[ Page 179 ]

OCTOBER 24, 1972

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

Hon. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw to the attention of the House that today is United Nations Day. And I think it's very appropriate that we have students in our gallery today because, of course, they are the ones that the deliberations made through the United Nations will effect their future.

A United Nations flag is flying at this moment outside of the Parliament buildings. We are very fortunate also to have with us on the floor, Mr. Larry Ryan, who is the President of the Victoria United Nations branch. And I believe I can thank Mr. Ryan for the peace rose which has been presented to each Member of the House today. This is the international peace flower.

United Nations Day in these times of so much strife across the world is one I know many people probably questioned, "well, what is the United Nations doing?" But I think we all have to realize as long as that body exists and is working towards peace there will be hope for peace in this world. Thank you very much.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we have, in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon, the pleasure of four former members who sat in this legislative assembly in previous years. Watching us this afternoon will be Mrs. Kripps, Mr. Wolfe, Dr. McDiarmid and Mr. Capozzi, four former members of the previous Legislature; former backbenchers in the government side of the House like myself at that time. I'd like the assembly to welcome them to Victoria this afternoon.

MR. SPLA.KER: The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith). I thought he was going to continue discussion on the United Nations because I think that all sides of the House should recognize the importance of this day. Thirty-seven years is a long period in this type of a troubled world, and one of the great shining lights that mankind has in this period is the United Nations. I am so happy to join the Minister of Education in saying that the people of British Columbia support the United Nations 100 per cent.

We know full well that they have difficulties, they have disappointments. Why? Because we don't live in a perfect world. If we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't need such an organization as the United Nations.

But the type of work they have done to help the oncoming countries and wherever there has been distress and famine, and so forth throughout the world, they have been there to help.

I was pleased that when I had the honour to lead a government that we set up a perpetual fund and I'm sure the government will never cancel that fund. Because the interests of that will be there forever to give benefits and help to these distressed areas throughout the world.

And so I'm very happy and glad to join the Minister of Education this day in supporting the United Nations and to thank the representatives on the floor today. And also to thank all those who are taking part in the United Nations, not only in the headquarters in New York, but throughout the world because these days they live in very dangerous positions. Very dangerous in the type of world in which we live and they should be supported.

[ Page 180 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I'm delighted to hear of the former Members, particularly that they are in the gallery, and…(Laughter). And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome them here. I'd also like to welcome, on behalf of the House, 25 members of a class from New Westminster Secondary School. Mr. Speaker, they are here under the kindly guidance of their teacher, Mr. Knight, and I'd also particularly like to welcome my daughter, Allison.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party, to whom I apologize. I should have recognized him sooner.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): That's perfectly alright, Mr. Speaker. We also join in welcoming the visitors, both ex-members and students perhaps future members — to look at our deliberations this afternoon.

But I would like to join with the Hon. lady Minister and also the Hon. the former Premier of this province and associate my party with the remarks made on the occasion of United Nations Day. It's something to remember that there are many difficulties which confront us both here and in the provincial Legislature and many in the dominion affairs. And internationally we have many at the United Nations. And I feel that while there have been disappointments, while there have been set-backs, nevertheless, United Nations has made great strides and will continue to do so with the support of Canadians.

I personally, having worked there for some, weeks, do appreciate the fact that we have this opportunity here to pay tribute to the fine work of the United Nations and also, I might add, of the United Nations Association of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, welcoming remarks for Liberals arriving in town will be confined to the airport, and will be made by the Premier. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I would like to add my comments with respect to United Nations Day. And particularly pay tribute to those local and provincial members, men and women, who remind us regularly on a local and provincial and regional basis of the importance of the United Nations. For surely the U.N. could not survive if it simply received money from the nations of the world and had no support through those individual countries.

I think I might also take this opportunity to point out that perhaps the new government would like to follow the lead of a nearby municipality which flies the United Nations flag on a regular basis, a municipality with which I am closely associated. That flag flies every day of the year and frankly it's not a bad idea.

I do pay tribute to Mr. Ryan and others who remind us regularly of the importance of the United Nations and who support it locally.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join in welcoming with me a group of students from Alpha Junior Secondary in Burnaby North.

Introduction of bills.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUPREME COURT ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 28, intituled An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

[ Page 181 ]

Motion approved.

Bill No. 28 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I now move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS.DAILLY: The first bill today is Bill No. 12, the legislative procedure bill, to be introduced by the Hon. the Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE INQUIRY ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, it's the first time I've spoken in the House, other than in a procedural way and I want to take this opportunity of congratulating you on your election, and do so happily at the same time as I introduce for second reading Bill No. 12, which colloquially is being known as "the bill to set you free."

I know that you are a student, and have been for many years, of parliament and I know that if only we could alter the rules today you would be making this speech about this bill. Hopefully I can perhaps, in moving second reading, cover some of the ground that has been mentioned in parliaments gone past because I think it's a bill that has a great deal of interest to us all.

In moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to authorize you or such other persons as you may appoint, as a committee to review and to enquire in to and to investigate the practices and procedures of this parliament, of this legislative assembly and all its parts, both in whole and in part.

The government is of the opinion that the conduct of our business should be modernized and it also should be made much more accessible to the public. When we talk about modernization I think we should say that, for instance, the standing orders of the House have not been reviewed since before I was born. When the final report came in in 1930 and I will say, because I know we are going to get a great deal of input from the opposite side of the House, that the Liberals and Tories of the day in 1928 to 1930 took two years to review standing orders. It took two years, and I hope we can improve on that in 1973.

The Members of the legislative assembly will note that the terms of reference are very broad and they extend even to the mention of accommodations and staff, not only in the legislative precincts, but back home in the constituencies.

The bill allows you to establish committees, and I know that it will be your desire to make sure both sides of the House are represented, to carry out the inquiry and provides that the inquiry can be carried out between sessions.

Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker, in final form as a piece of legislation gives to you and to any person appointed by you all the powers that we can possibly bring — the power of a select standing committee, the power of a commissioner appointed under the Public Inquiries Act — to you to do this job. And I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that a successful inquiry couldn't be carried out without those powers.

I think the House should also know that the legislation provides for a report to be filed with the House within 15 days of the commencement of each session.

That's a programme of work I think we are all excited about, a programme of work that I think both sides of the House want to start on as soon as

[ Page 182 ]

possible. And I don't feel I should delay the House much longer in introducing this bill, simply to say that the work it asks you to do and your committees to do will substantially alter the style, the tone, the thrust, perhaps the behavioral attitudes in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear.

HON. MR. HALL: The whole question of the arts and sciences of the skills and practices of politics in government, Mr. Speaker, are up for review in this new government and in British Columbia today. Your work will be a crucial part of that review and I take a great deal of pleasure in moving second reading.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I think perhaps it's very appropriate that this bill should be the first bill to be debated in this House on United Nations Day. And I would like to thank again those for the flowers. I notice that it's an artificial flower and I hope that's in no way an insinuation of the spirit behind its gift nor the spirit in which we will debate this particular bill, because…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I agree, Mr. Member. I think when we listen to the greetings and the comments in relation to the United Nations, Mr. Speaker, that all the goodwill that was shown should certainly assure the expedition of this bill in second reading at this time. And I think that along with the concept and the ideals that were made reference to in relation to the United Nations we also might feel these within ourselves when we address ourselves to the principle of this bill. Because surely this is one of the most important bills to be placed before the floor of this House in many, many years.

I would venture to say, in part with reference to what the previous speaker said, that this will and should one day become an historical document. It will do this in that it deals with the very foundation of our democratic way of life in British Columbia and the enacting of democracy in British Columbia and the future powers of the elected government in this province.

It deals with the role of the Opposition and the degree to which the responsibility of each party, the government and the Opposition will extend in future. And it will deal with their ability to assume and carry out these responsibilities in the future in this Legislature and in this province.

It is a bill, Mr. speaker, as you know, because you are very much involved in it, that gives wide, wide scope and wide, wide powers to the Speaker of this House. It offers unlimited financial authority at this time and an equally unlimited power to adjust or to alter the democratic process in the parliamentary system as we know it in British Columbia. The Premier and the leader of the government party has frequently spoken of his desire to revamp the legislative procedure and we accept this in his sincere desire to do this.

But in spite of this and our hopeful support of this bill, the review of the bill brings into thought some new precedents that will be set. And in bringing in the thought of new precedents in its examination it automatically raises some concern. I would suggest the first concern is that capable though the Speaker is, and we know him to be a very capable man even though he has had the opportunity to make a few bloopers in this session — we accept them in good humour — he has been given a very complex and a very arduous task for a person so new to his position and really with a person with so little time in which to carry it out.

In principle the bill does make provisions for technical expertise and staff and we fully support this and we hope that he will feel free to use it. But in its introduction, in principle, it does leave the Speaker open to

[ Page 183 ]

possible criticism in the future and possible criticism of the staff that he will hire. And while ordinarily one wouldn't like to suggest this, I must call to your attention the possibility that some of the actions on the part of the newly-elected government and, in fact, the Speaker himself… I must ask for assurance that these positions will be filled on a nonpolitical basis and in complete public light.

The actions of the new government in its hiring and firing policies have come into question and, whether it's intentional or not, it has left the impression that a considerable asset in applying for a job with the Government of British Columbia is to be an N. D. P. member or an N. D. P. supporter. You are a new government and we intend to give you the benefit of the doubt but we must also judge you on your actions to date, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General.

This bill when you examine it, by nature of its introduction and its principle, indicates that there will be discussions between the Ministers of the Crown and the Speaker and this is generally not done, and it also brings concern because there has been a precedent set at this time since this government has been in office.

I would cite as an example that when the Speaker-designate was announced and certainly was assured of his appointment by the very nature of the majority of the government, that it was the Provincial Secretary who was carrying out much of the action of the Speaker-designate and the Speaker's office. And we respect the Speaker's office as an independent voice of the people and an independent authority of the people and of this House.

It wasn't, if you wish further examples, the Speaker-designate who contacted the Opposition for a listing of the Opposition structure — it was the Provincial Secretary. And while this was happening, and this might have been an accepted procedure if other actions hadn't been going on, the Speaker-designate was in direct correspondence with private Members in the opposition regarding seating in the House and other matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MRS. JORDAN: This, in the past, Mr. Speaker, and by British parliamentary tradition and British parliamentary rules, has been an internal matter within the Opposition. And the traditional role of parliamentary procedure has been for the Speaker-designate, or the Speaker's office, to contact the Leader of the Opposition in regards to these matters or that person whom he appointed.

I'm very curious, Mr. Speaker, when this is a matter that should have been between your honoured office and yourself and the Leader of the Opposition, that so many of the cabinet Ministers on that side of the government have comments. And I would suggest that this reinforces our concern that the precedent that will be set in this bill, that there will be dialogue between cabinet Ministers, Ministers of the government and the Speaker, is one for very serious concern and serious reassurance from the Provincial Secretary on your behalf.

