[ Page 759 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

Bill (No. 13) intituled An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act was read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 14) intituled An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 15) intituled Jury Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

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

Bill (No. 16) intituled An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Bill (No. 17) intituled An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act.

Bill (No. 18) intituled An Act to Amend the Constitution Act.

Bill (No. 19) intituled Corrections Act.

Bill (No. 20) intituled An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 22) intituled An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

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

Bill (No. 23) intituled An Act to Amend the Chiropractic Act.

Bill (No. 26) intituled An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964.

Bill (No. 27) intituled Land Act was committed, sections 1 to 28 reported complete without amendment.

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

By leave of the House, on the motion of the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, the House reverted to "Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees."

Mr. W.F. Jefcoat presented the Report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, as follows:–

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Agriculture begs leave to report as follows:

Pursuant to motion of February 17, 1970, your Committee was ordered convened to study the following matter:–

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to study the following:–

(1) The benefits or otherwise of separate classification of highly specialized commercial farms, marginal farms, hobby or retirement farms, and other such groupings when considering public programmes:

(2) Efficiencies which might be accomplished in off-farm sector relating to the supply and marketing channels handling the food, the processing, the merchandising, and the financing.

The Committee to hear representations from the food and agricultural industry, organizations, and individuals, and report its findings to this House.

Ninety-one requests were mailed to food processors, wholesalers, and various food producer and agriculture organizations. A total of five briefs were presented to the Committee. These briefs were presented by the following:–

(1) Federation of Agriculture:

(2) British Columbia Turkey Breeders:

(3) British Columbia Region of National Farmer's Union:

(4) Western Food Processors:

(5) British Columbia Egg Marketing Board.

Based upon the submissions to the Committee it would appear that the average income to the producer is too low, and that they do not receive an adequate share of the consumer price of products. It is for this reason that this Committee wanted to hear from processors, wholesalers, and retailers. Their submissions are essential if the Committee is to establish where the consumer dollar is applied.

The Committee is very disappointed with the lack of interest shown both last year and this year. It is essential that the Committee receive reports from the processors and marketing groups as well as producers. This lack of cooperation and information has prevented the Committee from completing a meaningful report. Therefore, the following recommendations are made:–

(1) That the Minister review the terms of reference and recommend, at an early date, terms for next year, subject to the approval of the Legislature:

(2) That these terms of reference be spelled out to all sectors of the industry throughout the year recommending that they be prepared to appear before the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture in 1971:

(3) The Committee further recommends that food processing, marketing organizations, and producers, be notified by the Committee of the terms of reference and requested to appear early in the next Session.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

W.F. JEFCOAT, Chairman.

The report was taken as read and received.

Mr. H.P. Capozzi presented the Report of the Special Committee on Automobile Insurance, as follows:–

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Special Committee on Automobile Insurance begs leave to report as follows:–

The organizational meeting was held on Thursday, February 5, 1970. Mr. Capozzi was elected as Chairman and Mr. McDiarmid as Secretary.

The Committee received briefs and the following people appeared before the Committee:–

February 17, 1970: Mr. W.D. Mitchell, Mr. Ed Thompson, Mr. F.W. Barchard, general manager, transportation division,

[ Page 760 ]

British Columbia Hydro; Mr. Byron Straight, actuary.

February 24, 1970: Mr. Carl Wilcken, actuary, Insurance Bureau of Canada.

February 26, 1970: Mr. Ed Lewis, British Columbia manager, British Columbia Economical Mutual Insurance Company; Mr. Ron Hunt, president, Victoria Insurance Agents' Association; Mr. Gordon Root, public-relations counsel, British Columbia Automobile Agents.

March 3,1970: Mr. Brian Williams, Mr. Lyle Woodley, Mr. Kenneth Burnett, British Columbia division, Canadian Bar Association.

March 5, 1970: Mr. Baines, vice-president, Independent Insurance Conference of Canada; Mr. Price, local chairman, Independent Insurance Conference of Canada; Mr. Robert Parkin, chairman, facility.

March 10, 1970: Mr. R. B. Stocks, manager, British Columbia Federation of Agriculture; Mr. Norman Binyon, chairman, Canadian Independent Adjusters' Confederation of British Columbia; Mr. Blair Baillie, past president, Canadian Independent Adjusters' Confederation of British Columbia.

