr. Is still on charge, he's out on bail for the $20,000. I'd like to

know when his case is going to be heard?

Mr. Speaker, without the kind of information that is truly necessary

on this bill, I would suggest that the Minister of Mines, put this bill

into committee, put it into the Bills Committee. Let's get more

information on it because the case is still pending. I move adjournment

of this debate, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 94, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 94,

An Act to Amend the Health Act . The Honourable the Minister of Health Services.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver-South): Mr. Speaker, the number

of provisions in this act reflect changing times, reflect changes in

travel patterns. I would refer you first, Mr. Speaker, to those

portions of the act which deal with the question of communicable

diseases. Heretofore, the Department of Health had rather wider powers

in respect of the treatment of persons suffering from tuberculosis.

Over the years, these provisions have proved very useful in

administering the best form of treatment to persons suffering from TB.

I've been advised and have accepted the advice that the same kind of

powers to treat ought to be extended to persons who evidence infection

of things such as typhoid fever, smallpox, leprosy and any other

contagious or infectious disease, designated by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council. The reason for this is, as I have indicated a little bit

earlier, that we are, more and more, finding ourselves hosts to people

who are coming in in large groups, usually by aeroplane, from the

Orient and so on. In some instances, we've had as many as 500 to 700

people landing in Vancouver under circumstances which don't always

permit us to examine these persons in the way that might be desirable.

We feel that it is very useful that there should be a follow-up in

detection of diseases where persons are coming into the Province in

these circumstances.

The next point of principle involves the conferring upon the

Government, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the power to make

regulations which would permit the imposition of levies and the

recovery of fees and so on charged for inspections associated with

environmental health standards. The present law permits the collection

of fines and the imposition of levies and so on, under the pollution

control legislation. Similar legislation also appears in connection

with the regulation of subdivisions. This is intended to supplement

those powers, the principle being that the person that causes pollution

ought to be responsible for the inspection of same.

The next point relates to an extension of the powers of the

Department of Health to deal with regulations which relate to some new

forms of living activity — public and commercially operated swimming

pools, campsites and mobile homes and so on, and it merely reflects the

changing life patterns in this Province.

Finally, two other matters — one, which confers upon the Minister

the power to designate a medical health officer from one jurisdiction

to another, one health unit to another and this usually arises as a

practical matter, where a medical health officer is absent, or sick, or

for some other reason and it's necessary to send one of his colleagues

in to deal with health matters in a particular health unit. Finally,

there are permissive provisions here which would facilitate the

transfer of responsibilities from a union board of health over to a

regional district. I might describe this as another step in the

introduction and the extension of the activities of regional districts.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 94 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 97, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 97, Hospital Corporations Act . The Honourable the Minister of Health Services.

MR. LOFFMARK: Most of the hospitals in the Province, which

are the beneficiaries of our public financing system, are organized as

societies and their by-laws and constitutions are usually created and

amended by common consent of the members of the society and the

Department of Hospital Insurance Service. There are some notable

exceptions in the Province and they relate, in the main, to the three

hospitals which are referred to in this bill — the Royal Columbian

Hospital, the Royal Inland Hospital and the Vancouver General.

What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is put the hospital authorities, in each case, in a position where they can discuss

[ Page 798 ]

with the Department of Hospital Insurance Service amendments to

their acts and amendments to their constitutions which would bring them

in line with those of other hospitals in the Province. This legislation

is permissive. It does nothing more than allow each of these three

corporations to make the amendments that are necessary to up-date their

constitutions. In the case of the Royal Columbian Hospital, its

constitution dates back to the early days of this century. I think the

same can be said for the Royal Inland Hospital. The Vancouver General

is of more recent vintage. Now, the bellwether of these three is the

Vancouver General constitution. Most of the discussions in respect to

changes in their constitutions have been developed with the Vancouver

General Hospital and the two other hospital acts would be brought in

line almost verbatim with the Vancouver General Hospital's proposed

constitutional changes. Thereafter, changes in their constitutions will

take place in manner the same as other hospitals across the Province. I

move second reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 97 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 78, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 7 8, Mobile Home Park Fee Act . The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this bill does a

number of things. One, it provides for a

schedule of fees payable by

the owner of a park which is for rent. The second thing, which it does,

is to try and redress what was happening with respect to the assessment

within trailer parks, wherein it was the case where assessors were

assessing double wide for full taxation rates and right alongside of it

was approximately the same square footage, another single wide, which

would not be taxed under either the Public Schools Act , Taxation Act ,

the Vancouver Charter or the Municipal Act .

The only other thing I would like to say about this bill is, it

seems to me, that, apart from the fact that there is a

schedule of fees

connected in principle to this bill, it seems to me, both

municipalities and regional districts should do a far better job than

they do, in terms of regulating rental parks, in the first instance.

This year, I've been around the Province quite a bit. I can only

describe some rental parks as a mess. It seems to me that, quite apart

from the health aspects of the way they are laid out, the almost

incredible overcrowding that I noticed in several, is certainly

something that municipalities and regional districts should do

something about. The second thing I would like to observe is, quite

apart from the trailer parks which are rental parks, it seems to me,

that a pretty good case could be made for municipalities to look over

their planning layout and their subdivision layout and probably provide

for a specific kind of subdivision which would permit a person to move

his trailer onto his own individually owned lot. There are instances

where, I think, a municipality might be able to move in that direction.

This bill will come in by proclamation. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a

representative of a riding which has been toiling with mobile homes for

some while, I felt that I shouldn't let this bill go past without a

couple of words. I might try and speak to the principle of the bill. If

I do, it will be the first speech on this bill that deals with the

principle.

I want to agree with the Minister that there is an absence of

regulations about the whole question of mobile homes. There is an

absence of the specific kinds of subdivisions that he mentions, I agree

with that. But what's more important is an absence of leadership, Mr.

Speaker, which is not contained in this bill. Therefore, I am not sure

whether I can speak about it in length or not.

The absence of leadership has been noted by no less than the

Minister himself. And thereby hangs a tale, I suppose. But, in his

remarks, the Minister pointed out that, on his trips around the

Province, he sees these courts laid out in bad fashion,

higgledy-piggledy, cheek by jowl. Yet, the principle of this bill, Mr.

Speaker, as witnessed by the schedule, is different from the bill

enabling legislation that is currently being adopted by the

municipalities, where the table of fees is based on the size of the

unit. Now, we see the

schedule based on the size of the land that the

unit occupies and, in fact, will increase the area occupied by a mobile

home — 1,000 sq. ft. or m ore is $8 per month, 5 00 sq. ft., lie ss

than a 1,000 sq. ft. Is $5 dollars per month (interruption) . In that

case, the legislation, again, is badly drafted.

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem. We get the kind of speech

introducing the bill which shows, to a certain extent, that the

Minister hasn't read it. I will have to come to that on committee. I

can read as well as the next man, I hope, and if it says, "…area

occupied by mobile home…" However, we'll take the point up in

committee, unless he wants to take it up in answer. That is different

from that which is operating now, where we are taxing the mobile home

by size of the home itself and that does not say and is not repeated in

the legislation…

The next point, Mr. Speaker, is that the whole bill before us deals

with the question of fees and another bill that came before the House

deals with the question of tolls. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that

the principle of this bill is to accommodate the semantic language,

likened — I can't use the word "misleading" — but certainly it's an

avoidance reaction by the Minister to use the word "tax." Frankly,

until this important segment and growing segment of our society

qualifies on equal ground to all the members of society, that is, to

get the home-owner grant on their property, then, we have got not only

second-class citizens but we've got third-class citizens, as far as

mobile home parks are concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I have

only one point to make in regards to this bill and that is that the

people who own mobile homes own a home; therefore, they are entitled to

a home-owner grant. I think even more so than many other types of

home-owners because, very often, these are people who have to go and

claw out some development from the forests of British Columbia or some

other remote area of the Province. These

[ Page 799 ]

are the people who are taming the frontier, bringing the revenue

into Government, trying to become a little more comfortable under the

harsh conditions that always go with these frontier developments. Yet,

we are too cheap to pay them a home-owner grant. It's a form of

discrimination, another form of discrimination and, as always, it's

directed against people who are in a minority and are really too weak

to become a powerful voting block. It's a denial of justice, Mr.

Speaker, to go about it this way.

It may be that it's very fair to collect fees from people who have

mobile homes, as a means of compensating those who have to provide

services. I certainly understand the feelings of the municipalities and

the school boards that are involved because there has to be a way in

which people who utilize these services help to cover their cost. But,

surely, that's what the home-owner grant is all about. It seems to be

most unfair to swat these people between the eyes in order to cover up

for what's been an unfair impost on cities and municipalities and

school boards in the past. I just wish that we could have a little bit

of elemental fairness from the Government, handling problems like

these. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like the Government to consider this for a

day or two. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of

the House.

Motion not agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: Adjournment has been refused. The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words about mobile homes, mobile home parks,

mobile home park fees, and the situation in which we find ourselves in

the Province of British Columbia. A survey, last year, in Nanaimo,

showed that of 10,000 school children, 60 of them came from mobile

homes. Ten thousand school children in the whole district and only 60

children came from mobile homes out of 10,000 in the district.

An examination of mobile homes generally shows that they are

occupied either by young couples, just starting out in life, or retired

couples who didn't want the work of maintaining the regular home which

they had occupied during the years when they were raising their family.

