1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2241 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities

Licensing Act (Bill No. 168) Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading

— 2241

Oral questions Federal reaction to BCR construction subsidy request. Mr. Smith

— 2241

Supply of BCR boxcars. Mr. Phillips — 2241

Sale of lands for drilling leases. Mr. Phillips — 2242

Status of IWA shingle mill strike. Mr. Wallace — 2242

Analysis of drilling lease areas. Mr. Smith — 2243

Payment for Glenshiel Hotel. Mr. Chabot — 2243

Drilling in the Peace River area. Mr. Phillips — 2243

Comptroller General's report on B.C. Hydro. Mr. McGeer — 2243

Comptroller General's report on B.C. Railway. Mr. McGeer — 2243

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act, (Bill No. 15).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 2244

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. (Bill No. 17). Second

reading.

Mr. Richter — 2244

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2244

Guaranteed Income Act. (Bill No. 21). Second reading.

Mr. Richter — 2245

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2245

Voluntary Emergency First Aid Act. (Bill No. 22). Second

reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2246

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2247

Canada-British Columbia Indian Lands Determination Act

(1973). (Bill No. 20). Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 2247

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2248

Municipal Transit Subsidy Act. (Bill No. 30). Second

reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 2248

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2249

An Act to Provide for Fair Practices in the Sale of Motor

Vehicle Fuel.

(Bill No. 38). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2249

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2250

Credit Information Protection Act. (Bill No. 39). Second

reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2250

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2251

An Act to Control Pyramid Selling. (Bill No. 60). Second

reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2251

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2252

An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act, 1957. (Bill No.

61).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2252

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2253

Election Expenses Act, 1973. (Bill No. 81). Second

reading.

'Mr. McGeer — 2253

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2253

Prevention of Restraint of Professional Practices Act. (Bill

No. 82).

Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2254

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2254

Ombudsman Act. (Bill No. 83). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2254

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2255

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2256

Administrative Tribunals Appeals Act. (Bill No. 84). Second

reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2256

Mr. Lauk — 2256

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act. (Bill No. 85).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2256

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2257

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act. (Bill No. 86).

Second reading.

Mr. Williams — 2257

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2258

British Columbia Bill of Rights. (Bill No. 88). Second

reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2258

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2259

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2259

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act. (Bill No. 89).

Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2259

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2260

Taxpayers' Protection Act. (Bill No. 90). Second

reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2260

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2261

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2261

Rural Students Aid Travel Fund Act. (Bill No. 91). Second

reading.

Mr. Phillips — 2261

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2261

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2261

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act. (Bill NO. 92).

Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2262

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2262

Air Ambulance Aid Act. (Bill No. 93). Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 2262

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2263

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2263

Stimulation of Employment Act. (Bill No. 94). Second

reading.

Mr. Curtis — 2263

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2263

Abandoned Refrigerator Act. (Bill No. 95). Second

reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2263

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2264

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2264

An Act to Amend the Trust Companies Act (Bill No. 96).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2264

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2265

Mr. Gardom — 2266

An Act to Provide Access to Public Buildings. (Bill No. 97).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2266

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2266

Mr. Gardom — 2266

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2266

An Act to Amend the Capital Improvement District Act. (Bill

No. 98).

Second reading.

Mr. Curtis — 2267

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2267

Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act. (Bill No. 99). Second reading,

Mrs. Jordan — 2267

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2268

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. (Bill

No. 104).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2268

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2268

Mr. Gardom — 2268

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2268

Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act. (Bill No.

105).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2269

Hon. Mr. Nimsick . — 2269

Proceedings Against the Crown Act. (Bill No. 107). Second

reading.

Mr. Chabot — 2270

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2270

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Act. (Bill No.

112).

Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2270

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2272

British Columbia Auditor General Act. (Bill No. 113). Second

reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2272

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2273

An Act to Amend the Coroners Act. (Bill No. 115). Second

reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2273

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2273

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Prince

Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, this is rather an

historic occasion and will go down in history as an historic

occasion, I believe, because today is the second time in the

history of British Columbia that Victoria is visited by a chief

from the Haida Indian nation in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Chief Bruce Brown is in the gallery.

Chief Brown has given me a message that he asked me to read

to the Legislature today. It says:

"Greetings from the people of the Queen Charlotte

Islands.

"Our forefathers last came to Victoria in the last century.

They came in ceremonial canoes now exhibited in the museum.

They came to petition Governor Douglas. They returned home with

empty promises and the unsolicited gift of smallpox. Fifteen

thousand people, including whole villages, were wiped out.

"This is the second time we have come to Victoria, and we

expect to return home with something more than empty promises

this time."

I'm sure they will.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the

House to withdraw Motion 15 in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY CARE

FACILITIES LICENSING ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 168 intituled

An Act to Amend the Community Care

Facilities Licensing Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 168 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

FEDERAL REACTION TO

BCR CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDY REQUEST

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

my question is to the Hon. Premier. Has the Premier any report

to give to this House concerning the federal reaction to his

request for a subsidy for the construction programme of the

B.C. Railway?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Negotiations are continuing with

the CNR and the provincial government.

MR. I.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Stage two?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stage three.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question to the Hon. Premier: does

the $19 million which you have requested as a grant apply to

capital construction costs that you are presently experiencing

in the extension of the B.C. Railway, and is it the intent to

use any of this grant, if and when it is received, to perhaps

build a new link between Terrace and the north?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Between Terrace and the north where?

MR. SMITH: Of the province — Dease Lake.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the $19 million requested is

not so much a grant as a share that has been offered to other

provinces in the past. The former administration requested it

on a valid basis and we are continuing that request. That

request is part and parcel of continuing negotiations that

we're having in terms of a general transportation plan for the

north.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

SUPPLY OF BCR BOXCARS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to ask the President of the British Columbia Railway (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) just a small question with regard to the supply of

boxcars. Is the situation improving? Have the new boxcars that

were on order arrived yet? If so, how soon will they go in the

field? I have an industry in my area that we're going to have

to close down if we don't get some relief pretty soon. It's a

very serious situation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a very serious situation, Mr. Member.

The new boxcars have not arrived;

[ Page

2242 ]

however, we have taken steps to locate any boxcars that we

can.

Now, there was an earlier question related to this about

leasing boxcars. At the time that question was asked there were

no boxcars available to be leased. Since that time I've had a

meeting with the new vice-president (as you know, there are two

vice-presidents of the railroad now), Mr. Mac Norris. Mr.

Norris tells me that there is a chance of us getting some lease

cars. I told him to pull out all the stops and make every

effort to get them.

The northern economy, the central interior economy, is

booming. The need for those boxcars is drastic. We will do

everything we can to supply the area with those boxcars. It's

an anomalous situation. Business is so good we can't get the

boxcars.

AN HON. MEMBER: It must be our speeches.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not our speeches, no. Not even the wind

in this chamber can drive those boxcars. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

SALE OF LANDS

FOR DRILLING LEASES

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question I

would like to direct to the Hon. Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources. This morning the Minister announced the

results of a recent sale, and I'd like to ask the Minister: to

what does he attribute the fact that only 48 of the

98 leases were disposed of?

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

in answer to that question, when they were drilling on the outskirts of the

parcels that were put up for sale, there were quite a number of dry holes and

there were a few bids that were low and not accepted. The sale, in comparison

with other sales, was very good. We only put up 525,000 acres for sale at this

time; a year ago they had over 900,000 acres for sale. This time the price per

acre was $8 and something; at that time it was $6 and a few cents. So actually,

in relationship, the sale was a very good sale.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: the

reason that it was $8 instead of $6 is because the

majority of the leases…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is asking a

question, kindly phrase it as a question. He appears to be

making a speech, and that is not permitted during question

period.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask a supplementary question…

MR. SPEAKER: Would you ask the question then?

MR. PHILLIPS: …as to why only 3 of the 12 drilling

reservations were disposed of in this sale. There were

12 put up and only 3 were disposed of. We only

received $3 million and it should have been $14

million from this sale.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You look back at the history and I don't

think you will find any place there was ever a $14

million sale.

MR. PHILLIPS: There was never this much interest in energy

either.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The competitiveness is shown by the amount of acreage

put up and the average price per acre, which is higher than it was last April.

We know that April usually is the lowest time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't want a continuing

running argument on this question, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just a supplementary question: does the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources feel that his

policies have discouraged the oil companies from bidding on

this land?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's our policies that have increased the

competitiveness and the incentive to do what they've done.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

STATUS OF IWA SHINGLE MILL STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A question to the Minister of

Labour: has he any statement he could give us regarding the

long-standing shingle mill strike by IWA against Canadian

Forest Products? We are receiving quite a bit of correspondence

and it would help me to answer the correspondence if the

Minister could give the House some information on the status of

that strike.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry

that I am unable to give the Member any new advice which would

appear helpful in this particular strike. There has been a long-standing impasse. Efforts through my office to try to develop

negotiations again have failed at this point.

Until I receive some indication that the parties are

prepared to sit down together again and negotiate, there would

appear to be little that can be done to

[ Page 2243 ]

bring them together.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

ANALYSIS OF AREAS ATTRACTIVE

TO BIDDERS ON DRILLING

LEASES

MR. SMITH: A question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources: as a result of the sale for drilling leases and

permits in north-eastern British Columbia, has the Minister

done an analysis yet on the areas that they actually accepted

bids on, as compared to the areas where they refused bids or

where they received no bids, to determine the interest

potential of the industry in that whole area where you

originally put bids up? In other words, were they attracted to

areas where there was a great potential for natural gas

production, as compared to other areas where the success rate

has been quite low?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, we had many areas that were not

really attractive. As you well know, in order to put up

parcels, the department has to know some potential about it to

know whether the prices that are offered should be refused or

not. Now there were quite a number of test holes put down which

were dry. In some of these cases they didn't bid at all. You

know as well as I do that this is what happens. But in

comparison, as you say, there should be an analysis of the

whole thing. I haven't had time to complete the analysis

yet.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

PAYMENT FOR GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. CHABOT: A brief question for the Minister of Public

Works. I am wondering if the Minister is able to advise the

House now the reason and the location of the additional payment

of $110,000 on the Glenshiel Hotel.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the matter has been

covered during the Minister's estimates and is simply a

repetition of something that has been canvassed too often.

MR. CHABOT: Would the Minister be willing to have a public

inquiry to find the $110,000?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you wish to make any charges

in relation to this matter, kindly use the order paper with a

notice of motion and take responsibility for that motion. But

not in question period.