March 12, 1970: Mr. Donald Martin, general manager, Canadian Royal Insurance Group; Mr. Norman Manning, Guardian Union Royal Exchange; Mr. Chamberlain, actuary for this group; Mr. Ray Hadfield, Superintendent, Motor-vehicle Branch.

March 17, 1970: Mr. H.D. Vanam, president, Canadian Indemnity Company, Winnipeg; Mr. John S. McGuiness, John S. McGuiness Associates, consulting actuaries.

March 18, 1970: Mr. Jack Robertson, president, Insurance Agents of British Columbia; Mr. Bill Longman, president, Central Surveyors Incorporated; Mr. Rudkin, president, Wesco Insurance.

The Committee is grateful to Mr. Thomas Cantell, Superintendent of Insurance, who attended all meetings and provided a great deal of valuable information to the Committee.

(1) To consider whether section 14 of chapter 20 of the Statutes of British Columbia, 1969, which provides inter alia that no action shall be brought against any person for recovery of damages to property occasioned in an accident involving a motor-vehicle exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars and costs, should be proclaimed in force or amended and, if so, to what extent:

The no-fault coverage proposed under section 79 of Bill (No. 75) suggests that possible savings could be attained through the elimination of certain legal fees and adjustment costs. It further suggests that restricting the recovery of claims for damage to vehicles of less than $250 to Small Debts Court would make people more responsible for their own accidents and repairs.

While in theory this has some justification, it became clear that the following could result:–

While the public might appreciate the reduction that could result in insurance costs, there would be considerable ill feeling when an accident occurred and the individual who was not at fault was obliged to go to Small Debts Court for the first $250 damage. If uninsured the individual would have no recourse to recover any additional damage. This section if implemented could in effect require everyone to self insure for all damage over $250.

In the case of property damage it would deprive a resident of all right to recover damages to property in excess of $250 simply because he may have been involved in an accident involving a motor-vehicle. At the same time, the owner of the vehicle would have no responsibility for damage done by his motor-vehicle over $250 even where he was at fault and no matter how irresponsible his actions might have been.

The possible result is that insurance premiums for property damage would be determined not by the driving standards of the individual who is insured but by the driving standards of the most irresponsible motorists.

It could also complicate the position of both residents and non-residents as to render it most difficult for them to clarify their rights while at the same time placing non-residents in a somewhat more favourable position than residents.

The brief submitted by the Victoria Insurance Agents' Association is very comprehensive and is attached for consideration. The essential theme in this presentation is contained in the following:–

"Legislation of this kind which largely removes the burden of paying for property damage caused through negligence from the guilty to the innocent is not likely to prove to be in the best interests of the public."

It is therefore the recommendation of the Committee that section 79 of Bill (No. 75) not be implemented at this time.

The Committee recommends that consideration and additional study be given to the following proposal of the insurance law subsection, British Columbia Branch, Canadian Bar Association, whereby the right of subrogation in respect to motor-vehicle damage would be withdrawn from insurers licensed to do business in the Province of British Columbia.

This envisages the retention of the individual's right to sue either for his deductible, or if he does not wish to carry collision coverage, then for the full amount of damage to his property. In other words, the law would be left as it is and all persons would have the right to sue or be sued in tort as heretofore, save and except that no insurer would have a subrogated right of action. This could result in a reduction in insurance premiums on the compulsory auto insurance coverage because (a) those carriers of the compulsory insurance would no longer be required to pay for property damage to other vehicles where such vehicles are insured and (b) investigation and adjustment expenses would be significantly reduced.

The Committee further recommends that the Automobile Board be asked to study a proposal whereby the cost of the compulsory package for third party liability would not be increased on a per accident basis, but a "deductible" amount would be inserted as a responsibility of the insured after each accident. Any unsettled claim would be paid from the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund and the insured's driver's licence would be suspended until the Fund had been reimbursed.

In the event the Legislature decided to implement section 79 the Committee submits that the section should be amended as follows:-

A. Property damage in section 79 (1) should be limited to motor-vehicles.

B. That there should be no recovery in excess of $150 (replacing the $250 limit) for damage to a motor-vehicle, with a limit of $300 for any one occurrence.

C. The problems raised above created by section 79 (2) involving the rights of non-residents should be exhaustively studied and some solution found before the Proclamation.