I would suggest that those actions might well have been misinterpreted and might have been considered mischievous on the part of the Speaker designate as well as the Provincial Secretary. However, we will accept them as evidence of their inexperience and perhaps a little irresponsibility in their new role.

I would suggest for the Attorney General's enlightenment, through you, Mr. Speaker, seeing he has so much to say on this, that the order standing on the Votes and Proceedings under his name with regards to the appointment of select standing committees in this House by tradition has been the right of the various parties to name their own representatives. The Attorney General took upon himself to submit this without consultation with the Leader of the opposition and, while we don't object to our appointment, we do expect that he would have abided by the traditions of the parliamentary system.

A small point, small point, you might say, Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Speaker, but in light of the sweeping powers in this bill and the unprecedented procedures that are going to be unveiled, such indiscretions natural-

[ Page 184 ]

ly arouse concern and should be brought to the attention of this House. This bill, if it is to do its job, and the Speaker, and if he is to do his job, and the committees that are appointed under this bill, if they are to do their jobs, not only in light of the democratic process and the British parliamentary system which we have all sworn to uphold, but in light of the political process in British Columbia and with respects to the people must be absolutely above suspicion and must have the confidence of all Members of this House.

We would ask that the Provincial Secretary, in addressing himself to closing the debates on this bill, would elaborate for us to the best of his ability some of the questions we wish to pose. We would like his assurance, and I don't think it will be difficult for him to give, that any appointment to these positions outlined in this bill will be made by public and open competition, and that they will be selected on the basis of ability and that political affiliation, if there is any, will tend to be away from that of the party in power.

I would respectfully suggest that the former Speaker of the House, perhaps more knowledgeable than anyone in Western Canada and one of the most knowledgeable in Canada on the parliamentary procedures, would be an excellent selection for consultation.

We would appreciate having assurance that the cabinet Members do not exert undo influence on the Speaker or any Members of this committee. And that all meetings or conversations…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think you can be assured of that and I don't think the imputation should be made against the Speaker that I would do otherwise.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, you have misunderstood. I am not impugning your reputation. I am citing an example where in fact there have been unprecedented steps made by some of the cabinet Ministers in this government. I am suggesting that these are our concerns, openly so you can understand them. I'm sure you wouldn't object to that. We are concerned about your protection, Mr. Speaker, and the protection of the honour of the Chair and we are concerned about this committee and its ability to function as it should.

I suggest that for your own protection and for the protection of the government that we would all like to suggest that this bill, which we hope will involve major reforms and major changes in the procedures, will not unduly tax the financial resources of this province at this time.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker — and we would like assurance from the Provincial Secretary himself — that these committees will be prudent and that the taxpayers' money will involve expenditures which are justified in the public interest and that they will not involve, necessarily, the interest of the Members or those serving the committee whether they come from inside this House or outside.

We would like to be given some information, Mr. Provincial Secretary, through you, Mr. Speaker, how long the government and the Speaker anticipates it will take to carry out the major changes that I'm sure he has under consideration and thought about and that are allowed for in this bill in relation both physically and procedurally. We would like to know if possible, in ball park figures, which is alright, what he feels the major programmes will cost. And perhaps he would break down these figures as he has anticipated them to this time.

We would like to know when the committees for the major legislation and the, procedural changes will bring in their first report. And we would like to know what dollars he has allowed for advisors or expertise as a whole, and the approximate salaries for these positions.

We would appreciate knowing the anticipated travel involved and the expenses. And again, Mr. Speaker, we want to do this for your protection. We wouldn't want any suggestion that you were around the country in India or Afghanistan with some of your friends, and I'm sure you wouldn't be. I We would like to know what form he anticipates that the overall investigating structure will take. Who will serve on the various committees? I'm

[ Page 185 ]

sure you can appreciate this as a matter of concern to the Members of the Opposition. How many appointments will come from the Civil Service, from the public sector and from the government itself, speaking in terms of this Chamber?

We would like to know what procedure he plans to employ in dealing with the appointments to carry out with the procedures of this bill.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, it's very dismaying to us when we are sincerely wishing to put our confidence in this bill. We are asking very serious questions which are of concern not only, I'm sure, to the Members of this side of the House but probably to your own Members, and I'm sure to the public at large. This is their process of democracy that we are talking about and that you are taking upon yourself to authorize alterations.

We would like to know what number of seatings and meetings that you will be planning — this is of concern to the members individually who must adjust their personal lives if they are to sit on this committee — and when you anticipate such appointments will be made.

How often various people will be called upon to meet and, as I suggested, where these meetings will take place. Will they be in Victoria, Vancouver, in other countries? Will they be around the province? Will there be public hearings in the province?

Do you intend to involve some of the students that are involved in parliamentary clubs in the schools such as the association which is quite active in the Hon. Member for Saanich's constituency?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, the Older Boys' Parliament.

We would like assurance from the Provincial Secretary that the principle intent of the bill will in no way violate the parliamentary rights of the official Opposition or the public through this parliamentary process and change.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: We are not opposing the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

I'm really just intrigued with the Liberal lawyers that launch into involved diatribes about legal technicalities…

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: You are toying with the democracy of this province, Mr. Member, and you should hang your head in shame.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: The Liberal from Point Grey. The unemployed employed. My dear…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please address the chair.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to come back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. But, will you bring the Members to order? I'm not standing up here in order to have fun. I'm concerned about the actions of this committee and this bill and I think you should be concerned, and I'm sure you are.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm very concerned.

MRS. JORDAN: But I am disturbed that some of the legal Members of this House choose to treat the matter so lightly and I suggest again that the pub-

[ Page 186 ]

lic of this province would be concerned if they could hear such giggles and laughters and inane comments from the judiciary of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll endeavour to keep them in order, Madame.

MRS. JORDAN: As I believe the editor of the Victoria Daily Colonist said — he wouldn't accuse half the lawyers in B.C. of being crooks. He would say that half of them are not crooks. And, I would say half of them are not irresponsible.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask the Provincial Secretary to answer these questions in order that we may place our confidence in this bill and support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I start off by saying that it is a great pleasure to be here today. I think that it is perhaps the first time in British Columbia's history that we have a Premier in the chamber — an acting Premier — who is a lady and she's doing a fine job.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, the lady Premier may well be more effective than a male Premier, however, Madame, or Mr. Speaker…(Laughter) Mr. Speaker, having praised one lady perhaps I could chide another.

I have often read newspaper accounts, and I have often attended debates in this House. And I was really very impressed with the comments of the preceding speaker in that it had never struck me before quite so forcibly as it did in her speech — it shows how effective her speech was — the concern that her party feels for democratic practices and such things as we're discussing in this bill. Never before have I noted it in that party, but she has reassured me that they do feel that these things are important. I would like to thank her for her comments.

I would like, however, to defend the Hon. the Provincial Secretary who did, I'm sure, try to get in touch with the Hon. Leader of the Opposition just as he tried to get in touch with me. He did succeed in my case but the whole province was wondering at that time where was the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I read the newspapers. We noted this. I myself was interested…

AN HON. MEMBER: We're still wondering who.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Back to the bill itself. I am delighted that this bill is before the House. At least in its intent it's excellent.

We are to have a full and wide ranging inquiry into all aspects of procedure going right down — I don't know if you can call it procedure but it even specifies the restaurant and lounge facilities. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that they're going to set up a committee for restaurants. We have one of those lawyers from Vancouver in this party, a gourmet of note who will be happy to serve on that committee.

Nevertheless, it deals with just about everything. And I'm pleased that you do have such wide ranging terms of inquiry in that I think it is important to look at everything.

Where I might perhaps take exception to this wide ranging nature of the bill, is that there is no requirement for you to terminate your discussions, deliberations, travels. And, while I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, in your case we naturally have no question that you would wish to act very expeditiously that your successor using these powers granted in this bill might not act as well as you will and while I have no concern for you, Sir, there should have been some time limit in this bill.

[ Page 187 ]

Perhaps you, in your terms, could rectify this by the use of the powers in this bill when it says in section 1 you are to make recommendations to the legislative assembly. I trust you will bear in mind the need to make a recommendation to this assembly, the need to repeal this bill and I trust that your deliberations, and your efforts will be successful enough that you can bring in such a recommendation to us.

Because I do not like, as I have mentioned before on the floor of this House, I do not like the granting of wide powers — which is apparently the practice of this government — not only to Ministers, but in this case to yourself. Not that I have any doubt that you will use them wisely, but there is always a possibility of abuse when wide powers are granted.

On this bill, as on other bills I and the other Members of my party intend to speak up, defending at least the principle of having powers more specifically assigned by the Legislature. Powers circumscribed to a certain degree, powers which have some time limit. Because, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, it's all too easy for people acting under legislation of this nature to get a trifle carried away, to go on too long, they find it perhaps enjoyable — after all this bill is virtually a blank cheque, or at least a blank air ticket to anywhere in the world to consider their legislative procedures. I trust that we will be able to terminate it before the end of this legislative assembly, in other words in the next, say, four years.

We wish, apart from that, to fully support the principle of this Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act. A colleague of mine will be bringing in an amendment but it does not touch the principle of the bill, which we endorse.

I just would repeat one thing. When the Provincial Secretary said quite proudly, I think, we were bringing you, Sir, all powers we could possibly bring, I trust you realize that this is a very exceptional case, and I trust that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) through you, Mr. Speaker, will realize our acceptance of this with respect to you does not mean to say that we hope to see the same type of powers so widely granted to Ministers.

The legislation which has already been put before us contains far too much of this. And while in the case of the Speaker we make an exception we will not be making an exception in the case of Ministers. And I trust this point will be borne in mind by the government.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is perhaps one of the most exciting bills in this session since really what its implementation will mean is provision of so-called open government which was a subject of several political platforms in the election, including the government of today.

One of the things that comes across so clearly during an election campaign is the fact that by and large, the citizens of this province at least, and perhaps of Canada, have lost confidence in the political process. There is the feeling that a well-intentioned and well-motivated structure by which the governments could function perhaps 50 years ago is so totally out of keeping with the needs of today that when a provincial government comes forward with a suggestion such as this for a bill to modernize the whole political process and methods by which this government functions, I think we should all rejoice. Certainly this party, the Conservative Party, strongly supports the bill.

There have been concerns expressed, Mr. Speaker, about the wide range in powers that are granted to you. Let me say very clearly that we have every confidence — this party, the Conservative Party, has every confidence that the powers are necessary to do this job properly. After all, if you're only going to do a big job every 40 years you want to be sure to do it right.

I really cannot be impressed by the apparent conversion of the lady Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) regarding her tremendous concern at a time when the previous government over a period of 20 years did absolutely nothing to modernize the present methods by which this legislative assembly functions.

[ Page 188 ]

But unfortunately this seems to be the whole theme of this session, this special session, that day after day we sit here to discuss the principle of bills and all we hear from the Socred Party is a complete turn around to criticize the government for all those things which they totally neglected when they were in power.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Clean, Mr. Clean.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Clean I may be. But I remind the House that the concepts inherent in this bill constitute very clearly on the record the reasons why I left the Socred Party.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Took you a long time to do something about it.