Any further questions? The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

DRILLING RIGS IN THE

PEACE RIVER AREA

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a further

question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and

ask him how he justifies the statement that parcels were not

evaluated by drilling as a result of lack of drilling rigs when

there are indeed drilling rigs which are lying idle in the

Peace River area.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Drilling rigs have been at a premium in

the Peace River area.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT

ON B.C. HYDRO

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

like to ask the Premier if he's had an opportunity so far to

study the interim report of the Comptroller General regarding

the financial operations of B.C. Hydro, and if so, would he be

prepared to lay before the House the report that was given to

him.

Slow progress. He's a slow reader, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm halfway through, Mr. Member. It's just

that I have other duties that I've been attending to. I notice

that your colleagues are attending to duty as well.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT

ON B.C. RAILWAY

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask another question of

the Premier. Is the Comptroller General making progress in his

investigation of the financial operations of the B.C.

Railway?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, although I do not have the report.

Once both reports are finished and I have had the opportunity

to read them, I'll table them here in the House. They cover the

internal administration of both Crown agencies. The reason I

ask the studies be done is because they should be public

business.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public

bills in the hands of private Members.

[ Page 2244 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 17, Mr. Speaker.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. According to my understanding

of standing orders we should proceed with the orders of the day

as they're printed in orders. The first order under public

bills in the hands of private Members is adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill No. 15. I would think that that would be

the appropriate order to call under orders of the day. I would

ask the Premier if the Minister is prepared now to discuss Bill

No. 15.

MR. SPEAKER: The House has just made a decision which was

not at that time contradicted by the Hon. Member to proceed

with Bill No. 15. But looking at standing orders in regard to

today, Thursday, private Members' day, standing order 27(

l) says, "All items standing on the Orders of the Day (except

Government orders) shall be taken up according to the

precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper." I would take

it from that that we must proceed in the order of those items

that are standing on the order paper. Now this is second

reading of bills. I assume we would commence where we left off,

which would be Bill No. 15.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 15, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member who adjourned the debate is not

in the House and I must dispose of it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. King adjourned the debate and

he's here.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry. I had Mr. Gardom down. I'm

awfully sorry.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the

House.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn…

MR. SPEAKER: What are you rising upon? A point of order or

are you wishing to speak?

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time

I have ever heard a debate to be adjourned in the House

being called and to be adjourned a second time. The Minister has had many days

to consider this particular bill. In view of the failure of the Government to

grant adjournment on second reading this morning…

MR. SPEAKER: There's nothing exceptional on that point.

MR. McGEER: I think that this is really an abuse of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There's nothing exceptional

about adjourning a debate more than once. Therefore the point

of order is not well taken. The Member who had adjourned the

debate has risen and moved that it be adjourned. If you do not

agree with his motion you can vote against it.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bill No. 17.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INCOME TAX ACT

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

moving second reading of Bill No. 17,

An Act to Amend the

Income Tax Act , this is a procedure that is followed in

other jurisdictions. It is again an incentive for people to

undertake certain improvements by way of mortgage money on

their properties to create a more serviceable building or

matters in which it enhances their property.

Along with that, where taxes are a matter of concern in some

areas such as farmers, they do have the benefit of deducting

their personal property taxes on their buildings, et cetera,

from their taxable income. This provision would extend this

prerogative to other areas of our society and the bill being a

very short bill, very explicit, I would move second

reading.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): With regret, I would

urge that this violates standing order 67. It is an impost on

the Crown and I think it is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: In addition to standing order 67, a number of

Speaker's decisions are found in No. 3 of our Speakers'

Decisions at p. 22 and pp. 28-9, in that the measure would

interfere with Crown revenues and consequently would be out of

order in the hands of a private Member without the assistance

of a message from His Honour. I so rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 21, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 2245 ]

GUARANTEED INCOME ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, this has been a point of

considerable interest, not only in the Province of British

Columbia but across Canada. We think it would be an exciting

new concept to build a floor income into the economic life of

Canada as part of a guaranteed income policy.

This programme offers additional benefits to those over age

65, the disabled, the handicapped and the blind. The Social

Credit Members of this Legislature feel that the guaranteed

income plan would include the great range of Canadians,

irrespective of age who, for one reason or another, have not

managed to obtain through our economic system an adequate

living wage.

The whole helter-skelter, band-aid system of social welfare

payments, unemployment insurance benefits and the like have

been drawn into the picture to accomplish on a make-shift basis

the principle of income support for those in distress. This

system is a proven failure. It encourages waste, it encourages

duplicity on the part of recipients, it encourages the growth

of wasteful and unnecessary bureaucracy. Now that we have

reached a time in history when everyone carries a social

security number and statistical and computer technology has

advanced to the point where every individual could be easily

registered into a guaranteed income plan, we believe that such

a plan is long overdue and would represent the last great

social service breakthrough of this century.

The bill before you indicates how simple it would be to

introduce such a plan resting itself on reportable income only.

As the bill clearly indicates, resting it on the income

principle would permit at least three things to happen. First

of all, there would be no question about the income levels for

those who were over 65 and those who were handicapped in any

way. They would not be required to carry out the confusing

recording of forms in order to qualify for benefits.

Secondly, the plan, resting on income, would have an implied

incentive for those receiving any part of guaranteed income to

seek employment.

Thirdly, the plan as the Social Credit Party envisions it,

would permit all the energy of government to be redirected

towards incentive employment plans, which could include all of

the programmes for retraining, programmes for occupational

incentives, the programme for training on the job — for

programmes for training through Manpower, for programmes for

upgrading of education, for programmes for apprenticeship,

thereby concentrating the philosophical approach of the

government towards the work ethic itself.

Guaranteed income programmes would then walk hand-in-hand

with a major emphasis on the part of the government towards the

ideal of government concentrating on programmes designed to

maximize opportunity.

The government would be steered away from the hand-out

description that can be so readily applied to the whole welfare

state.

This party would continue to fight to bring this major

social benefit to all Canadians. It is clear that an income

supportive programme resting on the ethics described above

would move away from the problem associated with unity of our

country which so often rests on economic prospects and not

those things which are often emphasized — namely culture and

race.

There is no good reason why income across the nation for the

aged and the handicapped should be different between one part

of our nation and another. There is no good reason why a

minimum wage level should be different between one part of our

nation and another. There is no good reason why income support

payments in one part of our nation and another should vary.

Programmes such as this bill envision, Mr. Speaker, would

cut down forever the income disparity between parts of our

nation which so often are cited as the cause of many of the

feelings of disunity which this nation suffers.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that all parties in the

Legislature would be pleased to support this bill in second

reading to display to the rest of the nation that in British

Columbia we support the principle of a guaranteed income plan

for all Canadians, that would do away with the welfare state

for ever.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we have evidence that the Government's

policies are somewhat directed along this line in relation to

the Mincome plan which they have already established. While I

probably have some questions in relation to the Mincome plan as

presently administered, I am sure that any programme would have

bugs in it somewhere along the line, which experience would

have to iron out. At this time I move second reading of this

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I must draw your attention to the

fact at this time that the bill would be out of order in the

hands of a private Member, since it requires in

section 5 that

money be expended from consolidated revenue funds and that can

only be done on a message from his Hon. the Lieutenant

Governor. I therefore rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 22, Mr.

Speaker.

VOLUNTARY EMERGENCY

FIRST AID ACT

[ Page 2246 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great

pleasure to discuss a bill on this, the first private Members'

day that we've had probably in 21 years in the Province of

British Columbia. I'm glad that the Members on the Government

side are applauding this innovation, and I want to compliment

the Premier and the Government on having introduced for the

first time a genuine private Members' day.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to become a regular

event in British Columbia and a source of encouragement to the

private Members whether they be on the Government or the

Opposition side to bring forward progressive legislation on

behalf of the people of British Columbia.

It also gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in being able

to discuss a bill that is not only in order, but has been on

the order paper for over two months; so that the Government

will have had ample opportunity to consider this bill, to judge

its merits, and there will be no requirement for the Government

to adjourn it for further consideration.

Getting on with the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker,

which is the most important part…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order, you're in order.

MR. McGEER: Thank you. Even the Premier concedes that I'm

now in order, which is a rare event in British Columbia. And we

want to thank the Premier for his tolerant and broadminded

attitude, which could only be exceeded, Mr. Speaker, by his

accepting the principle of this bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's not go to excess.

MR. McGEER: Well, we'll see. But I'm sure that the Premier

will listen very carefully as will the Members of his cabinet

and that they will be nodding their approval of a piece of

legislation which quite obviously is in the best interests of

the people of this province.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could claim complete originality

for this bill but unfortunately I cannot do so, because similar

measures have been put forward in other jurisdictions who have

recognized, as I do, the desirability of providing the kind of

good Samaritan legislation that would encourage a man to help

his fellow man in need.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we need to recognize is that the laws of

our Crown provide that people who are injured can sue. This is a deterrent,

unfortunately. I'm sorry to have to stand in the Legislature and say that this

is so, but it is a deterrent to people helping out others in need. This applies

particularly to professional people whether they are first-aid attendants, para-medical

people, nurses, or doctors, because there is a presumption at the time of an

emergency that these people not only have competence to deal with whatever problem

arises at the scene of the accident, but have the facilities as well to deal

with it adequately.

But Mr. Speaker, this isn't the case. A doctor may be

driving down the road and he doesn't have his stethoscope and

he doesn't have his little kit bag that has all the injections

that he might give. He just isn't prepared the way they are in

M.A.S.H. or any of these other television shows that we

regularly watch, where the people who appear on the scene of

the accident are completely competent and perfectly prepared.

It just isn't that way.

Because it isn't that way, and because those who happen to

be passing by the accident are well aware of the liability that

they might incur should they appear at the scene of the

accident, and be later on judged to have made some mistake,

they might hesitate to render the services that they otherwise

would be capable of doing.

The simple purpose of this legislation is to let it be known

that those who are providing voluntary first-aid are doing so

on a voluntary basis. They expect no reward of any kind beyond

the satisfaction of giving the person who is injured the

opportunity perhaps to life, and certainly to better health

than if they were completely ignored.