I have spoken earlier on the need for giving the home-owner grant to

people who own mobile homes. There has been a problem, especially in

the lower mainland and in the built-up areas, with mobile homes because

of the failure of the Government to give the municipalities the

authority and the power to tax mobile homes at their value. The

Government has consistently refused to pass the legislation that would

allow for the taxing of mobile homes as any other home is taxed. There

is a very good reason why the Government doesn't want to do that

because once they give the municipalities the authority to tax the

mobile home in the same way as any other home, then, it's entitled to

the home-owner grant. When you examine the values of the mobile homes,

and the home-owner grant at $170, or whatever it happened to be in the

past, you would see that, in actual fact, that home-owner grant would

be a simple transfer payment from the Provincial Treasury right to the

municipality because it's unlikely that the assessment and the taxes on

a mobile home, the average mobile home, would exceed the amount of the

home-owner grant. That's basically why the Government has consistently

refused to give the municipalities this taxing right. It's because the

Government has refused to give the municipalities this taxing right

that the municipalities in the lower mainland and the lower end of

Vancouver Island, and developing elsewhere, too, are reluctant to have

mobile home sites within the municipality. That's why we have

inadequate and unsatisfactory mobile home sites in the Province of

British Columbia. There was an edition of the Professional Builder, put

out about a year or so ago, devoted almost entirely to mobile home

sites and the way they are being handled where there is a more

reasonable approach to them. We find that these mobile home sites are

complete units, with sidewalks, street lights, roadways, swimming

pools, recreation centres, tree-lined streets, and an admirable way in

which to live. But we will never get it until we recognize them as

homes, until we treat them in the same way as other homes and we

require much more legislation than this to correct the problems that we

are having with the mobile home sites in the Province of British

Columbia. Until the municipalities have this right, then, they will be

reluctant to have the kind of mobile home sites that they should have.

I agree with the Minister that, in many cases, they are cheek by jowl,

they are lined up like army barracks and it is a most unsatisfactory

way in which to have people living. Until they are recognized for

taxable purposes in the normal way, then, you'll continue to have that.

We look at the

schedule to the bill and you can argue all you please

about the meaning of the words "area occupied by a mobile home" and

they are being assessed on that basis… If the Minister says that's not

true, that they are not being assessed on the size of the mobile home

but on the area that the mobile home is set into, then, because of the

increase in costs or no matter which way you do it, you're trapped on

it. Because of the increased cost in the larger area occupied by the

mobile home, then, you will try and get more and more into a smaller

space. Now, it's either that the fee is based on the actual area,

outside dimension of the mobile home, or it's in the area allotted to

each mobile home. One or the other. If it's the one, then, it's

according to the size of the trailer or mobile home. If it's the other,

the tendency will be to get more and more of them into a smaller space,

in order to get more return from the space available.

We talk about utilization of land. The average acre of land in the

Province produces home sites for four homes out of an acre of land. In

properly laid-out mobile homes sites, and this is a tree-lined one,

with recreation centres and swimming pools, you get seven of them to an

acre of land (interruption) . No, no. I'm saying this is better use of

land because you are getting seven adequate home sites with the

recreational facilities and all the rest of it. It works out to seven

of these home sites to an acre of land and that's allowing for all of

the streets and the swimming pools and recreation centres and the

washrooms and all the rest of it. It would make a much better use of

land and the ones that I have seen developed in this way…as I say,

this

article in the Professional Builder indicates very clearly that,

instead of trying to push them to one side, we should be enacting

legislation recognizing facts as they are and that more and more people

are going to go to mobile home sites and mobile homes because of the

initial cost and because of the cost commitment. We should see that

they are developed in a rational way (interruption) . That's right.

Three or four of them never move. But even though they do move,

generally, they move because they are following their jobs and they

stay there as long as the job lasts. In essence, it's a form of

discrimination.

[ Page 800 ]

I would ask the Minister to re-examine this legislation because it

has been a festering sore, the whole matter of mobile home sites, has

been a festering sore for too long and this legislation will not solve

this growing problem. I suggest, Mr. Minister, that it says the purpose

of this bill is to enact a Mobile Home Fee Act and it's

self-explanatory… Right off the bat, it's not self-explanatory because

we are in an argument as to the meaning of the words, "area occupied by

the mobile home." I suggest you look at facts as they are and that you

bring in proper, adequate legislation, recognizing the land use

involved, encouraging the municipalities to allow for the development

of proper mobile home sites. That won't happen until you recognize them

as homes and treat them exactly the same way as other homes, allowing

the municipalities to tax them and allowing them to get the full

benefit of the home-owner grant.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): This has been a

rather knotty problem, spelt with a k, for a long while and the

attempts of Government, in many ways, to solve it and assist the

municipalities in coming to grips with it, too, have caused several

attempts at it. I agree with some of the previous speakers. I have

mentioned before that I think that the attitude of many of us has been

one of exaggeration, that the problem is not one for school tax

purposes, as we have made out the case for. I know that, in the real

estate business, many of the people who have retired found that their

own homes were more than they could cope with. They came here from

other Provinces to retire and found that there is more satisfaction in

living in a mobile home. It met their needs and is better than buying a

piece of property and building, or buying an existing home. It wasn't

an escape from taxation, in any sense. They wished to bear their own

fair share, but there was no manner in which the legislation really

permitted this effectively.

We, in fact, have driven this kind of housing almost underground and

made it something that was to be despised or ridiculed and really

accepted as inferior housing when, in many cases, the accommodation was

superior to what I could take you to by way of old, old housing that

people are living in today.

I think we should have been more in step with the zoning people in

our municipalities and brought this type of habitation up to a standard

that would have been acceptable and not created a second-class

impression about it. It's mostly an impression. I've heard most people,

who go through a new mobile home, ooh and aah over it far more than

they do many of the contemporary homes that are built for low-cost

housing, for instance. The compactness of that home, the unit… I think

that we could well look at the title, to have done something about

that, and call it modular housing or habitation. As long as we are

going to be struggling over a term that is not really factual — three

out of four never move — we're classifying people in an area and

creating the stigma that shouldn't exist around this type of housing.

It's superior housing to many of the old homes that we now have on the

market — where senior citizens, moving into a place that has a small

lot, and I speak of this knowingly because many of the homes that were

built suitable for senior citizens were built under zoning that allowed

400 to 700 square ft. In some areas, and those houses are not allowed

to be built any more, unless it's in a stacked housing. Then, we come

to the fact of the $170 home-owner grant…and we're looking at

something that is not consistent here. We are passing legislation that

allows or accepts the principle that housing that's stacked in nowhere,

on top one on the other, qualifies for the home-owner grant. Yet, if

you have it on a lot and because its a compact unit, it doesn't

qualify. There's just no reasonable assurance that this is good

legislation in that aspect.

I think we've got to recognize that this type of housing is with us

to stay. People want it and, at a time when we are trying to cut back

on the cost of housing, we are intensifying the present existing

pressure on high-priced housing. This doesn't do anything for rent

control. If you want good rent control, let's have a surplus of housing

and you've got the best rent control in the country. Many people would

be better served in this type of housing, modular housing, than in any

other way that I know of. They like the unit that is taken care of, on

the basis of one management type, almost town housing. They like this.

The roads and everything else are under the auspices and expense of the

operator. Municipalities here get off free of expense and care of the

areas. The recreational facilities are at the cost of the operator and

so on. I think the municipalities have been derelict and I appreciate

the Minister's remarks in saying that the municipalities should get on

with comprehensive planning and working in detail and working with

them. I'm sure there are many sites that would be acceptable in a

municipality that would not intrude, infringe, or detract or

deteriorate from existing housing, but would add to and complement.

After all, the people who live in them are British Columbia citizens,

most of the time, and we should be citizen-minded and oriented. I, for

one, find this bill an attempt, only, to come to grips with the

taxation problem, but not to any grips with the problem of living and

housing. This, I feel, is trying to assess a problem on a very

fractional basis, a very fractional basis, that really I doubt will

work. I find it most difficult to support it in principle. It's

something that I think should be given a great deal further thought in

respect to it's being leading legislation. It doesn't really lead us

very far.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I'd better give you the right title or I'm liable to get into difficulties with you.

This question of mobile homes, year after year, has been a problem.

I don't think that the municipalities have been derelict so much as the

department has been derelict. They've been trying to come to grips.

They've promised each year and they have made feeble attempts to change

the Municipal Act and one thing and another to deal with mobile homes.

But, in each case, they have come up with a sterile act that has no

value to it as far as the mobile home-owner comes into the picture.

Now, I understand the reason you don't want to tax these homes or

assess them for taxes is that many of them are on leased land. These

people pay up to $40 and $50 a month and $65 for a piece of ground to

put this mobile home on. This is just like taxes — that's 12 times 7,

we'll say, $840, they pay right there for nothing, just for the right

of the land. They axe not recognized on the assessment rolls for their

trailers and given a home-owner grant.

The Government can lease a piece of land to somebody to build a

summer home on and they will assess them and tax them. The government

does — on leased land and I don't see

[ Page 801 ]

why that same rule shouldn't prevail when it comes to mobile homes.

You should be able to assess them the same as you assess a summer home

on land that's leased by the Government. Many of these homes are worth

$12, $14, or $15 thousand. They pay $700 or $800 for the right to have

it on the lot. You charge them a set amount to be living in that

home…with occupancy tax or with some other tax that you set

up…alongside of them is another trailer that pays the same tax and

probably is worth only $1,000 or $2,000. Alongside of that is an older

home that's nowhere near the home that the trailer is and they get away

with one dollar taxes a year. With their home-owner grant, all they pay

is a dollar taxes. There is no justice on this question at all. I think

that these people should get credit for living in a home. They are

paying practically as much for that home as they would if it were

sitting on a lot. If the Government feels that this is a knotty problem

and difficult to deal with, I don't see why they didn't turn this

question over to the Municipal Committee to come up with some kind of a

solution. We dealt with indefeasible titles for a block of air up there

to people. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to deal with a problem

that's on the ground. You have given to these, one on top of the other.