MR. WALLACE: If you will read the record, my friend — through you, Mr. Speaker — I think it's a measure of some maturity on the part of Members not to hastily decide they've made the wrong move, and if it took me two years I certainly gave that party every chance to show some concern for the kind of principles in this bill and received none.

Mr. Speaker, I came into the House this session trying to be constructive and it bothers me that I get off the track at times.

To get back to the constructive and positive aspects of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I think that the most important function of government is to listen to the people we are elected to represent. As I said earlier I think that by and large people in this province and probably in Canada — if some of the apathy of the federal election is anything to go by, there is a cynicism and a lack of conviction by citizens generally that the political process actually functions in terms of how it is supposed to function.

The whole question of access of the citizens to government, and to the elected representatives, is one that gives me considerable concern and is a subject that came up frequently during the campaign when certain voters told me that they were so cynical they weren't going to bother to vote for any party.

I think that if this is the depth to which we've sunk in a democratic society, then we have to look to ourselves and to the system under which we are functioning and go the furthest possible distance that we can go to correct this and modernize it. Certainly, the word "communication" and the word "consultation" which have been frequently expressed by the government cheer me considerably. I think these are the two keynotes in this bill — that we are to find ways by which citizens of this province can express themselves in a realistic and effective way, not just through the newspapers, or through the media, but to the men and women who represent them. By adopting new methods, and new techniques and more committee work these Members' must respond to the needs that are expressed by the citizens.

One or two points I'd like to mention on principle, Mr. Speaker, is that I think we must make long-term planning when we implement the recommendations of these bills even to the extent of enlarging this chamber, or attempting to devise a method of enlarging this chamber.

Our neighbour province of Alberta has 75 members representing a smaller population and we do know that this province's population is increasing at twice the national average and therefore it seems to make sense that very soon this chamber will have to accommodate a larger number of elected representatives. This is something that has been left out.

The question of communication can only succeed, or the function of communication can only succeed, if we become well aware of the numerous arms of communication as expressed by the news media. Certainly I am appalled at the physical gymnastics which members of the media presently have to be capable of to fulfill their function in the little rat trap above your Chair, Mr. Speaker. Now I know this was perhaps adequate 40 years ago, but these are the kind of simple aspects which should be considered in this bill.

The principle of communication I feel is lost in large measure by the lack of committee work in this legislative assembly and one of the principles

[ Page 189 ]

in this bill which I most whole-heartedly support is the emphasis placed on the inquiry into committees in the House. I might even go further and stand to be criticized by saying that in the throne speech debates, and the budget speech debates in this House that there is even reason to consider whether these might be curtailed in one way or another in order to give much greater time and emphasis to committee work. Because so often if we sincerely believe in the principle of democracy and the fact that the citizens can't get to their elected representatives, surely committees are the most satisfactory way of making initial contact between groups and citizens to give them contact with government.

In that regard, there is tremendous need to revamp the committee system as it already exists for the simple reason that many of the committees overlap. And if you're on two committees you are looked upon as neglecting some of your duties because you simply cannot be in two places at once.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I think that we as elected representatives just cannot function without the modern secretarial and electronic help of tape recorders and clerical staff, and I would compliment you, Mr. Speaker, in the moves you have already made in this direction — particularly in relation to the full time secretary that this small party enjoys. I hope that the human factor will not be lost sight of when we discuss in large measure electronic and mechanical means of communicating.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am indeed gratified that the former First Member from this riding (Mr. Capozzi) came all the way from Vancouver from his heavy duties to hear my maiden speech. I am very grateful.

I am reminded in that regard back to February of last year. I attended in the Speaker's gallery, and Mr. Capozzi was kind enough to introduce me to this House. And if I recall his words correctly, which were burned into my memory: "I wish to introduce one of the New Democratic Party nominees for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Gary Lauk. And I sympathize with him on his impending job around the Titanic".

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if any of the Hon. Members of this House are going for a stroll down at Victoria Harbour and they see an empty Calona red wine bottle with a note in it, don't open it. (Laughter) Just let it float by.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am permitted some indulgence in my maiden speech to make just one or two comments about my observations as a new Member, and I hope I have the indulgence of the House and if not I will proceed anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh! (Laughter)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member will find that he will only proceed a certain distance around the boat.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment briefly on the Liberal leader of the Opposition (Laughter).

I got the impression that this also new Member of the House was the boy wonder from Ottawa come to Victoria to tell us how it's all done. And with the greatest respect I find that he sounds less of a Liberal leader and more of an adjudicator of a dominion drama festival. Perhaps when he's referring to the Anderson text book on how a cabinet Minister should frame and present their legislation, he should take into consideration the fact that there is a corporal's guard over there that you have to still rout and that your position should be taken in that light. I will not criticize the corporal's guard. I wish to inform the Liberal leader I only pick on people I like.

Insofar as the bill is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have this to say. The second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) some few days ago greeted the socialist hordes. And he said, "I fear that they're not only at the gate but they're in the temple" — an observation that was obvious to all. And that they were about to sack it.

[ Page 190 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, we're not here to sack the temple, we are here to rededicate the temple. And very much a part of the rededication is the bill before this House — a needed rededication, I'm sure some Members will agree. Let me go through a little of the history in this House in the 20 years gone by. And for the edification of the Hon. Members of this House I will refer them to Journals of this House 1953, page 14 and page 70; 1958, page 26; January 1969, page 118. Short passages indeed, Mr. Speaker, but passages which are very revealing indeed having regard for the comments made by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). In 1953 it was established (vis-à-vis an oral question period) by the then Speaker of this House as follows. He said:

"Hon. Members, at the last sitting of the House, Friday February 6, an unexpected development gave rise to the question of the answering of written questions orally. In the first place the Speaker wishes to admit that he was remiss in permitting comment and cross comment and will in future watch this aspect of questioning more carefully.

"Standing order No. 25 apparently permits the putting and answering of oral questions, but standing order No. 47 subsection 1 in part states: 'and the substance of all replies made by Ministers of the Crown to questions put to them shall be in writing and handed to the Clerk of the House and entered in the Journals of the Session'.

"A careful and prolonged search into the record reveals no previous occasion on which a written question was answered orally and thus there is no precedent on which to found a discussion, but paying careful attention to the wording of that part of sub-section 1, standing order No. 47, I feel that there was an intention to eliminate the oral answering of questions. I therefore rule that hereafter unless otherwise ordered by the House all written questions shall be answered in writing only. This interpretation is based on what I conceive to be the effect of that rule."

1953 and 26 years went by without oral questioning. A ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, I agree must follow until there is revision. Again, and on several occasions Members of the New Democratic Party who sat in this House raised the point. In January 23, 1969, on a motion of appointment of standing committees the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) as he now is rose and moved an amendment seconded by yourself, Mr. Speaker — "That the motion be amended by adding the following words with respect to the select standing committee on standing orders and private bills 'that upon its appointment it be empowered to study and report on standing orders of this House with a view to their modernization, in particular in relation to the following matters: A. The provision of a daily oral question period. B. The granting of permission to broadcasters to broadcast by television and radio the debates from the House. C. The preservation of Private Members' days. D. The fixing of a definite time for adjournment each day. E. The provision for appointing as chairman of public accounts and printing committee a Member of the official opposition."

The effect of the amendment, the Speaker of the House then found, was to instruct select standing committees and it was ruled out of order. Attempts were made year after year to reform this House and that, once tyrannical bunch rejected it. And now we hear from the corporal's guard as the emperor slinks into his tent and sulks. I say "audacity", Mr. Speaker. Audacity. The Hon. Member from one of the Rivers over there.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the Members will recall that this is the Hon. Member's maiden speech.

[ Page 191 ]

MR. LAUK: I invite comment, Mr. Speaker. I invited it in my opening remarks and I expected it and I'm sure that the usual courtesy could be suspended in my case.

It's clear from an ordinary reading of standing rules No. 47, subsection 1, what you must do now. It's not clear what you must do in the future. Except as it is outlined in the bill.

It is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. And I might say that we are bound in the chains of the old procedure until you return with your report. And I wish you God speed.

But the very people across the way who are complaining against these procedures and rules and the limitation of the Opposition are people who fashioned the chains they now wear and that must never be forgotten.

These rules, as it has already been stated, have not been reviewed since 1930, or 1931. They are concerned with and relate directly to May's Parliamentary Practice and there are several parliaments within the democratic world that use May's Parliamentary Practice. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that in your inquiries that if there is any extensive departure from those parliamentary procedures your inquiry should be careful and considerate, and I'm sure it will be.

It will take time. The example of an oral question period that was raised by one of the Liberal Members in the opening session was a little too hasty in terms of deciding the precedent for this House until we have your report on that matter. There must be some study as to how it's done in other areas, what the effect is on the good order of government in the House in question, what notice should there be for questions in the oral period, what experience there was in Ottawa — and has been in Ottawa.

What should the effect be for starred questions? How should they be answered? How should they be framed? and so on. All of these matters I'm sure many of the older Members of this House are aware. What kind of a question should be asked in the oral question period? The importance of it — should it concern an emergency matter of state? Something that should be raised orally in the House? Or just a question of information that could be answered in a written form by the Minister without taking up the valuable time of this assembly?

I would suggest some priorities if I may be so bold, through you, Mr. Speaker. Because in years gone past the New Democratic side of this House made many efforts to achieve an oral question period, would that be your first priority? And that some sort of reform and preferably one that will last a long time because of its value and justice will be brought forth before us at the next sitting of this House.

The second priority I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, has to do with television and radio coverage of this House. In modern times, in McLuhanesque times, we find that people can be best informed by using modern techniques. To bring this House out of 20 years of darkness and disreputation within our community it would be fair indeed to not only revise rules and procedures for our conduct but to bring our efforts before public view in a broad sense. This would have the effect I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, of cleaning up our habits in terms of shouting at one another across the floor and it might bring about a more considerate speech now and again from the Hon. Members. One that is better prepared and one that a certain amount of lasting meaning and substance to it. On the other hand it may be dangerous because every Hon. Member would be aware of those television cameras and instead of speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, would be speaking to all of those people out there in television land.

The third priority I would suggest, and this is only a suggestion — I'm speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker — is that there be a closed circuit television system within this building. I would suggest that that be your third priority, that the television and radio coverage broadly, that the circuit television be implemented by the next session and that it be limited to the leader of the government, the leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, and perhaps the house leader of the government and to the Press gallery as well. Many of those ladies and gentlemen in the Press gallery are limited in their time and their ability to be in the chamber and it would be a great service to them and to the public if that were provided to them.

[ Page 192 ]

There is the great question of Hansard, and I know there are several things outlined in this bill but I would ask that Hansard already being expanded be expanded further for the next session of the House. And I would ask that that be taken into consideration.

There are many problems with Hansard and it's a question of economics and how available it should be and how much we should subsidize it. And how should it be expanded.

