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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3033 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Statement Commission on pesticides. Hon. Mr. Cocke —

Routine proceedings Oral questions Contract between Government of B.C. and

Seattle City light. Mr. D.A. Anderson I — 3033

Helicopter crash at Pavilion. Mr. Chabot — 3034

Recovery of audit fees. Mr. McGeer — 3034

Bomb sweep in Vernon area. Mrs. Jordan — 3035

Auditing restrictions. Mr. Gardom — 3035

Rifle incident. Mr. Wallace — 3036

Acquisition of deer-grazing land in North Okanagan. Mrs. Jordan.—

Glenshiel Hotel purchase. Ms. Sanford — 3036

Guarantee of Natural Justice Act (Bill No. 116). Second

reading.

Mr. Wallace — 3037

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3038

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority Act (Bill No. 119). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 3038

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3038

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3039

An Act to Provide for Public Scrutiny (Bill No. 125). Second

reading.

Mr. Gardom — 3039

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3039

An Act to Amend the Age of Majority Act (Bill No. 127).

Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3040

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3040

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill No. 131).

Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 3040

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3040

An Act in Suits Against the Crown. Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 3040

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3041

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill No. 154).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 3041

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3041

Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation Act (Bill No. 155).

Second reading.

Mr. Richter — 3041

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3042

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act (Bill No. 157).

Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 3042

Hon. Mr. King — 3042

An Act Respecting the Rights of Non-Smokers. (Bill No.

166).Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 3043

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3044

Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 1973. Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 3044

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3044

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3044

An Act Respecting the Fluoridation of Water Supplies (Bill

No. 170).

Second reading Mr. McGeer — 3044

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3045

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps. (Bill

No. 17 1).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 3045

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3046

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3046

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill No. 177). Second

reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3046

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3046

British Columbia Planning Authority Act, 1973 (Bill No.

184).Second reading.

Mr. McClelland — 3046

Hon. Mr. Barrett 3047

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3047

Motions No. 44, Vietnam rehabilitation centre. Hon. Mr. Cocke —

No. 45. Appointment of Mr. Horne as Clerk of the House.

Hon.

Mr. Hall — 3048

Mr. Williams — 3048

Mr. Richter — 3048

Mr. Wallace — 3048

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3049

Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50 (see appendix) — 3049

Automobile Insurance Act (Bill No. 35). Committee stage.

Mr. McClelland — 3049

Mr. Williams — 3050

Mr. Smith — 3053

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3053

Mr. Smith — 3054

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3054

Mr. Phillips — 3055

Division on challenge to Mr. Chairman's ruling on amendment — 3058

Mrs. Jordan — 3058

Mr. Williams — 3060

Mr. Smith — 3061

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3061

Mr. Smith — 3061

Report stage — 3061

Division on third reading — 3061

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No.

34).

Committee stage

Mr. Smith — 3062

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3062

Mr. McGeer — 3063

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3063

Mr. Smith — 3063

Mr. Gardom — 3063

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3064

Mr. McClelland — 3064

Mr. Gardom — 3064

Mr. Smith — 3064

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3065

Mr. Gardom — 3065

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3065

Mr. Smith — 3066

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3066

Mr. Chabot — 3066

Report stage — 3067

Division on third reading — 3067

Reports Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing. 1st report

(see appendix) — 3067

Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education. Ist report (see

appendix) — 3067

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. 1st report — 3067

Mrs. Jordan — 3068

Special Committee on Television Broadcasting. 2nd report (see, appendix) —

Royal assent to bills — 3069

Prorogation — 3070

Appendix : — 3071

Erratum — 3076

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to introduce to the House a man who was one of the

great Ministers of Education in this province when he was a

Member of the former government, and with whom I sat for a time

in opposition, down around there somewhere, 20 years ago this

session, Mr. Bill Straith and Mrs. Straith.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I'd like to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, today I am making a

recommendation to cabinet that we establish a three-man

commission and an inquiry into the use of pesticides in the

province.

As you know, there has been a great deal of criticism on

2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and other herbicides. Therefore, I'd like to

announce that I'll be asking cabinet, through the Public

Inquiries Act, to appoint Prof. Courtland MacKenzie, M.D.,

chairman of the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at

UBC Medical School. Dr. MacKenzie is also a public member of

the Pollution Control Board. Dr. Bill Oldham, Assistant

Professor of Public Health Engineering, Department of Civil

Engineering at UBC, will be a commissioner. The third member of

the inquiry is yet to be appointed and/or suggested.

I think it's very important right now, Mr. Speaker, in that

these two herbicides particularly, are getting a great deal of

public attention. As a government, we feel that there should be

some very definite direction established for our new

policies.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like

the House to join with me in welcoming to the gallery my wife,

and my mother who came out from Calgary and is spending a few

days in British Columbia.

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

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

refer back for a moment to the Minister of Health's statement, if I may. In

light of the fact that he will be studying pesticides and herbicides, has he

entertained any idea of placing someone on the committee who is familiar with

agriculture and its problems?

I realize that public health must come first, but it would

seem most unwise not to have anyone there related to

agriculture, who would recognize the immediate problems.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's an excellent suggestion, Mr. Speaker.

That's the reason we haven't named the third person. The person

whom we would like to appoint, unfortunately, cannot

communicate with us at the moment. Therefore I'm delaying the

appointment of that person, but with that very thought you

suggested in mind.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

CONTRACT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT OF B.C.

AND SEATTLE CITY LIGHT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in view of the

fact that Mr. Russell Train, who is at present with the

American President's Council of Environmental Advisors, has

stated that in the American government's view, a continuing

contract exists between the Province of British Columbia and

Seattle City Light, may I ask the Premier whether the

government has had contact with Seattle City Light, their

contractual partners, and informed them clearly of the desire

of the Province of British Columbia to step out of our

contractual obligations?

I HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked

before and answered before. I say again that we have instructed our federal

government of the position that the Government of British Columbia has, that

is, against the raising of the Ross Dam. We have asked the federal government,

through protocol, to handle this problem for us.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the point that I was trying

to get across was that last week, Mr. Russell Train, who is the

chairman of the environmental advisors to the President, has

indicated that in his view, this is a contractual obligation

between B.C. and Seattle City Light. In the light of this

federal U.S. government position, may I ask the Premier once

more whether he will get in touch with the contractual

partners, namely Seattle City Light, and inform them of our

desire not to proceed with the contract.

[ Page 3034 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not within the

jurisdiction of this government to proceed in that fashion when

we have a federal government that deals directly with the

foreign powers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if I may. I read in the

newspaper that Mr. Davis was going to arrange meetings. We have

not heard anything from Mr. Davis about the meetings he

announced in the newspapers.

We respect our federal government. We're following protocol

and we urge the federal government to continue on its course of

action as requested by the Province of British Columbia —

that is, to assure the United States, specifically the City of

Seattle, that we do not wish this project to go ahead. We would

welcome hearing from Mr. Davis as to a date when the meetings

he announced will take place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question is, Mr. Speaker, have there

been any negotiations on a contract which was signed by the

then Premier of the Province of British Columbia? It's not

something in the hands of the two senior governments because of

the existing contract between Seattle City Light and the

Province of B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Negotiations with whom, Hon. Member?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Negotiations with Seattle City Light.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we belong to a federal system

of government. We have asked the federal government, who has

the power to write treaties, to take action on this. If the

Member is suggesting that we secede, I reject that suggestion

completely. We're Canadians and we deal through Ottawa.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the question that I've asked

is a realistic one. The statement made on April 10 by Jack

Davis has been made available to the Premier. This was a

statement made in the federal House. The problem that we're

faced with is that legalistic or jurisdictional excuses of this

nature, which may well be leading this province into

substantially greater expenditure than would otherwise be…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not the time for

speeches. I would point out to the Hon. Member that Beauchesne

sets it out very clearly at pp. 147 and 148 that you cannot ask

a Minister for the solution of a legal problem. Secondly, you

can't ask for advice that deals with a question in another

government and deals with a foreign power.

Both your questions relate to negotiations that are taking

place at another level not the responsibility of this

government.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

HELICOPTER CRASH AT PAVILION

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question for the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: information has

come out that there was a tragic accident in the Pavilion area,

where a leased Northern helicopter crashed. Two civil servants

from the B.C. Forest Service were involved. Does the Minister

have any information to give the House regarding this

tragedy?

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

I certainly regret the tragedy. I haven't any information to provide the House

at this time, unfortunately. But, I certainly will make any information that

comes to my hands available to the Members of this House and to the public.

MR. CHABOT: Just a short supplementary question: I presume

there will be some form of investigation and that the details

will be made available to the Members of this assembly. I'd

like to see the details.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Naturally, there will be the Ministry of

Transport analysis. That's always made public, I understand.

Our information will be as well.

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

Grey.

RECOVERY OF AUDIT FEES

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

question to the Premier: in view of the Minty report tabled in

the House yesterday, will the government be moving to recover

fees from the chartered accountants who carried out the audit

of that company and signed the balance statement?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a novel suggestion, Mr. Member,

through you Mr. Speaker. The government has outlined the course

of action it will follow. That is, it will initiate the further

studies suggested in the Minty report. As I said yesterday,

when those studies are complete, they will be made available to

the Members of the public accounts committee. Then the

decisions will be made on the completion of all those

reports.

But to recover fees from a firm, based on the information we

have now, would be inappropriate. Apparently, they were

confined by the railway to the

[ Page 3035 ]

limited information they had. That's pointed out in the

Minty report. I'm sure that the question was only meant to

highlight the problems that have already been made known to the

people of British Columbia, rather than any inference that the

company that did the limited external audit was somehow acting

improperly.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary?

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question to the Premier: yes. My

question wasn't really directed at a way of highlighting what

was done. Mr. Speaker, the signatures on that balance sheet

indicated no limitations, just as the Commonwealth Trust balance

sheet that was signed on a former occasion indicated no

limitations.

I wonder if the Premier is prepared to take this up with the

Institute of Chartered Accountants?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you wish to submit a formal complaint

to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, certainly any

citizen can do that, as I understand it. At this moment we're

not making any judgments or drawing any inferences. We've just

made the report available to the Members. This is an open

government. We're following through on Mr. Minty's

recommendations. We're not looking to castigate anyone. We just

want to establish good business practices in the Province of

British Columbia. We need a business-like government in this

province. As a result, we will carry out the recommendations of

the Minty report and table all the information — to all

the Members of this House.