You are giving home-owner grants to people who own an apartment, way up

in a building. Yet, you are not going to give a home-owner grant to

people who own a trailer. You can set the amount for the trailer — but

these big trailers, for all intents and purposes, they are permanent

homes. It's only in cases where people have got to move that,

sometimes, they move those homes. But, for all intents and purposes,

they are just as permanent as a summer home that's built or a trailer

that's put on a leased lot at a lake. You charge them taxes on those

things without any question. Yet, you deny the municipality the right

to tax the trailers.

I think that the people who own trailers, who are living in mobile

homes, would be glad to get away from the criticism that's heaped upon

them about not paying for education of their children and not paying

for fire protection and for not paying for some of these things. I

think, indirectly, they pay a lot, when they pay anywhere up to $70 for

the right to use a lot. They are paying, indirectly, taxes there. But

they are criticized just the same. The only way we will get away from

this criticism, and the mobile home-owner would be glad to get away

from it, is by treating them the same as everyone else and treating the

mobile home as a home and taxing it, accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I have had

quite a bit of correspondence from residents and owners of these mobile

homes. They feel they are being discriminated against. Some of the

organized areas in the Yale-Lillooet riding have already passed by-laws

within their communities to have their special municipal tax on mobile

homes. This is going to make it possible for people with a mobile home

living anywhere in the Province, organized or unorganized….and to

me, Mr. Speaker, this is very definitely class legislation. Here, the

Minister of Lands is singling out the working people who go out into

the hills and help build the highways, help build the dams, build the

tunnels and help build the Province, the ones who are prepared to move

out of the great cities and live a more rural life. We are placing many

special taxes upon them and, also, the miners. The people living in

mobile homes already pay a 5 per cent sales tax when they purchase that

home and that tax is not just on the material, Mr. Speaker, the tax is

also on the labour that went into assembling that material. The tax is

also on the manufacturer's or builder's profit and the tax is also on

the salesman's commission. So that the people who are forced to live in

these mobile homes are being taxed most unfairly. These people do not

receive the home acquisition grant nor the home-owner grant. I think,

in all fairness, they should receive both, where they own their land. I

think we should work out an arrangement that, if we are going to allow

them to be taxed by these special taxes, they should get the home-owner

grant regardless. If they are paying all the taxes and additional taxes

to other people, these men and their families who go out into the

unorganized areas of this Province to work in the mines, to work in the

woods, to dig the tunnels, to build the dams, I think they should be

given equality with all other citizens and home-owners of this

Province. But, instead, Mr. Speaker, we penalize these people and we do

it by passing class legislation and creating a caste system in this

Province. That is what this legislation is. I don't think it is good

legislation for this Province. So, I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Minister of Finance, to consider extending and expanding the home

acquisition grant and the home-owner grant to these people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: I think the question here is applying a

different standard to one kind of home-owner as compared to that of

another, and the principle of this bill does discriminate between these

two kinds of home-owners in the Province of British Columbia. A very

large proportion, now surprisingly large, of the homes that are being

built each year are what are called mobile homes. It is an industry, so

far as the landlords are concerned, who rent the space, provide the

improvements to which the mobile home is tied, such as the sewage

connection, water and light. Rent is paid, rather excessive rent, is

paid by the tenant to the landlord. Now, the Government is seeking to

tax, by this bill, that tenant and is doing it on a basis that does not

take into account the value of the particular home, as is true with the

other kind of home-owner. The other kind of home is carefully assessed,

the value of the improvements are calculated, supposedly, on a fair

basis, throughout the Province, but not so in the case of this

home-owner, where, if he pays $2,000 for a mobile home or pays $20,000

it would make no difference, he is taxed exactly the same amount — not

according to his ability to pay but in accordance with the square

footage of that mobile home.

There is another very distinct discrimination and that is, if a

home-owner, who is being taxed on his home property by the

municipality, fails to pay his taxes, then, of course, he's in default

on his taxes. After two years, there is a tax sale and he can recover

his land by paying up the arrears of taxes — but not so for the mobile

home-owner. He can be charged under the proposal, here, in Criminal

Court and treated like a criminal, when a home-owner who has land is

merely subject to the default provisions of the Municipal Act . Now, why

this distinction between one home-owner and the other? Why treat one

like a criminal…because he may be out of work, he may be one of the

workers who has been displaced on a job in the Peace River and…I say,

under the bill… (interruption) . You know, the Minister is out of

order. You

[ Page 802 ]

shouldn't talk about particular sections but there's clear provision

in here for the Lieutenant-Governor to make regulations, and with the

force of law, in regards to penalties and so on (interruption) .

Oh, I read the bill and I read what it said in the sections to which

the Honourable the Minister refers. That's

section 5 — it deals with

mobile park operators. Well, don't try to pretend that other people

can't read. We often read these better than the Ministers. I'll tell

you this, for the Minister's information, that, under the previous

legislation that this is going to replace, the municipalities were

charging and convicting and fining through the magistrates, in Criminal

Court, the mobile home-owners who had failed to pay their fees

(interruption) . Surrey?… No, the owners, and I know this personally by

seeing one in the Supreme Court. They charged and convicted the owners

of the mobile homes, not the operators. That's under the legislation

that you are replacing. So, what are you going to do? Are you going to

give it an opening in

section 9 for dragging these people into Court

and fining them from $25 to $200, the same as you are going to do to

the operators? How do we know this? It says, "…the force of law,"

section 9. The municipalities took it that they had that power. Are

you saying that the Courts that dealt with this were ultra vires — had

no right to do this? There is a number of people who are going to write

you letters about the fines they had to pay in police courts, in the

Provincial Court in Surrey and other places. In Coquitlam, someone is

charged and convicted and you say the law, as it was didn't put that

kind of penalty on one kind of home-owner. It did. Under the Municipal

Act , if you have a by-law, and you gave the power to them to make a

by-law, if they are in breach of the by-law, then, they can be fined

like anyone else who is in breach of the by-law. So…that's your

department. You are not looking after the municipal by-laws properly.

You don't know what they are doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Members please address the Chair?

MR. DOWDING: Yes, the Minister should address the Chair. Mr.

Speaker, I point out that these are problems that there should be clear

guarantees on, that the discrimination against the mobile home-owners

will be eliminated. I put this to the Minister. If you want a way to

tax these people, Why don't you tax the landlord, the way you do every

other landlord who has an apartment? He shows an annual record to the

assessor of the percentage of occupancy for the year and the trailer,

then, stands as an improvement, on the change in definition, to the

land. You work it out fairly and equitably so that he pays it through

his rent, like every other tenant does. Why has this kind of class

legislation and this particular discrimination that you are proposing

set up on a flat fee basis on the area of the home rather than on the

value of the home? It's totally ridiculous. It's not fair taxation. No

wonder they are so upset about this Government and the way you people

tax them. You don't have the decency to call it a tax, you call it a

fee. Ridiculous. I hope that the Minister will do something about these

sections to give these people a decent break.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 78 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 98, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 98,

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the principal amendments in this

bill deal with three matters, one, of discipline, one, of credentials,

and the third relating to the insurance programme the Law Society

conducts for the benefit of its members.

On the disciplinary area, the main change in the bill will be to

have disciplinary matters dealt with by a committee of the Benchers of

the Law Society, rather than the necessity of having the full number of

Benchers sitting throughout as the members of the discipline committee.

We also are proposing extensive amendments in regards to the procedures

to be followed when matters of discipline arise. Under these new

amendments, a discipline committee may be authorized by the Benchers to

take certain limited action with respect to the complaint, but this

would be limited to dismissing the citation determining whether a

former member of the society has been guilty of conduct or misconduct,

giving rise to the exercise of disciplinary powers, or determining

whether a student or articled clerk has contravened the rules. Where a

person is found guilty of anything, which may be inquired into under

the act, the Benchers, as a whole, may then act by resolution. One of

the more important amendments of the bill is to provide greater

flexibility, in terms of rather than just giving a simple reprimand to

also impose a fine, a penalty, not exceeding $1,000, which is a new

principle. One of the major provisions of the bill, relating to the

credentials, is the change from British subject to Canadian citizen.

It's virtually a universal requirement that a lawyer be a national of

the country in which he practises. I think, probably, the only

exception to that ride has been in the case of a number of countries

where it has been British subjects rather than citizenship in their own

country. But, normally…. In the United States, for example, you

have to be an American citizen to practise before the Courts because,

there as here. a lawyer does have responsibilities which relate to

administration of justice and that sort of thing, which generally

requires citizenship in that country. With the Commonwealth, now, the

change has been considerable over the years. We have as well a number

of Commonwealth countries, now, that are republic, that do not have any

allegiance to the Queen or anything of that nature. Some of the members

of the Commonwealth countries are requiring Canadian citizenship…not

Canadian citizenship but the citizenship of their own country as a

requirement for the Bar. The governing bodies of the legal profession

in Canada have given this question extensive study during the past two

years and they have agreed, Nationally, that it would be desirable in

each Province to make this change to Canadian citizenship. Hence, that

provision is found in the bill.