The other problems that must be gone into and I'm sure revised before the next session — I hope before the next session, but it is a difficult problem — and that is standing committees. They must be modernized to meet modern needs. There are many areas where new committees are essential. I have my pet areas that I'm interested in and I would suggest a committee, for example, on the administration of justice. It would also be able to sit year round and revise thinking of the chamber on many matters through their information and reporting.

There are many other committees that should reflect modern needs.

And lastly, with respect to this bill, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we do expand — not as the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) said earlier "limit". I don't see how opposition rights can be limited any further than they have been in this House. Expand the rights of the Opposition and recognize that without the full voice of the Opposition this House would not be democratic, it would not represent the traditions of democracy. That's something that we all wish to achieve. They must have full voice, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that private Members' bills and motions which never seemed to get much hearing in the old days be given a special time. A special day that could be only set aside by this House in special circumstances. So that some of the bills that are in many cases considerate and appropriate bills to be considered by this House should be before us.

Well, with a good heart I'm sure that all of the Members of this assembly will wish you well and God speed as I have said. In this I wish to assure that this is a government of reconciliation and it's a new era for democracy. We will look with interest at your findings, Mr. Speaker, and I fully expect you to listen to Opposition and other parliamentarians to evolve a considerate, fully-researched revision of our rules to make this rededication of our temple shine out as an example to democracy everywhere. A just House, fair in hearing of the voices from all segments of our society no matter who represents them.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join with the earlier speakers in the welcome to the former Members of the House who are sitting in the gallery. Four were mentioned a little bit earlier and I see that another one has just joined us — the former Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) I think a hearty welcome for him too.

I think it would be a very nice thing, Mr. Speaker, and maybe the request was not made, but I do think that when we are privileged, and I think we possibly were privileged, to have former Members, of the Legislature come to visit us in Victoria and hear our deliberations that they be afforded a seat on the floor of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope you will put in the request…

MR. GARDOM: I would like to, let's hope they don't all come at once.

But I would like to express my good wishes, Mr. Speaker, to the former speaker in his maiden speech and it was a very interesting discourse. I personally do not recall, although I may be quite wrong, that I suggested that the N. D. P. were sacking the temples, Sir. I believe my words were that they were sacking the economy. And I think as best witnessed by the early remarks of the Hon. the Premier that could well be the case.

[ Page 193 ]

Would the page mind coming over and bringing another rose to the Hon. Member over there? He seems a little bit agitated. If the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) might have another rose to give to his fair wife it'll keep his disposition in order for the remainder of this afternoon.

This bill which we're now discussing, Mr. Speaker, is something very, very dear to our hearts over here and certainly to the democratization of the political process in this province. It is something that we consider has been woefully needed and woefully lacking in B.C.

Many Members of the House fought very, very hard and very, very long for the kind of reform that is proposed and envisioned by this bill and I think to all of those who did that a hearty vote of thanks.

My own first request for legislative reform was during my first speech in 1967, after the 1966 election, when I drew to the attention of the House, which at that time perhaps most of them knew in any event, that this particular assembly had the very unique distinction of being pretty well the only parliament in the western world, let alone Canada, without some record of debates. I mentioned at that time that Luke Hansard, the English printer, Mr. Speaker, as you're well aware, first printed the Journals of the House of Commons in 1774. And it was his son Curson Hansard, who incidentally was born in 1776 which is rather a prophetic date in itself, he began to print the parliamentary debates in 1803.

So, British Columbia had up until a very few years ago the very unique distinction of being about 200 years behind the times and absolving itself and waving a blind eye for about 200 years of very good precedent from the mother parliament and in British Columbia we were still the land of legislative hush-hush.

Then reluctantly the mini-Hansard or the somewhat censored Hansard came in and I remember that the first day again, when I was speaking, Mr. Speaker, the then Deputy Speaker of the House, who we all recall with a great deal of warmth and understanding, I'm sure, gaveled me out of order in the first speech because he said I knew full well — which I may say I didn't either know full or well — that I was reflecting on a vote or some such equivalent nonsense. And those were quite some days, I can tell you.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): "Oh, just one moment".

MR. GARDOM: "Oh, just one moment", that's right. And then the heavy hand of the gavel which we can all recall…

MR. SPEAKER: "Just one moment" will you address the Chair? (Laughter)

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I didn't think you'd be back to your old tricks. (Laughter).

Now at last, Mr. Speaker, we've got something in this bill that should cut the darkness and let in some light. I think, hopefully, something that should be very, very demonstrative evidence that the maxim "justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done" can apply to government equally as well as to courts.

Government must not only govern but they must appear to govern. This bill is a great pace along the road to just that kind of promise. I say one very great pace along the road to proper governmental accountability and I'd say hopefully the end of the secret life in B.C.

The former administration seemed to take unto itself, Mr. Speaker, the philosophy of the divine right of kings. Because in British Columbia there was for practical purposes no account. The government couldn't be sued. Accounts could not be properly investigated. There was the abandonment, Mr. Speaker, of the very long-lasting parliamentary tradition that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee should be an Opposition member rather than a government member. There was no ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, or ombudswoman or ombudsperson to cure administrative and cabinet abuses. The total treasure, Mr. Speaker, of the Province of British Columbia was locked in Hydro and in the P. G. E. and they were totally unanswerable for their policies. Totally unanswerable for their direction. And totally unanswerable for their actions.

[ Page 194 ]

We didn't have the benefit of an auditor-general which is not a new thing in Canada. It's been a federal post for about 94 years since 1876. But we didn't have that kind of check or that kind of balance in British Columbia.

The cabinet, Mr. Speaker, could refuse to answer any questions they chose. Any questions they chose. You could ask questions about the Hydro or the P. G. E. or the Liquor Control Board or questions during estimates and if they chose not to answer one witnessed that turned back.

And public money we also found, Mr. Speaker, being spent on political, propaganda. And the Elections Act, Mr. Speaker, that we found was out-dated, out-moded, and unfair. In short, Mr. Speaker, B.C. was carrying on a system of legislation in the dark. A system of democracy in the dark. But those, Mr. Speaker, who believe in and who have long advocated governmental accountability and governmental answerability say this public business has to be subject to public review.

Public money as a right must be under the public microscope. And by analogy, Mr. Speaker, the shareholders of British Columbia are the citizens of this province. And the directors are the cabinet. And the citizens. of this province, Mr. Speaker, are entitled to be, assured that the stewardship of those cabinet directors may be inspected and those cabinet directors have the solemn responsibility to make full reports, not partial reports, but full reports to their citizen shareholders.

These things that I've mentioned are somewhat beyond the compass of this bill, but they still sit within the principle of this bill — and the things that I've mentioned this afternoon are your next steps, before which it is impossible for us to have a proper process without a proper vehicle. But what the New Democratic Party and the government have proposed today I say unequivocally is an A-1 start and I congratulate them for that indeed.

And for the converts, the Social Credit converts, to my right I say Amen.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's an interesting debate. I'm glad the House is unanimous that this bill should pass. From what I've heard the House is unanimous.

A number of interesting comments have been made. I was interested in the by-play between the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) when comments were made about his political career of the last three years. His has, been a career — and we're not discussing it, yet it's related to this bill. It's related to this bill because part of his history has been an objection to the fact that the contents of this bill were not part of the operating process of this House. I was one of those who urged that individual to stay in the political life of this province because he was an honest, forthright, a straight forward and above all else a fair individual with a belief in fairness.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And on that basis I told him at the time before we knew what was going to happen or anything else, that politics needed his kind of person. That was a sincere belief of mine and I reiterate it here. Politics does require people who are honest, straight forward and try to be fair when they're forthright. And if people of that caliber quit politics and leave it to those who may not happen to have those qualities they in so doing debase the currency of politics.

I was a little disturbed at the opening remarks by the spokesman for the official opposition. The only phrase I can think of that would describe it was sanctimonious humbug. The only fair phrase I can find. Because what I said before the election and what I've said since the election was that I would never be a part of any government that treated the opposition in this House the way the Opposition was treated in this House during the last 20 years.

[ Page 195 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Well then, resign.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would never be a part of a government in this House that put the Opposition through the wringer that I went through the last 20 years.

And to hear the official Opposition standing up and talking about how they believe in democracy, how they were going to judge us on our actions! From what basis of rectitude can they judge our actions? From what knowledge of rectitude in this parliament can they judge our actions? From what base of democratic understanding can they bring forth any comment on this bill that is now before this House?

Because that was one of the issues that faced the people of this province just a few weeks ago — whether or not the democratic process in the Province of British Columbia was going to survive in a capable, livable manner. It is not without reason that the young people of this province and this country were becoming cynical and disillusioned with the governing processes under what we call the British parliamentary system.

Because they had before them — especially the 19, 20 to 25-year-olds had before them — as a prime example in the Province of British Columbia a fact, a demonstrable fact that there was no parliamentary democratic system in the Province of British Columbia. They sought year after year, session after session and these are troubled times. They're challenging times. They're changing times. And one of our responsibilities is to see to it that this parliament operates in such a way that it can restore the respect of the people for politics and politicians and we must make this system work. Because the alternative to the British parliamentary system is anarchy and chaos.

I regret very much that in the few days that we have been in this session in my opinion there have been attempts made to prevent this system from working.

It's important. What's the choice? We simply have to make the system work and that's why this bill is before us today. It's a genuine effort on the part of this government to revamp the rules. To rewrite the procedures. To allow the fullest possible participation. To maintain the strength of responsible government and increase the responsibility of the individual Member. And only by so doing can we restore that respect for politics which in turn will bring respect for the politicians.

Churchill once said that the British parliamentary system was the worst system of government ever devised — except every other system of government ever devised. What he was saying was our system sometimes makes mistakes. It is sometimes slow moving. But eventually it corrects its mistakes and eventually reflects the wishes of the people.

In this bill we are attempting to find the procedure so we can perhaps move more quickly toward reflecting the wishes of the people. And perhaps make fewer mistakes. So, I'm very pleased today to stand here after 20 years of suffering, let me tell you, and support a hill that I feel sure will never subject any future Member of this House to what I have been put through during these last 20 years.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this bill may I say how pleased I was to hear the Hon. Minister of Highways, former leader of the Opposition speak with his old passion on the matter of House reform. I know that his passion is equaled by your own, Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall on several occasions your speeches being the cause of gavels being broken and the then Deputy Speaker trying to enforce unenforceable rules.

I think the most dramatic moment I can recall in my legislative experience, came during the opening of the 1967 session of the legislature. This particular session was not held in these precincts, as you well recall, Mr. Speaker. It was held in the fair city of New Westminster, not in front of a

[ Page 196 ]

few hundred people but in front of 10,000. The government of that day made the dreadful error of neglecting to put a microphone in front of the Leader of the Opposition.

He didn't require it, he was so angry he could easily have been heard right here in Victoria. He moved an amendment to the standard motion put forward by the government that the debates of the House should be printed.

After a little bit of desultory debate, a vote was taken and the government voted down the simple and obvious request. Mr. Speaker, you will recall the dramatic moment that followed — 10,000 people booed their elected representatives and the government.