(2) To consider whether the accident benefits described in the Second Schedule to the Insurance Act should apply to a motor carrier as defined in the Motor Carrier Act:

There is quite a basic difference between the position of

[ Page 761 ]

the private automobile and the public transit operator.

The private owner generally decides who will ride with him and under circumstances which he either condones or agrees to.

The public transit operation is largely restricted to movements in high-density traffic and requires the carriage of a large number of passengers who are standing or moving about and board or disembark under varying conditions. Under the best of circumstances it would be difficult for the operator to determine the authenticity or the extent of any injuries which might occur.

In view of the circumstances and problems involved the Committee recommends that the Disability Income Schedule of the Insurance Act should not be made applicable to passengers travelling on, boarding, or alighting from public passenger vehicles. It is understood that this exemption does not apply to the death benefits nor in any way would exempt any other vehicles owned or operated by transit operators, nor interfere with normal tort liability.

(3) To consider whether automobile insurance premiums in British Columbia, including the premium charged for accident benefits, are commensurate with the risks assumed:

The services of a qualified actuary, Mr. Byron Straight, F.C.I.A., F.G.A.P., A.S.A., were retained by the Committee.

Mr. Straight was asked

(a) to do a general survey of premium rates:

(b) to determine whether automobile insurance premiums could be reduced if the insurers allowed in advance for the investment income on unearned premiums and open claim liabilities:

(c) to examine the premium increases (over 1969 rates) adopted by all the companies for the new death and disability income benefits. The results of Mr. Straight's reports are attached.

In the opinion of the Committee based on the questioning of the individuals and groups appearing before the Committee and on the reports submitted by Mr. Straight the following conclusions can be drawn:–

(1) While the rates in general show a certain conformity (this is to be expected since they are derived from the same actuarial base, the Green Book) there is a variance as a result of competition:

(2) That the consideration of investment income in the calculation of insurance rates could lead to a reduction of 4 to 5 per cent:

(3) By reducing the estimated length of disability the disability income portion of the costs in the new accident benefit rates could be reduced from 20 to 25 per cent resulting in a reduction in the estimated total costs of the new benefit claims by about 10 per cent:

(4) By increasing the division of the premium dollar from 67 cents for "loss" and 33 cents for "expense" to 69 cents for "loss" and 31 cents for "expense" a further adjustment could be achieved. The Committee believes that in respect of the premium for the compulsory policy a more equitable division of the premium dollar should be 75 cents for "loss" and 25 cents for "expense":

(5) Since the estimated number of automobiles that presently do not carry the compulsory package ranges between 5 to 10 per cent, and since the total cost of all claims, insured and uninsured, is therefore borne by the insured the cost of the compulsory package could be reduced by 5 to 10 per cent by requiring proof of coverage when licence plates are purchased:

(6) While the problem of covering farm vehicles for limited highway use seems to have been solved by the special rates introduced by the company, a sample of these rates is attached, it is hoped the proposed Automobile Board would further clarify this position.

In view of the possible reductions suggested it is the recommendations of the Committee that section 250M of Bill (No. 74) be proclaimed, the Automobile Insurance Board be established, an actuary be employed, and the companies be asked to justify their rates for the present compulsory package and be required to obtain approval for future changes in these rates. This Board should be asked to study the cost and ramifications of various proposals whereby the compulsory package or portions of it could be operated by other than the industry.

It is further recommended that the Motor-vehicle Branch institute a procedure whereby proof of insurance, compulsory package only would be required, when licence plates are issued. In the opinion of the Committee the Government has a definite responsibility to assure that the costs for the compulsory package are as low as possible since it should not legislate for excess profits, but it becomes more apparent that even though the major costs of automobile insurance are in the property damage and collision costs the majority of the driving public wants the right to decide what kind and how much collision coverage he places on his automobile.

There were many suggestions put forward as to how collision and property damage costs could possibly be reduced: (a) Reduction of agents' commission; (b) reduction of claims costs; (c) elimination of duplication of paper work; (d) standardization of forms and endorsements; and (e) reduction of adjustment expenses.

The Committee was dismayed to learn how little is being done by the insurance industry (a) to exert pressure on the auto industry to manufacture safer cars; (b) to encourage defensive driving courses and offer reduced premiums for graduates; and (c) to reduce claims costs, adjustment expenses, and excessive motor-vehicle damage claims.