There are also some amendments having to do with insurance funds,

that will enable the cost of the negligence insurance scheme to be paid

out of the insurance fund rather than against the general revenue of

the law society. These amendments have come forward at the request of

the Benchers of the law society of British Columbia. I move that the

bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 803 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it

appears that, in concert with the Attorney-General and the Government,

the lawyers have taken some steps to see that their affairs are a

little better regulated insofar as offending members are concerned. I'm

sure that they were in concert with the department when this bill came

into being.

There is one item in here that gives me a little bit of concern from

the viewpoint of principle, particularly dealing with the concept of

innocence until proven guilty in the context of a hearing. I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General that he would perhaps

take another look at the bill concerning this power of suspension of

people without hearing. I think it might be a little more appropriate

to have in here rather than a suspension, something along the line,

shall we say, of the ability to freeze a trust account, much similar to

the provisions that were before the House earlier today in the Mortgage

Brokers Act , or perhaps grant the power to the Benchers to request that

their inequity receiver be appointed very quickly. In situations, where

this unfortunate trust account deficiency arises, sometimes it's very

necessary to act exceptionally quickly and I don't know that suspension

is the answer there.

Quite frankly, I think it's regrettable that this provision has to

be in the bill — the suspensions without hearing. If you look

particularly, Mr. Attorney-General, at

section 18, that's what I'm

talking about. If it is felt necessary to have this procedure in here,

I would prefer the one that I have suggested because, quite frankly,

you are violating two very cardinal principles of the common laws, as I

said: a person is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty, and that

proving of guilt has got to be by virtue of fair hearing. It is

considered, obviously, by the Law Society and by the Department of the

Attorney-General that perhaps this immediate suspension is a

necessary fact but I say if it is felt, by both of these concerns, that

it may be necessary that, perhaps, the freezing of an account would be

a better procedure than the one suggested here. This could give rise to

some mighty unfortunate circumstances where a person could be suspended

and, then, as a result of a hearing, it could be found there was not

any ground for a suspension. Then, the Law Society and the Benchers

could face law suits, there.

One other item which is of concern to me in the bill, Mr.

Attorney-General, is the fact that there is no reference made, in the

bill

before the House today as to where the fine goes. Is it to go to the

Benchers or to consolidated revenue, or what happens to it? To the

Crown? If it says so, I've missed it, but I don't see it in the act. If

it's supposed to go to the Crown perhaps you should include that in the

bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): If I can join in the

debate, being a lawyer but not having the flu, I don't know whether

it's permissible for me to enter this cozy little debate. But I want to

congratulate the Attorney-General on the flexibility that he has

introduced into this bill in that a member of the Bar Association

doesn't have to be either disbarred for a period of time or no action

taken, in effect. Now, he can be fined. That's kind of a revolutionary,

drastic step to give a private body — the right to fine up to $1,000.

Yet, I think, it's a necessary power and a good power because there are

cases where the lawyer should not be disbarred.

There would be vast disruption to his clients' business, among other

things, and the offence may not be such as to warrant disbarment, even

for a period of time, with that loss of reputation. A fine should be

made but it is a pretty extensive power to be given to a private body.

I think, too, Mr. Attorney-General, that the time will come when

there will have to be, on the benches, public representatives. I

appreciate that the lawyers will say that we watch out for the client.

We watch out for the public, but there is a large

section of the public

which doesn't believe that. They believe that lawyers stick together

for their professional interest. Now, I don't know how an idea like

that could come into anyone's head, but there it is (laughter) . It's a

widely held public notion and I think the public agrees, at this time,

that there should be an advocate for the public, one or more public

representatives sitting on the benches, a lay representative speaking

up for the public. I think the lawyers will have to get used to that

idea and so will the doctors and some other professions, as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I certainly

do not intend to rise to belabour the point of the position of the

lawyers. I was just saying to my very teamed friend that I, certainly

at no time would ever want to attack or make fun of the lawyers. My

father always said that the lawyers are a lot smarter than you think

they are. He said, "Where do you think they get all the money we take

off them?"

I'm rising, however, to commend the Attorney-General, today, on one

phase of the bill that no one has really commented on. I think it marks

rather a milestone in the history of the Province of British Columbia.

To my knowledge, this is the first time, in a public act, that we have

recognized the fact that the affairs of our Province should, in

essence, be governed by Canadian citizens. The fact that we have moved

to this step in this bill, for the first time, and have said that to be

a lawyer and to act in the Courts of law in this land, you will have to

be a Canadian citizen, I think, is a great step forward. I hope very

sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that this is not meant to be any reflection, in

any form, on other members of society. It is merely, I think, a

significant sign of the times. It has been recognized Federally and it

is time, I feel, of course, that we should be recognizing it

Provincially. I hope that, from this bill, we will see that we have put

up a road mark in a sign that can lead eventually into our Elections

Act , into our Municipal Act , and into other acts, in which there is a

differentiation as to British subject and Canadian citizen, etc. I do

wish to commend the Attorney-General for this. I think this is the

first Province in Canada to enact this portion of this particular act.

I think it marks a very significant step and I certainly want to

commend the Attorney-General for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would just like

to say that there is a real anomaly in here in that the lawyers are to

be granted the fact that to practise one's profession, one must be a

Canadian citizen which means, in effect, that people who may have

qualifications in other countries may be delayed up to five years after

entering

[ Page 804 ]

Canada before, in fact, they can practise law. I hope that this

isn't a foot-in-the-door sort of thing, so that other professions may

ask for this particular requirement. While we may be well off for

lawyers, we are not well off for doctors, nor are we well off for many

other learned people who come to our country and who make vital

contributions in the time before they are allowed to become Canadian

citizens. The great anomaly, of course, is the fact that, while those

who have to administer the law, in fact, now, will have to be Canadian

citizens, the anomaly is that those who make the laws, that is, the

Members of this Legislature, do not have to be Canadian citizens…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we come back to the principle of the bill?

MR. McDIARMID: The principle, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a

far-reaching bill, in terms of restrictions to people with

qualifications coming into the country, in that, I hope, it's not one

that will be extended in other lines.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: I want to agree with the Member from Vancouver

Centre who said that this is a first step. I think it's singularly

unfortunate that, in an important thing like this, we haven't had an

opportunity to debate this new step in terms of public policy on a much

wider basis than the Legal Professions Act , notwithstanding the

Minister's opening remarks about "…it is normally conceived to be

correct and proper that a lawyer be a citizen of his country." That's

all very well and good but — this is a significant departure, a

significant change, in the laws of our country.

I want to state, right off the bat, that it is my view and the view

of my family that, if you come to a country, you become a citizen just

as soon as you can, just as soon as possible you want to take

part in

many of the endeavours of the country.

What we have here in this bill is a policy of discouragement rather

than encouragement. It seems to me that we may be, and I agree with

what the Member for Alberni says, we may indeed be working against the

National Government, working against some of our best interests in this

kind of legislation, which is preventative rather than, say,

encouraging. Surely, what we should be doing is saying to people that

you may go into any endeavour of life, private or public, in this

Province but you'd better become a Canadian citizen as soon as you can.

I'd much sooner see legislation which says that unless you become a

Canadian citizen as soon as you can, you had better pack it up — if

that's public policy and the Government is making that. But, to

arbitrarily say to a young law graduate, and there are many of them in

this Province who are making names for themselves, that you come over

here from Kines College in Newcastle or any of the other famous law

schools and you can do a year at UBC, because that's what you have to

do, you have to take one year of Canadian law. Then, you have to,

somehow, exist in the wilderness for two years — that's in the British

system — or four years, if you happen to come from another country that

doesn't happen to have reciprocity. In my view, it's wrong. It's wrong

on both counts. There is no argument about that kind of waste of time.

I would much prefer to see this kind of permissive legislation rather

than this discouragement because of immigration. That's my viewpoint

and I think the Government has got it the wrong way around. It's as

simple as that.

Let me add another point which I think is absolutely nonacceptable.

You say it's a matter of public policy, and the Member from Vancouver

Centre gets up and makes his speech that I have heard him make before,

and, then, hidden away in a clause you say, "…however the Benchers may

decide." Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who are the Benchers to decide?

In clause 11 and in clause 15 — let's follow this argument through. It

says that a British subject may become I think the word is articled or

admitted as a solicitor if he is enrolled as an articled clerk before

July 1, 1971. In this case, the person shall cease to be a member of

the society if he fails to file with the secretary proof of his

Canadian citizenship within seven years of his call to the Bar. That's

what I've been asking for. You've got it in one section, number 11.

You've got it in

section 15, exactly what I'm asking for. Then you add

five words "….unless the Benchers otherwise direct." Well, who are the

Benchers to decide whether a person should or should not? Here, we've

taken a principle of the bill and we should say that they are Canadian

citizens. Now, we say, if he's gone through the loophole before July 1

and he's done a good job, and so on, the Benchers may say, "He's no

need to bother." Well, nonsense to that, Mr. Minister. It makes you

wonder, now, what kind of a fellow…Let's take two lawyers who have

gone this route. They are articled before July 1, 1971, and neither of

them have filed proof of their Canadian citizenship seven years from

that date. One the Benchers like and one the Benchers don't like. One

has given the Benchers a bad time and one hasn't given the Benchers a

bad time. One has made a name for himself in a certain kind of work and

one hasn't made a name for himself in a certain kind of work.

What kind of rules are we getting on this thing? I suggest, Mr.