It left some of us with goose pimples, I was one. What occurred to me was how different our actions might be if they were conducted in the full view of all the people of British Columbia, and how much more rapidly we would gain our sanity and common sense and how much better off democracy would be and the public of British Columbia if only that could take place.

So I see our opportunity presented by the bill which you have introduced is not just to reflect the passions of so many of us to see common decency in the House and reasonable rules under which we can operate, but to make something of our British Columbia Legislature which cannot be found elsewhere.

Because, we aren't the only Legislature that's been slow to reform. We've been the slowest, little doubt of that, but if one were to take the most advanced House anywhere it still wouldn't have gone so very far down, the road of bringing public proceedings to the public.

This is what I passionately hope for in British Columbia. That we can transfer everything that takes place in this chamber into the living rooms of the people of this province. So that our business is taken to their homes. Because, this Legislature isn't ours, it's not for the elected representatives. It's the people's Legislature, and it's for them.

The day will come, even if we're not the ones to make it happen, when the legislative proceedings will be taken into the home. The day may even come when television sets will, be equipped with buttons so that all the public will be able to record their vote on matters that arise before the elected representatives. Again, I think we would have a much better, democracy if that were the case.

I hope that we can project just a little bit of idealism into the deliberations that will be made possible by this bill. The objective is to get away from that habit that plagued legislators no matter where they come from — to hide from public view, to disguise the business that they were doing under one cloak or another and thereby to permit practices to go on long past the time when they served any useful function.

We've had such a dose of that in British Columbia for the past generation that our will should be strong not just to bring this Legislature abreast of the others in Canada and the Commonwealth, but for the first time to become true leaders and to set forth new standards that other legislatures will be wishing to follow. In other words that this Legislature will no longer be a laughing stock in Canada, but become a guiding light.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my congratulations to the government on bringing in this reform bill so quickly. I would like to add one or two very brief comments to the debate.

I was privileged just a very few days ago to spend an afternoon in the House of Commons in London, England. I think the first thing that I noticed — and one or two comments have been made about this chamber — the first thing that I noticed, I think in terms of beauty and design and grandeur, I think this Chamber is ahead, is better, than the chamber in which the House of Commons in London in Westminster is housed. More beauty and more grandeur surrounds us here.

I don't agree, Mr. Speaker, with the suggestion from the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that perhaps we need a larger chamber for more Members. I think that one of the problems in our society today is

[ Page 197 ]

perhaps that we have too much government and too many people involved in government and I would not want to encourage that trend. At that point I had not had the privilege of sitting in this particular parliament under its new Speaker, and I was therefore struck for the first time by the very dignified procedures that can be observed in a parliament. Certainly the quality of the debate, at least on the day that I was in the House of Commons in London, was very high. The question period, of course, was especially interesting and noteworthy.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how you would feel. I know you've had the problem of many new people sitting in front of you whose names you had to quickly remember to recognize. I wonder how you'd feel with a possible 630 different members with no little guideline map to guide you as to the names of the individuals because they are just sitting in rows on the benches and one leaps to his feet, and the Speaker immediately calls him by his name. I though that was a masterful demonstration of a very brilliant Speaker in London.

MR. SPEAKER: But Dr. King had been there a very long time.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, one of the other things that was very noticable about the question period was the fact that the most probing and the most difficult, and perhaps the most critical questions were coming not necessarily from the Opposition side of the House — they were coming from Members of the government side, who were taking the opportunity to probe and criticize and question their own Ministers in a way I have never seen in this House.

I felt that was a very laudatory thing and I commend it to the back benches of the government here. I think this is a fine thing and it is real democracy in action, where the government members are not afraid to stand up and criticize and probe their own Ministers.

In one hour, Mr. Speaker, 33 major questions were dealt with orally, including in most cases four or five supplementals to follow the major question. It was a very invigorating exercise to watch.

The one thing that I'd particularly like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, was a little pamphlet I brought back with me. I think all of us are very proud to see the number of visitors who come to the galleries here. Particularly from high schools and similar groups. In the past, about all we've had to give them here, Mr. Speaker, is a little pamphlet with a few pictures in it. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate you on the speed with which you were able to get this new publication printed, but really, Mr. Speaker, this publication doesn't explain very much to the visitors of the gallery as to what really is going on in the floor of the chamber and the rules of the procedure are.

This guide as distributed at Westminster in the House of Commons to all visitors, is an excellent one. It describes in simple language the rules of procedure the rules of order and how the whole matter is carried out and I would commend your committee, Mr. Speaker, a study of this. I would be pleased to send you this copy.

I thought the House may be interested in one of the rules of order that are in here. Under the heading of "divisions", it explains how a division works — and if you have, I suppose, 630 members, a division is a pretty complex thing to hold.

It does say that if a member raises a point of order while a division is in progress he must do so from a seated position and must wear a hat. I thought that this might be of some interest to some of the Members who might wish to do the same, in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you well in the operation of this committee and I'm sure all of us will do everything we can to assist you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the contributions, at least most of them, from the Members of the House on this bill. I think there

[ Page 198 ]

have been a couple of points that I should refer to in bringing this debate to a close.

I will say that there are many Members who have been here before and departed who should take some pride in the contribution they have made over the years to the thinking that went into this bill. One of them has been mentioned already today in the House, Mr. Clark. While I prefer the present Member for North Vancouver–Seymour from a purely political party point of view, I do want to say that I listened over six years to a number of speeches on this point by that former member.

I also listened with interest to the new Leader of the Liberal Party who seems to me to have a little penchant for looking for bogie men all over the place. He talks about powers, as though he has never seen them before, and coming from Ottawa, that bothers me a little, where they've had some rather amazing examples of power going on, even when he was a member of the government party.

What are these powers and what are these things he's worried about? In the bill we've given sweeping powers to you, Mr. Speaker, to find out, to learn, to get information. Those are what the powers are in this bill for. The power to do something about it, Mr. Speaker, lies in this House and no where else should it lie.

When I hear the official spokesman for the Opposition party talk about the government not interfering, not pressuring and then coming out with a series of rhetorical questions about what we are going to do, what instructions we are going to give, she begs her own question and that was what was wrong with it for 20 years before they got on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the powers that have been given to you are to find out and to refer to this House.

The termination date will be attached to the motion that comes before this House on the adoption of the points of the recommendation.

Everybody wishes the bill well. Everybody, I think, but the first speaker. I will only say, because I want to be in the full spirit of most people who have been talking about this bill, that her position and the position of the official Opposition can best be summed up by saying: "When the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be; when the devil was well, a devil a monk was he".

I move second reading of this bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Is that the Minister's answer to the questions that were put before him?

MR. SPEAKER: If there is no point of order in your question, would the Hon. Member please be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: Those are the Minister's answers? There is going to be no effort to explain to the Members who is going to be on the committee, or the time served?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order! You've heard the motion that Bill No. 12 be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 12 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We'll now proceed to Bill No. 10, the Tobacco Products Act.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of the Tobacco Products Act, I want to spend three of four minutes at least in outlining not only the principle of the bill, but in a general

[ Page 199 ]

way the kind of regulations we intend to effectuate in order to carry it out. I do that because there is a companion piece of legislation in the next bill which will be repealing the existing legislation in this field.

Now the reason we're moving, Mr. Speaker, is very simply that the previous legislation was not workable and was not fair. It was not workable because, as the judge said in the court case and the legislation of course was upheld to this limited extent, the judge for example said, "nor does the statute prohibit the sending into British Columbia from abroad of newspapers and journals containing advertisements in respect of liquor". This was in that extract. The same thing applied in the case of cigarettes.

So we were flooded with such things as T. V. Guide, which I hold in my hand, which it was impossible for the law as it had been written to do anything about, because it might be mailed into a household. Of course it would have cigarette advertising and liquor advertising — and there are many other examples of the same kind.

So the law was unfair. It hit local publications, who could be prosecuted or for whom an injunction could be sought, but did not touch a great deal of the written material that was coming into the Province of British Columbia.

In making a workable statute, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly plain, that we recognize fully — and I'm sure the Minister of Health will back up this statement — that cigarettes kill you by inches. We intend within the full limit of provincial jurisdiction to bring that message as closely as we can to the attention of all of the people of British Columbia, in particular the young people.

Now we are suggesting, because the bill is couched in broad form, that it be largely a matter of regulation, and we do that deliberately, because we must mesh our British Columbia laws in with what is happening in the United States of America and what is happening in the rest of Canada.

For example, in Canada, and I'm talking about cigarettes at the moment, Health Minister John Munro was in the process of endorsing the federal Bill C-10 and he backed away from that, and I'm not going to speculate on the reasons why he backed away. I think it is unfortunate that he backed away from actual legislation, but in the process of doing so, he got an agreement that there would be no tobacco advertising on radio and television. Which I thought was a good thing.

He must have got an agreement from the Canadian cigarette manufacturers that they would place a warning on the cigarette packages. The members who know will see that warning printed on the cigarette packages printed in Canada.

But, if you turn to the cigarettes that are manufactured outside of Canada and that come across the border, you find that the Surgeon General's warning, "That this cigarette is dangerous to human health", is omitted from the packages that are sold by the vendors in the Province of British Columbia.

Now you would think that if they had to make up the packages and the labeling for an American Package of cigarettes that they would keep the warning on of the Surgeon General of the United States. But they take it off, and I think they take it off because they realize that to some extent that warning is effective. To some extent it's curtailing sales. If a warning of that kind curtails sales of cigarettes in any way whatsoever, we're all for it. We will require that American-produced cigarettes bear the warning and Canadian-produced cigarettes bear the warning and that all billboard advertising of all tobacco products be prohibited. We're not touching cigars at this time…

MR. CHABOT: Or snuff?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …or snuff.

MR. McGEER: Or pipes?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …or pipes. We're not making the pipe amendment, which might be called the Edgar Benson amendment, at this time.

[ Page 200 ]

And as I say we're not touching cigars in terms of a warning because the health evidence is not there at the present time, and in any case the Attorney General himself is a living and alarming warning of the ravages of Panatellas.

But we propose to regulate so that, as time goes on we, can backstop and supplement whatever is done in the United States of America and whatever is done at Ottawa to make our warnings and our advertising restrictions as effective as possible.

Now we're not touching either radio or T. V. In our regulations. But if Members will look at section 2 of the Act, and I can't discuss it in any detail, they'll find there a general prohibition against advertising tobacco products except in accordance with the regulations. We don't permit that by regulation. So, directly, we have not touched radio and T. V. and perhaps we can't touch them within our jurisdiction as a province because it's a federal subject matter of legislation and it's basically for the C.R.T.C. But as far as we can go we are backing up prohibition — the existing practice against advertising on radio and television.

And, so with those remarks and I hope I have sufficiently indicated to the House the kind of regulations we are initially passing, I move second reading of the bill.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, South Peace. Your friend from Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes) needs a lesson in geography. There's really only one river.

MR. SPEAKER: So do I.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, we were under the impression on this side of the House that Bill No. 9 was going to be debated first. However, as the recent speaker just said, Bill No. 9 and Bill No. 10 are companion bills.