That being the case, there seems to be no reason in my mind

why this could not be recognized in law; to say that the

individual who voluntarily renders that emergency first-aid

assistance should not be completely relieved of some civil suit

that might be entered upon later by my friends and colleagues

who are in the legal profession and who would be bound to act

in the interests of a client who came to visit them at some

later time, having had an opportunity to consider all of the

possibilities at the time of that event and decided that the

person who was there had not done everything that it was

possible to do.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I regret having to draw this to the

attention of the House and the public of British Columbia, but

it is a deterrent. Because it is a deterrent, and because there

is a very easy way of getting around this deterrent, I think

this bill would be in the interests of British Columbians who

are alive and healthy today but might themselves be along the

roadside tomorrow — the victims of some emergency situation, an

automobile accident, a fire, or whatever it might be — and the

person who could most give them aid might have that little bit

of hesitation because of the liability he could incur by

rendering this first-aid assistance.

So I would appeal to the Government to see this bill in the spirit in which

it is put forward and to set a precedent today, not just for having a private

[ Page

2247 ]

Members' day, but for accepting this bill.

So it is in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I humbly move

second reading of Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister for Health Services and Hospital

Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Member for Point Grey for having put forward

this bill. It's an excellent idea. It's a "Good Samaritan" bill, actually. There's

been a draft of this kind of legislation circulated to all provinces in Canada

and it is being thoroughly studied now, a uniform draft for the whole country.

Hopefully, this kind of legislation across the country will be developed in

the very near future.

I've asked the health security project to look into this

question. We're getting the right kind of vibes, to put it in

present day language, Mr. Speaker. It would appear to me that

we're not long from the day when we will have a "Good

Samaritan" bill in the province. However, we do feel that we

have to take into consideration not only this aspect of it, but

all other legislation that's on the books. This has to be

thoroughly studied across the country.

So, Mr. Speaker, on that note I'd like to move adjournment

of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a request from the

Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) that the House

would give leave to pass over his bills at this time and move

on to second reading of Bill No. 29.

Leave granted.

CANADA-BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN LANDS

DETERMINATION ACT

(1973) MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman — Mr. Speaker, pardon me. I'm getting my terms confused this

afternoon. Too many sittings, I think, too close together. It's

beginning to get to us maybe.

In speaking to the principle of this bill, it is the hope of myself and the

official Opposition that the principle of the bill will be accepted by the Government.

We are certainly trying to provide in advance a legislative manner to deal with

a problem which is of utmost concern and a topic of discussion not only all

across Canada, but in places like Australia and many other nations today. This

is the matter of native people with hereditary claims

to land that has been theirs from time immemorial.

The bill concerns races and tribes that have never signed a

treaty with any white man's organization or with the people who

came to occupy their lands, who have never been defeated in a

battle to determine the fact that the land became the

possession of somebody else because of the result of that

battle.

At the present time, the focal point in British Columbia is,

of course, the fight being waged through the courts by the

Nishga Indians of the Nass River area. I think the fact that

they have won a major victory in that court, even though a

positive decision was not handed down in their favour,

indicates that all of us in an informed and enlightened society

today must take recognition of the fact that the people who

occupied these lands before we invaded them do have some rights

and privileges that we've extinguished by one means or

another.

Some of these rights have been extinguished by treaty. I

suppose because of that, that's prima facie evidence that they

no longer have a claim. But we do have native people in the

Nass River area and as I understand it, some in my particular

part of the country in north-eastern British Columbia who have

occupied those lands long before the white man ever was a fact

in Canada, who have never signed a treaty, who have never

fought a battle to determine in that manner to whom the land

was eventually to belong.

These people have a right to present their case and have

their day in court, which they've been doing. I think they've

been waging a very good battle for those rights.

So basically, Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill is to

provide a means for the Province of British Columbia, in

cooperation with any other government authority, to extinguish

whatever rights might be awarded to them as a result of court

actions or as a result of a determination outside of the

courts. I think if we believe in justice for all people, then

we have to concede the fact that we did, in years gone by,

suppress the rights of native people, not only in British

Columbia but in all of North America and many other

nations.

The bill does not require the expenditure of funds until

such determination is made in the courts that there is a claim

and that that claim has a financial value. But it does provide

for a device and a means that could be used by the Province of

British Columbia and, I would hope, would perhaps be a pattern

for other provinces that are going through some of the same

matters before the courts at the

[ Page 2248 ]

present time. But we'll deal with British Columbia because

we are most familiar with it.

It provides a means for the province to give an indication

to these people that, provided the decision comes out in their

favour, the Government would go on record as supporting that

decision. The bill would provide a mechanism for the province,

in cooperation with the federal government, to extinguish that

claim in a manner settled by court law and by a court decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 29.

MR. SPEAKER: It's my duty to point out to the Members that

section 4 clearly requires a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor before the consolidated revenue fund could

be used to pay compensation. There is in

section 2 a power to

delegate to a Minister from this House the right to determine

the compensation, both of which would be out of order in view

of the fact that it would have to be done by message. On that

ground and standing order 67, I would have to say that it

offends against the standing order and is therefore out of

order.

MR. SMITH: Speaking to your ruling, if I might for just a

moment, Mr. Speaker, the fact has not been established in any

jurisdiction yet that there will be any impost upon the Crown

in the immediate future. There's been no decision handed down

yet that would require the expenditure of public funds.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that

section

4 states that "the expenses incurred in carrying out the terms

of any agreement…" which means that as soon as this were

authorized by the Legislature, there would be expenses incurred

by the various steps that are set out in the bill, all of which

would thereby — whether you pay compensation or not — be a

charge upon the Crown that should be taken from consolidated

revenue according to

section 4. Therefore it would offend

against standing order 67.

MR. SMITH: But only after a court decision has ruled in

favour of Indian people having hereditary claims and aboriginal

rights in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member in that this

could cause expense, even to the point of a court determination

and the actions of any Minister. Consequently, all the way

through there would be an expense that would require a message

bill.

MR. SMITH: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I'll accept your ruling, but really,

I cannot see that there's any expenditure, either by the province or anyone

else, in extinguishing the rights until those rights

are proven in court. That will become a prima facie case in the courts at the

time the decision is handed down. It's up to the Indian people themselves to

establish that right in court. It wouldn't be an impost on the Crown until such

time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it's a financial imposition

on the Crown and has been ruled out of order with respect to a

private Member's rights.

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct.

MR. SMITH: By what rule?

MR. SPEAKER: Because if you once open the doors to a

contingent liability to the province, it becomes a charge that

can be acted upon. Therefore it would be out of order. The Hon.

Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 30, Mr.

Speaker.

MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SUBSIDY

ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

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

don't think I'll mention the name in case I get ruled out of

order before I get started.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia has now

embarked on a rapid transit bureau, a rapid expansion of

transportation facilities for pedestrians or potential

pedestrians in the lower mainland and the lower Vancouver

Island area at considerable expense in the purchase of 90-odd

buses. This has been done predicated on the concern for the

preservation of the environment and the downtown parking

problems and the new approach.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that non-metropolitan communities

such as Kamloops, Prince Rupert or other areas of the province

face in a smaller way the same problems of congested downtown

parking, a concern for the environment — in the beginning of

the estimates — before damage is done. And a serious problem of

where single-car families, low income families and senior

citizens do not have any transportation or only limited

transportation available to them and they are cut off from the

activities of the community.

Many of these communities also, Mr. Speaker, in recognition

of the need to redevelop — and some of them are older

communities — are embarking on very

[ Page 2249 ]

expensive and long-range redevelopment programmes of their

downtown area. Involved in this is the concern for parking and

future parking and is bringing to the fore more and more the

need for a transportation service within these communities. To

date this has been done, in any communities that do have them,

by private companies. The Crown now has a policy, brought in by

the previous government, whereby if the municipal transit

system is established, the Crown will pick up 50 per cent of

the deficit.

In view of the new programmes of the New Democratic

Government, and in view of the fact that many of these towns

are at a crucial stage in their redevelopment, the need for

planning is here. Perhaps the Speaker would be interested in

knowing that these subsidies are growing very heavily, because

they are private companies — in Kamloops, $57,000 a year; in

the City of Prince George, $48,000 a year and this will go to

$55,000 in 1974 and $60,000 a year in 1975.

The little community of Penticton pays a $4,928 subsidy.

Chilliwack pays a $3,600 subsidy.

Mr. Speaker, this presents an unequal subsidization

throughout the province in various communities. I submit that

if the Crown was to recognize the right of the municipality to

lease out their contracts to private companies instead of going

into the municipality transit business themselves — subject of

course to a fair wage being paid to the employees of this

transit; subject to the fact that there be no excessive profit

taken, that the private company under lease to the community

should have a fair profit on their capital plus their wages —

that this be recognized as being subject to the present Act and

then the Crown would share in the deficit financing that is

going on and which is placing an unequal burden on taxpayers in

various parts of the province. It is also leaving many citizens

and many communities with only limited bus service or no bus

service, such as in the communities of Cranbrook, Nelson and

Fort St John, where there is no bus service at all.

Mr. Speaker, we're all very much concerned about the role of

the senior citizen in our communities and that they be

involved. So often senior citizens' homes — public housing

shared in by the Government — have to be placed on a fringe area

or certain areas of the town. Then, if there is a bus service,

it will only pass once or twice a day. This automatically

excludes those senior citizens from taking

part in evening

activities in the community, or many Sunday activities.

If the Crown would not be prepared to look at a lease

arrangement acceptable under the present Act, I would ask them

to accept second reading of the Municipal Transit Subsidy

Act under my name on the order paper .

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Point of order. Impost on

the Crown.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I almost made it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the title itself tells the story. It's

out of order under standing order 67.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 38, Mr. Speaker,

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR PRACTICES

IN THE SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 38,

An Act to Provide

for Fair Practices in the Sale of Motor Vehicle Fuel is one

which does in a far more acceptable way some of the intent of

another rather odious Act which I don't want to refer to this

afternoon because if I do so, it will be out of order.

I want to say again that it gives me great pleasure on

private Member's day to be able to present a bill to you, Sir,

and to the House, which is clearly in order and which I know

because of the fact that it's been on the order paper for

almost two months, will be one that has been carefully caucused

by the cabinet and by NDP Members so that there will be no need

to adjourn the bill.

Getting to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it deals

with a subject dear to the heart of the Attorney General and

some of the other Members of the Government, as well as to some

of the former Members of the Social Credit Party — and I think

of our very admired and departed former Member for Omineca (Mr.