I hope the Member doesn't leave the impression that he is on

some kind of witch hunt after that accounting firm. It would be

a bad mistake in my opinion…

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a question of what appears to be

imbalanced.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if you wish to complain to the

Institute of Chartered Accountants, I'm sure they'll receive

your complaint, but we're not making judgments at this time. We

are just looking at all the facts, just like all British

Columbians are.

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

BOMB SWEEP

IN VERNON AREA

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the

Hon. Provincial Secretary regarding the efforts made by myself and the people

of the Vernon area and the Provincial Secretary to have the federal government

sweep the Vernon military area for the potentially dangerous bomb. Has the Minister

had any response from Ottawa as to whether or not they will carry out this sweep?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I have had no response

to my wires being received to date.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, in

light of the fact that it is possible we may not have an

opportunity to see the Provincial Secretary for a few days, if

one way or another contact with Ottawa could be re-established

next week. I might request that the Minister advise me, should

I not be available, as to what their decision is —

perhaps by next Friday.

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, I'll make that assurance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

AUDITING RESTRICTIONS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): In Mr. Minty's

report to the Hon. Minister of Finance, he says in page 8 that,

according to the comptroller, E.M. Gunderson restricted the

extent to which the external auditors could go in their

auditing with the consequent limitation of fees charged. I

would ask the Minister of Finance if he has asked Mr. Gunderson

for the reason for this restriction.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the thoroughness with which

you read the report, Mr. Member, but I think it would be

improper of me, at this point, to ask Mr. Gunderson, or anyone,

a question. What I prefer to do is let the House handle this

matter. As I said, the report would go to the Public Accounts

Committee.

The Public Accounts Committee, under our standing orders,

has the authority to subpoena witnesses. At the time when they

have all the information in front of them, under the able

chairmanship of the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), the

Members will be able to call anyone that the committee wishes

to discuss on any matter that is involved in the Minty Report

or subsequent investigations.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a supplemental?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It indicates that for 10 years

auditors have not reported on the internal control

difficulties. Who have been the auditors over the past 10

years? Do you have that information?

[ Page 3036 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the auditors, as to the last…

MR. GARDOM: I know, that's obvious, but over the past 10

years?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry I don't have that information.

Unfortunately there isn't enough time to answer it on the order

paper, I can certainly find out for you.

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

RIFLE INCIDENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the Attorney

General wanted to be reminded about the incident I raised of

the two soldiers with rifles in the tavern. I am wondering if

he could tell us if charges will be laid?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I can't tell you

that Mr. Speaker. I don't have to be reminded about it. I feel

rather guilty that the external report on that incident has

still not reached me because I wanted to present it before the

end of this session. I have internal departmental information

and I don't want to release that in part. Our requests for

reports from outside the department itself have simply not come

in and I asked yesterday that they be rushed. I am sorry about

that.

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

ACQUISITION OF

DEER-GRAZING LAND

IN NORTH OKANAGAN

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct

a question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources; Recreation and Conservation. In regard to the

much-debated Youngstrom property in the North Okanagan, has the

Minister's department entered into dialogue with the property

owner with the view to acquiring this land? Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, has his department proceeded with a detailed study as

to the suitability of this land as a winter grazing area for

deer?

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

and Conservation): I believe some studies are going on but beyond that I

am not aware of any direct negotiations.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox has been trying to

get my eye for a long time.

GLENSHIEL HOTEL PURCHASE

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This

question is for the Minister of Public Works. I see by the

Victoria Colonist this morning that the matter of the Glenshiel

Hotel has still not been laid to rest and there is an

article

again today in the paper about this. There are claims in this

paper, at least in this article, made by Members of the House

that the Glenshiel Hotel was offered for sale to the government

at a price of $470,000 only last summer. I know that the

Minister filed some information on this and I am rather

surprised that this is appearing again today. I am wondering if

the Minister would have any comment on that

article today?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

am aware of that article.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Of course I have no knowledge of the basis

of the statement that was made by the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot). When I saw this statement, I thought possibly I

should check further. I tabled a letter yesterday from the

National Trust dated as of yesterday, signed by the manager,

T.B. Nash, of the National Trust, wherein he stated that the

property had not been offered for sale by his concern since

This morning I checked to see if a separate individual sale

might have been handled by the management of Glenshiel. I would

like to read a statement with regard to that management. It is

addressed to myself and regarding the Glenshiel Hotel,

Victoria.

"I see in today's Colonist that Mr. Morrison states that he

was offered the Glenshiel Hotel at $470,000 in July last. That

was 1969.

"At that time I was general manager of the Glenshiel Hotel

with power of attorney and sole signing authority for the

company on behalf of the owner who was at that time in Austria.

I can therefore give positive assurance that no authority was

given to me or any other person in the organization for such an

offer to be made."

Signed by Frank Minns, General Manager.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if people are still going to run around

and make accusations, I think they should start tabling some

papers. We are an open government and we are prepared to make

full disclosure of any dealings that we have made.

MR. SPEAKER: No speeches please. Is there a point of

order?

[ Page 3037 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: A question has been raised across the

floor as to whether or not the Member would table. I think he

should table and ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted, to table the

document.

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: The other fellow won't table. And he won't

come to order either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no way you can force a

Member to table private correspondence.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And he won't see a judge either; I'll

tell you that.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You refuse to say what

happened to the $110,000.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'll never see a judge on that.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask leave…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think someone is on their

feet. Does the Hon. Member have a point of order?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet

and I would like to make a statement on a point of

privilege.

Leave granted.

MR. MORRISON: The Minister has tabled a letter from Mr. T.B.

Nash, Manager of the National Trust Company, stating that the

Glenshiel property that they had listed expired on December 31,

1969. The fact that the listing expired only shows that as of

January 1, 1970 and later, National Trust did not have a

listing. It does not establish that the Glenshiel property was

not for sale after December 31, 1969. Indeed the Glenshiel

property was discussed by a salesman in the summer of 1972.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: With no authority from anyone.

MR. MORRISON: Let me finish. The Minister further states that between

1969 and 1972 the Glenshiel Hotel had undergone substantial renovations from

a 45-suite hotel to a 75-suite hotel; yet, the 1969 National Trust listing showed

it as a 80-room hotel.

MR. CHABOT: Terrible discrepancy.

MR. MORRISON: Obviously the hotel was for sale in 1972 since

it was, in fact, purchased by the government in that year. The

Minister has not cleared his position nor has he offered this

House a clear explanation. Only by the tabling of all relevant

documents of sale will the public fully understand what has

taken place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. This is not the time for

speeches.

Orders of the day.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to go on with the

next order of business. There have been statements made; there

is no debate and no replies in my opinion. The Hon.

Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to

proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 116.

GUARANTEE OF

NATURAL JUSTICE ACT

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is

a very straightforward bill. Really the essence of the bill is

to ensure that statutory powers being exercised by anybody such

as an administrative arm of government or a quasi-judicial or

judicial body, that where the interests and rights of an

individual are adversely affected — or are likely to be

adversely affected — the basic rules of natural justice

should apply.

The person likely to be affected should have adequate notice

from the authority as to what that authority believes to be the

case. He should have an opportunity to refute this

information.

The bill attempts to provide assurance that the person can

have representation either in writing or by personal appearance

and that the individual affected would have a written statement

of the decisions and the reasons for these decisions of that

body.

[ Page 3038 ]

This bill is an attempt to give the individual in society a

greater measure of assurance that he will have his say, that he

will be heard, that he will have a chance to refute evidence

which might be wrongly collected or inaccurate.

There is in our modern, highly-organized society nowadays

inevitably more and more danger that the individual will get

pushed aside or will have greater difficulty making sure that

he gets his day in court, as it were. I think it is very

important that he has the opportunity to state his point of

view when his rights are affected, to be given a fair hearing

and to be told openly and in writing the reasons for decisions

which might be taken to his disadvantage.

I am pleased to move second reading of Bill No. 116.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

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

not criticizing this bill because the whole subject of natural

justice before statutory tribunals — which can be very

despotic on occasion — is under active review. It's being

considered not only by the Law Reform Commission but also by

the Canadian Bar in its various branches. I want to second one

member of my department — probably Mr. Dennis Shepherd

— to the task of overseeing the various proposals of

reform that are coming from these bodies, to initiate reform

projects within the administration of justice himself, and to

see that they are not long-range, theoretical studies but will

produce fairly quick, pragmatic results in terms of

legislation.

I am very interested in the bill. But we are not prepared,

in view of the course of studies that is now being carried out,

to accept it at this time. I move adjournment of this debate to

the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 119, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA

HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY ACT

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr Speaker, this bill

is a very simple one which requires that the B.C. Hydro shall present to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the annual budget giving detailed estimates of

capital and operating expenses for each fiscal year by December 31 of the year

preceding.

The objective of this particular bill is a fairly obvious

one, Mr. Speaker. It is to lay before the Members of the House

the capital budget of one of the important Crown

corporations.

I think the necessity for a measure such as this was amply

demonstrated by the report brought down yesterday, tabled in

the House by the Premier, indicating the abuses that can take

place in a Crown corporation when there are not the same kinds

of review procedures developed in that corporation as we have

in the Legislative Assembly itself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I believe that the bill, although with

good intent, violates standing orders — impost on the

Crown. It's out of order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if I could speak to that point or

order, I regret that we would try and produce a technical

difficulty. If you wanted to carry what is an impost on the

Crown to an absurdity, you could say the printing of paper is

an impost on the Crown.

But quite clearly an annual budget is prepared by the B.C.

Hydro — we have learned that. There would be no impost at

all. It's a question of tabling that information in the House.

The budget is prepared; it's an opportunity for us to see what

that budget is. It's like the release of a confidential

document. There's no cost involved in the preparation.

Obviously the work has been done and must be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I don't want a speech but I do

want some assistance and advice from the House.

The first thing I don't know is whether it causes an

expenditure of funds. Of course, I didn't know the Hon. Member

sat on the board of Hydro and knows whether they prepare a

budget. I don't even know that. Perhaps somebody could

enlighten me on that.