Minister, that you should take sections 6 to 15 back, reword them in

line and in full spirit of the clauses in

section 11 and 15 — that you

file proof of your certificate of Canadian citizenship. Then, we'll

have

an act we can all vote for with a clear conscience.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I was born in

Vancouver and that makes me a Canadian but I'm also very proud to be a

British subject. I think all of us here should be very proud to be part

of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This particular act does

something which, I think, is unusual to any act or any bill that I have

taken

part in since I came to this Legislature, and that is that it

requires a person, in becoming a lawyer, as a condition, he must be a

Canadian citizen. When he becomes a Canadian citizen he also becomes a

British subject. Yet, all the way through,

section after section, in

this act you see it discriminating against British subjects. This is

something which I object to, which is something I don't think should be

part of legislation of this Province and I don't know why on earth the

Cabinet ever permitted a bill to come into the House like this in this

condition. I just don't think it's a right thing to do for a part of

the Parliament of the British Commonwealth to discriminate,

particularly against British Subjects.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

[ Page 805 ]

MR. DOWDING: One word, Mr. Speaker, on the point. That is,

after July, 1970, there will be no way I take it, from reading the

amendment proposed to

section 41 of the present act, for a British

subject from Great Britain, for example, who has practiced the same

kind of law as we do here… (interruption) . Well, why should he have to

wait five years, when he's fully trained? I can understand his having

to be enrolled here as a student for one year to get used to our law

and perhaps take a year finishing up in our law here for our Statutes

and so on, to become familiar with them but, basically, they are

skilled in the same law (interruption) .

I'm talking mainly about those who are skilled in our law and they

have done very successfully in this Province. The idea of having those

people wait five years is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. I suggest

that you take this back and you redraw it so that, if they show the

intention of becoming a Canadian citizen, then, let the Benchers set

the rules that way…as long as they show their intention. Why should

they have to wait five years to practise their profession? Ridiculous!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Does the Attorney-General wish to reconsider

this and bring it back in with amendments? Or, if you want to do it,

you'll do it in committee? (Interruption.)

Right. Will you be considering amendments in closing the debate? Will you be telling us that…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to hear from the Attorney-General, in closing the debate, his opinion on the comments that have been made.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 98 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

Bill 67 intituled

An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act was committed,

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

the next sitting after today.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Second reading of Bill 103, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 103, Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, Bill 103 is the Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act .

In presenting this bill for second reading, I first want to express

my appreciation to the Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey for presenting to this Legislature a bill similar in principle,

designed to accomplish the same purpose as Bill 103. I think, too, I

should include the Member for Columbia River and, particularly, to

congratulate the Leaders of the three Parties represented here. I've

had a little greater opportunity than most of you to listen to the

radio broadcasts and watch the television broadcasts these last several

days and I do appreciate the reception that this particular bill has

received from the Leaders of the three Parties.

I think the principle of the bill, of course, is well known — an

attempt to bring to a halt the ceaseless efforts of the purveyors of

tobacco to sell their product and particularly, to introduce the

product to the young people of the Province.

There is general consensus that smoking is harmful. In years gone

by, perhaps that evidence wasn't quite so clear as it is today. But the

more evidence that is adduced to demonstrate the harmful effects of

smoking, it seems the greater the effort on the part of the firms

engaged in the business to engage in extensive advertising to create

the opposite impression. We've had a very intensive and a very

persuasive advertising campaign in this particular area. We've seen in

the United States an attempt made there, through legislation, to stop

the advertising on radio and television. Some other countries of the

world as well have taken limited steps.

Our step, here, is one of total prohibition of advertising. We're

not attempting to dictate to people as to whether they shall or shall

not smoke, or whether they shall or shall not sell the product. That,

of course, would not be possible for us to do. But, hopefully, this

legislation will reduce the intensity of the propaganda that is being

presented today in every public media — propaganda that is becoming

more extensive and on a larger and larger scale in all avenues of the

news media. The real genesis of this legislation is, of course, the

bill that has already been passed by this House, Bill 11, which sets up

the $25 million fund to provide for education against smoking, for one

thing. It would seem inconsistent for us, on the one hand, to spend the

taxpayers' money in this fashion if, on the other hand, we are going to

countenance and condone the efforts, through advertising, to sell the

product and especially the appeal to the youth of the Province that it

is a socially desirable thing to do.

I mentioned the bill of the honourable Member, Bill 9, and the

principle is not too different in this bill, although I think our bill

is more clear in terms of the complete prohibition, subject to the

exceptions that are properly made, I suggest, in terms of the packaging

and the sale of the product in the stores of the Province. Enforcement

of this measure, and this is an important provision, will be by the

injunctive process as set forth in

section 3 of the bill .

Contraventions of the legislation will not be subject to prosecution

under the

Summary Convictions Act. The advertising of cigarettes and

tobacco is not, in our view, within the range of activities that

should, at this time, be made subject to prosecution in our Criminal

Courts. However, it should be open to any citizen or group of citizens

in this Province to enforce the legislation if indeed there are any

contraventions.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there hasn't been any indication,

at this time that we won't have the cooperation of the manufacturers,

the wholesalers or the retailers of these products. I would certainly

expect them to comply fully with

[ Page 806 ]

the provisions of the legislation and, in my view, it will only be

by that compliance that they will have the respect and goodwill of the

people of this Province, assuming that the measure does meet with the

approval of the House. I would hope, too, that the Members of the

Legislature might go the additional mile, so to speak, and commemorate

this occasion by kicking the habit — those who haven't already done so.

That way it will have an even greater impact as far as the Province of

British Columbia is concerned. I move the bill be now read a second

time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, it's easier for

those of us who are nonsmokers to be virtuous about those people who do

smoke. I have the occasional cigar but, fortunately, I was lucky enough

to be able to kick the habit in my very early 20's. That was just a

couple of years ago… (laughter) .

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, maybe, not for the same reasons

but certainly with similar intentions as the Government has announced.

I have very strong feelings about the way that the best brains of the

advertising world have been called upon to sell certain products in a

manner that leaves the impression that, without these products a young

person, or for that matter, anyone, in our society, is just not quite

successful, or just not quite capable, unless they use these particular

products. Tobacco is one of the products that has become the focus of

the best brains and the best hucksterism of Madison Avenue. How

else…they even sell political parties, too, and I suppose they use

almost the same skills… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope that some day this bill

would be expanded to include that. While we are dealing with this

particular bill, one of the things that distresses me about this kind

of hucksterism is the use by the advertising industry, on behalf of

their clients, of examples around the use of cigarettes that, in my

opinion, are very misleading if not outright deceitful. For one thing,

there is the abuse of the roles of the sexes. The whole concept of the

degrading use of the image of the woman in North America is part and

parcel of the use of advertising in the cigarette industry. One only

has to pause and scan these ads to see that the men of distinction, or

the man who has the ability to garner around him a particular kind of

redhead, or blonde or shapely young lady, is identified with the kind

of cigarettes they smoke, rather than… Yes, the brunettes too, all of

them. Well, the impression… There is an attempt to leave the

impression that manliness and smoking cigarettes go hand in hand and,

of course, that indeed is not the case at all. The opposite is true.

After all, for a young person who is considering a close

acquaintanceship with a young lady or vice versa, nothing is worse than

tobacco on your breath. Also, the kind of mess the cigarettes…or the

lingering smell of cigarette smoke on clothing or in a room.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't know whether we are

talking about the principle of the bill or whether it's my conscience

that is bothering me, but I wish you would get back to whatever

principle there is in this bill (laughter) .

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Chair, not

everyone has been taken in by that advertising but there has been the

attempt by the industry, through the use of advertising, to equate

success with the use of cigarettes. Nothing is more deceptive than

seeing a man riding off on a Palamino horse into the West, with

cigarette smoke trailing as a measure of his success — the Western

image for a certain kind of cigarette.

I would think that this bill would be far more difficult to deal

with in a Province like Ontario. We don't have a tobacco industry in

this Province and, of course, because of that we can afford to be,

politically, far more virtuous. Nonetheless, the bill does represent a

step forward, in terms of a Government saying that, on the basis of

health reasons, cigarette smoking should not be promulgated by the use

of hucksterism through advertising or the advertising media.

A case is attempted to be made against this bill in that certain

printing will be lost, or certain revenues will be lost, to printing

establishments or the newspapers. I regret any newspaper or any

publication that has to rely on part of its revenue as pushing this

kind of advertising but I would challenge the whole role, then, of the

tobacco industry. If they feel that employment is at stake because of

their particular advertising, I would challenge them to place ads in

the same newspapers with the same amount of budget, warning against the

dangers of smoking cigarettes. If they are truly concerned about the

public welfare let them come up with counter smoking commercials, such

as some American television broadcasting stations are presently showing

— how square it is to smoke cigarettes or to use tobacco. That

challenge, I think, should be added to by the Premier of this Province.

I would like to hear the Premier publicly ask the tobacco industry that

is selling its products here in British Columbia to match its social

responsibility with its sales and make sure that the funds that they

have spent on advertising go either into medical research projects to

determine the detrimental effects of smoking, or otherwise, or to

advertising programmes against the very products that they are trying

to sell.

This bill, also, is one small step taken by legislators, in a small

way, to protest against the hucksterism that exists in North America,

which attempts to push products on the young people that we all know do

not do them any good.

In welcoming this bill, I want to extend my appreciation to the

Second Member for Point Grey, who has had the rare distinction of not

only having one of his bills accepted in this House…and the Member

from Columbia, the two of them…the rare distinction of not only

having this bill accepted in this House, but of having had public

recognition for the bill by the Government. It's not amazing — it's a

touchy bill. That's why they are spreading the responsibility on all

the Parties, as much as they can. But, they are politicians and, when

you're looking for a little safe ground, there is nothing like

spreading the whole thing around. That's like focusing on Bull Durham,

but we'll accept that sprinkling and go on, leading the way in North

America, I hope, in ending all cigarette advertising and not worrying

about the loss of any tobacco farmers' votes and pressing on in our

enlightened ways — on very safe ground, because we know that none of us

can ever be rolled up and smoked out of political existence by this

kind of bill in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 807 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): He is a very difficult act to follow, Mr. Speaker, I must say.