We'd like to, maybe, Mr. Speaker, smoke a peace pipe with you on Bill No. 10, but Bill No. 9, we're not quite so sure. And I will be tabling an amendment to Bill No. 9 which, if concurred with, we would be most happy to go along with the government on Bill No.10.

What we're really asking is that we would like to see certain of the regulations that are going to be brought in under Bill No.10 before we go along with Bill No. 10.

I would like to say that these bills with regard to the advertising of tobacco might well be the most far-reaching bills discussed in this House during this particular session. Because, not only do they have a very direct effect on the health and well being of everyone in the province, but they have a very direct effect on one of the greatest costs of running this province — that is of Medicare, the medical profession and health services.

Now the Hon. the Attorney General stated that he wasn't going to ban the smoking of pipes. Sir Walter Raleigh, when he tried to promote tobacco back in 1560 in England, passed out silver pipes and that was I think how tobacco was basically introduced into the British Empire. So maybe the Attorney General would give a second thought to banning the use of pipe tobacco because that was how tobacco was originally introduced.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's too late to advertise it.

MR. PHILLIPS :…too late to what?

MRS. JORDAN: Advertise it.

[ Page 201 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: The other thing, Mr. Attorney General, that really concerns me in your recent remarks or your remarks just stated, is that you're not going to ban the advertising of cigars. And I'd like to know — maybe you could answer me this when you sum up the debate — just what is a cigar? Because several of my friends have quit smoking-cigarettes only to go smoke these little teeny what they call "cigarillos", I guess you would call them. Is a cigarillo, Mr. Attorney General, is it a…

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not supplying them with free cigars are you?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He wants to know what it is.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What, do they supply you with free cigars now?

MR. PHILLIPS: Is a cigarillo to be classified, Mr. Attorney General, through you, Mr. Speaker, is it to be classified as a cigarette or is it to be classified as a cigar?

I'm well aware of what a cigar is. But in all earnestness, because some of my friends have said, "Well, isn't it great. I quit smoking". And I can be pious here because I quit smoking and I quit cold turkey. And I didn't try to sort of wean myself on these cigars and then cigarillos. But I have friends who say, "Oh, I quit smoking", and go on smoking these little brown things and they call them cigarillos.

So, we wouldn't want to change the whole smoking habits of the Province of British Columbia. I don't know whether it's more profitable to merchandise these cigarillos than it is cigarettes or not.

And the other thing, Mr. Attorney General, you stated you wanted to make sure the legislation was workable. Well, looking at certain sections of the bill with regard to packaging and what is going to be on the packaging — is this going to be workable?

I'd be quite happy to discuss Bill C-10 where the federal government was going to come out and ban the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products. I think that somebody got to our federal government. I think the news media got to our federal government — the advertising agencies, the newspapers. Because if they had any conscientiousness and had the citizens of this country at heart they would have followed the example set by this government in 1971 and banned that advertising.

Now, there's going to be a lot…

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mather, Mather, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Barry Mather.

MR. PHILLIPS: Barry Mather? What about him?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's against smoking.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's against smoking? Well, a lot of our Liberals down here on this side of the House are against… I read in Hansard where they've been against the advertising of tobacco products. But I don't know how many of them went to Ottawa when Bill C-10 was being discussed. How many of you fellows went to Ottawa and urged that they continue on with this progressive legislation?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What? Because they've got them all.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're talking about a lot of regulations and I would like to hope that these regulations are not going to be good for one segment of the news media and not good for the other. Because I have a strong feeling that government should be of laws rather than of men.

[ Page 202 ]

And when it's in a law, as the present legislation is, there is to be no advertising, no pushing of tobacco products in the Province of British Columbia. Now, if you're going to make all these regulations, Mr. Attorney General — Mr. Speaker, through you — are you going to size up every situation, every pressure group that comes to you? And if you're going to take a look at it — I mean, I would like to see, and that's the reason for the amendment that I will be bringing in on this, I would like to see this firmly written down for all the citizens of British Columbia to see. And I would hope that it would be an example once it's written down for all other provinces of Canada to follow. And also for our federal government to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney General if this advertising ban on cigarettes is going to be total. Is it going to be a total ban on advertising? It's not going to be a total ban? In other words, you are going to take a look at who comes to see you. What group? It's got to be a total ban. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney General cannot have it both ways. He can't say to this group, "Well, we're going to allow you to advertise cigarettes into this group". That could lead to political payola. And I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General wants no part of political payola when it comes to allowing the advertising of cigarettes.

So, he should make it, if he's sincere in what he says, he should make the advertising a total ban. Let's make this a total ban on all advertising.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can't do that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you can't do that? You fellows over there… Mr. Speaker, the government can do anything if they really try hard enough. They can do anything if they really try hard enough.

The excuse that a total ban will not work — I can't buy that, Mr. Speaker, because there are various provinces and various states in the union that have different bans and don't allow some things. And I could say for instance that the State of Nevada allows gambling. And they allow certain other sins in that particular state. For instance, they don't have any speeding limit in the State of Nevada. You can drive as fast as the road will carry you. But right next door in the State of Arizona there's no gambling and they're a very virtuous state and they have a very strictly enforced speeding laws, Mr. Speaker. Here's one state that does this and a state beside it does an entirely different thing.

So I think you as a government should decide what is right and what is wrong and then you should do it and you should try to enforce it. Because we have a law, Mr. Attorney General, against stealing, but people still steal. So that doesn't mean that you come up and repeal the law that says, "Thou shalt not steal", one of the oldest laws in the land. No, certainly not.

We have another instance in the State of Utah, and in the State of Utah they're a very clean-living state. They have a tendency to hide their liquor stores in back alleys, where next door in the State of Montana, the liquor stores are on the main streets and liquor is sold in grocery stores. So there again there are two entirely different concepts on the morals for a different state, Mr. Speaker, and just because the State of Montana allows liquor to be sold in their grocery stores, that hasn't changed the State of Utah. They still deal with the sale of alcoholic products the way they see fit.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to urge the Attorney General, or through you, I'd like to urge the Attorney General that he should make a stand on, this, a firm stand, and say we are going to ban the sale of all tobacco products.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or, pardon me, ban the advertising. No, no, we don't want you to bring, in prohibition on tobacco. No, no. The people have the right to smoke if they want to. Pardon me, I wish to withdraw that statement, "to ban the sale". To ban the promoting, the advertising. Pushing.

[ Page 203 ]

Another instance of one province having a law that is different or unique to that particular province is the Province of Alberta. They do not feel that anybody in the merchandising of any products should give a product away. So when oil companies or grocery chains et cetera have a promotion where they're going to give you a free glass if you buy ten gallons of gas, or if a grocery store is going to give you a free this or that or some coupons, all the advertising must have written on it, Mr. Speaker, that in the Province of Alberta you have to pay. Now it might only have to be two cents but you still have to pay something. You have to make a legal deal with the person with whom you are buying the item from. You have to make a legal deal with him. It is not given away.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also an argument against banning the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products that we are losing our advertising dollars. I don't know whether the Attorney General is going to take that into consideration when he brings down his rules and regulations and when he meets these groups who are going to be coming to his office. And there will be pressure groups coming to your office, Mr. Attorney General. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there will be many pressure groups coming to the Attorney General's office wanting to have some say in how these regulations are going to be drawn up. They'll be there to see you, they'll be there to see you, Mr. Attorney General.

And I'd just like to remind you of the words of wisdom that you gave the House when this bill that you're now going to repeal and the tobacco products Act that you're bringing in now which is going to allow you to make up your mind to bring in your own regulations as to what shall be legal and what shall not be legal when it comes to the advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products. And I would like to quote the now Attorney General who was then a Member of the Opposition and he said, "Just one or two words in support of the position we are taking in this House. We are dealing with a thing where a scientific evidence is in, and it's definitely deleterious to human health. It's not a health food product like, for example, a glass of wine, and we have a right to legislate in this field. The only question really is, Mr. Speaker," and I am quoting the now Attorney General "why do we have to be here considering banning this particular type of advertising today because, if there ever has been false, deceptive, fatal advertising, it's been tobacco advertising".

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now I hope, Mr. Attorney General, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General will dig out his copy of Hansard and continually read these words when he is making his regulations. Because he goes on to say, "We shouldn't have to be passing this bill. The people who have put out this advertising should have been prosecuted and visited with the heavy penalties of the law a long time ago for deceptive, dangerous advertising. They should have been sued by the estates of the millions of people who have had their lives lost or shortened as a result of being led to smoke cigarettes by the advertising that has been put out." So there should be no regulations…

Ali HON. MEMBER: Any advertising will do…

MR. PHILLIPS: There should be no regulations on the advertising of tobacco, Mr. Speaker. It should be a total ban. And I hope that when the Attorney General reads… It should be a total ban. This government, Mr. Speaker, should lead the way to say that this advertising is coming in from flop-over, from the other provinces and from the United States of America and from other provinces. That is not an excuse at all, Mr. Speaker. If the government of the Province of British Columbia is truly concerned they will back up the Surgeon General in the United States and say, "Help us, we've led the way. You follow".

[ Page 204 ]

Now, the Hon. the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat, had a few words to say about advertising. Now, there are, Mr. Speaker, these are the present Members of the cabinet who are the ruling body of this province now. These are the gentlemen who spoke when the law to ban the advertising of cigarettes was brought in. Now, when these fellows are all sitting up in their cabinet room — there's the Attorney General, and there's the Minister of Highways and he said, "We support this bill." I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition in the whole field of advertising. There is a later bill coming up, where I'll have more to say about advertising, its role in society, where it's gone wrong, where it's right, where it's wrong.

The Minister of Highways also had this to say, "It is our responsibility as legislators to see that we take the necessary steps to change the culture, to change the accepted recognitions ' to change the accepted status symbols in order to redirect society to a better position." Those are the words of the Hon. the Minister of Highways, Mr. Speaker.

Further, and I want this read into the record, Mr. Speaker, because when these regulations come out, I want them to be a total ban. I want the government, Mr. Speaker, to back up what they have been saying and to completely ban the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco. Now, the Hon. Minister of Highways had this to say, "The passing of this bill will not solve the problem, I agree. I support the bill, I advocated it and I have done, without question, for a long time." So when you're in cabinet, and when you're discussing what regulations you are going to bring in, when you're met by these pressure groups that you are going to be met by, Mr. Speaker, when the Attorney General is definitely going to be plagued with these pressure groups to help set out the regulations…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll send them to see you.

MR. PHILLIPS: …the Hon. Minister of Highways should remind himself that he said, "I myself am one of those people who got hooked very young. I left school when I was 14 and, in my culture and in my society when you went to work it was a recognition of your manhood". But, "the passing of this bill will not solve the problem" he says, "but I supported it for a long time". I've supported it for a long time. Now, another gentleman who is going to be having a lot to say about when these groups come to see you and another person who's going to have a lot to say about what regulations you're going to bring in is going to be the Premier. And the Hon. the Premier had a lot to say about the advertising of tobacco products during the debate when the bill was originally introduced into the House.