MR. McGEER: The Premier can answer that question. Perhaps

the Premier can't even do that. But that's a part of the Public

Accounts Committee. It's public testimony, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If a Minister advises the House that it is an

expenditure of public funds required by this Act, I have no

other evidence but that to base it upon.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I cannot make a decision, Hon. Minister,

without knowing whether it actually would cause an expenditure

of funds.

[ Page 3039 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: The basis of my asking for a ruling that

it's out of order is because of that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. Then in the circumstances — that

the only evidence I have is that it does cause an expenditure

— it would be out of order under standing order 67. I

must therefore rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 125, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE

FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY

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

there's a great deal of excellent and wellconsidered precedent

for this bill. It was by a Member of the House who in

opposition was a fighting tiger. But then suddenly he made

government and we saw him turn into nothing more than an

amiable, ancient house cat snoozing behind the stove.

(Laughter).

The object of this bill…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think

this is out of order by way of plagiarism. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this bill just wants to do one

thing. It wants to put a little sunshine into British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a rainy day.

MR. GARDOM: And the good government of British Columbia

demands that light should be allowed to shine in the conduct of

public business…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: …so that it may be executed without

favouritism or political bias…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: …and in accordance with the highest standards

of public morality.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: And the Act is cited as "Sunshine Law

Revisited." (Laughter). Some have suggested "The Son of

Sunshine," but I'll leave that up to you.

We find that the tribunals and the boards and the commissions in this province,

Mr. Speaker, are growing like Topsy. They should conduct their meetings in openness

to the public at all times. They should make their records and their correspondence

and their decisions and their awards open to inspection by interested persons

at reasonable times and places. No award or decision of theirs should be valid,

Mr. Speaker, and no expenditure of public funds shall be lawful unless made

or authorized in conformity with this very, very remarkable bill.

I am delighted to move second reading. I indeed hope that I

can receive a little bit of assistance today from the "Father

of Sunshine" concerning this measure.

MR. SPEAKER: Under standing order 67 it interferes with the

prerogatives of the Crown if no moneys of the Crown or the

Crown revenue can be paid out authority under this Act.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, no, no. There's no possibility, if you'll

see, Mr. Speaker, with all deference to your wisdom and ruling

— which you have not yet made but are thinking about

— but there's no award or decision to be valid and no

expenditure of public funds to be lawful unless made in

conformity with the statute.

The Attorney General was on his feet, Mr. Speaker, and he

wasn't recognized.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I will be willing to recognize him.

Perhaps we can get his wisdom in this matter.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I was simply going to

acknowledge paternity (Laughter) and say that the bill is out

of order as it stands.

But it's a very good principle. Possibly it might be

disposed of in this way. I believe and I still believe that

committees of this Legislature and tribunals should be open.

Energy commissions should be open and city councils should do

only a very limited bit of their business behind closed

doors.

AN HON. MEMBER: The land commission and the insurance

corporation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I believe this principle. We've

gone a long way toward implementing it in the last eight months

— but not as far as we want to go. We believe and we

still say to the people of British Columbia that they should

open up their hearts and let the sunshine in. I'll say that to

the tribunals and the boards and the commissions.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of

the House. (Laughter).

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No.

[ Page 3040 ]

127, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE AGE OF MAJORITY ACT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, this bill is

simply to put the legislation of this province in line with

that of other provinces and cut down on the confusion that we

have in this province dealing with the age of an infant and the

age of a majority. We've already had three bills in this

session which adjust one way or another ages of people under

the age of 21 or under the age of 19. This is simply to put

ours on a more regular basis with other provinces, so that

uniformity prevails.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I find much in this bill to

commend it. The government intends to take the concept under

advisement. I therefore move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 131, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

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

MR. WALLACE: This bill is really very simple. The need for

this amendment relates to the mobility of students in the later

grades in school. They may wish to move from the school

district where they and their parents reside to another school

district, either for the purpose of acquiring a course which is

not available in their home district or for other reasons,

sometimes related to the social situation in the home.

This was drawn to my attention and I took the matter up in

this school district 61. I must pay credit to one of the

members of the administration of school district 61 who advised

me in the drawing up of this amendment.

The amendment simply says that if the parents have paid the

school tax, let us say, in Campbell River and the child moves

to Victoria, it should be mandatory for the school district in

Campbell River to transfer the funds to the Victoria school

district, which is school district 61.

It's my information that at the present time, such transfer of funds is optional.

If a child moves to Victoria from Campbell River — I'm just taking these as

examples; it could be any other two towns — the school district in which the

taxes have been paid has the option of transferring the funds. The child finds

that when he or she wants to go to the school in the new school district, they

have to pay $380 or whatever the annual per capita cost of educating a student

might be.

I think that this amendment is just a form of fair play. If

one school district has been paid the taxes but is not, in

fact, educating the child, the child being in another school

district, then it should be mandatory that the appropriate

funds be transferred. I move second reading of the

amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I quite concur in the principle of mobility of

students throughout our whole system. I know that this is the

reason the Hon. Member has brought this bill to our

attention.

As he says, at the moment it is optional in the Act.

However, since I have assumed the office of the Minister, it

has not been brought to my attention by any parent or student,

to my office anyway, that school boards have not been

concurring in this. However, as he has brought it to our

attention through the essence of his bill, I would like to

discuss it with the school trustees of the province and perhaps

give consideration to legislation in the fall.

I move adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 135, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT IN SUITS

AGAINST THE CROWN

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Point Grey.

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

as long as I have been a Member of this House I have advocated

this measure. As long as I continue to be a Member of this

House, I shall continue to advocate this measure.

Either we believe in equity and fairness and justice or we

don't. Justice has been too long denied citizens who are

wronged by their government. And that is still continuing in

this province.

We've seen many very restrictive statutes come into being in

this session, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is only fair that

any individual who has suffered a loss as the result of a

governmental action, has at least the right to his day in court

against the government, the same way that his government has

its right to a day in court against the citizen.

This has always been tilted in the Province of British

Columbia against citizens, and that tilt

[ Page 3041 ]

continues. I think it's an absolute disgrace that it does. I

would certainly urge that the government accept this bill or,

failing that, accept it as their own bill and bring it in

today, which could be done by consent.

MR. SPEAKER: This is, of course, out of order by reason of

the fact that it interferes with the existing prerogatives of

the Crown under both standing order 67 and standing order 1,

also, referring to Speakers' Decisions, vol. 3, p. 19,

under decision of March 28, 1931, by the Hon. Speaker Davie. I

so rule it out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: The thing that's most out of order is the

lack of principle in bringing it in.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 154, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COUNTY COURTS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: The principle of this bill is to amend the

County Courts Act to increase the jurisdiction of the

county courts from $3,000, as it is presently, to $5,000 and to

make that court available to do more work than it is presently

doing.

This would relieve a number of lawsuits from the more

congested supreme court lists. It's a measure that certainly is

very consistent with the government amendment that came in in

this session, Mr. Speaker, to increase the jurisdiction of the

small claims courts from $500 to $1,000, which also was

proposed over here at one stage.

This is just bringing it into line with current economic

values. The $3,000 limitation — if I can get the eye of

some lawyer in here — I think that came in in the early

Sixties — a long time away in any event. But, I believe

it was in the 1960's. Well, we're 13 years after that, and this

is a first-class suggestion. I indeed hope that I have the

acquiescence of the Attorney General.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Speaker, these are good suggestions,

there's no doubt about it. We want to increase as much as we can the small claims.

At a certain point there's a constitutional problem because it's not a federally-created

court, as the Hon. Member will know.

There have been many good suggestions from that Hon. Member in these bills

that he's put forward. You're breaking my heart in a way, and I move adjournment

of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 155, Mr.

Speaker.

CYRIL MORLEY SHELFORD

COMPENSATION ACT

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

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Earlier in the

session I spoke on this matter. I think it's a well known fact

of the contribution that a Member makes over the course of

years. Mr. Shelford was elected in 1952. He served until 1972,

part of those years as a Minister of the Crown in the portfolio

of agriculture. Due to an unfortunate circumstance in the line

of duty as a Minister, he was injured.

The consequences have multiplied over the course of time,

both financially and physically. Through the injury suffered

last June, Mr. Shelford has had costs in excess of $6,471

although it is contemplated that he will receive a certain

degree of compensation to the extent of slightly over $3,200

from his participation in an insurance policy carried by the

government, there is quite a disparity between the amount which

he will receive from the government insurance and the amount

that he has spent. As I say, it has cost him over $6,400.

His health is still considerably impaired. He has not been

able to do some work that he felt he would be able to do,

because of his condition. It was necessary for him to quit one

job and go into hospital. Since that time, he has been

attempting to carry on another job up in Terrace. On April 16,

he was examined by two doctors again because of complications

that are developing and attributed to his shoulders. The

doctors have ascertained that his condition has not changed and

is not likely to change in the future.

Presently he has three lumps which are developing in his

hand and will ultimately have to be operated on. He also has

two lumps developing in the shoulder which will also have to be

operated on. The cause is attributed to nerve damage which is

affecting the circulation and resulting in these growths, which

will have to be removed.

In the past, situations have developed where Members of the

Legislature…we have had other people who have been hurt in

the course of their duties. The very fact that this bill, while

it doesn't make any impost on the Crown without first being

ascertained as to the worthiness of the award — if

[ Page 3042 ]

there is an award to be made by way to the recommendations

of a judge, and the consideration of the recommendation by the

cabinet which, in turn, would set a stipend if they so saw

fit.

So, in making a passionate appeal to the government to

accept this bill, to order the necessary investigation and

along with that, on compassionate grounds, to consider some

award to help a former member of the Legislature try to carry

on in some form in which he will have a degree of security for

himself and his family if, through this injury, he is not able

to provide the necessary income for the future — I move

second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I want to draw your

attention, naturally, to the fact that the bill is out of

order. But, in view of the subject matter of the bill, I think

I should report to the Member moving the bill, and the House

generally, that we are looking into the question of the

insurance benefits and pension benefits for MLA's and cabinet

Ministers, and we are looking at this case. But, I think you

should rule accordingly. I wanted to make sure that the Member

for Boundary-Similkameen had a statement in reply to his

plea.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary is correct. The

bill obviously authorizes the Minister to pay out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund compensation to be fixed by somebody

else, and consequently would offend against standing order

I must, regretfully, rule the bill out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bill No. 157, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

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

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for changes to

be made in the make-up of the Labour Relations Board in British

Columbia.