Shelford). This is, not by a board or any edict of government,

to cause the retailers and wholesalers of gasoline to reveal to

the public the true source of what they have for sale and to

state by a clearly displayed sign what the cost of that fuel

will be and where it came from.

It really is

an Act, Mr. Speaker, not just to protect the

public, but to protect the lessee of a service station from the

rather odious advertising practices that have worked to the

disadvantage of the public as well as to the man who operates

the service station.

I think the Members of the House are probably all aware of

the unfortunate custom which exists today, where some kind of

advertising display will be thought up by an executive of the

oil company in consultation with an advertising firm — and, Mr.

Speaker, we won't suggest the names of any advertising firms

today. In any event, the idea is that they will think of giving

away balloons or paper darts or glasses or hockey pucks or

something as an advertising promotion. And the retailers of the

gasoline company will be called together and informed that this

is the latest sale promotion and "You're going to have to

display this particular

[ Page 2250 ]

product free to your customers or you'll lose your

lease."

So what happens to the man who has a service station in

Coquitlam or Vancouver East is that he's told that he puts his

money out now to buy whatever the gimmick is. It doesn't make

any difference to the price of his gasoline, but he's forced to

buy from that oil company — Imperial Oil or Shell or whatever

it is — the gimmick at his expense and to display it for those

who come in to buy gas at his service station.

Mr. Speaker, as Members for Coquitlam and Vancouver East

well know, the people who come to that service station come for

the personal service that the lessee of that service station

offers. They're not impressed by being able to get a set of

dishes or a hockey puck at reduced prices. They just want to

have their gasoline pumped at the regular price and to get good

service from the operator of the gas station .

This is what is presented, Mr. Speaker …

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under

section 9 of this very drastic

piece of social legislation, everybody guilty of an offence

against this Act "is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000."

1 say that that transgresses the prerogative of the Crown in

that it seeks to impose a penalty. It's therefore out of order

and there have been Speaker's decisions to that effect. The

Hon. Member will have a chance on the Government's bill to

renew this speech.

MR. SPEAKER: I am going to accept the point of order, Hon.

Member. Would the Hon. Member be seated and I'll explain the

two grounds on which it appears to be out of order.

A decision that was made by Mr. Speaker Perry in 1936: a

bill that gave powers to impose on the Crown by a private

Member in regard to punishment or penalty by a citizen would be

out of order. Then a second ground: it would be out of order if

it anticipates a matter that's on the order paper that deals

with the same subject put on by the Government, because it

would thereby require, if this were accepted, changes in Bill

148; therefore it's anticipating Government policy on Bill 148

and would bring it to naught if this were passed in its present

form. Therefore I rule it out of order on both grounds — the

second is a decision of a Speaker which was upheld by this

House in 1918, Mr. Speaker Keen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 39, Mr.

Speaker.

CREDIT INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize, of course,

that the Members of the Government have been spending the time

in between sessions studying the fine rules of the House and

learning the technicalities. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker,

that the Attorney General would have been delighted to welcome

bills from the Opposition, particularly when they're so well

thought out.

This particular bill, Mr. Speaker, has been regarded in the

past as being in order. Again, I wish I could claim originality

of authorship. But, Mr. Speaker, I must regretfully say that

others have seen fit to introduce this legislation and have

spoken to it probably far more capably than I can today. Of

course, Mr. Speaker, I refer to one of the finest MLAs in this

House, the former Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. B.

Clark). That's not to take anything away from the present

Member.

But the former Member was an outstanding representative of

his riding. Of course, we were very proud to have him on the

Liberal benches. We were very proud of the legislation that he

introduced, which included bills that were along this

particular line.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): What

happened?

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm going to come to "what happened?" to

the Minister of Agriculture. I would think that the Members of

the Government would be very pleased with what happened. The

advent of the Conservative Party, of course, had a great deal

to do with the election of the present Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). But I suspect that that will

be readjusted.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be diverted from the principle of

this particular bill. The Hon. Members know that I can be

teased off the principle of the bill.

The Credit Information Protection Act which the

former Member for North Vancouver–Seymour presented was one

which I think had general acceptance of the House as far as the

principle was concerned.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour defended individuals

who had come to grief because of abuses of credit information

agencies. He cited many instances of that occurring. I'm

certain, however, Mr. Speaker, that the last thing that the

Member for North Vancouver–Seymour would have anticipated is

that he himself would have become a victim of such abuses.

I'm not going to go into the details before this House. I

only want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that having presented this

bill year after year, it is a bill which requires any

individual to be given information if he feels that false

reports have been given concerning his financial status to

lenders who would otherwise be prepared to grant him credit.

Many

[ Page 2251 ]

times the Member cited instances where innocent individuals

had been prevented from gaining credit because of false reports

being presented about them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that the Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour, since he has been in this House, has himself

been in that situation. What more compelling argument could one

find for presenting the bill once more than to say that the

Member who was the former champion has himself been a victim.

Who knows who might be next?

So, Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the Government to accept

this bill on behalf of the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour

and introduce something into the legislation of British

Columbia that is long, long overdue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Conflict of interest.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to point out to the Hon. Member, as it

is my duty to do, that if a bill places any requirement that a

body of persons must obey that will cost them considerable

money or will impose a duty or impost upon them that is a

burden, then it becomes out of order.

The authority for that is a very similar one to the one that

the Hon. Member has raised in his bill. You'll note in his

sections dealing with the consumer reporting agency and the

consumer report files and so on, all of this requires

activities on the part of those persons pointed out by the

Member as having a duty under this bill to supply information,

to do certain things in regard to that information. All of this

is an expense upon those agencies or organizations.

In Speakers' Decisions , Vol. No. 3, at p. 35, Mr.

Speaker Whittaker in the Journals of 1939 at p. 77

pointed out that a bill that would have required ground

accommodation at a mine or below in the mine for employees to

wash and dry themselves and change their clothes, would cause

an impost upon the individuals pointed out by the bill. No

private Member could do that since that type of imposition — or

impost, if you like to call it that — is defined as being one

that requires a compulsory contribution as a result of this

legislation upon certain people pointed out under your

bill.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker Whittaker ruled that bill out

of order and he was supported by the decision of Mr. Speaker

Perry in the B.C. Journals of 1936, p. 125.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, surely you're not going to be

governed by that kind of a nitwit ruling. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Judge Whittaker was a Liberal judge.

MR. SPEAKER: I must not accept that in regard to

either of the Hon. gentlemen, who were much more learned than 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: True, that's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those Liberals just can't get along.

Second reading of Bill 60, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO CONTROL PYRAMID SELLING

MR. SPEAKER: The same Hon. gentlemen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's still out of order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I almost hesitate to speak to a

bill now because there are so many ways of finding bills out of

order that I hadn't anticipated before.

In speaking to the problem of pyramid selling, I realize

once more that the Attorney General has presented

an Act to the

Legislature which doesn't quite show the approach that would be

most effective in dealing with the problem. This one, Mr.

Speaker, would be quite effective in dealing with the problem

of pyramid selling.

We don't need to have a lengthy debate this afternoon about

the pyramid schemes, Mr. Speaker, which rely on the gullibility

of individuals and which all, without exception, end in

disaster. It's been a matter of misfortune that we have not had

adequate legislation in this province to deal with the problem

before. The Province of British Columbia, as is too often the

case, has permitted the problem to get out of hand and has

allowed other jurisdictions to take steps to control the…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I can take a moment to

welcome back to the House this afternoon the former Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. J. Tisdalle). Contrary to the

suggestion made by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom), the former Member for Saanich was just seeking a

front-row seat so he could listen to the debate on this

particular bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're incorrect. This bill has nothing to

do with the Flat Earth Society. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: Well, the Premier is recalling some of the classic debates

in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pyramid, not flat earth.

MR. McGEER: Perhaps we're not going to enter into one of

those classic discussions this afternoon.

[ Page 2252 ]

But, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't for one moment diminish the

importance of the pyramid-selling problem, nor does it reduce

the obligation of this assembly to come forward with a bill

that best deals with this run-away difficulty in British

Columbia.

We could spend the afternoon here discussing the individual

pyramid schemes that have come forward, many of them inspired

by our neighbours to the south. I recall one that was the

subject of a recent television programme on the CBC, where the

man who had introduced it into British Columbia admitted that

he himself had gone broke and made apologies to others he had

goaded into his operation.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill would make it necessary

for those who are embarking on such a pyramid-selling scheme to

register here in British Columbia. I submit that this

particular bill is the best bill dealing with this problem

that's on the order paper in this Legislative Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, I have the honour to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any conceivable way the Hon. Member

could find that I could find the bill is in order? I think it's

out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 61, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, 1967

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: You know, it was a pleasant thing to see the

former Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Tisdalle)

sitting in the gallery. (Laughter). It's a funny thing to find

that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

drove him out, too. Really and truly.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill I would like to make a

couple of very short comments about the situation of the

environment in the Province of B.C. and anti-pollution

laws.

Anti-pollution laws in our province are still very, very

far from being sufficiently encompassing and are still very far from being effective.

We've always advocated over here that in this area the

mandate in B.C. should be very short and simple and very

definitive, and that is: "polluters beware." We think very

strongly and advocate very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that we need

in this province an environmental bill of rights and certainly

a ministry of the environment. Under its aegis, among other

things, Mr. Speaker, there should be the administration of a

province-wide clean air Act, which would I hope tend to clean

up and assist many of the debates that we have in this

House.

New industries, Mr. Speaker, should certainly meet environmental

standards or their doors should remain closed; and old industries should be

encouraged by depletion allowances and interest-free loans to certainly come

up to scratch.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of a conversion

from polluter to non-polluter would provide many jobs and more

work, and perpetual offenders should certainly be encouraged to

phase out. The public interests, without a question of a doubt,

should be the main interest.

Insignificant fines have never ever proven to be the answer

and neither have the insignificant prosecutions. I feel very

strongly, Mr. Speaker, that penalties should be stiffened and

injunctive processes should be made available against defilers.

Now to the intent and the spirit of this bill, which

complements the remarks which I have already made, and the

spirit and the intent of this bill is this: to cover the

situation concerning people and industries who do business with

the government and who have government contracts.

If these individuals, if these companies or these concerns

repeatedly pollute, they should face cancellation of those

contracts because the Government of B.C., the government

business of B.C. should certainly be done with the clean and

not with the dirty.