The Committee felt that better control and policing is required by the companies to reduce costs of claims. Since the insurance companies base their rates on the Green Book, which in turn is based on the claims costs of the preceding year, there is no real pressure on the companies to reduce costs. There is, however, considerable evidence that the pressure of the auto-repair industry, the agent, and the automobile owner himself on the adjuster and the insurer is a definite factor in increasing costs. It is hoped that the industry would become its own watchdog and take steps to reduce claims costs, duplication, and commission expenses.

Fundamentally, however, the public must realize that the cost of automobile insurance merely reflects in dollars the real problem of human suffering, and accidents that careless and irresponsible drivers cause. There cannot be significant changes in rates until there are safer cars and safer drivers.

The Committee was extremely perturbed to note the almost 20 per cent increase in accidents in 1969.

The Committee believes that the Automobile Insurance Board should be given powers to investigate insurance costs and that the following programmes should be instituted:–

(1) Driver training in all schools:

(2) Defensive-driving courses become a requirement for all major violators of the point system:

(3) Motor-vehicle testing be mandatory on a Province wide basis:

(4) Legislation be introduced requiring interim payments

[ Page 762 ]

for property damage in clear liability cases:

(5) Legislation be introduced requiring one month's notice to the claimant in order for insurance companies or their representatives to avail themselves of statutory limitations.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

H.P. CAPOZZI, Chairman.

The report was taken as read and received.

The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 79. (An Act to Amend the Health Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 79. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the Bill, in general, has some provisions in it that allow the Lieutenant-Governor to change the powers and duties of the Union Board of Health, and we see no objection to that particular principle.

But there is a marked departure from the other aspects of the Bill, short as it is, that deserve some comment and I think criticism, and that is the proposal that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall have the power to impose, levy, and recover charges for public health services, including tests and inspections.

Well now, this is a marked departure, and it seems to be typical of the actions of this Government, Mr. Speaker, throughout this Session. They have, in Bill after Bill taken the same attitude as they do here, and that is to impose upon either individuals, the local taxpayer, or upon the municipalities or districts, financial responsibility that formerly has been the responsibility of the Provincial Government. Indeed, in some fields they've increased the local or individual costs, without bearing a fair share of the burden in terms of past performance, and it seems to me a very backward, a very reactionary step to impose or give the power, in this case, the power to impose charges or levies upon the persons in the local areas who have health units.

The ramifications of it are really quite extensive. It means that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can impose a charge every time a sanitary inspector does an inspection. It means every time a parent with a child goes to a child health clinic at a health unit, there a charge can be imposed. It means that every time the Government takes a test at the Willow Centre or any other centre indeed, for venereal disease, test of water, a test for tuberculosis, or any of a number of other laboratory tests, that the local citizen is going to receive a bill. Now this is quite subversive of the notion that public health services, financed at the Provincial level, should be deteriorated by this type of deterrent fee. When you get down to it, we have the Premier of this Province telling us that he is against any greater deterrent fee on hospital beds, that a dollar a day is all that he is in favour of charging, but at the same time allowing the Minister of Health to propose that there be a deterrent fee on those members of the public that need and require and use the public health clinics.

I think this is a serious step, and one that should be opposed by this House. And the reason is that it is hard enough to get members of the public to take an interest in preventative health, to take an interest in these laboratory tests, or taking their children to the well-baby clinics, or getting inspections of the plumbing, of the sanitation, of the local restaurant, the local boarding-house, or of the other sanitary facilities of the community, without deterring them from doing that which only can benefit the community and the Province as a whole.

What is more fair than that the Provincial treasury should bear the principal cost of these services? They are uniform, they are all over the Province, they are useful to anybody within the Province, and there are no boundaries to disease. It follows from that, that the traditional policy that has governed the conduct of public health in this Province should be maintained, and anyone who suggests that they are doing a service to public health by a deterrent charge on the public is obviously going to reap the whirlwind. If it's going to reduce the incidence of public participation in health units, and at the same time cause an increase in the amount of disease, the amount of incidence of child ill health, the lack of proper care by mothers before their children are born, the ones that used to go to the well-baby clinics, if it is going to increase the amount of venereal disease or tuberculosis because of people being deterred from taking the tests that they should take, then we are paying a price that far outweighs any benefit to the treasury by imposing these levies and charges upon the public.