The changes are of two kinds. First, membership on the board

shall be limited in time so that there is a turnover of the

personnel. Secondly, that at all times there be representation

on the board of members of Canadian unions. International

unions have always been represented on the Labour Relations

Board, but never Canadian unions, which is discrimination of a

kind against Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking further to the general principle of this bill, so

many times we have heard in this House that we cannot utter any words in criticism

of the Labour Relations Board, but boards which are appointed can never indefinitely

run our lives — whether it has to do with the labour movement, whether it has

to do with public utilities or whatever.

As a general principle, those whose authority it is to

appoint boards must accept responsibility for the boards'

actions. We've got so many new boards being created in British

Columbia that I think the principle should be laid down clearly

by someone at some time. We must never be in the position where

appointed people have the authority over elected people. And

certainly that should be the case with the Labour Relations

Board, and that is why I will continue to stand up and

criticize the actions of this, or any other board which is

appointed in the Province of British Columbia.

Nevertheless, if boards are going to be appointed, whether

we criticize them or not, every ship gets barnacles on it; and

so every board will get barnacles on it unless the personnel

are turned over — just the same way the Members of this

House are turned over every time there is a provincial

election. And we should never have any board in this province

which does not rotate over. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say first

of all that the bill is in order; the principle is in order,

and the idea of giving Canadian unions an equal break is also

in order.

I am happy to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the whole

matter of the Labour Relations Act is currently under

review. I have secured the services of three very prominent

people to advise me, and we are conducting hearings and

receiving the advice and recommendations of all sections of the

labour movement and industry. I think it would be most

inappropriate at this time to change the Act in any way when we

are at the same time asking for advice on the changes that

should be made. I think this would be

an act of bad faith and

the defeat of the concept of the review that is underway.

I therefore move adjournment of this debate until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 158, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TRADE-UNIONS ACT

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

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this Act would render

[ Page 3043 ]

illegal any arrangement made in a collective agreement in

British Columbia that would prevent or restrict a member of a

properly certified union under the Labour Relations Act

doing work on any site within the Province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members well know, as it stands today a

member of a Canadian union cannot legally appear on any major

construction site in the Province of British Columbia because

of restrictive agreements which are now generally accepted in

the collective agreements that are signed.

The Teamster's union, for example, puts forward what it

calls the standard B.C. contract. The standard B.C. contract of

the Teamster's union precludes rival Canadian unions appearing

on any construction site which involves the Building Trades

Council. It is unfair, restrictive, disgraceful,

unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, what bothers me most is the difficulty one has

getting this particular point made publicly because the Press

itself is in the hands of international unions.

All of this I regret. A year ago, Mr. Speaker, the former

Minister of Labour introduced legislation which attempted to

deal with this situation. The legislation was badly drafted.

The union people who appeared to complain against it had

legitimate criticisms of that bill. They asked to have time to

study and make corrections. No sooner had these union leaders

left than they were presenting new contracts with the same

restrictive clauses. One of the offenders once more, Mr.

Speaker, was the Teamster's union, the good friends of the

Premier and his cabinet, who admitted they had agreed to study

the restrictive legislation, but also made it clear that they

had absolutely no intention of changing their ways.

It became very clear listening to Senator Lawson, that the

only way we would be able to remove the restrictions against

Canadian unions was to bring down definite legislation in the

House. That is the reason why this Act to Amend the

Trade-unions Act has been brought forward by myself.

It's a bill for equality and fairness for Canadian unions. I

think the time should pass when we discriminate against

Canadian unions and, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, for one who poses as a freedom

fighter for a particular

section of the trade-union movement, I

cannot help but wonder at the remarks made by the First Member

for Point Grey.

He is suggesting, in the first instance, that politicians should retain some

type of control over their preference of unions, which is the prerogative of

working people. I completely reject that concept. I think that is a proper adjudication

for an independent tribunal having no political axe to grind, and I say heaven

help the working people of this province should their destiny in that respect

ever come under the complete control of the politicians.

With respect to this Act, Mr. Speaker, the effect would be

to negate many collective agreements which are presently in

progress under federal jurisdiction, such as the railway

industry, pipelines and so on. The end result would be to

render these people completely devoid of trade union

protection. If that is the Member's concept of protection for

working people, once again I think it shows a very shallow

understanding of the needs of working people in this province.

I therefore move adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 166, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING

RIGHTS OF NON-SMOKERS

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

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this very simple bill for clean air

in British Columbia is

An Act Respecting Rights of

Non-Smokers. It provides that in any public building, half

of the public area should be reserved with clean air for people

who don't smoke.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you trying to ruin my marriage?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment on the domestic

situation of the Premier, except to say that people should be

entitled to go and smoke in their own corner.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You are trying to ruin my marriage.

MR. McGEER: I very much admire the stand taken by the

Minister of Health in announcing that May 31 will be officially

recognized by order-in-council as Non-Smokers' Day. I know that

the continuation of that tradition will be appreciated by a new

organization in Washington called GASP. GASP, Mr. Speaker,

stands for the Group Against Smokers' Pollution.

I only learned of their activities after I brought forward a

bill myself. It's my understanding that they've been successful

in having legislation introduced in a number of states in the

United States that gives non-smokers the right to take a breath

of fresh air. Mr. Speaker, I'm all out of wind and I move

second reading.

[ Page 3044 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree that there is a problem over this question of smoking.

We also agree that there has to be a great job of education done. As a matter

of fact, this government this year has had a parliamentary committee meet on

the subject during this session. Mr. Speaker, I realize that we have to defend

the rights of non-smokers, but then, on the other hand, we have to defend the

rights of smokers.

So, Mr. Speaker, because of the threat to the Premier's

matrimonial harmony, I move adjournment of debate until the

next sitting of the House. (Laughter).

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why don't you do it on a day that my

wife's not here?

Second reading of Bill No. 167, Mr. Speaker.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1973.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I can see even

at home, Mr. Speaker, all the Hon. Premier does is nag nag,

nag, nag, nag. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, before speaking to this bill with the Leader of

the House, I'd very much like to acknowledge in the gallery two

young ladies who contributed a very great deal to this session.

They have been the guides to the House and have brought all of

the students into the chamber and have given them excellent

assistance. Furthermore, they are exceptionally pretty and I

think we all revere that; we certainly do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. GARDOM: You don't agree with that? I certainly do.

Mr. Speaker, today people have the right to contribute and

participate in a far more useful and meaningful manner in the

decisions which shape their social and their environmental

life. The bill that I am proposing here will provide a

mechanism and guideline for such participation. Canadian law

per se does not recognize that people really have any

significant rights to a clean and healthy environment save and

except the age-old law of nuisance which is difficult to

interpret and even more difficult to enforce.

I think it should be declared the policy of this province and a matter of provincial

concern that we can define as environmental rights the need to develop and maintain

a high quality of the environment; to ensure for our people, now and for the

future clean air, pure water, freedom from excessive noise and enjoyment of

scenic, historic, natural and aesthetic values.

So it is proposed here that every person would be entitled

to basic environmental rights, including the ones that I've

mentioned, and that they be permitted to seek legal redress in

the Supreme Court of British Columbia if their environmental

rights are hurt by misuse of the environment.

The type of redress that is suggested is relief by way of

injunction or damage, or both. I propose under the bill that it

be made a tort, or a civil wrong, actionable without proof of

damage for any person, corporation, municipality, provincial

department or Crown agency, or any other instrumentality of the

province to willfully violate the environmental rights of any

person. I move second reading and I look forward to a great

deal of support — as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

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

Well, Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed this bill when it was presented in 1971;

I think there is much to be said for the argument that the Hon. Member makes.

But I would draw your attention to the fact that in the Journals of 1971, p.

228, April 2, Mr. Speaker ruled the bill out of order in the hands of a private

Member on the grounds that it infringed on the prerogative of the Crown.

MR. GARDOM: We've a much more liberal Speaker now, Mr.

Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: I must agree with the Hon. Minister that the

ruling of the previous Speaker in this instance was perfectly

correct, as he always was correct. I must therefore rule it out

of order.

MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 170, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING

THE FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES.

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

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear that little

note about the infallibility of Speakers' decisions. I know

that in this case there's a bill that is completely in order,

Sir.

For the information of the House, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to

try to restrict myself to three speeches a

[ Page 3045 ]

session in favour of fluoridation of water supplies. I know

in this case that the Minister of Health Services has checked

with the legislative council and found that the kind of

amendments proposed in this Act would be very simply

incorporated into the statute books of British Columbia and we

can get on with the job.

The reason, Mr. Speaker, why I've tried to help out the

Minister of Health Services in this way is because he's

announced a denticare programme which even though partial will

run the treasury about $20 million a year. A fully fledged

denticare programme in a province like British Columbia that

has such a wretched state of dental health because of the lack

of fluoride naturally in the water supplies will run many times

that. That being the case, it becomes not only a good social

measure, it becomes a wise economic measure on the part of the

provincial government.

However, Mr. Speaker, I do sympathize with the political

difficulty that the cabinet might have in attempting to impose

fluoridation on the people. So this particular bill takes away

all responsibility from the Minister and the cabinet and places

that responsibility in the hands of the local council. They too

are given discretion; if a majority of them wish to take the

responsibility they can go ahead and order fluoridation of

water supplies. On the other hand, if they wish to have the

people decide themselves, they can permit a plebiscite.

In any event, the basic principle of the council's decision

or the plebiscite decision is that it shall be a simple

majority. We decide the outcome of elections, we decide the

outcome in this House always on the basis of a simple majority

— never the need to have 60 per cent of the Members

voting in favour of something in order for it to have assent.

So the principle of simple majority rule is the soundest one in

all democracy.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, to speak briefly about the merits of

fluoridation itself, many people, particularly elderly ones who

have dentures, feel that the time has passed when fluoridation

of the water supply would be of any physical benefit to them.

They have this reservation that maybe something is wrong with

fluoride, maybe it will be injurious to their health.

But Mr. Speaker, what has been discovered as a result of

studies now involving millions of people over decades of

observation is that fluoridation, far from being harmful to

elderly people, is helpful. It delays the onset of

osteoporosis, a thinning of the bone which, if carried to

extremes, can lead to spontaneous fractures of the hip and

other difficulties of the bone. For some reason the fluoride

ion is helpful in preventing this deterioration with age and so

it's a measure that both young and old can benefit from.