Under this bill I propose that the government should not

contribute to environmental pollution by contracting for either

goods, material or services with anyone who is in violation of

the provisions of the Pollution Control Act . Anyone who is

ordered to abate any pollution, or we'll say, is convicted of

an offence in contravention of the Pollution Control Act , would

become ineligible to enter into any contract for the

procurement of goods, materials and services with any

provincial department or Crown agency or other instrumentality

of the province during a three-year period following the date

of such conviction or such finding.

I also propose within this bill, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister be empowered to provide regulations whereby parties

who contract with the government would have to furnish specific

proof of compliance with applicable water, land or air

pollution control laws, and that such compliance would be a

term — make it a term and make it a condition — of the

contract.

I think that what I've suggested here is an extremely

needful procedure, and I hope it will receive the support of

the whole of the Legislature as I am sure it will. I am

therefore delighted to move second reading and with perhaps the

hope of getting to third reading today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is aware that he's providing

for penalties upon people in regard to the violations that he

indicated in his statement and consequently also placing a

burden upon the Crown

[ Page 2253 ]

on both those grounds under standing order 67 and

interfering with the prerogatives of the Crown with regard to

penalties. I would deem it to be out of order.

MR. GARDOM: The only curious thing that I note from your

ruling, Mr. Speaker, is the great change in your attitude from

when you were a Member of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I used to fight hard in that job, too.

(Laughter). But it is out of order, I am afraid.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 81, Mr.

Speaker.

ELECTION EXPENSES ACT, 1973

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

This is Point Grey's day.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

discuss a bill which I know is dear to the heart of the

Attorney General of this province. Indeed, I recall, Mr.

Speaker, that the Attorney General introduced a remarkably

similar bill on previous occasions. The bill itself, of course,

has a very laudable objective, and that is to limit the

possibility of a political party buying office by having at

their disposal enormous amounts of election campaign funds.

The entire thrust of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, is

to equalize the amounts of money that can be spent on election

campaigns so that all political parties will have a comparable

chance to win the favour of the voters at election time.

Therefore the people will decide on a much fairer basis who

should represent them than has been the case in the past.

Some may suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this particular bill is

out of order on technical grounds. But I submit that the bill

is very much in order on moral grounds and the Government,

because it's taken such a keen interest in this kind of

legislation when it was in Opposition, could well accept the

general principle of the bill this afternoon. They could let it

be known that in the future in British Columbia we were going

to get away from this tradition where the big unions and the

big corporations of the province made these huge donations to

political parties in order to buy a share of power.

What we want to have is completely free elections in British

Columbia, and to completely exclude Canadian unions or

international unions, or big corporations, be they

international or Canadian corporations, from contributing to the election of Members

of this House.

Instead, we have this very modest proportion of money being

spent. It will be a disappointment I know to the media who have

done so well in the past by the lavish expenditures on

elections, and they would be limited in the future to merely

the news, Mr. Speaker, if this bill were to pass. But the

people would know once that election was held that the Members

who appeared in the House were entirely responsible to them and

not to any special-interest group that might contribute to

their election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the Election Expenses Act, 1973 .

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated comfortably

before I announce I can find nothing wrong with the bill.

(Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you explain to the Hon. Speaker?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): It seems to me that

there is an impost there. However, I think the debate is

worthwhile and certainly…

AN HON. MEMBER: But you're going to adjourn.

HON. MR. HALL: That's right. That's what's going to happen

because we've already made a clear and decisive statement that

there will be a new elections Act before a new election takes

place.

The bill is almost a carbon copy of one produced by the

official Opposition prior to August 30, 1972, as indeed are so

many of the bills. One might say in passing that one wonders

why some of the money is being spent on the research staff over

there. (Laughter).

However, speaking to the principle of the bill, this is

certainly in line with New Democratic Party policy in terms

that it seeks to limit the kind of things that the Member for

Point Grey has said.

However, I am going to move adjournment of this debate, Mr.

Speaker, for the simple reason that this Government has already

said quite distinctly and firmly that there will be a new

elections Act and this is part of the principles this party

formed on our last election.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 82, Mr.

Speaker.

PREVENTION OF RESTRAINT OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES ACT

[ Page 2254 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the other Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey. Oh, I'm sorry, the same Member.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Bill No. 82 I know is a bill

that keenly interests the Minister of Mines, and I don't know

whether he'll adjourn the debate or recommend it to his

colleagues in the Legislature.

But I do confess, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) was correct that some of these bills — and this

is one of them — bear a remarkable similarity to bills that had

been introduced before.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it is a convenience to the Queen's Printer.

But it's been an embarrassment to me, Mr. Speaker, because I've

received a great deal of criticism about the language in this

particular bill. (Laughter). We will not have anything to do

with theft.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I did want to present the bill in

a form that the Government would understand. That's why it

bears this similarity to bills that have been introduced in the

past.

Regardless, Mr. Speaker, of the exact wording of the bill —

and I want to make it clear to the Premier and to the Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) that we

would be prepared to accept amendments to this particular bill

if the Members on the other side wish to provide them.

But the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is one which

again I would judge all sides of the House would accept. This

is merely to restrict the rights of professional people — and

some of the categories are listed in

section 2 — who are

perhaps licensed and given privileges under separate statutes

in this Legislature, to use those rights for pecuniary

advantage and to therefore rest on other statutes in a way

that's contrary to the interests of the common people.

I think it was in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that this

particular bill was brought forward by a former Opposition

party. But we're not ones, Mr. Speaker, to be narrow-minded on

that account. We recognize the validity of it; we support the

general principle; we are certainly prepared to accept any

amendments to it that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources or the Attorney General or the Premier would like to

bring forward. Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in moving

second reading of the Prevention of Restraint of

Professional Practices Act .

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources.

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

I wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination charge anybody with theft. But

this is almost a duplicate, I'd say, of the bill that I had on the order paper

for a number of years.

MR. McGEER: We just wanted you to know we were in favour of

it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm totally in favour of the bill…

AN HON. MEMBER: However…. But…. (Laughter).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …but I've had a promise that one of

these questions has already been dealt with and that…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! Throw it out.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …and that this question is going to be

dealt with by the Government, As you will understand, we've

been very busy with the legislation that we've got before the

people at the present time. In due course this will be dealt

with.

If it isn't dealt with I'll be with you. I move adjournment

of the debate until the next sitting of the House after

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 83, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Hey! We've got a winner this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Number 84. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 83.

OMBUDSMAN ACT

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the late Senator Kennedy talked

about the "impersonality of society." He talked about the gap

between the government and the citizen. And the late President

Kennedy talked about the better accommodation of government to

the citizen rather than the other way around.

By the ever-mounting role of the state, which is

[ Page 2255 ]

being emphasized in British Columbia today as it has never

ever been emphasized before, that demands checks and it demands

balances on the exercise of administrative authority. The red

tape is growing, bureaucracy is skyrocketing and still nobody

has put a hand on the brake to help poor old Joe Public wade

through the maze.

Long ago, Mr. Speaker — I am referring now to the common law

of England — when common law remedies were found to be

inadequate because they were either oppressive or impossible,

the court of equity was established in the era, if I remember

correctly, of Henry IV in England. They were established to do

the right thing — to do equity, exercise fair discretion and to

help them assist people over the areas and the hurdles of

precedent.

The job of an ombudsman would be to do equity in the realm

of government to assist and screen complaints and, indeed,

funnel suggestions to appropriate governmental departments for

action. He would have very wide powers. His guidelines would be

fairness. His job: to help cure the effects of the

"impersonality of government," which is indeed growing.

His job would be to give an ear to the little fellow, to

rectify petty officialdom and to rectify delay.

He would be entitled to investigate either on complaint or

on his own motion to hold hearings and make all necessary

inquiries as he deemed fit. If he concluded that omissions

needed rectification or laws needed reconsidering or practices

should be altered or reasons should be given for decisions —

and we don't have the "Sunshine" law in B.C., you know; you've

not brought that in — then it would be incumbent upon the

ombudsman to report his opinion and his reasons to the

appropriate Minister. If within a reasonable time no action

were taken, then he would have a clear route to the

Lieutenant-Governor and to the people's palace, which is this

Legislature.

As a safeguard, it would be mandatory that each and every

year he would make a complete report to the Legislature on the

exercise of his function so that we could shore up the

administrative weaknesses where needed and where he would find

them.

The ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, should be a man of character, of

conviction and great capacity for human understanding. In order

to ensure the total independence of his position, he should

certainly be as well-recompensed and as well-sheltered from the

political arena as is a supreme court judge.

We find complementary legislation in just about every part

of the world. We find complementary legislation in Canada — New

Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta, just to mention a few

examples.

I appreciate the technical difficulties with the bill, Mr.

Speaker, and I know what your ruling will be.

But indeed, I'm speaking to the principle of something that

has been too long avoided and too long neglected in the

Province of B.C. I think it's of paramount necessity that it

become a matter of fact.

It's very encouraging to notice that the Hon. Premier did

knock his desk in approval of the statement that I've now made.

So I do hope that before you, Mr. Speaker, make a ruling upon

this particular bill, we could have an expression of

governmental opinion. Certainly I would say from the Premier,

who's already indicated by a wink of the eye, a twitch of the

ear, a shrug of the shoulder…

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're with you.

MR. GARDOM: We're which?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're with you.

MR. GARDOM: You're with me?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, we're with you.

MR. GARDOM: Well! At long last. It took us a long time to

convert you but I'm delighted to hear that you're with us. I'd

like to know from the Hon. Premier when he feels that we will

have an ombudsman in the Province of B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not this session.

MR. GARDOM: Not this session. Does he contemplate we'll have

it in the fall?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, ah! Careful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Soon.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member finished?

MR. GARDOM: I am sorry. I intend to sit down, but I have

just noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Premier is groping for

words, which is a very novel kind of a situation.

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member grope for his chair?

(Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: Excuse me. I've not moved second reading, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you move second reading?

MR. GARDOM: Thank you. 'deed I do!

[ Page 2256 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has moved second reading of the

bill. I must admit that he's trying exactly what I tried to do,

except I decided to take up a collection instead of having

section 8, which demands the consolidated revenue pay the bill

for the ombudsman.

I must find that

section 8 offends against standing order

MR. GARDOM: With reluctance.

MR. SPEAKER: With reluctance. I am deeply reluctant.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you. Something borrowed, something blue;

something old, something…. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're looking for suitable candidates.