I don't think there is any question of a doubt, Mr. Speaker, that

smokers have rights and they can continue, under this bill, to smoke

just as much as they wish to. I think the position that has been taken

by the Members of this House, and I do hope all of the Members of this

House, is that people have got a right to health and it's the function

of Government and it's the function of the Legislature to do whatever

we can to protect and to advance the health of the people whom we are

very privileged to represent.

It seems that the tobacco industry and their advertisers, up to this

point, have been given pretty well a 12-month open hunting license in

the distribution of their products. But, you know, they've got to

remember one thing, and I think we should illustrate this fact to the

general public, and that is cigarettes are not necessary, they are not

a necessity of, life. To some extent, they are a fringe benefit and

fringe benefits are fine and dandy but we are not talking about

advertising food when we are talking about advertising cigarettes. If

we are going to be criticised by the industry which I think is pretty

evident if any one happened to read the newspaper reports over the

weekend, if we are going to be criticised by the industry for

attempting to advance the health of our communities, in my view, this

is just the kind of criticism I welcome. Quite frankly, my back is

quite strong enough to stand that and so is the back of every person,

I'd say, in this House. It shows one thing, if nothing else, that we're

on the move in this Province. The people are supporting this bill and

we are trying to wake up B.C. people to the fact that we'd like to see

B.C. be the most healthy place in which the people can live.

The owners of these products, and they are harmful products and

potentially dangerous products, quite frankly, are obscuring or smoke

screening the issue with the report that many of the spin-off benefits

of advertising will suffer. That, to me, is absolute hypocrisy because

they can continue on, if they wish to, with all their good works. They

can be just as altruistic as they wish to be but they just don't have

to advertise. It boils down to that. I think for anyone in the industry

to suggest the motivation for tobacco advertising is for anything other

than to increase sales is something that I just cannot buy.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in other parts…we are

not alone in this. There seem to be all sorts of criticisms pointed to

B.C. today, but we're not alone in the stand that has been taken. Lots

of other areas of the world have taken similar steps.

There is a very interesting report in the Victoria Times on January

29 of this year, and here are some startling figures. Figures from the

Tobacco Research Council showed Americans smoke more cigarettes than

any of the other 30 national groups in the survey. You know, I bet you

that is attributable greatly to advertising. Next on the list is

Canada, which is amazing to me, followed by Britain, Ireland,

Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Switzerland, West Germany and Belgium.

"American cigarette sales dropped after a sensational report by the

U.S. Surgeon-General in 1964, when he linked cigarettes with lung

cancer. Since 1966, health hazard warnings have been printed on

cigarette packs." I would just like to say a word on that before I

finish my remarks. Carrying on with this article, he said, "Cigarette

advertisements were barred from American television screens this year,

and radio, five years after a similar move in Britain. The British were

temporarily scared in 1962 by facts and figures presented by the Royal

College of Physicians. The Royal College produced a report this month,

January, 1971, which said that 27,500 middle-aged Britons die every

year from smoking, with lung cancer, coronary heart disease and chronic

bronchitis as the main killers. The College said that 90 per cent of

lung cancer — this is an amazing figure — 90 per cent of lung cancer

deaths were from smoking. The College of Physicians and Surgeons in

England said they hoped, this time, to "frighten people to life." Italy

has had cigarette advertising banned since 1962. In Saudi Arabia,

listen to this, cigarette advertisements are banned by law and

penalties for infringement range up to six months imprisonment. In

Sweden, this year, people will be warned in the campaign, 'If you must

smoke, then, don't inhale."' The

article goes on and on.

I would like to see very much in the bill one thing that is not

here, Mr. Speaker, and that is a warning. They have a warning in Great

Britain printed on the packages and it's to this effect. "Warning by

Her Majesty's Government — smoking can damage your health." In the

United States, since last November, cigarette makers have had to put on

each pack sold in the U.S. this notice. "Warning — the Surgeon General

has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health." In

the bill that I earlier placed before this Legislature — and I ask

leave, tonight, Mr. Speaker that it be withdrawn — I included the

caveat, "Warning — this product has a nicotine and tar content that is

harmful to human health." I think it would be most useful, at some

point, if, in British Columbia, we added that warning on each and every

package of cigarettes that are sold in the Province.

One word in the bill has disturbed me slightly and I've mentioned it

to the Attorney-General and that is the word "distribute." I hope that

perhaps we can take a pretty careful look at it because it's certainly

not the intent of this legislation to see that the newsboys and the

corner stores are run into the injunctive processes. That's not the

intent of the legislation at all. The intent of the legislation is to

get at the root-core advertising problem. Really and truly, I very much

go along with the statements of the Attorney-General, when he said that

he expected and hoped that the industry would subscribe to the law and

do what it can to back it. By that, I certainly do hope the industry is

not going to tear south of the border to advertise their wares and see

that they are pumped into British Columbia, thereby deliberately

flaunting the law because, if they mean what they say, they should

certainly not be doing that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, you will

recollect that in an earlier debate on another bill, even before the

Minister of Health had indicated the opinions of the Government, I had

said that I felt that liquor and tobacco advertising should be

prohibited. I recognize the problem and I recognize the fact that the

prohibition of advertising will not stop people from smoking. It

doesn't interfere with the rights of the manufacturer. It doesn't

interfere with the rights of the individual.

You know, I remember when the Minister of Agriculture quit smoking.

There had been a film shown over at the old cafeteria. I wasn't able to

get to see that film. That must have been about 1953 or 1954 and the

Minister saw that film and he hasn't smoked since. I remember the

Attorney-General being attacked by one of his own Members because of the

[ Page 808 ]

fact that he…no, no, the present Attorney-General — by one of his

own Members because of his pipe, which evidently was pretty awful,

according to those who sat with him in the Caucus room.

The passing of this bill will not solve the problem, I agree. I

support the bill, I advocated it and I have done, without question, for

a long time. I myself am one of those people who got hooked very young.

I left school when I was 14 and, in my culture and in my society, when

you went to work it was a recognition of your manhood. The other part

of the recognition was the fact that you smoked. It was part of my

society, my culture, my generation. Anything that happens and continues

to happen is a reflection of its culture and its generation. It is our

responsibility as legislators to see that we take the necessary steps

to change the culture, to change the accepted recognitions, to change

the accepted status symbols in order to redirect society to a better

position.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, it's very easy for us to do

this in this House because it doesn't affect any economic sector,

except perhaps the newspapers. Looking at the last annual report of

Pacific Press, all right — it won't put them out of business. It won't

bankrupt them. But look at the stupidity of the Federal Government and,

here, I ask my Liberal friends to please convey the message to the

Federal Government. They take public money, they take tax dollars, to

help the tobacco farmers of the Niagara Peninsula grow more and better

tobacco and subsidize them. Then, they take public money, tax money, to

subsidize and pay for the Department of Health advertisements to try to

get people to stop smoking. Now, this is part of the stupidity, I

think, of the situation in which we find ourselves. In a

dollar-oriented society, in the past, the weight has always come down

on the side of the dollar. I think that the onus is, primarily, on the

Federal Government because they have to decide rather than spend money

in promoting the growth of the tobacco whether they should be spending

the money in getting those farmers to go into some other area of

necessary agriculture.

We support this bill. I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the

Opposition in the whole field of advertising. There is a later bill

coming up, where I'll have more to say about advertising, its role in

society, where it's gone wrong, where it's right, where it's wrong. As

one of those who have, on occasion, managed to kick the habit, I know

how difficult it is. This bill won't help me a bit. I hope it will help

a good many other people, especially young people. The Leader of the

Opposition pointed out the advertising that goes on when you relate the

smoking of a cigarette to healthy outdoor riding a horse into the Far

West…you see someone sliding down a ski slope — very healthy, very

invigorating and, then, they enjoy a cigarette. Now, you know, that's

just sheer nonsense and it's part of the dollar-oriented society which

I have been fighting for a good many years. That's why I support this

ban on advertising, no matter what it does to Pacific Press.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.B. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a

reflection on our society that some of our smaller newspapers depend on

tobacco and liquor advertising to break even. I think that we have come

into a sad state of affairs when this type of promotion, the

glamourization of liquor and tobacco, has to become the mainstay of our

local press. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree with some of the

suggestions that have been made here that we should have the health

hazard attachment on the cigarette package. I think most adults are

quite capable of deciding whether or not they want to smoke. I think

that, if we wanted to carry this to the nth degree, we would have to

start putting health hazard notations on practically half of the foods

we consume. So, I disagree with this type of approach.

I have some reservations as to the effectiveness of this

legislation, simply, because the National magazines and the National

media will still be able to carry the glamourization of these things

into the homes in the Province. I don't disagree with the fact of

presenting a product but I do disagree with the way they are presenting

— that it is only socially acceptable if you do certain things. Mind

you, this doesn't mean that I intend to stop smoking because, contrary

to the Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat, sometimes, out in the

fresh air it's quite refreshing.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation is necessary but I think

it's only a step and that we should put pressure on the National

Government because all ads of this kind should be banned throughout

Canada. Furthermore, we should get rid of the ridiculous situation that

some of our tax money is going to subsidize the tobacco growers and,

then, more of our tax money goes to try to get people to stop smoking.