I highly recommend it to the Minister and the people of

British Columbia and move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we recognize as a government

that 100 million people in North America are now drinking

fluoridated water. We also recognize, however, that the

responsibility of this government is not to pass the buck to

the municipalities. The responsibility of this government is to

provide for an educational programme for the people of B.C. so

that they can decide how best to deal with their future.

Mr. Speaker, at the present time we have a preventive dental

programme that is in the making. We are studying the whole

question. As a matter of fact out of the five reports that I

have requested we have had three in. I think that we're a bit

premature here and therefore I move adjournment of this debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 171, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT FOR THE RESTRICTION

OF THE USE OF SPRING TRAPS

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I think we'll all agree, Mr. Speaker, that we

have as a society exercised very inhumane instruments of

torture for the catching of furbearing animals. We need,

really, an animal bill of rights to at least assure a quick

death to some trapped animals instead of the many, many hours

of agonizing and lingering suffering and the terror and the

eventual death in the crude but very deadly leg-hold traps that

are still in existence here. We need some legislation.

This is a good measure. It is one that has found favour in

England. We find that there are restrictions on animal trapping

in various forms in countries such as Austria, Finland, France,

Ireland and Switzerland and that they are prohibited or

restricted in a number of others — Norway, Sweden,

Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, West Germany — just to

mention a few.

We have been exceptionally slow in taking any positive steps

whatsoever in British Columbia.

There can be extreme problems. One came to my attention

yesterday which I gather is going to be reported in the Press.

In the Victoria area a dog was found in an animal trap and

eventually the poor animal, I believe, had to be shot. These

animal traps are sufficiently strong not only to do in an

animal, but also indeed to bring very, very serious injury to a

child. They should be absolutely, 100 per cent prohibited

— I'd say in all their forms — in metropolitan

areas where there's a high congestion of population.

[ Page 3046 ]

I am not suggesting here that trapping be eliminated because

we know that there are people in the province who earn their

livelihood that way. But there is no reason whatsoever that we

have to carry on with inhumane methods; and those methods are

being carried on.

The purpose of this bill is to make it an offence under the

Summary Convictions Act if a person happens to use or

have or sell a trap that is not a trap that can be approved by

the Minister — and it seems to me the appropriate

Minister would be the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Williams).

I would therefore move second reading of this measure. It's

high time that we did a bit of a job for the animals who can't

speak for themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly sympathetic to much that

the Member says. I would hope that we might achieve something in this regard.

As I indicated earlier, we're helping support financially

research in Ontario with respect to humane trap systems.

However, I note that in

section 3, with reference to the

Summary Convictions Act, that this may well be out of

order.

MR. GARDOM: But you are prepared to consider it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: By all means.

MR. SPEAKER: I must, unfortunately, rule it out of order by

reason of the fact that it imposes a penalty which cannot be

done without sanction of the Crown — Vol. 3,

Speakers' Decisions, p. 19.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 177, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO

AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, this bill is to

put the resident elector and the tenant elector on the same

basis as far as voting is concerned on petitions or other

things under the provisions of the Municipal Act.

The original distinction was perhaps a holdover from a time

when there were two classes of citizens — those who owned

land and those who didn't; those who didn't were considered far

less reliable, stable and otherwise good citizens than those

who did.

But things have changed. Now 60 per cent of the people resident in my riding

live in apartments — some, of course, are privately owned, but there are large

numbers of people who take full

part in community life and who don't own land

at all. I am one of those people.

The bill would be putting these people, the tenants, in the

same position as the residents who own land. I think that it's

a long-overdue amendment to the Municipal Act.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Af fairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): We are

certainly in sympathy with the intent of this bill. We are

looking into the matter at the present time and have been for

some months as the implementation of a system whereby the

tenant electors and the property owners will have the same

voting rights. The idea, of course, is to bring the municipal

elections into line with provincial elections and other

elections.

I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 184, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's

been made very clear since the session opened that the official

opposition has felt that the government's approach to land use

planning in the province was anything but forthright. We felt

that there was some doubt cast on the methods used by the

government to develop an orderly system of planning in the

province.

We also felt that statements by government Members, which we

felt tended to make the people believe that local government

was largely in the hands of real estate sharks and speculators

and that the local system of government couldn't be trusted,

Mr. Speaker, to develop that kind of planning process, was

simply not correct.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, we introduced the bill

entitled the British Columbia Planning Authority Act,

1973. Its major aim, Mr. Speaker, was to provide an orderly

system of planning throughout British Columbia so that future

generations of residents of our province would be assured that

the land would always be used to its highest advantage.

If I could take just one minute, Mr. Speaker, to

[ Page

3047 ]

explain that in our opinion much legislation was already on

the books of this province to protect that aim. The real

danger, Mr. Speaker, of the exploitation of land ended in most

parts of this province several years ago. Regional municipal

planners have been at work in the Province of British Columbia

and, wherever in the province an accepted plan was in force,

depredations and rape of the land from the land speculators had

been curbed already.

It was our opinion that the worst of the danger was well

past, Mr. Speaker, before the government introduced its

legislation.

In the proposal by the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, we

recognize that many planners in the lower mainland have said

that municipalities are consistently refusing to open up the

kinds of land which should be protected to development. In fact

some of them have said that since 1965-66, particularly in the

lower mainland of British Columbia, some municipalities'

farmland areas have actually increased rather than decreased

since those years.

So in the proposal by the official opposition we have

attempted to restore a system of checks and balances which have

been denied in other approaches made by this government to this

point; and also, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the need to include

locally-elected officials and locally-elected government in the

planning process and to provide what we consider to be a

sensible, logical and orderly method of preserving key

classifications of privately-held land.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal sets up a planning authority

composed of members appointed by the regional districts,

elected officials, as we've said in this House all session.

The authority will establish, in cooperation with the

regional districts, a system of regional plans throughout the

Province of British Columbia. And it will establish and

administer regional parks, greenbelt and agricultural land

programmes throughout the province. Also, Mr. Speaker, it will

develop the kind of programmes that will help to increase

agricultural productivity on privately-held agricultural

land.

Mr. Speaker, in all cases under our bill the basic

principles of appeal, public hearing, local participation and

— most importantly — simple justice is paramount in

this bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes above all

that private ownership of land is a highly desirable concept in

any free society.

Mr. Speaker, I'll move second reading of Bill No. 184.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is out of

order as it offends the standing order against the impost of

expenditures on the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: In a number of sections, the bill would alter the tax revenues

of the province and would substitute incentive programmes and change the tax

base. Consequently, that alone, aside from the other sections that deal with

imposing duties upon a group to be formed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

would make it out of order in the hands of a private Member and without a message

from Her Majesty.

Therefore, I must rule the bill out of order.

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

and adjourned debates on motions.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I call Motion No. 44.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), that this House endorse

the principle of providing up to $2,250,000 for the purpose of

implementing the unanimously-supported resolution of the

House on February 14, 1973, regarding the building, staffing

and maintaining of medical facilities for the rehabilitation,

care and development of Vietnamese children; and that the

required sum and other moneys that may be forthcoming from

individuals and groups be utilized for this purpose, as

indicated by the policy developed by a special committee of

British Columbia legislators and representatives of interested

groups, such as Red Cross, Save the Children Fund and other

such groups, as designated by the Minister of Health Services

and Hospital Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I would like one word of explanation. You

recall that there was another bill on the order paper. That

bill indicated that we would provide ourselves with

consultative services. We felt that the situation in Vietnam

was somewhat less than stable and we therefore felt that it

would be better in the hands of a committee of this House and

other interested people in that area.

I've had agreement from the First Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison), the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams), the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the Member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford) to sit on a committee of this House and

to carefully supervise any work that might be done by this

committee with respect to rehabilitation and medical care of

children in Vietnam.

There has been some criticism around the whole question of

providing care for people in other countries. To that question,

I say that we've carried out a great deal of our

responsibility to our own

[ Page 3048 ]

people and there are a great many people in that country who

need some help. Providing we can do it and guarantee ourselves

that the money will be used only for the use suggested in the

resolution — and we're going to safeguard this money

— we feel that we wish to go ahead with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before you pass the question I

would point out the wording "by the policy developed" —

in the past tense — "by a special committee of British

Columbia legislators and representatives of…other such

groups, as designated…" Is that also in the past or in the

future? I wonder if the matter could be altered to "to be

developed by a special committee." Would that be accepted by

the House? Is it agreed?

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Motion No. 45, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I move Resolution 45, which

appears on page 5 of the orders of the day today. I would

advise the House that, following a series of discussions with

the staff of this House itself, we would like to resolve that

following prorogation of the House in the next little while

that Ian Horne, Q.C., be appointed Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly, substituting Mr. DeBeck, Q.C., and that E. George

MacMinn be appointed Deputy Clerk and Law Clerk, substituting

Mr. Horne, effective, as I say, upon prorogation of the present

session.

We further resolve that Edward K. DeBeck, Q.C., be appointed

Clerk Consultant and that there be appointed by His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice of his Executive

Council, a Clerk of Committees of the Legislative Assembly,

such appointment to be ratified at the next session of the

Legislative Assembly.

This resolution by no means, Mr. Speaker — and I want

to say this only because there was a story in the Vancouver Sun

which was a little unclear as to the real resolution…Mr.

DeBeck will be remaining with us hopefully for a long, long

time to come. Mr. DeBeck assures me that he has no intention of

retiring, and I think that's splendid.

I think that an important thing that should be considered by

the House is the fact that in the second paragraph we are

considering…and if the resolution goes through, we will be

appointing a Clerk of Committees. So our staff will be

increased and we'll be able to handle the ever-growing load of

work developed by the House committees, as they are going to be

in a continuing situation.

I think this should receive the full support of the House. It may also afford

us an opportunity of applauding the work that our staff do throughout this long

session.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank

you, Mr. Speaker. We certainly support the motion which the

Hon. Provincial Secretary has placed before the House. It is

indeed pleasurable to us all to find that Mr. DeBeck will

continue to be available as a consultant to the Clerk and to

the Members of the House.