Some of them are in here in the House. Maybe after the next

election.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 84, Mr.

Speaker.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

APPEALS ACT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 84

is intituled the Administrative Tribunals Appeals Act .

The purpose of this Act is to enlarge the scope of judicial

review from the decisions of government boards and

tribunals.

I think, as the former speaker mentioned in his bill on the

ombudsman, we're all concerned on this side of the House about

the ever-increasing number of governmento boards and tribunals

and commissions which are being set up.

This bill is not meant to be in disrespect to the principle

behind setting up some of these commissions per se, but

certainly we in this party and I think from the comments of the

other Opposition parties, we are all rather concerned, without

reflecting on a vote on a particular bill that was brought into

this House and subsequently amended, that the individual in

society needs all the protection he can get, and he needs to

have all the avenues of appeal that seem reasonable in our

democratic process.

While I'm no lawyer, I understand that many of the appeals that are available

even today have to be passed on a point of law. Even at the original hearing,

if certain facts have subsequently been proven to be erroneous, there is no

avenue of appeal on an error of fact. As a layman, this would seem to me to

be a very undemocratic and unjust situation as it affects an individual coming

before the commission or the tribunal. The main intent of Bill 84 would be to

give the individual this added degree of protection and to

allow him the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia,

based on errors of fact. I take pleasure in moving second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): As the Hon. First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) would say, it gives me

great pleasure to speak on this type of a bill. I would say

that from a first glance, this type of appeal tribunal for

administrative law is long overdue in this province, and I

heartily support the principle behind this kind of a thing. I

want to assure the Hon. Member for Oak Bay that I will do

anything in my limited power to bring about this kind of view

to the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: How limited?

MR. LAUK: Extremely limited. It grows more limited by the

day. (Laughter).

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Live a

little.

MR. LAUK: I therefore, with that promise to Member for Oak

Bay, move adjournment of the debate for this bill until the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 85, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUPREME COURT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to

empower a court in the Province of British Columbia to include

in the amount for which a judgment is given, interest on the

whole or any part of the judgment for the whole or any part of

the period between the date when the cause of action, be it for

death or damages — whatever it may be — arose and the date of

the court award.

This will have quite a few desirable effects. It should have

the desirable effect of encouraging the settlement of lawsuits.

It should have the desired effect of giving well deserved

relief to plaintiffs where the defendants in lawsuits have been

able to use the plaintiff's money while the litigation is in

process.

We live today, Mr. Speaker, in a day of high interest rates.

The procedure I've suggested is not an uncommon one, and it

should certainly be encour-

[ Page 2257 ]

aged. This amendment will just permit that thing to

happen.

We find the problem occasioning in all sorts of cases,

certainly in the claims of larger magnitude — building contract

situations, the field of accident claims and so forth and so

on.

If we find, Mr. Speaker, that a defendant in a lawsuit is

guilty of improper delay in not earlier paying a plaintiff and

depriving a successful plaintiff of the use of his money, or

the damages that he may claim, then that individual should

certainly face the penalty of an interest assessment at such

rate as the court considers proper from the time that his cause

of action arose, or in the whole or any part of the debt or

damages as arose.

We see for practical example, in the Province of B.C., no

end of people who have very, very legitimate claims. You may be

suing for the price of a car that you may have sold. You may be

suing for damages that have occurred to you — very, very

serious personal injuries; it may be on a building contract

claim, as I discussed. Between the time that you have been

improperly and negligently injured, or between the time that

your contract has been unlawfully breached, the litigant, the

plaintiff, the individual who is seeking his remedy is deprived

of interest. And sometimes, it is more beneficial for a

defendant in a lawsuit to wait until the outcome and save the

amount of money on interest rather than pay.

A very simple little illustration for some of the Members:

we'll say that you have a claim for, say $20,000, and you would

be entitled to that $20,000 on January 1. By virtue of the

difficulty getting into court, and the off-the-statement of the

law's delay, you might not be in court for two years. The

interest, say at 8 per cent or 10 per cent, whatever the

appropriate figure may be, you have been deprived of…and

sometimes defendants take a great deal of advantage of this and

refuse to pay claims, and certainly, when we get into claims of

great magnitude.

I'm not going to talk about a case that is before the courts

today — though this particular case is a case involving more

money than has ever been before the courts today and is also

congesting one court longer than any case has ever congested

the court. I would hazard a guess that if we had the provision

that I am talking about right now, whereby a judge would be

entitled to award interest from the date that the remedy

presented itself — which is not from the date of judgment but

from the date the cause of action arose — that you would have

been able to cut down this lawsuit and make the courts

available more for the people as they should be.

You know the best bargain that people ever receive in society today, Mr. Speaker,

is the access to the courts. For the price of $20, which is the issuance

of a writ, and a $5 hearing fee, you can have one of the most grand hearings.

I'm using the word "grand" in the truly philosophical sense, in the truly historic

sense of justice.

We've got a great system of justice and it goes back about

700 or 800 years. For that very, very tiny expenditure of

money, you can have a hearing according to those laws of

justice which have developed over these many years.

The point that I'm making and wish to emphasize is one that

has troubled not only the lawyers, of which I am one, it has

troubled very, very greatly the judges in our province. And the

people who have suffered from not having the remedy that I'm

speaking of are the general public. This is a very, very

worthwhile measure and I indeed hope that I will be successful

in my motion for second reading, which I now move.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate, in a way, to get

into this debate. I think there could be a fairly tenuous

argument put forward that the bill is out of order, but I don't

wish to pursue that particular argument because I think it's a

good bill, one that I remember the Member speaking of a year

ago, and persuading me, as an individual, of its worth.

There have, however, been a number of changes since those

days when we shared elbow space over there. One is the Crown's

venture into certain areas of business that the Member referred

to, such as insurance. The second is that we've had little time

to go over all our statutes. I understand, though I'm not a

lawyer and not familiar with all the Attorney General is doing,

that he intends to move into these areas.

I therefore think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wise for me

to give the Member all the assurance I can, as a Member of this

Government, that his idea is a valid idea and one that should

be pursued. I certainly will pursue it with the Attorney

General, who has just returned. I was going to, on his behalf,

move adjournment of this debate, but instead I will, on my own

behalf, move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting

of the House.

Motion approved.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUCCESSION

DUTY ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, calling Bill No. 86, An

Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act . The Hon. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has introduced that

bill. It must be in order, considering the authorship —

although from the title it makes it seem a little doubtful.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I could move

[ Page 2258 ]

second reading of Bill 86, I wish to assure you and the Hon.

Attorney General that it is perfectly in order. I know that the

Attorney General, true to his reputation established over this

past session, has not read this bill. But I ask him to accept

my firm assurance that it is in order. It does not constitute

any impost upon the Crown. It does not deal with any of the

Crown's prerogatives.

However, it does do something that the Crown forgot to do

last fall. The Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) last

fall made a major step forward in the amendment to gift tax

legislation in this province by providing that gifts for

certain specific purposes, namely for educational institutions

or for hospitals or gifts which were to be devotedly

exclusively to non-profit corporations carrying out works or

objects of benefit to the community generally, were to be

excluded from tax under the Gift Tax Act .

But the Hon. Minister of Finance neglected to recognize that

a gift made within three years of the date of a person's death,

although it might be free from any tax under our gift tax

legislation, was caught under our succession duty legislation

in this province. The sole purpose of this amendment to the

Succession Duty Act is to ensure that a gift to an

educational institution, to a hospital or to a nonprofit

corporation for the purposes of the community generally which

happens to be made within three years of a person's death would

not be caught under the succession duties.

It is a strange anomaly that we have in our taxing

legislation that reaches back three years prior to a person's

death and takes into his or her estate all gifts that were made

within that period of time. Therefore, by accepting this

amendment, as I know the Government will, they will carry out

the true intent of the amendment to the gift tax legislation

which was passed in this House and so widely acclaimed during

the fall session of 1972.

At that time, the amendment had a very significant effect

upon gifts made, in particular to municipalities and to

organizations of the municipalities that were concerned with

the construction of housing accommodation for our senior

citizens. There was a specific case in Oak Bay which

highlighted the need for a change in the gift tax legislation.

However, as it has turned out, the succession duty statute, by

not being amended in the same way last fall, has caused

consequences to those very worthwhile endeavours, which I'm

sure that the Government did not intend or foresee at that

time.

The amendment that I propose at this time will ensure that

endeavours of the nature of those which I mention either will

be free from gift tax or, in the unusual circumstance that the

person who is the donor dies within three years of giving that

gift, will be free from the grasp of the tax collector.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. learned gentleman

at the Clerks' table is able to satisfy the Attorney General and the Hon. Provincial

Secretary as to the wisdom of this amendment which, as I say, makes no difference

whatsoever to the true intent of the Government, as so clearly outlined in their

gift tax amendments last year. I move second reading.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A point of order. I would say that the

bill is out of order because it transgresses upon the revenue

legislation of the Crown. It exempts a group from a form of

taxation and is therefore out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree that the Hon. Member may say that it

does not transgress against the intent that he says some bill

had. But the actual fact that he has to answer and I have to

answer in determining the matter is, does it subtract from the

revenues of the Crown in any way? The answer I get, both from

the Member's speech and my own reading of his proposal is that

it subtracts from the existing revenues enjoyed by the Crown.

That must be done, in this instance, by a message because it

does interfere with the revenues of the Crown under standing

order 67. I therefore must regretfully find it out of

order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker — Bill 87. Could we by leave

of the House pass over that bill?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Second reading of Bill 88.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BILL OF RIGHTS

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This subject, the

British Columbia Bill of Rights , is something which both

sides of the House in this parliament and in the previous ones

that I have attended have all supported.

I think all parties strongly promoted the contents of this

bill in their election campaigns. In this session of the

Legislature which began at the end of January, much reference

has repeatedly been made in debates on estimates and in the

throne speech and budget speech to the fact that we have a

federal Bill of Rights but there is a need to provide for the

lack of discrimination for the citizens of British Columbia in

relation to employment, opportunities and wage rates.

In other words, what the bill is trying to do is eliminate

all discrimination in relation to colour, creed, religion, sex,

education and so on, and to ensure all the freedoms we pay lip

service to so often — freedom of speech and free assembly,

freedom of

[ Page 2259 ]

the Press…

AN HON. MEMBER: Freedom from the Press?