Of course, I do not know the intention of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, nor does this House. It does no good for the Minister to tell us what they intend. Once this is passed into law the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can do as he wishes. So, I suggest it's a bad principle to accept, and I certainly oppose that particular principle in the Bill. For that reason I'm opposed to the Bill as a whole, because it's a most vital principle and it's a wrong principle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I find I must agree with the member who has just taken his seat on the matter of the power which is being taken to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to impose levies for services which are in the public health field. This seems to me a backward step in public health and one which this House should very seriously consider before accepting. The public health service in this Province has done a great job over the years. There is great need for improvement, and I'm concerned that the power to impose levies and recover charges for public health services is one which we may come to regret.

We have a problem facing this Province, particularly the women of this Province, and it arises from what has for many years been considered to be a simple childhood disease, and that's measles. Now a vaccine has been discovered for the so-called red measles which is a disease, Mr. Speaker, which we all receive during childhood, and that has been made free to the people in this Province.

But, it has now been found, Mr. Speaker, that a more serious problem results from what was once considered to be

[ Page 763 ]

a minor disease, the so-called German measles, more correctly called rubella, and while this doesn't have any particular significance, maybe, to adults it certainly has very serious consequences for the children who are born to mothers who contract this disease during pregnancy.

Now, one of the significant advances which has been made in very recent months is the discovery of a vaccine for rubella, which is not yet approved for use in Canada, but of equal significance, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that a test has been found for the purpose of determining whether or not a woman has previously contracted this so-called minor disease.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish the honourable member would reach his point, because the matters he is discussing now are far from the principles of this Bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of public health and tests. Because, every seven years on the North American continent we are faced with an epidemic of rubella, and this is a public health measure.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, how does the honourable member relate that to principle of this Bill?

MR. WILLIAMS: The principle of this Bill is the fact that we are levying a charge for the tests which are essential to know whether or not a woman should or should not receive the vaccines which are likely to become available in the next 30 days for the women of this Province. When you consider that the offspring of women who contract this disease suffer deafness, blindness, and mental defect, and in some cases all three, it is a serious consequence to those young children and to the parents who bear them, and therefore it is a public health measure, and to suggest that perhaps the department should levy a charge for tests of this kind is, I believe, something which this Assembly should not accept.

Now, in addition, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the other main principle of the Bill, and that is the exercise of the power of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to determine what will happen to Union Boards of Health, whether the powers of a Union Board of Health should be placed in the hands of a regional district, or not, and whether that decision should be left in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I find a serious lack in this Bill in that there appears to be no requirement that before making any such decision, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council would communicate with or receive the opinions of those municipalities and those school districts who today support a Union Board of Health.

I think in the community in which I live that we have one Union Board of Health which is supported by the three municipalities, and two school districts, and yet we also find that the community in which I reside is part of a larger metropolitan community, which also has another Board of Health known as the Metropolitan Board. Yet there are many municipalities within that same area which are not part of any Union Board of Health, but they are all in the same Regional District.

I wonder what kind of examination is to be made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council before he determines, in his wisdom, whether or not he will take away from the powers of the North Shore Union Board of Health and take away the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Health, and place them under the hands of the regional district, and join all the municipalities together in the exercise of those functions, and whether or not he will destroy the staffs of those Union Boards, whether or not he will destroy the programmes that they have undertaken, and whether they will place them under the responsibility of the Region, and ensure that all those programmes are carried out or not, is not shown in this Bill. It seems to me that before this broad power should be given to the Cabinet, that we need greater definition of the way in which this power will be exercised.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: You want me to withdraw this section?

MR. WILLIAMS: No I don't. I'm just asking you for some explanation.

MR. LOFFMARK: The whole thing started over with your Union Board of Health.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh yes. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's always my Union Board of Health. You'll have the opportunity to answer, Mr. Minister. But you didn't answer, but you didn't make any such statement when you were….

MR. LOFFMARK: The most irresponsible speech I ever heard in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well now, isn't that interesting.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'm going to ask the honourable the Minister to withdraw those remarks.

MR. LOFFMARK: I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's significant the way the Minister of Health and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has castigated the Union Board of Health over the years, will respond to the kind of speech that I'm making tonight.