The Hon. Premier had this to say: "I would think that this bill would be far more difficult to deal with in a province like Ontario" — the bill would be far more difficult to deal with in the Province of Ontario because they have a tobacco industry. There again you don't have to worry, in bringing out your regulations, in bringing out a complete and total ban, that you were hurting an industry which is in your province, where people were employed. Because there is no tobacco grown here to my knowledge. I understand they're growing something else in some of the window sills but I don't know of anybody that is really growing tobacco.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no that's in your neck of the woods, Mr. Attorney General. We don't have a tobacco industry in this province. And of course because of that we can afford to be politically far more virtuous.

Is this the attitude, Mr. Speaker, that this government is going to take? Are they going to be virtuous, now that they're in the driver's seat? Are they going to be as virtuous about the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco as they were when they were in Opposition? Because the Premier said: "You know we don't have any tobacco industry here, so we can be very virtuous". Well, I'd like to know, Mr. Speaker, what the government is going to do now that they are in the driver's seat, now that they can draw up these

[ Page 205 ]

regulations, now that they have the opportunity to keep up this total ban, now that they have the opportunity to lead all of the other provinces in Canada in a complete and total ban on this dreadful front.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other things said and a lot of them I have underlined here with regard to what the Hon. the Premier said when he was in Opposition. But I'll just quote shortly from one of them. And he says: "I have very strong feelings about the way that the best brains of the advertising world have been called upon to sell certain products in a manner that leaves the impression that without these products a young person or for that matter anyone in our society is just not quite successful or just not quite capable unless he uses these particular products."

The reason I wanted to read that, Mr. Speaker, is because it has been said by the tobacco industry — that the advertising of cigarettes, and the advertising of tobacco, does not promote their sale. Well, I can't really see that the tobacco industries spend the millions of dollars that they have been spending on the advertising of their products if they didn't think it would promote the sale, I just can't see it.

There's one definition, Mr. Speaker, of advertising and it says that it is something that makes you think that you have longed for something for years when you have never really heard of it. Well, I don't think that's the case with regard to the advertising of tobacco. But another definition from a dictionary says that advertising means "to proclaim the qualities of, as by publication or broadcasting, generally in order to sell." And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the reasons that tobacco companies spend the millions of dollars that they must spend in the United States every year is that they intend to sell their products. They intend to sell their products not only to those who are already hooked with the habit, the devastating part of it is, Mr. Speaker, that they intend to create desire in the use in our land by their advertising.

The purpose of advertising, let's get it straight, and on the record. The purpose of advertising is to sell. When this bill was passed in the House, Mr. Speaker, I must remind all of those that are in the House that it was passed unanimously. If the total ban is not kept it will be a willing and useless step backward, Mr. Speaker, a step that this government does not have to take. It does not have to take this step at this time.

Bring in your regulations first, assure the general public of British Columbia that you are interested in following through with the total ban before you bring in your regulations. In other words, let's keep what we've got, let's not go backwards, let's keep the Act that we have, then bring in your regulations, then let the public have a look at them. Let the cigarette companies have a look at them, let the Legislature have a look at them, and if it's not a total ban, Mr. Speaker, it will not be good enough.

I would like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that very recently as a matter of fact October 23, an article in the Vancouver Sun headline:

"Society says cancer found most often in the lungs. Cancer of the lung in a variety that holds the least possibility for survival, is increasing so rapidly that the lungs are now the spot where cancer is found most often, the American Cancer Society said Saturday.

"Lung cancer kills up to 91 per cent of its victims. And its incidence in the U.S. has been steadily growing."

Mr. Speaker this is a report from the United States Cancer Society. It is a report that came out on Monday of this week. It is a very timely report, I would say, because we are discussing this very important step at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, it might be very well and good if the advertisements of tobacco and cigarettes would tell the whole truth. But do they tell the whole truth, Mr. Speaker? I would suggest to you that they do not. At a recent meeting — it's actually a study by the Toronto School of Theology — studying truth in advertising very recently the following was said:

"Advertisements that tell the whole truth about a product both positive and negative will never willingly be written by an advertising agency copy writer."

[ Page 206 ]

Now, that statement was made by Henry Carpus, Senior Vice President, Creative and Media Operations, at Reynolds and Company Ltd. a Toronto agency.

So this goes to prove, Mr. Speaker, beyond any word of a doubt that even those in the advertising agency realize that their ads do not tell the whole truth. If the ads that are meant to capture the minds of the youth of the province told the whole truth I am sure that there would not be as many young people hooked on cigarettes as there have been in recent years.

I have four sons myself. The oldest one smokes. And he started smoking before the ban on cigarette advertising came out in the Province of British Columbia. Now I have three other sons, and they're all very close together and the other three sons haven't taken up the filthy habit. Now, is that any proof that the banning has anything to do on it…?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't think so. Well I think it has. I think it has, Mr. Speaker, and maybe it's because father is setting an example by quitting myself then think of the power that this government here has to ban the advertising of cigarettes and the leadership that they would give all the youth of this province, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say one more thing about advertising, and I would like the Attorney General to take this into very grave consideration when he passes this so-called regulation.

He said that most advertisers would not want to run the risk of misrepresenting a product to the agency in the event that by not knowing the shortcomings of a product the agency might take a creative approach that proves to be obviously false. In other words, Mr. Speaker, all of the advertising that we have does not necessarily tell us the whole truth.

Now, since this bill, which is a Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act was passed in this Legislature, there has been some funny things happen. I think this Legislature actually set an example for the medical profession. I think that this legislature against all odds and with everybody saying it wouldn't work has taken the bull by the horns and has created a fine example. So much so that now, Mr. Speaker, the medical profession have realized that if one government can set a ban on the advertising of tobacco and cigarettes that other governments can do it. What have they done, Mr. Speaker? In June of this year approximately a year after the Government of British Columbia in 1971 passed the ban on cigarette advertising, the following resolution was passed at the annual convention of the Canadian Medical Association in Montreal. Now I have nowhere on the records of a medical profession passing a resolution at any of their conventions that tobacco advertising be banned until such time as this Act was passed in this House, so I would suggest from that that this Legislature set an example to the medical profession, proved to, the medical profession that governments could pass a ban on advertising.

I think that when they passed this resolution, Mr. Speaker, that they realized maybe that if they got behind the Province of British Columbia in their forward thinking Act that maybe the other provinces would follow.

Unfortunately, to this date no other province to my knowledge has followed the progressive legislation that is now on the statutes of the Province of British Columbia and which were put there unanimously by this House. Now I would like to read this resolution to you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the Attorney General, and I'll give him a copy of this if he would like, so that he can peruse it when he is making his regulation. Because, Mr. Speaker, I want him to know that he holds the health of the young of this province in his hands.

Mr. Speaker, I want this to be firmly implanted, firmly implanted on the mind of the Attorney General, because I know he's going to have these pressure groups. I know he is and I don't want him to forget them. I don't want him to forget what he said and what this resolution said. "Whereas advertising on television has a significant impact on the attitude of children…" Alright we have established that…

[ Page 207 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, we have. Advertising has a significant impact on the attitude of children and I want to clearly establish that fact here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, because that fact is going to be brought up in this House again when we discuss T. V. advertising and radio advertising on certain other products.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it worked for several elections. All right, "Whereas advertising on television has a significant impact on the attitude of children and whereas advertising on television of alcohol, tobacco and over-the-counter drugs raises the level of acceptance by society of these substances, and whereas the Canadian Medical Association is concerned that the attitude of children is unduly influenced by such advertising; be it resolved that the Canadian Medical Association announces its opposition to advertising through television of alcohol, tobacco and over-the-counter drugs."

Mr. Speaker, I think we have established that the advertisement over radio and television has a profound influence on the youth. I think we would also like to establish the fact that people who smoke tobacco are more prone to smoking pot, so if we are going to allow advertising of the smoking of cigarettes, is this going to lead the way for the promotion of marijuana? Is this going to lead, Mr. Speaker, allowing advertising of marijuana, has…?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question!

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know if it's a good question, but I do know this, I do know this people who smoke cigarettes are more prone to smoke marijuana. I think that that's an established fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you smoke pot?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, thank heavens. When I was a youngster I was not subjected to the pushers of these products that we have in this province today. I thank God for that, and I have certainly in bringing up my children given them lots of information to read about these products, and I hope to God that they never take the opportunity upon themselves to try these drugs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have established that the Canadian Medical Association is wishing to ban the sale of these products, the advertisement of these products.

Now, I have another article here. It's from Melbourne, Australia. "Doctors from Australia have passed a resolution calling for a ban on all cigarettes and tobacco advertising. The motion was passed during the fifth world conference of General Practice."

I haven't got the date of that here. It was just recently, it was just the other day. Just very recently. I've got the article but very, very recently so now we not only a medical profession in Canada, but we have a group of doctors from Britain, a group of doctors from Australia, and a group of doctors from Canada, urging the ban of cigarettes. So not only are the doctors in Canada taking an example from this Legislature, but we have doctors from Britain and doctors from Australia who are following the very forward example set by this Legislature.

I have one other article here, something new to me. It's really new to me and I was quite amazed. I have heard many times in a smoke-filled room or in a smoke-filled car, that people who didn't smoke would say, "do you have to smoke? The smoke is killing me." I used to think that that was a rather ridiculous statement, because I didn't think that second-hand smoke would bother anybody. But let's hear what the Surgeon General of the United States has to say about this.

[ Page 208 ]

"Warning that carbon monoxide from cigarettes may harm non-smokers as well as smokers, the U.S. Surgeon General recommended for the second straight year that smoking be banned in public places." You know as I say, I have heard people say that, "do you have to smoke?" but the carbon monoxide left in the room from cigar and cigarette smokers can be harmful to the presence of others.

"The 226-page report said evidence continues to grow stronger, implicating cigarette smoking as a factor in lung cancer". Now listen to this, Mr. Speaker "…as a factor in lung cancer, heart disease and other health problems," so it's not only necessarily lung cancer, but heart disease and other health problems. Dr. Stenfield said that there are now 44 million Americans who smoke, but the number would have been 75 million if the government had not campaigned against the habit.

Now I think this is evidence, Mr. Speaker, by a government leading the people that they might possibly have some effect on the use, by those people that they lead in the use of tobacco. The Surgeon General says just about half of the people, in other words twice as many people would be smoking in the United States today, had it not been for the position taken by the Surgeon General in the United States and by the Government of the United States in banning the advertising.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have another article here whereby the Minister of Health — and I notice that he's not in the Legislature during this discussion on the subject which has probably more bearing on the health of the citizens of British Columbia than any other subject which will be discussed during this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I feel that if the Minister of Health had the health and welfare of the people of the Province of British Columbia at heart, that he would be here listening to this debate this afternoon. I would hate to think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health went out to have a smoke. Now, I've seen him smoking cigarettes, and I know he smokes a pipe, but 1 guess the pipe is going to be all right, is it Mr. Attorney General?