MR. WALLACE: Freedom of the Press. (Laughter). I'm sure the

Hon. Member is being facetious. We politicians couldn't even

function without the Press. They could get along fine without

us probably, but we can't get along with them.

To get back to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, the

important element in the bill is that if there is any preceding

legislation of this province which denies the principle and the

assurances of no discrimination in this Bill 88, then of course

Bill 88 supersedes the authority of preceding laws.

Mr. Speaker, if one listens to the voice of the public and

talks to the constituents around his own riding and across the

province, this is indeed the kind of bill which people are

seeking. With respect, Mr. Speaker, we have had admissions from

the Government side, including the Provincial Secretary, that

there is a great need to do away with a great deal of

discrimination against women in the government civil

service.

This is rather a specific example, but I feel that the

record shows in this session and in many other sessions that

all Members of the House are in favour of a bill of rights.

Therefore it gives me great pleasure to move second reading of

Bill 88.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If I may speak to the point of order

just for a moment. We appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member

has drawn this bill up. It's something that's under active

consideration by the Government. Only the pressure of time,

really, means that it may not be presented at this session.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. This year or very soon. We do

appreciate seeing the opinions of Members. But the Member has included

section

6 and I think that renders this bill out of order

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, one of the provisions of standing order 67 is that

one must not interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown. Only the Crown has

that right — to interfere with its prerogatives. If it isn't by message, then

no private Member can do so In

section 6 it says:

"There is hereby repealed any provision heretofore passed

by this Legislature requiring that the consent of the Crown in Right of the

Province be obtained before the Crown in Right of the Province can be sued."

That is the prerogative of the immunity of the Crown, a doctrine that goes all through the history of

England.

MR. WALLACE: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the bill were

amended by deleting

section 6, would it then be in order?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm afraid I can't…

MR. WALLACE: I'm actually speaking for this party and I

think from the sentiments on…

MR. SPEAKER: I can't deal with the theoretical aspect of it

at this stage. If it got to committee — but in principle…

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask leave to withdraw

section 6 from

the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: No bill can be amended before second reading,

I'm afraid. You have to deal with the principle.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of

Bill No. 89, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased this bill was

called by the Minister of Education, because it's a bill to end

discrimination against women in one aspect of the provincial

administration.

I apologize to the Members for the rather complicated

verbiage but that, unfortunately, is the way bills must be

drafted. It's only to be certain, Mr. Speaker, that this

particular piece of legislation is completely in apple pie

order.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know why it has to be so long.

MR. McGEER: Yes. Well, it would be nice just to be able to

dismiss all discrimination with a word and a wave of the hand.

But what we have on our books, Mr. Speaker, is discrimination —

or rather discretion — in the hands of the Deputy Minister of

Health Services and Hospital Insurance, which is used to

discriminate against the female sex. Mr. Speaker, I think

that's completely wrong and this is why this particular bill

has been brought forward.

I'm so pleased that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) has arrived. She herself is aware of some of the…

MRS. JORDAN: Did you miss me?

MR. McGEER: Well, indeed we did, Madam Member, as far as

this particular bill is concerned,

[ Page 2260 ]

because we very much want your support and we recognize how

valuable a contribution you will be able to make to the debate

on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, for those Members who aren't completely

familiar with the Hospital Insurance Act — and may I plead that

I was one of those who wasn't entirely familiar with it until

it was brought to my attention — under

section 8 the Deputy

Minister may declare who is head of the family.

Mr. Speaker, right now the Deputy Minister of Hospital

Insurance is a man. He has been declaring that only men shall

be head of a family. We had this one intolerable situation

occur where a man had been the wage-earner in the family. His

wife had been a student and he immediately qualified as head of

the family for BCHIS purposes. Then they left the province for

a time and they came back to British Columbia and the tables

were turned because, you see, the wife has the education now.

She had the job and the poor dumb man was going back to college

to try to get some education so he could earn a decent living.

She was head of the family. She was bringing in the income.

But when that family applied to the BCHIS, the Deputy

Minister ruled that the student was head of the family, and it

worked to the financial disadvantage of the husband and wife

because they had moved from the Province of Ontario and

therefore did not qualify for BCHIS on account of his being a

student, even though she was working. Had she not been married

and supporting her husband as a student at the university, she

would have qualified as head of the family and would not have

had to pay full hospitalization should anyone in the family,

including herself, have become ill.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's one of these situations where

discretion is permitted on the part, in this particular case,

of the Deputy Minister. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy

Minister has power over the Minister in this particular

situation, which seems to be another absurdity.

But it can all be corrected. In fact, this bill does exactly

that. It's a mini-bill for women's rights. It corrects a gross

abuse. It's completely in order. I know that the women of the

House will certainly want to support this legislation on behalf

of other working women who have been discriminated against in

the Province of British Columbia so that we see justice and

equality.

On behalf of the lady Members of the House and all women in

the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading of Bill 89.

MR. SPEAKER: It does not appear to interfere with the

prerogatives of the royal family.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the point is well made. The

Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and I cooperated in the early

days of this government when I was the Minister responsible for

Medicare. Together we moved into this area of investigation

that's commonly called the health security programme. Part of

that programme is a complete review of the Hospital Insurance

Act .

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the

discrimination which is apparent and which is confirmed by the

Member's eloquent words, I, as Provincial Secretary, am trying

to make sure that every single discriminatory action is halted,

is stopped, is removed from our Acts, statutes, regulations and

discretionary powers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And your own home.

HON. MR. HALL: And, as the Attorney General says, my own

home. It seems to me that there are better ways to go about

this particular problem than that which is encompassed in Bill

89, which calls for an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Surely we

can get to the stage where we can simply state what we want to

have achieved and have it carried out by Deputy Ministers and

other civil servants all the way down the line.

I think the bill is a valuable piece of input, as they say,

that should go to Dr. Foulkes' health security programme by way

of the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon.

Mr. Cocke.)

I move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the

House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 90.

TAXPAYERS' PROTECTION ACT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is another bill which has

been discussed, or the content and principle of which have been

discussed, many times. It was also part of the election promise

of this party. At the federal level we have an auditor general

whose basic purpose in life is to assure the taxpayers of

judicious use of funds and to detect and expose any squandering

of funds, and the federal example, I think, is very hard to

find fault with. Maybe some of the tactics and some of the

politicking involved is unfortunate, but Maxwell Henderson has

certainly served the federal purpose very well.

It is our feeling that the same kind of complete freedom by

a government-appointed official to investigate and report to

society and to this House on the methods and results of

government spending and government funds is something which,

with the ever-growing size of government and the involvement of

government in a far wider range of responsibility

[ Page 2261 ]

than ever before, is a measure of protection to the

individual to ensure that his money is properly spent by

government.

I move second reading of Bill 90.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the auditor general would

necessarily have to be paid by the revenues of the province. I

think for that reason the bill is out of order. I don't see the

Liberal Party, in any case, supporting the appointment of an

auditor general after their experiences in Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER:

Section 2 of the bill clearly puts it as an

infringement against standing order 67, because it does call

for the expenditure of public money and an appropriation from

the Legislature. I must, therefore, rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 91, Mr.

Speaker.

RURAL STUDENT AID TRAVEL FUND ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker. It's certainly a great opportunity for me to stand

in this House this afternoon and speak for those in the

province who are for equal opportunity to our educational

facilities in this province. I know that I speak on behalf of

all of the Members of the Government backbench who are for

rural ridings when I ask them to support this bill.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that some of the

students who seek higher education from the rural ridings are

at a disadvantage. In the beginning, they do not have access to

our major museums, which are mainly in the lower mainland and

in the cities. They do not have access to the libraries which

have more books than the libraries in the rural ridings. They

do not have access to the planetarium in the lower mainland.

They do not have access to the aquarium. They do not have

access to the zoo and wildlife habitats that we have in Stanley

Park. These are all part of learning.

They do not have access to the universities and the higher

learning institutes that we have in the lower mainland. When

they do travel to the lower mainland and the cities of

Vancouver and Victoria to attend these institutes of higher

learning, they do so at their own expense. Not only do they

have their travelling expenses, Mr. Speaker, but they have to

provide for their own keep while they're here. They have to

look after their own spending money and they have to provide

their food and lodging.

While city students are attending these universities, they can not only live

at home — which, as you know, in many cases would be much cheaper because they'd

be living with their families — but they do not have to provide for the travel

funds. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that they can be home on the weekends

to relax, which would probably enhance their ability to learn come Monday morning,

They'd certainly be more relaxed. Also, Mr. Speaker, they have the opportunity

to be with their families on long weekends and such holidays as Thanksgiving

and Christmas.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that no one would want to deny these

rural students the right to spend the great season of Christmas

with their families. It would be a shame. I know, Mr. Speaker,

that even you wouldn't want to deny them that.

MR. SPEAKER: It's nothing to me. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, this is truly a hindrance to the

students of the rural ridings in obtaining higher education. As

I say, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for all the Members of the

backbench. I know that the Government is going to lend a very

sympathetic ear to this bill.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that as time goes on it would

probably mean that the Government will have to dig into their

back pocket to help these students with some travel aid. But I

know, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is sympathetic. Even

though there's a remote possibility that the bill could be

ruled out of order this afternoon, I know that the Government

will take a sincere look at it. I know that many of their own

backbenchers are interested in seeing this come into being.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, I do know that they'll take a sincere

look at it because they are a Government that wants to provide

equality of education for all. I therefore take great pleasure,

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 91. Thank

you.

HON. MR. HALL: I assure the Hon. Member that we will take a

sincere look at it. I must point out that it is out of order in

the hands of a private Member. But I assure the private Member

that there'll be a further opportunity to delve into this

important matter when the Government calls resolution 36 on the

order paper on page 5.

At that time, we'll have an opportunity perhaps to have a

unanimous vote in terms of the principle to which you have just

addressed yourself. I must point out, however, that sections 1,

2, 3 and 4 would appear to render the bill out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it's obvious from the sections of the bill

that deal with the obtaining of the money to pay on this travel

fund set under title that it would offend against standing

order 67. I have a duty,

[ Page 2262 ]

therefore, to rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 92.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there's a real danger of

being out of order on the basis of tedious repetition on this

bill, I'm afraid. This is a bill which very simply is intended

to fill the tremendous gap in the coverage of hospital

insurance to those patients who are presently in nursing homes

and private hospitals. They come under the category of

intermediate care.