Mr. Speaker, you see the Minister has not been listening. He thinks I'm criticising, in some way, the suggestion that he is making. But, I'm only asking questions as to how far you are prepared to go, Mr. Minister. Because I find that when you introduced this Bill in second reading there was something lacking in the candour that you had with this House, you were lacking in candour when you tell us what the purpose of this Bill is. And when you read the explanatory notes in this Bill, they don't tell us what you really intend. In any….

…No, no, the responsibility is yours. The responsibility is for you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to tell this House fairly, fairly, what your programme is.

The fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has got some problem with the Capital Regional District, and he needs to cure that problem and cure it pretty quickly, has caused him to introduce this Bill and this section. But the programme that he has for the regional district in the Victoria area is one which is only an interim programme, and he hasn't got any idea of the way in which his department will carry out the same programme for the other Union Boards of Health in this Province. If he had, Mr. Speaker, I'm certain that the Minister would have been the first to have told us when he introduced this Bill of the great reforms he was going to make in the public health service of this Province, but he

[ Page 764 ]

didn't do it. No, he just wants to hold the power in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make certain decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Greater and greater powers.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, greater and greater power to exercise if, as, and when, the regional district or any grouping of municipalities.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the words are very significant. He's not prepared to say that he'll give it to the whole regional district. He can carve out some municipalities in the district, whichever are convenient to him. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I think that the members need to consider very carefully where we are going with Union Boards of Health in this Province, and where the Minister will force us to go if this legislation is allowed to pass.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the withdrawal of this Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MR. SPEAKER: The Bill may only be withdrawn by leave, I understand. One moment, please.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: It is not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill, Mr. Speaker. Will not be moving second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do that now.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree that the Bill can't be withdrawn at this point, that it would require the leave of the House, which is obviously not forthcoming. Nevertheless, the Government has expressed its intention not to proceed with the Bill, so it would indicate, in these circumstances, that the need for debate is somewhat futile.

MR. BENNETT: I move adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment. We have four people on their feet at once. Shall I get up, and then everyone will sit down. Now one moment, please. A motion for adjournment is always in order and must be accepted by the Chair, there's no alternative.

MR. D. BARRETT: Point of Order.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Newcastle was recognized and was on his feet. He was not asked to withdraw from his feet. I am saying in terms of my point of order that the Premier did not have the floor, the member from Cowichan-Newcastle did, and I am asking that the normal rules of the House prevail. When a member has the floor, he has not been asked to yield, and I ask that the courtesy of the member having the floor continue as always.

MR. SPEAKER: There were three members on their feet at the time. One moment please, I think there is no reason for excitement over a simple procedural matter. There were three members on their feet at once, as honourable members will recall. I recognized the Premier, not the honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat. The Premier at that time said that he was going to withdraw the Bill, and resumed his chair. I said that the Bill could not be withdrawn because it was in the possession of the House, without leave of the House. Now under those circumstances, there were at that time, another three members on their feet. I had recognized no one at that time. However, the Premier got to his feet again, and without being recognized, asked for adjournment of the debate.

I have not put the motion, and now I will recognize the honourable the Leader of the Opposition. But I will explain to the House the futility of debate, and I want the debate confined to the principle of the Bill, not the procedural action which has just taken place. Proceed.

MR. BARRETT: The principle of the Bill is an important one, and I will confine myself to my notes and not make any comment about the matter preceding the use of my notes.

For the first time that I can recall in this House, I have been here ten years, this is the first time that we have had a major debate on a regressive step in the public health field. This Province has always been viewed in Canada as one of the most progressive Provinces in the field of public health, and tonight for the first time, I have heard members speak in a critical manner of what was proposed by the Minister. The member from Burnaby-Edmonds covered one section, or one principle of the Bill which has a number of principles, and the member from North Vancouver covered another.

But the principle covered by the member from North Vancouver reveals — West Van — reveals a pattern, a pattern that frightens me as a member of this Legislature, and that pattern is one of bringing in legislation that is essentially threatening in nature. The principle of this Bill is to take in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that is the Minister, the power to make all decisions over the Union Boards of Health, and we have never entertained that concept before in this Legislature. As early as the first public health legislation was passed in this House, we have always looked upon local participation and local autonomy.

We must ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, why this new principle in this Bill? Why the direct hand of the Minister and the interference of the system that has worked so well up to now? Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern, as my good friend reminds me, and I intend to point out. There is a pattern of threatening local boards through legislation. We have had one Bill already attacking an un-named hospital board, and now we have a Bill attacking an un-named Union Board of Health.