May I just ask the Hon. Provincial Secretary if it is his

intention, at some later date perhaps, to fill the vacancy of

Clerk Assistant. We currently have three able representatives

in the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and the Clerk Assistant. Are we

to have a Clerk Assistant in the future?

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

MR. RICHTER: On behalf of the official opposition, I want to

commend the government for this move. I think this is a real

tribute to our Clerk of the House, Mr. DeBeck, who has put in

so many years of faithful service. I think he's been an

outstanding friend to each and every member of the House,

regardless of their political affiliations. I'm particularly

pleased and we will certainly support this motion in having Mr.

Horne and Mr. MacMinn follow on, certainly in the same

tradition as Mr. DeBeck has exhibited to the House.

I hope that whoever does fill the position as Clerk of

Committees will have the opportunity of learning some of the

tricks of the trade from our venerable House Clerk, Mr.

DeBeck.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry I was out of the House

on Motion 44. I just want to reaffirm my support of my original

statements some time ago.

On Motion 45, this party is more than pleased to support

this motion. We couldn't function without the kind of help we

get from the Clerks. There are all kinds of mistakes that I

have been lucky enough to avoid making because of the Clerks. I

think they do a tremendous job in the House. I'm most

enthusiastic in supporting this resolution. I also think it is

a very right and honourable gesture that Mr. DeBeck should be

appointed Clerk Consultant and I hope that he will long be

spared to fill that role.

Furthermore, I look forward to the Clerk of Committees

appointment because it is very obvious that the whole House

favours the increased responsi-

[ Page 3049 ]

bility and utilization of committees in this House. I hope

that we will find the same kind of person with the same

abilities and capacity as we now have in our present

Clerks.

I most strongly support the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the

debate.

HON. MR. HALL: The question of the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) is a difficult one to

answer. Only time will tell whether or not we will need, in

effect, a fifth person. We will have the Clerk Assistant, the

Law Clerk, the Clerk of the House, and the Clerk of Committees.

Only time will tell if we will need a fifth Clerk. I'm not sure

on that one. You know as well as I, if not better than I, in

terms of the legal work and the drafting work that is done,

although I'm finding out more about it all the time.

But I do say that the procession will be getting a little

longer. I move the resolution and call the question.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the next four motions are

merely formal motions to move the matters referred to the four

standing committees which are to continue after the House so

that they can proceed. (See appendix).

MR. SPEAKER: Order. You mean Resolution No. 47.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The next four of them are called 47, 48,

49 and 50. They're motions to put the committees into action

after the House prorogues. I will call them in order now, Mr.

Speaker, but they're merely to put the committees in

action.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. 47.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. 48.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. 49.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. 50.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House proceed to adjourned

debate on bills in committee.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on committee

of Bill No. 35.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT

(continued)

House in committee on Bill No. 35; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're considering the amendment to

section 16,

subsection 8, standing in the name of the Hon, Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips). I recognize the Hon. Member for

Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, speaking

briefly to the amendment to

section 16. We were given a

dissertation before lunch and before we had a chance to cool

down a little bit. I'm sure that the calmness that will prevail

throughout the rest of this sitting will be a welcome

change.

We were also given some so-called facts, Mr. Chairman. I'd

like to give this House some facts as well about what's

happening in the insurance industry. I would like to recall

that yesterday in my office an independent insurance agent came

in to see me. He was 67 years old. He has his own business.

He said that before August 30 he could have sold his

business for around $50,000. Today, if anyone was foolish

enough to even buy it, he could probably get $15,000 or $20,000

for it. Mr. Chairman, the independent agents, regardless of

what anyone on the other side of the House says, are now

suffering a real financial loss from diminishing returns in

their businesses. Many of them are not going to make it through

to next March because of those diminishing returns.

We heard evidence from the Premier, Mr. Chairman, about

somebody putting an ad in the paper and wanting to buy up all

the small independent agents. Of course they want to buy them

up because the price will never be better. Those are deflated

prices right now. Do we really want to see the large companies

swallowing up the small, independent agents? That's exactly

what's going to happen, Mr.Chairman.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Are they deflated now?

MR. McCLELLAND: They are being deflated rapidly right now.

They're going to be deflated more as we approach March, 1974,

of course, because they'll have no business left.

[ Page 3050 ]

Mr. Chairman, we are now seeing the independent agents

having to count on reduced income because of the actions of

this government. Yet their costs are exactly the same, if not

more. Their only alternative right now is to lay off staff.

Once again we see an action by this government contributing

directly to unemployment.

Mr. Chairman, I read a letter in this House last week. I

won't repeat that letter because I'm sure the Hon. highways

Minister remembers the letter. This was a letter from the wife

of an independent insurance agent. This agency involved two

relatively young men in my constituency who have given the best

parts of their lives to building a business, Mr. Chairman. That

business is now their pension and their security. These men

consider that their pension and their security are in severe

jeopardy, particularly because of

section 16 of this Act, which

is the reason that this side of the House has proposed this

amendment.

These agents wouldn't mind losing their business, Mr.

Chairman, if they'd done it because of some kind of laziness or

mismanagement. But to have their business taken away from them

because of

an act of government is hardly fair play. Mr.

Chairman, what about the agents who have bank loans? What kind

of a position are they in now with the diminishing return from

their businesses right now?

Mr. Chairman, this government demonstrates time and time

again that they really have little compassion for these small

businessmen. I'd like to relate to the letter that the Member

for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) started to talk about earlier

today and didn't quite finish. It's a letter from the Premier

of the province when he was the Leader of the Opposition to a

lady in Victoria who was also, Mr. Chairman, the wife of an

independent insurance agent. As the Member for South Peace

pointed out, the Premier told the lady in this letter that his

sympathies are very much with the insurance agent and his small

business.

But he went on to say, Mr. Chairman:

"Our proposal for Crown-owned automobile insurance agencies would include the sale of British

Columbia auto insurance through existing agents in competition

with any other company that wished to stay in the field in

British Columbia."

I'll just repeat that so that the whole House can get the

import of this, Mr. Chairman: "Our proposal…would include

the sale of British Columbia auto insurance through existing

agents in competition with any other company that wished to

stay in the field in British Columbia." That letter is from the

Leader of the Opposition, now Premier of British Columbia.

"This scheme will not threaten your husband's income and

is, in fact, the one that the B.C. government now uses in principle in handling

the insurance of its own vehicles."

The two important statements in that letter have to do,

first of all, with competition and secondly, with the lack of a

threat to the agents' income. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we're seeing

those incomes being threatened every day of the week. It's

getting worse and will get worse right up until March, even

though there has been indication that there will be a sop of

some kind thrown to the agents to cover them over January and

February.

The small agents are not satisfied with that sop that's been

offered to them. In fact, they're not even sure what it is. But

they're in serious trouble right now and it's because of direct

actions by this government.

Mr. Chairman, this government doesn't understand why any

person would want to work long, long hours and devote all of

their lives and all of their savings, risk all of their future

to have a little business of their own. Because, Mr. Chairman,

the socialist philosophy demands that all of our citizens come

under the protection and security of the state. But, Mr.

Chairman, some of us would like to think for ourselves. Some of

us would like to be masters of our own destiny and not

necessarily come under the protection of the state at all

times.

Mr. Chairman, we would just as soon have Big Brother mind

his own business. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak in support of the amendment

section 16 proposed by the Member for South Peace.

Under this legislation, the government is embarking upon an

entirely new direction. While we have opposed what they are

doing under this legislation, it is obvious that they are

embarked on a new direction, and I can't comprehend why, when

making this move, the government has taken such a punitive

action towards the insurance agents in British Columbia.

We had a performance from the Hon. Premier before the

luncheon adjournment, in which he successfully confused the

position of insurance companies, who are insurance carriers,

and agents and employees. It leads me to the conclusion that

either the Premier does not understand what he is saying or,

alternatively, he says what he does in order to cloud the

issue. Because he spoke beside the amendment. It is not my

intention to do that.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that independent

agents have fulfilled their roles throughout all of the

communities of British Columbia. They are businessmen in their

own rights. They are not the

[ Page 3051 ]

employees of the insurance companies, and they have

maintained their position in the industry solely because of

their skill and ability in performing a service to their

customers. So long as they have performed that service

adequately, and managed their business properly, then they have

stayed in business.

Yes, as the Premier pointed out, there have been agents who

have been dismissed by insurance companies. But those

dismissals have resulted, in most cases, from bad management

practices on the part of agents, and it is the risk that they

take in business.

But what we have under this legislation, and the reason that

I support the amendment to provide compensation, is that we

have only one employer. If you lose your rights to act as agent

for this employer there is no other place for you to turn.

As well, under the specific subsection that is being amended

there is the right for the cabinet to terminate an agent's

right to do business at any time, without any cause being

shown. Under this same

section which is the subject of debate,

it is obvious that the only person who could take over such a

business is some other agent who already qualifies under the

section.

What we have is a clear indication from the government that

so far as agents operating in the Province of British Columbia

are concerned, they will be a steadily diminishing group of

people within our midst. Indeed the amendments which were

passed this morning, apparently giving the right to agents to

dispose of their business by transfer or assignment, or other

operation of law, are so restrictive as to ensure that such

transfers can only go to someone who already, today, qualifies

as an agent.

It is true, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad that the Minister

indicated that. I would ask him to look at this amendment to

section 7(

a) which indicates that the appointment must be given

with consent, and only if the person is an agent of a

corporation, or is qualified under subsection 2 to be appointed

an agent.

So that is already in your legislation, Mr. Minister. Quite

obviously, in bringing in this amendment, you have not

carefully considered how you are restricting the identity of

people to whom an agent may transfer his business.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear the Minister say that

he can appoint other agents. Well, then, Mr. Chairman, if you are going to expand

the number of people to whom agencies may be transferred, then I suggest that

you should also follow what you have done in the same Act, and bargain and negotiate

with these agents to ensure that they receive proper compensation for what they

will lose as a consequence of the steps being taken in this legislation.

It is noteworthy, when considering this matter of the

payment of compensation by the Crown, that when you look at

section 9, Mr. Chairman, you find that with respect to people

engaged in the business of repair of motor vehicles and

trailers the government is prepared to negotiate and bargain.

Yet they are not prepared to negotiate and bargain with the

agents who will sell this insurance.