We have canvassed this problem in the House many times. It's

disappointing that this was a very prominent issue which was

supported strongly by the Government when they were in

Opposition. It is one very disappointing part of the early

performance of this Government that we're still without just,

fair and equal treatment to the people requiring intermediate

care.

The other persons in general hospitals receiving either

acute or extended care are covered at $1 a day. But the people

who require this other intermediate level of care are presently

undergoing tremendous financial hardship.

I move second reading of Bill 92.

MR. SPEAKER: On the question that I have to determine at

this point after the motion, it appears that it would widen the

number of facilities that would have to be provided for a group

of persons requiring intermediate care of all types and the

acquisition of buildings and natural facilities to go with that

expansion of the number of people to be provided for.

Consequently, it would have to be on the basis of a

recommendation from the Crown.

I must therefore find it out of order under standing order

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 93.

AIR AMBULANCE AID ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, it gives me

great pleasure to stand here in the Legislature and speak for

equality of opportunity to share the facilities of our health

services anywhere in the province.

Mr. Speaker, we should work on the principle that all persons in British

Columbia are entitled to equal treatment from our health services and from our

Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. At present, due to the

logistics in the province of where people live and where these facilities are,

this is not the case.

I'm sure you're well aware, Mr. Speaker, that hospitals in

the rural ridings — and these are good hospitals — and, even

in some of the larger areas in the northern part of the

province cannot, due to the way medical science is progressing,

provide all the services that are required by citizens who do

not live in the immediate area. I refer to such services as

brain surgery, heart surgery, cancer operations and indeed

cancer therapy. This is the way it is, Mr. Speaker, and the way

it will always be. It would be both physically impossible and

economically not feasible to provide these services in all

areas in the province because we are a large province.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that in certain outlying

rural areas there are no hospital facilities at all. I speak

mainly for the northern parts of the Omineca riding and the

Atlin riding and certain parts of the North Peace riding, where

development is taking place. Some of these areas are many, many

hundreds of miles away from any hospital facilities at all.

So there are really two parts to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I

think that we in British Columbia should take a very close look

at how we can assist people who require these services to

obtain them without a great financial burden to themselves. For

instance, a person who hasn't been able to work may require

special attention. In many cases they may be in financial

straits themselves. Then if they have to provide plane fare to

the lower mainland, it works a great hardship on them.

I would really hope, Mr. Speaker, that our Government would

take a very sincere look at this. It's very difficult to put a

monetary value on life. You can't do it. But I'd like to point

this out, Mr. Speaker. If the owner of a small plane or a

larger plane or even a company plane goes down anywhere —

suppose you were making a trip between here and Prince George —

some branch of the government would spend thousands, tens of

thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars from the

public purse to search for that plane. Indeed, if the people

are injured from the plane crash, they would be flown out to

the nearest medical facilities.

I think we should exercise the same kind of judgment, Mr.

Speaker, in looking after those who we know require medical

facilities.

We know where they are, and we should certainly not impose

additional financial burden on these people. If necessary, if

not done from the public purse, it could be done through some

form of insurance where everybody in the province, indeed, pays

into this, so it would be sort of an equalization fund.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister without Port-

[ Page

2263 ]

folio has spoken on this. I am given to understand that the

government is sympathetic to this request, and I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that we move, and move fairly swiftly toward

implementing this. I hope the government will move very swiftly

toward implementing this because there are many, many

cases, particularly with older people, who require the additional

facilities. It is just too much of a financial burden, Mr.

Speaker, for them to provide their transportation to acquire

the facilities available in these hospitals, Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in being able to

move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, again the Government accepts the

principle of the bill, and there will be an opportunity for

further debate and a resolution of unanimity for resolution No.

24 on the order paper by the Hon. Minister without

Portfolio.

I will say, however, that at the moment there are currently

both my officials from Civil Defence, chief pilot Toye,

Minister of Highways people and of course the appropriate staff

of Hospital Insurance working as an active committee, and have

been for some time — working on this even to the size of the

doors on the planes and so on. Certainly, I know it is going to

be a happy day for the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder). I

certainly want to congratulate the Member for speaking

sincerely as a northern Member on this problem. However, the

Member from the north calls for $1 million, and I can't buy

that just at the moment.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill is clearly out of order — standing

order 67.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 94.

STIMULATION OF EMPLOYMENT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): In answer to the

question, Mr. Speaker, I have been with the Hon. Minister of

Health Services (Hon. Mr. Cocke)…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CURTIS: I heard the question.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to move second reading of Bill No. 94. Much has

been said in this chamber this session on the subject of unemployment, and the

purpose of Bill No. 94 is to draw to the attention

of the House the need for stimulation of employment. A little less talk, perhaps,

and a little more action.

Unemployment — the major problem in British Columbia at this

particular time. An opportunity will be found in any one of

several areas to stimulate employment and to reduce the rolls

of unemployed in the Province of British Columbia —

particularly, I think, in areas of activity where we can

improve our environment and assist other levels of government

at the same time.

The Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, will note that several points

have been set out in this particular bill with respect to

parks, both provincial, regional and municipal; with respect to

the acceleration of capital works and incentives to the private

sector, because we happen to believe that simply to increase

the amount of money available from the provincial purse is not

likely to be of that much assistance.

We need to generate more activity in the private sector in

terms of construction, reconstruction, renovation. The subject

is one which I know is of concern to every Member, regardless

of where he or she sits in the House. And we are attempting in

this particular document to indicate the several ways in which

this very serious matter can be attacked, and attacked

forthwith. I have great pleasure in moving second reading of

Bill No. 94.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill appears to require the expenditures of

large sums of money in most of the provisions that are set out

section 1(a-j). In view of that fact, it would be impossible

that it proceed either without the consent of the Crown by

message or other signification by the members of the

Government. In view of the situation, I must declare that the

bill is out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 95.

ABANDONED REFRIGERATOR ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, let me very hastily say there is

nothing facetious or an attempt at any distorted humour in this

bill. After it was tabled in the House I took exception to some

of the remarks from the Fourth Estate. I praised them this

afternoon. But at the moment I don't accept their facetious

remarks when this bill was tabled.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about ice boxes?

MR. WALLACE: That's included in the bill, Mr. Member, if

you've read it. "Refrigerator, ice box, freezer cabinet or

similar refrigerating unit."

[ Page 2264 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am also sure that this bill is in order,

since it does not call for the spending of public funds. The

reason is very simple. It is one of these areas of protection

which happens not very often in society, but when it does it is

a particularly disastrous and distressing human situation.

The most recent example occurred in Esquimalt. I am sorry

that the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) isn't here, because I

know he is sympathetic to what this bill intends to do, or

tries to do. But this occurred in November last year when a

nine year old boy, who also happened to have a disability in

speaking, was found in a refrigerator which had been abandoned

less than a block from his own home. It was some 21 hours

before he was found.

I don't think anyone in this House would hesitate to agree

that if there is a way in which this kind of tragedy can be

prevented…surely any way that would help to prevent it

should be used.

I also agree, Mr. Speaker, with the comments as received

that it is probably trying to legislate integrity. You can't

make people take the necessary steps to discard their

refrigerators and ice boxes in a safe fashion. But the fact is,

first of all, that if we put legislation on the books, it does

draw public attention to the danger. And I don't think

everybody is aware of the danger.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I canvassed every province in

Canada to find out if this has been legislated, and there are

only two provinces that have any kind of legislation. One is

Saskatchewan, the other is Newfoundland. It isn't by statute in

Newfoundland, but it is by statute in Saskatchewan.

But part of the principle of this bill is that if anyone

else, other than the owner of an abandoned refrigerator, finds

such an object in a place accessible to children, that person

can remove the door and the hinges, or at least disable the

refrigerator without himself being left open to any civil suit

or to any damages. I think that since it is a very simple bill,

its purpose is very clear — to try and prevent these tragedies

happening with young children — and since it does not involve

the expenditure of public money; it is basically a bill for

society as a whole, particularly for the protection of children

such as we discussed yesterday. I would hope that the

Government would…

I don't care if the bill comes in under my name as private

Member, I just want this bill to be given the publicity that it

needs, and to be put on the statute books. So I would hope that

the Government would consider accepting the bill, and I now

move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate the Hon. Member drawing this bill,

and giving the matter public attention. I have tried

to do the same thing, because basically that is what is needed. We have to alert

people to this danger — even though it is only the old type of refrigerator

that locked in that way. The new magnetic ones are not dangerous, hopefully.

But the old ones still present a menace to children.

We have tried to publicize that municipal inspectors have

the authority under the Health Act , as part of the

safety of people, to pick up these things, dismantle them if

necessary, and call them to the attention of the owners. But it

is really a matter of getting the message out there. Even

passing a bill and imposing a penalty which might result in a

bereaved parent being charged and fined in provincial court

really doesn't do much about it. It is more education, and more

a matter of the municipal people referred to doing their best

to locate these dangers and preventing them from causing

accidents.

But the bill, I think, is out of order, Mr. Speaker, because

it does seek to impose a penalty. Much as we'd like to see this

brought to the floor of the House. Out of order under rules of

the House, particularly vol. 3.

MR. SPEAKER: At p. 30 of vol. 3, Mr. Speaker Whittaker

clearly sets out — that's the Speaker's Decisions ,

December 6, 1938. Journals , p. 100, the Hon. Speaker

says:

"A bill imposing fines and imprisonments cannot be

originated by a private Member except with the consent of the

Crown."

And he refers to 1932 Journals , p. 75; 1936

Journals , first session, p. 119. This matter was

determined by a vote of the House and therefore it's binding on

us unless changed by the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 96, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE TRUST COMPANIES ACT

MR. GARDOM: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I would

very much like to bid welcome to somebody who's fairly close to me, Miss Briony

Gardom and her very good friend, Miss Susan Heathcote, who've come over this

afternoon. If they're finding the House a little dull this afternoon they are

quite free to leave, providing they're dressed and clean for dinner at 6 o'clock

tonight. (Laughter).

Speaking to the principle of this measure, Mr. Speaker, it

must become mandatory that the report of the inspector of trust

companies be made public and filed in the Legislature. At the

present time, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the Trust

Companies Act , the inspector of trust companies only has to

file his report with the Minister of Finance and with the

Attorney General — that is with the Premier and the

[ Page 2265 ]

Attorney General — and neither of them has any

responsibility whatsoever to file that report in this

Legislature.

I would say that in this matter we have to insist upon full

public accountability.