Mr. Speaker, Government is to be responsible. Opposition is to be responsible. But how can we be responsible in this Legislature when we are presented with legislation that attacks unnamed Boards with un-named charges, Mr. Speaker? Hardly the way to govern, and the Minister having found his foot in a bear-trap is being rescued by the Premier, and I will say no more about that.

But I want to say, in terms of the other principle of this Bill, that is the whole matter of introducing a concept that we have never had under public health before in British Columbia, fee for service. Deterrent fees that threaten the fabric of one of the nation's best pre-natal health care programmes, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we do have one of the best pre-natal health clinics free in British Columbia, but

[ Page 765 ]

with a deterrent, Mr. Speaker, who will go without the pre-natal service? It will be the low-income groups. The cancer smear service, Mr. Speaker, that too is threatened. Who will go without, Mr. Speaker? Again, the low-income group. The family planning programmes, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of stupid, rigid Federal laws has shown some progressive light here in British Columbia. Who will go without family planning, Mr. Speaker? The low income group.

Mr. Speaker, the member says I am out of order. Mr. Speaker, I refer the member to section 2 of this Bill and the explanatory notes. The explanatory notes of this Bill say, Mr. Speaker, "The purpose of this Bill is to empower the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations authorizing charges for tests and inspection services provided under the Act (section 2), and to enable a representative of a Regional Board to be appointed to a Union Board of Health." Mr. Speaker, that means fee for service that already has been provided by the citizens of this Province without interference by Cabinet, without interference by Lieutenant-Governor and Order-in-Council.

I can list the rest, Mr. Member. The venereal disease programme mentioned by the member of Burnaby-Edmonds. Three years ago we had a serious epidemic of venereal disease in this Province, and if it were not for the aggressive free programmes of the public health service we would not have arrested that very serious outbreak of venereal disease, and I recall the former Minister of Health spending almost an hour in this House, outlining the programme his department was taking in that particular area. In terms of the tuberculosis control, the X-Ray clinics, Mr. Speaker, that is what is threatened here. And Mr. Speaker, why I am taking just a little bit longer of my time, even though we know the consequences of the action of the Government around this Bill, I want to warn the members that we must get a statement from the Minister of Health tonight whether or not he really intended this concept to go through, or what is the long-term aim of his department.

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that also would be threatened by this Bill, is the fact that we have been cutting back on public health nursing staff. Mr. Speaker, in my own constituency of Coquitlam we are short, short of public health services, short of home nursing services, Mr. Speaker, that with a deterrent fee would only increase hospital use because preventative service was not done in the homes of the aged. Mr. Speaker, people must be served in their homes by public health nurses. Public health nurses have kept people, older people, in their environment and out of institutions for years, and in conjunction with community sponsored programmes such as Meals on Wheels, the public health nurses provided that extra measure of health care to keep a senior citizen in their own home.

Mr. Speaker, the whole area of public school education, the whole area of public school education with the public health nurse has provided free, up to the introduction of this Bill, a complete comprehensive service of examination at the local level on a preventative basis for health services.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that one of the most positive debates we have heard in this House was around the subject of shifting the whole medicare plan away from fee for service to salaries for doctors. Why is an argument taking place, and what is its relationship with this Bill? The relationship simply is this. When there is no deterrent of a fee for service, Mr. Speaker, prevention is the message of the service, people come to the service to prevent illness. The service is provided to prevent illness, and to detect it, and to stop epidemics, and to provide the kind of home-care service that doesn't lead to additional costs later on.

I urge the House, Mr. Speaker, and all the members of this House, to appreciate the depth of service that the public health department has given, and how that depth of service would be interfered with, with this Bill in terms of charging fees for people.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying this, the rich can pay, the middle income group can pay, Mr. Speaker, but the people who need it most — the low-income groups, the pensioners, and welfare recipients, will be the ones who suffer if this concept is allowed to travel abroad beyond this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, because of the irresponsible action taken by both Opposition groups in this House, this night, I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion, are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have it.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:-

YEAS — 46

Messieurs

NAYS — 4

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on the

[ Page 766 ]

second Reading of Bill No. 82, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 82. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we support the Bill on second reading, and it does make some gesture in the direction of the control of automobile exhaust fumes, and the Attorney-General, in opening the matter, said that this had been a problem in California. I want to tell him, Mr. Speaker, very frankly, this is a problem, and a worse problem right now in the Province of British Columbia. Not worse, but comparatively speaking. The problem of automobile pollution is a very clear and present danger to the health of the people of British Columbia at the present time.