Under one of the subsequent subsections, and it is also

pertinent to this matter of compensation, Mr. Chairman, the

government has complete authority to determine what the rate of

commission to the agent will be, and to "increase, reduce, or

otherwise vary" that commission.

Now, this has a very direct bearing upon the value of the

agency business. So again the government is to have the

complete unfettered authority to fiddle with commissions, and

therefore to destroy the value of an agency. In those

circumstances, if the government takes that kind of action,

then the agent should be entitled to claim compensation for

that action by the government.

As I said in an earlier debate on another matter altogether,

this is not ensuring that the Crown will pay compensation. It

does not automatically entitle every agent to compensation, but

it gives each agent the opportunity of having his individual

case examined, if necessary through the processes of

arbitration, to have it determined whether there has been loss,

and what the extent of that loss might be. I can't for the life

of me, Mr. Chairman, understand why the government wouldn't

accept this amendment. Indeed, if as the Premier suggested when

he spoke this morning there isn't going to be any loss, then

there is nothing for the Crown to worry about.

Why are they hesitant to allow these independent agents,

these independent businessmen in each of the communities

throughout the province, to have the right to have their

individual case examined, appraised and, if necessary,

submitted to arbitration? What does the government fear?

Refusal to accept this amendment and to give these people this

right only leads one to the conclusion that the matters placed

in debate by the Members of the opposition are in fact true,

and that what the Hon, Premier says is untrue, and that there

is going to be loss.

We know, Mr. Chairman, very clearly, that one of the areas

of loss for which the government has provided no answer is that

of those agents whose business, or a significant part of whose

business has been in the sale of insurance for commercial

vehicles. Yes, the agents are going to be allowed to sell

insurance and sell the licensing decals. That is for private

passenger motor vehicles. But the Minister has made it very

clear in statements that he has made outside this House that

the agents are not going to be

[ Page 3052 ]

able to sell the metal plates, and the metal plates are

those which go with commercial vehicles. Metal plates, Mr.

Chairman, are also sold, or have been in the past, and I expect

will be in the future, at periodic intervals, when suddenly all

of the passenger motor vehicles in the province come up for new

plate issuance.

Now, whether that is on a three- or a five-year basis no one

knows. But if that is to be the case, that the Insurance

Corporation of this province is going to retain to itself the

right to sell metal plates, then not only do they take the

business of all commercial vehicles, and hence the insurance

written for those vehicles, but also periodically will take all

of the rights to sell insurance for private passenger vehicles

as well.

This interferes in a very significant way with the business

of some agents. So not only do we have a general impact upon

insurance agents, but we have a very specific impact upon

special agents. And it is those special agents who fall into

that category, Mr. Chairman, to whom this particular amendment

applies. As I say, if any one agent in the province is affected

by this legislation, he should have the right to have that

determined. The Crown should have no hesitation in extending it

to them.

If the Minister is to suggest that the practices of the

corporation will be such as to prevent any of the agents from

suffering loss, then he had the perfect answer, but he hasn't

given it yet, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I haven't had a

chance. You're always talking.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, he has had his chance, Mr Chairman. It

is interesting that when the Minister rose this morning he read

a letter from the Insurance Agents Association — that

great association — that great association that has

deserted all the agents in this debate which has continued

about this legislation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. But he went to their annual

meeting just a month ago; he was invited to attend their annual

meeting — the Minister of Highways — and the annual

meeting was packed. It was a dinner meeting and there was the

Minister of Highways, the new tsar of insurance of British

Columbia, and they were all there to listen to what he had to

say. But what were the ground rules? — no questions, Mr.

Chairman. No questions to the Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I had to get back to the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: You had to get back to the House. Well, you

took the time to talk about Bill 42 and all the wonderful

things you were doing there but you didn't tell them very much

about the insurance legislation. Now you see, Mr. Chairman, he

says that if we would hurry up and end the debate he could get

up here in this House and give us the answers.

We have been asking him questions: what will the premiums

be; what will the commission be; what will his arrangements

with these agents be? All we have had is silence — no

answers at all. That is why we are taking the time in debate to

point out to all the Members of the committee — my, there

aren't very many here on the government side — the

problem that exists with respect to these independent insurance

agents.

It is noteworthy, Mr. Chairman, in this regard that the

insurance agents have been very circumspect in their approach

to this subject. They have written to their own Members at

length about the problem. I have a copy of a letter which was

written to Mr. Colin Gabelmann, MLA for North

Vancouver-Seymour. It's a lengthy, four-page letter detailing

in the most intimate way the impact that this legislation will

have upon this particular agent, his wife and children. He

points out quite clearly that he is not going to be able to

continue to function if this legislation is passed.

So they haven't been lobbying all the Members. They haven't

been spending thousands of dollars in an attempt to have the

government see their position clearly. Yet they get no answers;

they get no change in this legislation. But they could be

satisfied if the Hon. Minister would just give them that

fundamental right, when in danger of having their business

confiscated by government action, to have an independent review

to see whether they have suffered loss and, if they have, be

compensated.

It is no great problem, Mr. Chairman, to determine what the

value may be of an insurance agency. As a matter of fact the

government, through the Department of Finance, does it very

handily. In the case of the death of an insurance agent, the

succession duty department of this government has no difficulty

in establishing the value of the agency upon which the

beneficiaries will pay succession duties.

Well, if the Department of Finance, through the succession

duty department, can determine the value of an agency, then

there is a clear indication to the government what the value of

these agencies are today. They will easily be able to

determine, by the application of the same methods of

calculation, whether there has been any loss or not. Why do

they hesitate to accept even the calculating methods used by a

department of the government?

What is wrong with an independent appraisement of that loss?

I trust that the Hon. Minister is gazing for some light so that

when this debate is finished he can provide us with these

answers. Why will you not

[ Page

3053 ]

compensate these businessmen who may — "may," I

say, Mr. Chairman, — suffer loss as a result of your

actions? Why will you not permit this amendment to pass so that

there will be a method of determining both the fact of loss and

the amount thereof?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, listening

to the debate on this amendment both earlier today and this

afternoon, but particularly earlier today before we adjourned

for the lunch-hour break, it is very apparent to me that the

Minister and the Premier do not really understand the

relationship of an agent and an agency as it relates to the

general insurance industry. You know, the cavalier attitude of

both the Minister of Highways and the Premier leads one to

suspect that they really have no appreciation for the position

of the individual agent in the business of servicing the auto

insurance and the general insurance industry.

The suggestion has been made that since the insurance agent

will suffer no loss, why should he be compensated? But the

facts of the matter are this, Mr. Chairman: any person licensed

to sell general insurance in the Province of British Columbia

is licensed and may represent at the present time two, three,

four, six, eight companies as an agent. In that position, while

he could run into disagreements with one of the companies over

his performance or whatever, he can still write general

insurance and car insurance, auto, fire-and-theft and casualty

on behalf of the other companies that he represents.

Now the situation is going to be completely opposite under

this legislation in that the only way that this agent will be

able to sell car insurance in the Province of British Columbia

as a licensed agent will be under the jurisdiction of the Crown

corporation. If they don't approve his licence or if they

revoke it or cancel it or fail to renew it, he has no option

— he is out of the business of writing auto insurance in

the Province of British Columbia.

Earlier today a remark was made by one of the Members

speaking in this debate suggesting that surely the cabinet must

have a conscience in this matter. Then the remark was made that

perhaps they have no conscience. I'll not say that, but I'll

say this: they have a very selective conscience with respect to

what they consider to be a right and proper procedure.

There is nothing improper about this amendment. As a matter of fact, the number

of times when it might have to be used would, if the government is fair to the

agents, that represent them in the Province of British Columbia, be only on

the odd occasion. What an agent fears most of all is the fact that he does not

know what his remuneration will be. He knows now that the rate of renewal commission

that is being paid to him is going down every month from now until next March.

His income is dropping. He does not know how much the government will pay him

in commission to write or underwrite their insurance plan. He doesn't even have

a guarantee that they won't revoke his licence in six months or a year down

the road.

Now, it is a very simple process for the government to use

the general insurance agents in the Province of British

Columbia at this particular time because they are the people

that are trained in this business and in the business of

underwriting auto insurance. But there is no guarantee that six

months or a year down the road the government may decide to

invoke a union shop or a union contract upon all the people

involved in the insurance industry and give them the

opportunity — or the choice — of joining the union

or losing their contract.

The amendment that was proposed by the Member for South

Peace River only suggests that in cases where there is a

dispute and it looks like an agent, for no reason of his own

perhaps, will lose the right to represent the Crown

corporation, an independent appraiser would look at the

situation and, if he feels the agent has a case, make a

suitable award to him.

Certainly every agent in the province would feel much better

about the proposition if this small amendment were accepted by

the Minister. It seems incredible to me, Mr. Chairman, that an

amendment of this nature, which the government cabinet

Ministers and the Premier have tried to play down with their

arguments, would be unacceptable. Because it would be a form of

guarantee between the new Crown corporation and the general

insurance agents in the Province of British Columbia that he

would not be unjustly deprived of an income for his wife and

his family because of some disagreement or some

misunderstanding which would result in some bureaucrat deciding

that his agency licence would not be renewed.

Certainly there's good reason for this amendment and there

should be good reason for the government to accept it in the

spirit in which it has been offered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can assure you I am not going to accept

this amendment, to start off with, for a very good reason.

There isn't a private insurance company in the world that pays

compensation to any agent when that company revokes the licence

of that agent to sell that particular company's insurance.

That's the first point.

I've listened to the moaners and the groaners across the

way. I am sure glad that they're not going to have anything to

do with running this insurance

[ Page 3054 ]

corporation, because they would certainly have bungled it,

loused it up and made it impossible for it to operate. And

listening to the way you talk it's obvious that there's a

deep-seated hope in each of you that it doesn't work.

I can assure you that everything that I can do to make it

work I will do.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's what worries you. You don't

want it to work. You are agreeing with what I said. You don't

want it to work. It'll worry you if it works, won't it?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He says we're not prepared to negotiate

and bargain. Why does he think we're having meetings with the

representatives of the agents? We're negotiating and

bargaining. That's what we're doing.

Now, I know and I agree that from now until the first of

March next year there will be diminishing returns. But in that

January-February period of next year they will get as much

income as they normally would get in a full 12 months. This is

a reorganization of the automobile insurance field, with some

completely new procedures. That's what I want you to recognize.