I think this is where we should really put the pressure on because if

you have this multiplicity of advertising, I think it's going to

nullify the effect completely.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I have been

sitting listening to the debate and I've had lots of opportunity to

think about this bill over the weekend. I would like to say, quite

candidly, in spite of the rather delightful virtue that has been

paraded in this House, tonight, that I really think to vote against

this bill is tantamount to voting against motherhood. Frankly, I have

always been in favour of motherhood, myself, and I intend to vote for

the bill. I do feel that this business of cigarette companies, in

relation to the area that I have the honour to represent, in some areas

in the Province has been a goose that has laid a golden egg. The

unfortunate thing is that the golden egg was always in the form of

twins. While there are many social functions and very fine, benevolent

functions in our Province that have been largely supported by the

tobacco companies, which represent the golden egg — and I think in

terms of the Okanagan where the Penticton Peach Festival, the Kelowna

Regatta, western Canada's largest winter carnival and Canada's second

largest winter carnival have, quite frankly, often been bailed out by

the tobacco companies, that is the golden egg — but it has been

accompanied by its twin, which is a very dark, cancerous, emphysematic,

rather destructive other egg.

When I vote for this bill, I vote for it, realizing that certain

sectors of our social undertakings are, in fact, going to have to raise

money elsewhere. I would hope that what has been expressed here,

throughout the evening, that the cigarette companies, and the tobacco

companies entered these undertakings for more than just promotion of

their products and, in fact, for the fine income tax deduction and also

with a genuine interest in social development and physical fitness,

that they will continue to do this in spite of the fact that the

advertising credits will be curtailed.

I think that it is quite fair to say that some of the companies have, in fact, abused the privilege of advertising

[ Page 809 ]

and one just has to listen to the radio…even as close as last

week, one of the major companies has a very charming young lady come on

who says that she really used to be with it, she went to university and

she used to take piano lessons and she used to go to church, but, now,

she's really swinging and she's going to do her own thing and she's

going down to the southern part of the United States to lounge on the

beach, paint and do her own thing — and smoke a certain brand of

cigarette. This is very appealing advertising to young people. I feel

that it was an abuse, that has been in practice before now and there is

certainly a good reason for this bill. There was another company, last

year, in British Columbia that used to give out coupons and when they

interviewed the people who won the coupons, and, unfortunately, I

wasn't one of them, said that the lady was going to use this money to

pay monumental medical bills. When we checked into this case, as I had

the privilege to do, in fact, she did not have any medical bills and

such a situation was unlikely to arise in a Province that has such

extensive medical care as we have in British Columbia. So, I believe

that it is fair to say that the tobacco companies have very much abused

the privilege of advertising.

One of the other reasons that I intend to vote for this bill is

because of the experience that I've had with my own children, with

other young people and on the Committee for Health and Welfare, when

rather vacant minds said to us, when they were testifying as to the use

of drugs in British Columbia, that it was no worse for you than

smoking. I realized then that as they were addicted to habit and,

through habit, to drugs, so possibly many of us were addicted to this

so-called innocuous habit of smoking which, in fact, is not innocuous

but highly detrimental to our health.

I believe another reason worthy of supporting this bill is that so

many times many of us meet young people today and they say, "What can I

do?" if we're talking about pollution. "What can I do, I'm just one

person?" I think, in this bill, we are showing to them that we, as just

one little Government in Canada, are bringing in a bill which is going

to have, I believe, a very strong influence across Canada. I frankly

believe that if we can live with this bill, and I don't think that it's

going to be as easy as we imagine, other Provincial Governments will

again follow the British Columbia Government and will bring in similar

bills. Then hopefully the Federal Government will bring in a similar

bill, so that we can show here in British Columbia and across Canada

that, while you can't legislate against people smoking, you can, as the

Member from Cowichan-Malahat said so well, "You can, by leading, change

public opinion. You can if you really believe it, change the course of

society."

I think we are taking just one little step in this bill in doing

this in British Columbia. Speaking for the Okanagan, which I have the

pleasure and honour to represent, I would challenge the Federal

Government to follow, too, and take those tax dollars that are spent in

promoting finer tobacco and the tobacco industry and utilize this money

for the benefit of the Okanagan Valley fruit farmers, who produce a

product which, if taken one a day will keep the doctor away.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Just one or two words in

support of the position we are taking in this House. We are dealing

with a thing where the scientific evidence is in and it's definitely

deleterious to human health.

It's not a health food product like, for example, a glass of wine,

and we have a right to legislate in this field. The only question

really is, Mr. Speaker, why do we have to be here considering banning

this particular type of advertising today because, if there ever has

been false, deceptive, fatal advertising, it's been tobacco

advertising. We shouldn't have to be passing this bill. The people who

have put out this advertising should have been prosecuted and visited

with the heavy penalties of the law a long time ago for deceptive,

dangerous advertising. They should have been sued by the estates of the

millions of people who have had their lives lost or shortened as a

result of being lead to smoke cigarettes by the advertising that has

been put out.

We shouldn't have to be passing this kind of legislation today. This

is a very exceptional kind of thing, something harmful to health. The

right to know gives way to danger to human health. I fully support this

kind of a bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I suppose it

is a bit of a waste of time to talk, because the fate of this bill is

pretty well known. I have stood in my place in this House, on many

occasions over the years, and appealed for some action to be taken to

restrict smoking. I don't think there is anybody in this House who has

not personal knowledge of some friend or more who has lost their life

through lung cancer. I'm of the opinion that this has been so severe

that it won't be very long before all Provinces in Canada, the Federal

Government and also the States and the Federal Government of the United

States will put a ban on advertising to sell tobacco.

It's a serious thing because, we understand, that the per capita

consumption of cigarettes in the United States, and this includes

Canada, too, is 4,000 cigarettes per year per person. I think, it's a

tragic thing when we can drive our cars today and watch kiddies going

to school 12 and 14 years of age smoking cigarettes. The fact that

cigarettes have been causing lung cancer has been known for many years

but the full effect of that knowledge has been defeated, to a great

extent, by the vast amount of money which the tobacco companies have

put into medical research. There is no doubt that this money they have

put into that field has lead many doctors to support the tobacco

companies against the actual knowledge that lung cancer was caused by

cigarettes.

I think it's worthy of note, too, that not only the doctors will

commend this bill, but every fire chief in the Nation is going to

commend it, too, because the loss from cigarette sin oking is just

phenomenal.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the unusual things that has happened in

connection with cigarette smoking and advertising has been that one of

the leaders of the nonsmokers organization in British Columbia and a

former Minister of Health in this Government had the misfortune to have

his wife win $10,000 in one of those cigarette company give-aways. You

know, Mr. Speaker, and I address you with all respect, sir, that if we

want to sell something, we advertise it. And, if you want to sell more

of it, you advertise it. And, if you want to reduce the sales of any

article, just stop advertising. Even though we know that many people

today will not stop smoking on account of not seeing the adverts, it is

going to be very obvious that in two years, if we can stop advertising,

there will be less tobacco sold. If you can carry on for five years,

the sale of tobacco will probably be less

[ Page 810 ]

than half of what it is today. This is a step in the right direction. I strongly support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Port Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Everybody has indicated that

cigarette smoking is a bad thing, that it has been well documented

medically, that it has serious implications for everyone's health and

the fact that probably cigarette smoking is far more addicting than

alcohol or perhaps even various other forms of drugs. The thing is that

the youth are the ones on whom this particular advertising preys more

directly and, of course, the industry is not unaware of this. Much of

their advertising, in the past, has gone to glamourize this and to try,

perhaps, to get the inadequate person, the person who is trying to find

himself, to identify with beautiful people.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that it's really enough for us to try to

ban cigarette smoking. Do you know that any programme that I know of to

try to take a positive approach has not so far been very successful?

One of the things that I would like to say is that I hope that we are

able to take the vacuum up and perhaps through funds made available,

get some hard statistical evidence, in terms of what years does the

student population start to smoke, how many of them who start to smoke

become addicted, so that we really have some sort of base, now, that we

can refer to in four or five years to know whether, in fact, this ban

has really been successful or whether we are just trying to salve our

consciences. I think, sometimes, that it's the forbidden fruit which is

more pleasurable. It's possible that, simply by banning cigarette

smoking, in terms of advertising, that we may, in fact, not have the

effect on smoking we hope to have. It may be, in fact, that it has no

impact on it, or it's possible that it might even have an increase. So,

I think it's very important that we try to get some basic, scientific

information together on the incidence of smoking. Not only should we do

this but we should proceed, in a positive way, towards negating the

glamour that's associated with smoking. I think that the advertising

agencies which, heretofore, have made many millions of dollars and who

are very aware psychologically of where to hit young people to

encourage them to do this are the people who should be providing funds

to do exactly the reverse thing. The advertising to discourage tobacco

smoking has not been effective. It's been amateurish and has had little

or no effect on it. I think it's high time, if we are serious about

this, we not only get rid of the tobacco advertising but, we must, in a

positive and vigourous way, in a sophisticated way, get into the

business of trying to point out to the youth and to others just how

harmful the habit of smoking is.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, it's rather amusing

to listen to all the virtuous confessions that are going around the

House tonight. I think a lot of them are pious platitudes. Advertising,

to my mind, in most cases, has always been a policy to try to enslave

people, whether it's to use bufferin or aspirin, or the proper face

powder, or a certain macaroni mix. Advertising has always been to try

to enslave people. Here, we are, in this bill…makes me think of the

Opposition bringing a bill before this House. They know well that it's

not going to go through but, at least, it demonstrates something. There

is no penalty in this bill. There's nothing to say in this bill that if

the people keep on doing what they are doing, that they will be

penalized for breaking this act. The advertising that goes on… I

don't hold any brief for advertising at all because I think I could do

well without it. I don't think that the average person who started

smoking started from advertising. The start of smoking very seldom ever

starts from advertising. I think changing of brands — advertising has

done a lot about that, one brand against the other, one filter against

the other. Some people get the idea that they can switch to another

brand of cigarettes and they will be healthier with that brand compared

to the other one. We talk about the population explosion all the time

and how we are going to be pushed off this earth in a few years. I

wonder why we are so worried about people committing suicide. I can't

understand it. In one breath they tell you that you have got to have

birth control and you've got to have everything to stop the population.