Now it's all very well for the Attorney-General to bring in this Bill, but I tell him he is right now, as of this moment, five years behind the State of California in the United States of America. Five years behind. What we're doing in this Bill is not implementing legislation to require the installation of fume control devices on automobiles, but we are saying that the Government may, in its wisdom, pass regulations to control these noxious fumes that are obviously deleterious to human health — by regulation in other words, promises, promises, promises, that's what this Bill is, instead of the realistic legislation we are entitled to expect, which would require and require now as a matter of law, the installation of safety pollution control devices on automobiles. This Bill just gives the promise that there may be regulation in the future that will govern exhaust emissions.

This isn't the whole problem, Mr. Speaker. The whole problem of automobile fumes and the pollution they cause is something that has to be tackled in terms of rapid transit, in terms of the cubic capacity of the motor-vehicles that are made in Detroit and Windsor and Oshawa — 300 horsepower. Capacities far beyond showing any respect for speed or health, high horsepower motors that create pollution and danger to life and limb, that create potentials of speed that can't be enjoyed in any case on our highways.

I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he must proceed not only five years after California, where these auto control devices have proved to be not an answer to the problem, a palliative but not a cure, but he must proceed also into the direction of restricting the high horsepowered cars on our highways, taxing them more heavily than the small models with low cubic capacity, that for all their want of virility and speed and power and all the rest of it, as status symbols, are nevertheless more healthy in the human environment and take far less space in the parking lot.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has begun in a direction which we support, but it is only a niggardly step in the right direction.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has not raised too much that needs reply except this, that I would not want to be associated in any way with his scare tactics of describing this Province as something worse, proportionately, in terms of air pollution from motor vehicles than the Los Angeles area. Anyone who suggests that, anyone who suggests that, Mr. Speaker, is employing scare tactics or they simply don't know what they're talking about — simply don't know what they're talking about, because you only need to visit the Los Angeles area. He says we're five years behind.

Compare Los Angeles to British Columbia any day of the week and you'll find that there is no comparison in terms of air pollution from motor-vehicles. The problem hardly exists here compared to the Los Angeles area, and if you consider the atmospheric conditions there, inclusion of air currents which results in the non-dispersal of it, it's something entirely different and the member, had he done any investigation into this at all, would surely know that.

Nevertheless, we are concerned with this area, and we are taking these steps, Mr. Speaker, and it's a wonder, with the kind of talk we've heard from the Opposition this night, that if they really felt this in years gone by — they say we're five years behind — why didn't they come forward with legislation? Why didn't they make proposals? Why didn't they make proposals in the past? None. None. The member — I'll have to accept that argument, Mr. Speaker, he has had trouble on the way to the polls. But that trouble, that trouble they've had in the past is nothing compared to the trouble they're going to have in the future. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is the second reading of Bill No. 82, An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 83. (An Act to Amend and Repeal Certain Provisions of the Statute Law)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 83. The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the member from Cowichan-Newcastle….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Malahat.

MR. BARRETT: Malahat. (applause) I am anticipating the usual redistribution announced by the Premier in his great democratic fashion. Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of that member, I wish to announce that although we are not supporting this Bill, we will not oppose it because there is no principle, it's a matter of sections. We will deal with it section by section and allow it to go through reading at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

Bill (No. 27) intituled Land Act was recommitted, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 28) intituled An Act to Amend the Land Surveyors Act was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 29) intituled Age of Majority Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as

[ Page 767 ]

reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 30) intituled Professional Corporations Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

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

Bill (No. 33) intituled Litter Act.

Bill (No. 34) intituled An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act.

Bill (No. 35) intituled An Act to Amend the Adoption Act.

Bill (No. 37) intituled An Act to Amend the Forest Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

The House continued to sit after midnight.

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

Bill (No. 36) intituled An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act.

Bill (No. 38) intituled British Columbia Professional Foresters Act.

Bill (No. 39) intituled An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act.

Bill (No. 40) intituled Mineral Processing Act.

The House adjourned at 12.35 a.m.