There's some completely new procedures involved in this because

for the first time…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I listened to that Member. I wonder if he

would just let me explain what this is all about so you won't

make a fool of yourself and you won't look back on what you say

after you leave here and realize how stupid you have been.

We're involved in some completely new procedures which for

the first time relate…

MR. SMITH: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you state your point of

order?

MR. SMITH: There's been a lot of acrimony in all the debates

in this House, but for an Hon. Minister to call a Member of the

opposition stupid is completely unacceptable in this House. I'd

ask him to withdraw that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unconditionally.

MR. SMITH: Unconditionally.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't say he was stupid.

MR. SMITH: You did.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said I wanted him to listen so he

wouldn't go out and say…

MR. SMITH: I ask the Member as an Hon. Member of this House

to withdraw.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't say he was stupid. There's a

Member that sat there and said we have no conscience and so did

that Member.

MR. SMITH: I said a collective conscience.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've listened to garbage from over there

all session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would respond to the point of

order made by the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would appeal to both sides of

the House to restore the proper level of decorum that is due to

a proper Legislative Assembly.

I would ask the Minister if he would withdraw, in the spirit

of good will, the remarks imputing stupidity to any Member of

this House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the spirit of good will in which I've

been participating in this debate. That's what you asked me to

do, Mr. Chairman.

I will repeat what I said. I asked the Member to listen so

that when he leaves this House he will not make statements

which, when he looks back on them a year from now, will make

him realize how stupid he has been. Now that's all I asked you

to do, is to listen so that when you leave this House you will

not make stupid statements. That's all. I didn't say you were

stupid. But I'll withdraw any accusations against the stupidity

of the individual.

However, as I was saying, this is a completely…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Minister of Highways

has the floor.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I withdrew it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon.

[ Page 3055 ]

Minister of Highways has the floor.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I withdrew any accusation I made as to

the Hon. Member. Now I said that! What more do you want?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister confine

his remarks to the amendment before the House, and would the

other Members observe standing order 17,

part 2, and not

interrupt the Hon. Minister while he is speaking.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're embarking on a completely new

procedure in the handling of automobile insurance. For the

first time it will be tied to the licence plates and will be

tied to the renewal — it will be tied to the driver's

licence. This requires completely new procedures and a

reorganization of the industry. I recognize that. The agents

know that.

But I will predict that a couple of years from now, after

it's been in operation, the agents will be doing very well.

This is why I cannot understand the moaning and the groaning

that's been going on.

Now as I told you, I am negotiating and bargaining with

them. They talk about the reduction in the commission. About 10

years ago the commission that was paid the agent was 22 per

cent. Because of a change in the market situation, the

commission was reduced, I think first of all to 17 per cent,

and then down in a couple of jumps. There is a further change

in the market situation and that will be recognized.

There's continual harping over compensation. I remember when

I used to buy insurance to cover my hospital bill and I

borrowed from a private agent. The government of this province

brought in a hospital insurance plan. It was compulsory. It

covered every person in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was voluntary.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It was not. The hospital insurance was

compulsory. Every person in this province had to pay his

premium. I didn't hear any complaints then about compensation

for the insurance companies and they had the whole field to

themselves. When the government brought in legislation there

was no talk about compensation then.

I want to say this, that we are in negotiation now. I have

already assured the agents there will be a substantially larger

market. It may not be public knowledge yet but the…

AN HON. MEMBER: It'll be a larger market.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A substantially larger share of the market — and

it's a continually enlarging market. I wish you'd looked at some of the statistics

before you got up and said some of the things you've been saying.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'll stand behind

anything I say.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It'll bury you.

It's not generally known but the Motor-Vehicle Branch is

being transferred to my jurisdiction. Because it is related to

the insurance — the plates and the licences — it

will allow me then to change procedures within the

Motor-Vehicle Branch to overcome some of the objections that

the agents have made as to what's available to them because of

licence plates. It means that in any year when a complete

renewal of licence plates is necessary, we can work out

arrangements with the insurance agents to overcome any problem

that might evolve out of that.

I want to make it very clear to the Members of this House

that we are going into the insurance business. We're going into

the general insurance business too, as I indicated. I'm telling

you, and I've already told the agents, we need agents. That's

why I'm rejecting this amendment. I suggest that two years from

now you'll look back in wonderment at some of the things that

were said. You'll say it was the greatest thing that ever

happened to the province.

I now call for the question on the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River on the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I had said my piece on the

amendment until such time as both the Minister of Highways and

the Premier had to get on their feet and twist a few things

around to give the impression that the new government insurance

is treating everybody just the same as an individual insurance

company treats them.

The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that by not accepting this

amendment the government has developed an insensitive and

cavalier attitude towards the needs and the objections of the

independent businessmen in this province who have been

previously selling insurance in good faith and who have been

previously building up their businesses, many of them so that

they could sell it some day and maybe retire.

The rights of the individual have been completely overlooked

by this arrogant government, Mr. Chairman — completely

overlooked. The Premier referred to the jungle of free

enterprise. Let me tell you the facts, Mr. Chairman, and the

reason that we should still push for this amendment.

Under the present set-up, an agent who deals with one

insurance company and for some reason or another the agent and

the insurance company whose

[ Page 3056 ]

policies this agent sells decide that they do not see

eye-to-eye, then the agent or the insurance company, either

one, has the right to terminate the agreement. But, Mr.

Chairman, the difference now is that that insurance agent could

go to one of the many insurance companies in North America and

Canada and have the opportunity to handle some other company's

insurance. There was no great personal loss to this agent and

his agency.

That's why the situation is now different, Mr. Chairman,

very different. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is only going to be

one monopolistic insurance company handling automobile

insurance in British Columbia. The difference now is that if

this agency is terminated, there is no other company that he

can go to. In other words, he is o-u-t — out of

business.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, we must have this amendment

— to protect that individual's rights. There is no other

insurance company for him to go to.

With many of the agencies that I have talked to, about 40 to

60 per cent of their business is selling automobile insurance.

It's unfortunate that the Premier has gone hard in the head

since coming to power. That's the only thing I can think about

it. He's become completely insensitive to the little

people.

Mr. Chairman, if the government does not accept this

amendment, I can only come to the conclusion that the

government has two sets of standards: one set of standards they

deal with when they're dealing with labour unions and labour

legislation, and another set of standards when they're dealing

with the small independent businessmen in this province. Two

sets of standards, if they do not accept this amendment, Mr.

Chairman. There is no other way that I will be able to see the

government.

You know, Mr. Chairman, when the government talks about

labour legislation, they want to protect the rights of the

individual. All I'm trying to do here this afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, via this amendment, is ask the government to have

some understanding of the rights of the hundreds and hundreds

of independent insurance agencies in this province.

Mr. Chairman, it will be a very, very sad day here in this

last day of this long Legislature if the government does not

accept this amendment. I would have to think that they have had

a hardening of the conscience cells.

In many instances, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with

individual agents. In many instances, it is individual people

who sell automobile insurance that I am trying to protect. In

other instances, it may be a partnership. These are the people

that I am trying to protect by this simple amendment.

I don't know what the criteria are going to be for the cancellation of a licence

under this monopolistic government-owned insurance corporation. This is what

frightens these people, Mr. Chairman. This is why this amendment should be accepted.

These people are not employees of any insurance company. They are agents of

the insurance companies' merchandise, which are the policies they sell.

When the government will not support this simple amendment

that I have, Mr. Chairman, I have to think that it is the

desire of the government to make these insurance agents become

employees of the government. I have to think that this is the

ultimate aim.

When the Premier was talking this morning, he was talking

about large insurance companies with their head offices in New

York and Chicago. I'd like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that

there are many insurance companies with their head offices in

Canada, in Manitoba.

The other people that I would like to protect, Mr. Chairman,

are the people who have the largest percentage of their business handling commercial vehicles.

These people…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter which the Hon.

Member is discussing has already been dealt with by other

Members of this assembly on the debate on this amendment. I

would ask him, if he has no further information to add, that he

take his seat. The matter of individual rights and commercial

vehicles and so on has already been examined.

MR. PHILLIPS: But these people, Mr. Chairman, that I'm

talking about have about 80 per cent of their business in

commercial vehicles, and they have already been dismissed

without compensation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You didn't listen to what I said — they

have already been dismissed.

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

Member that this particular point has been dealt with at length

by another Member in debate on this amendment. I'd ask you not

to discuss it further.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask the Premier and

the Minister once again in the name of justice, in the name of

democracy, and in the name of decency to accept this

amendment.

I'm going to ask, Mr. Chairman, that the government

backbenchers who have been pushed around during this session of

the legislature, whipped into shape, I'm going to ask them to

vote with their conscience. Mr. Chairman, for the Minister of

Highways to stand in this legislature and say to people who are

fighting for the rights of the individuals in this Province of

British Columbia that we are moaners and groaners is beyond

comprehension. Somehow, Mr. Chairman, since that Member became

a Minister, he has developed a very

[ Page 3057 ]

callous attitude toward the rights of the individual, toward

giving proper compensation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've asked the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am certainly confining my remarks to the

amendment. I'm confining my remarks to the amendment a lot more

than the Premier did when he made a tirade on the floor of this

House just before we prorogued at one o'clock And I didn't hear

anybody bringing the Premier to order when he got up and ranted

and raved like a maniac.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Who is the maniac?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) says, via this amendment that we're trying to see

that this insurance company will not work. That statement

again, Mr. Chairman, is insensitive. And in the next breath the

Minister of Highways says he cannot accept this amendment

because he is negotiating with the agents in this province. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Highways wants to negotiate from a

clear position of absolute and total power. He wants to have

the axe hanging over the heads of the insurance agents in this

province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order. Would the Hon Member be

seated? Would you state your point of order please?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I draw to your attention that this

amendment is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made. This particular

amendment is out of order under standing order No. 67 inasmuch

as it involves the expenditure of money by the Crown.

Therefore, I rule the amendment out of order and ask the Hon

Member…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, finally you've got around

to using closure in this legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: You've tried to do it before, you waited until

the last day to bring in closure — steamroller tactics.

You've got too much power on that side of the House. The people

are going to find out, Mr. Chairman. You go ahead, close debate

in this House if you want. You go ahead, close the Member off…trying to fight for the rights of the individual That's why

you bring closure…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't