Then, when somebody wants to commit suicide, they won't let them commit

suicide. They try to stop them from doing it.

I don't think that this bill really is going to attain what it is

intended to. I think it's a nice image bill. This is what it is, it's a

nice image bill. The advertising that is going on in British Columbia

is… (interruption) . Sure, it's a nice image bill. The advertising

that's going on in British Columbia, you are going to have an awful

lot… All you are going to do, of course, is push the advertising out

of the Province and they are going to bring it into the Province from

the outside. This is what's going to happen in this regard. You are

going to have a tremendous flow of advertising from Alberta and from

the United States and over the TV. You are not going to stop it at all

by this bill.

When anybody tells me they expect the tobacco companies to spend

their money to try to do the opposite to what they are doing now,

that's just fancy thinking. It doesn't mean a thing. I think we should

try to get the Federal Government, probably… I believe what they tell

us — that it's a health problem. There is no food value in smoking and

I'm not opposed to trying to stop smoking. But, to think that this bill

is going to solve the problem or even attempt to solve the problem, I

don't believe it. I had two children and neither one of them smoked. I

smoked and they never smoked. All the advertising in the world has

never started them to smoke. I don't think that, on the whole, it will

have any real effect because, back in the years gone by, even with

prohibition, we tried to stop people from drinking whisky and they

didn't stop at all. So, sometimes, you can be a bit of a hypocrite, in

cases like this.

I'm wondering why they didn't put any penalty clause in this. This

is what I'm wondering about. I don't think it's worth the paper it's

written on unless you have some sort of penalty for these big

companies. They are not going to listen to you if there are no

penalties. To me, you are trying to look virtuous on the outside and,

on the inside, it's an entirely different story.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Ever since the

advent of medicare and the fact that we have become more and more our

brother's keeper, I suppose that we should be interested as to what

effect our health has on each other's tax dollar, when it comes to

paying for the many services that are necessary to take care of someone

who is

[ Page 811 ]

having a lung removal, or some other ailment that comes from the

result of smoking, of which we are all so much aware. There have been

so many definite statistics and scientific discoveries to prove it. I

suppose, too, that tonight although there may not be so much muscle in

the bill, or the strength as some people would like to see, I'm sure

that our grandparents, especially our grandmothers, would rise up and

call us blessed tonight. I can remember, the ones in my day, who were

saying that cigarettes will give you cancer and stunt your growth. So I

guess they weren't so far wrong, after all. Grandmothers should be

taking a little credit for what great scientific researchers have only

just discovered — what they had already told us to be a fact.

One of the speakers previously mentioned the effect it will have on

the saving of fire protection but I also know it will save a great many

lives if we can begin to turn back again…those who have succumbed to

the habit. Someone has said, "Don't smoke in bed, the ashes that fall

to the floor may be your own." That happens to be more truthful than

fiction or funny. So, I think, then, the other fact that we should

recognize is the desire to clean up our environment. There has been so

much said about the great need to clean up the pollution in

advertising. It is not just deceitful, it is downright dishonest. It

misleads and when you sit…I have noticed in many homes, as I have the

opportunity to go into, you find that the television is the media that

does the babysitting for under-five-year-olds who are not attending day

school. Every time you see one of those commercials, they are more

interesting really than the play to the youngster. They are geared for

interest and really they attract you. I feel that we are our young

people's keeper. I think that the day will come when they will stand on

the cancer-ridden chests of a lot of us and say we should have done it

earlier. They won't be pontificating or virtuous.

Tonight, instead of looking at the people who don't smoke and say

that they are being virtuous in their talks, maybe, the person who

smokes and has the audacity to get up and say don't do it is the person

who young people today have criticised and said, "You are a bunch of

hypocrites. You say one thing and do the other." A lot of us have had

that thrown at us, too. I smoked when I was about 19. I smoked for six

months and it was only because I was milking 21 head of cows and I

couldn't stand the smell of the dairy barn. That's why — cleaning the

dairy barn smelt good when you smoked a cigarette. But, I only

lasted… I didn't smoke over six months and we weren't really supposed

to smoke in the barn, anyway. We might have burned it down.

Our young people deserve, at least, an understanding that we are

endeavouring to make it easier for them to enjoy the good things of

life, without associating with those things that we know are proven

detrimental to them. I think, tonight, that young people are going to

say you are on our side and we are on your side.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Summing up this debate,

we have learned one thing. The advertiser, who sells this product that

is so undesirable for the health, can be pointed in any given direction

by the display of a certain number of dollars. The Honourable Member

for Alberni has made it clear that the advertisers and the newspapers

that today could dedicate their devotion to the peddling of this

particularly evil weed, tomorrow could be dedicated to the proposition

of stamping it out if they were given sufficient advertising money.

I suggest that the other fund that we have discussed in this House

earlier might usefully be turned in that direction — to these people

who are so easily swung around in the wind and perhaps they could

devise daily pictures of beautiful young people dying from cancer and

this sort of thing that might discourage smoking.

I point out what is happening in this bill is that we have decided

that tobacco is bad and that it has no redeeming features.

Consequently, it's fair enough to ban advertising of it. Now, the

reason I will go along with this bill, in principle, is because I

cannot see any redeeming features in tobacco, other than the jobs it

produces in Ontario, growing tobacco. Other than that, I can't see

anything. The advertising aspect of it can be taken up by the economy

in other ways with the money saved. But, I do suggest that, if we

applied the same reasoning to, let's say, gasoline — gasoline contains

lead, ergo, it pollutes the atmosphere and, therefore, they should ban

advertising of gasoline.

Fortunately for that theory, gasoline is necessary for the economy

and has some purpose in getting cars moving around the country. So, we

say that we won't ban that advertising. We may have another problem

when we deal with liquor but, on this particular subject, everybody has

agreed tobacco is no good, except to the guy who wants to smoke.

I'm going to suggest that, if the tobacco companies were entirely

altruistic in their dedication to sports, good works and charities,

they should be prepared to spend the money they have otherwise spent on

advertising on those sports and other activities as a charitable

gesture of their interest in the community. Or will their interest in

the community suddenly cease when they lose the right to advertise? I'm

going to suggest to the Government that, in this bill, it provide for

regulations by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council… I'm going to

suggest to the Government that they permit the cigarette companies to

put inside their packages, for the person who buys their package, how

much they contribute to this work in the community so that they may

continue to back up, without publicity, other publicity than that

notice in their package, that they do contribute to the DuMaurier

Sports International or the hockey games or any other kind of

contribution they make to the community. Other than that, I don't think

they should be allowed to advertise. The other point… (interruption) .

Well, that's their conscience money. I hate to see all that money

that could otherwise go to good works being swallowed up, as it were,

in profits. It will all equalize out, sooner or later. Those who smoke

will continue to smoke, unless we have some other advertising that

makes them realize the folly of their ways. I am going to suggest that

it's not enough to ban this advertising without substituting some other

kind of constructive way of persuading people to stop smoking. It's a

little too late, very often, to stop smoking when the doctor tells you

that you have emphysema or cancer or any of the other ailments that

come from smoking tobacco. The time to stop it is at that critical age,

between 12 years of age and 20, when young people come under the power

of advertising. I urge all of you to support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of the banning of cigarette

[ Page 812 ]

advertising. I'm not really rising tonight to disagree to a great

degree with that fundamental idea of cigarettes. I'm sure that, as one

Member said, everyone who votes for this bill this evening will

probably go home and light up a cigarette and congratulate themselves

on the excellent job they have done in making the world safer for

people who do not want to smoke (interruption) . No, I'm saying that the

majority of people in this Chamber smoke. I really don't feel that that

is the question. I just bring it up because a great many of them do.

I do think that one of the concerns here, Mr. Speaker, has to deal

with the question of what has happened within the industry itself. The

assumption, of course, that the cancelling of cigarette advertising

will reduce the sale of cigarettes certainly has not been borne out by

the recent statistics that have now come out of the industry. You

merely have to read last week's issue of Time magazine to see that it

was up 11 per cent in February when there was no advertising. I would

think that, if you take the sale of cigarettes and add to it the sale

and the use of marijuana, you would find that the total area of smoking

has increased tremendously because marijuana, without the benefit of

any advertising, is growing far faster than any other form of

consumption that we know about. If we are dealing here with the

question of whether, by stopping cigarette ads, you are going to stop

cigarette smoking, then, I'm very sure that everyone in this House is

going to be very bitterly disappointed.

I do point out, Mr. Speaker, some of the dangers that are inherent

in this because, suddenly, this bill has become an attack on

advertising. Somehow, I feel that if this is the case, it is a very,

very serious and very drastic mistake. Advertising, even within this

very industry, if you go back ten years, no one used a filter in

cigarettes and, somehow, through the use of some form of a message, the

majority of the public has been moved into the use of filter in

cigarettes, through a combination… (interruption) .

No, what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is, what would happen if the

industry suddenly came up with a filter that