However, what I'm pointing out here, Mr. Speaker, is that he's given the hospitals $2 million, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that $2 million is a drop in the ocean, not a drop in the bucket, a drop in the ocean as what the costs of medical health are going to be in the province in the very near future.

We have a very recent article in the Vancouver Province, October 23 that says "The high cost of staying alive", and it's an editorial. I'm not going to read the editorial, but what I am going to say is that the editorial says doctors should help by emphasizing prevention rather than cure. What the editorial is talking about is the high cost of medicine and the high cost of medical services in the Province of British Columbia, and I would suggest that a lot of the high costs of medical services in the Province of British Columbia are due to the fact that a number of the patients are there because of the use of tobacco.

I also noticed that the cigarette and tobacco companies, the ad agencies, are not making any rush back to the ads, but it didn't say, Mr. Speaker, it didn't say that they were not preparing and not thinking about preparing their ads again to promote the sale of this product. Which leads me to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the ban that the Attorney General is talking about is not going to be a total ban.

In another article recently, and I certainly wish the Minister of Health were in his chair, the threat to British Columbia health care is linked to spiraling costs and these words were spoken by Mr. R.G. Faukes, who is the new adviser to the Minister of Health. He says that unless costs are curbed and the delivery system for health care is sharply improved B.C. could return to the days when only the very rich and the extremely poor could get proper medical care in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, these words are by the adviser to the now minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance and I would hate to think that we would be returning to the free Social Credit days in British Columbia where medicine was available to only those with money. Because I think that at the present time we have one of the finest health services and hospital

[ Page 209 ]

insurance programmes and Medicare of anywhere, as a matter of fact of anywhere in the world. But if we do not curb our costs in this province with regard to this service, the Minister's adviser says that we may return to the days when only the rich and extremely poor could get proper medical care.

That's something that should make all of us very aware of one of the reasons of the high costs in medical services and one of the reasons of high costs are the number of people who require these services strictly from the use of tobacco. I did a lot of searching but I couldn't find the article, but there was an article out in the United States just recently, and I regret very much that I couldn't find it. It's probably in one of my files at home. It stated that approximately 60 per cent of the people who entered hospitals in the United States entered them because of the abuse of either tobacco, liquor or drugs, so I'm suggesting that if this government really wants to lead the way, and wants to keep the health services that are presently available in this province, that they will lead the way in preventive, maintenance. That's what we call in the automobile industry, preventive maintenance. Let's call it preventive medicine.

This is why I say here today, Mr. Speaker, that this particular discussion that we are having on this particular bill has more far-reaching aspects than what would be on the surface, because when we start thinking that the medical services in this province could be curtailed because of the high costs and could be made available only to those with money, Mr. Speaker, this really, really bothers me. The same man in another article says the only way to repair health costs, is to cut services. I would suggest that one of the ways that we can repair health costs is to have a healthier population without cutting services. Just have a healthier population so that everybody isn't running to the hospital for lung cancer, heart disease caused by the smoking of tobacco.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that bothered me since these bills have been tabled in the House, is that the news media has been suspiciously quiet. I don't remember seeing very many articles. As a matter of fact the only article that I have been able to find dealing with these bills is the one where it says: "No rush back to ad". That was the only article I was able to find. Very little mention about Bills No. 9. 10, and 11, and this bothers me, because then I have to start think about the pressures that you are going to be under from the news media, from the newspaper from the advertising agencies when you start drawing up these so called regulations.

I would really like to know what you have in mind and I would like to know what is behind your thinking and your leader has said that he will accept suggestions from the Opposition. Well, I would like to suggest to you that you leave the ban on the books. Leave the ban on the books until we have an opportunity to see what your new regulations are going to be, because I don't want this new government to make a mistake, to be pushed by pressure groups and to make a mistake that's going to have effect on every man, woman, and child in this province, not only in effect on their health, but an effect on the services which will not be available to them if the hospitals are crowded with people who are there because of the use of tobacco.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the reporters in the Press gallery have written on these. I wouldn't suggest this, but maybe they have written articles pertaining to these bills and their editors have put the axe to them. But I don't know, there's been articles, Mr. Speaker, about every other bill in the House but nothing about tobacco advertising. I would like to see everyone in this Legislature at some time, and I wish it could be done before they vote on this bill, go and visit a person in the hospital who is dying of lung cancer caused by the use of tobacco and then in all conscience they would not ban the ads that are on the statutes at the present time. I urge this government to promote more advertising against the use of tobacco, against the use of not only cigarettes, Mr. Speaker, but against the use of these cigarillos, cigars and pipes, snuff. What is snuff? (Laughter). I'm too young to know what snuff is.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's 'nuff of that.

[ Page 210 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know you might think it's enough, but this is a very important subject. It's a subject that could very well mean whether you fellows are going to be sitting on the other side of the House, or whether you are going to be back here, so I would suggest that you pay a lot of attention to this. Because if you succumb to their pressures and if you don't watch your cabinet when they are drawing up these regulations, my friend, you won't be sitting over there very long, because they are in very grave danger of making very grave error and all I want to do is warn them. I want to warn them that these pressures will be there. These pressures from — the media will be there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I hope that the Attorney General does not intend to make tobacco unavailable, because that would be prohibition of tobacco and then we would be back to the old days that I've read about when the "rum runners" were running around with guns and the Model A's and we would have the same thing. We would have people going outside of the law and pushing tobacco. And we know what that prohibition created in the United States. About all it's good for now is it makes good entertainment once in a while at movie shows.

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to ask the Attorney General to outline the regulations that he intends to bring in.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't say anything till you sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, in due course I will take my…

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going!

MR. PHILLIPS: I will take my seat in the…

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep talking!

MR. PHILLIPS: I will eventually, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat in this Legislature but I hope before I sit down…

AN HON. MEMBER: Finish your speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: …that I in some way I have impressed on the Members opposite, and I'm certainly very pleased to see that the Premier has returned from his sojourn with the Prime Minister, and I'm very please that he's back here to take heed to some of these warnings that I have been passing out this afternoon, to take heed because I know from reading in Hansard that the Premier is very, very, very interested in the health and well being. You're a converted man, so am I, Mr. Premier, I certainly give you credit for that.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very disappointed that the Minister of Health was not in the House. I'd like to once again point out to the House that I would hate in the future that either a grandchild or a grandmother of any of the Members in this House or of anybody, anywhere would not be entitled to health services in this province because our hospitals were too full. Because the people of the Province of British Columbia could not afford to keep the high standard of hospital care that is prevalent today because of the spiraling costs.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that when the Members opposite are making their regulations that they will certainly take all of these things into consideration. That they will have far-reaching thoughts. In other words not think of just today, don't think of the pressures from the pressure groups who are going to see you in your office today. But think of the effects of the decisions you make, how they're going to affect the lives of everyone in this province 20 and 30 and 100 years from now.

You have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, the government has the opportunity, to be leaders in this field. To carry on with the leadership that was set when this bill was passed in 1971. They have the opportunity to carry on and I think I have proven this afternoon that the medical profession now

[ Page 211 ]

one Act passed has come out with resolutions banning it. I think that if this Act is kept on the statutes that you will free other governments and other medical professions so that we will not have the advertisements as the Premier said to push tobacco products on the youth of our province and our nation.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very, very briefly on this bill today.

First of all all the Members of this House believe mainly that smoking is harmful and that we should do everything we can to discourage it. It was that overwhelming conviction of the Members, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that persuaded us, against our better judgment really, to vote for a bill that was extremely badly drafted. It resulted in acute embarrassment, certainly to me as a legislator here, to have supported a bill that made us a laughing stock. I really just wanted to direct one question to the Attorney General. Is the legislation that we're proposing here intra vires? Can the regulations satisfactorily be drawn so that we're not going to be faced with the embarrassment that resulted from that last bill. We want to do something about it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm pleased to have the assurance of the Attorney General. Others have said no. And with all respect, Mr. Speaker, the same people who drafted this bill were probably the ones who drafted the last one. It think that's the only caveat that any member of the House would have in supporting what is obviously a very sensible and necessary piece of legislation.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to echo the statement of the former speaker, simply that we're not here to debate whether or not it has been proven that tobacco is harmful to health.

There is a vast array of literature which proves this beyond all doubt and we could certainly go beyond the realm of lung cancer to many other pulmonary problems emphysema, bronchitis, to name tow of the worst most disabling illnesses of great frequency in our modern society. Its relationship to heart disease is not quite as clearly defined but certainly does exist.

Certainly, speaking from this particular personal position I have to make it very plain that my subsequent remarks are not in any way on behalf of the medical profession. One of the speakers today has dealt at great length with an official resolution of the medical profession and let it be very, very clear that I am not here as a member of that profession. I am here as a legislator.

If we wish, with all the best of intentions, to diminish disease then I think we are embarking on a very dangerous precedent if we single out albeit a very potential danger in society. But let's face the fact that there are many, many other self-inflicted conditions which result in human beings finishing up in hospital and using the hospital services which the member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned.

Nor am I in any condoning other self-inflicted conditions. I'm thinking particularly of obesity. If we really want to look around and practice preventive medicine certainly obesity must rank as one of the very serious dangers to human beings inasmuch as it's also associated in many cases with high blood pressure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order! (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: I don't know whether the Hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker, has the first problem, the second one or both. (Laughter).

[ Page 212 ]

But, seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think it must be made very plain that the danger of smoking is well established, but there are many other aspects of human behaviour in our modern culture which are very harmful and I would submit that on principle that if we feel or if we think that any legislature can in fact legislate good health habits then I think we are coming very close to the point of suggesting that we could legislate morals and legislate against sin and I think that this is a dangerous step in that direction.

I also believe that in terms of smoking or drinking, advertising has a minimal effect in terms of the amount consumed or the number of people indulging. I would agree with the former speaker that as in, many other aspects of human behaviour the example starts in the home. And it is a very obvious fact in dealing with patients that very often whether or not they smoke and whether or not they drink relates very clearly to their experience as children in the home.

Another factor which bothers me I'm like the leader of the Liberal Party, I voted in favour of the total ban and I confess a certain amount of ignorance to the full implications of what I was voting for. I'm sure it won't be the last mistake I make in this House. But the fact is that as the Attorney General said it is not workable and I think it is rather foolish and embarrassing to see the, for example, the stands on the ferry stripped of most of their publications because of the fact that the ferries had been sued for breach of the law. Therefore, I think that if a bill — any law in fact — cannot be enforced it is a bad law and I think we're all agreed on that point. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to review what might be done to dissuade people from smoking and if they do smoke, persuade them to stop smoking.

So that while I support and this party supports — the bill, Mr. Speaker, there's one very important aspect of it that does bother us on this side of the House and that is its rather vague nature and the fact that regulations will later on be spelled out to try and implement the good intentions of the government to dissuade people from smoking. And personally, as far as I can see, the government in this bill in principle is expressing its good intent but the language really says very little, and repeats in several sections will make such regulations, or may make regulations with respect to preventing or dissuading the use of tobacco… And certainly I think the crux of this whole argument is really that the ideal solution would be to try and get rid of tobacco from society which of course is utterly impossible as it is with alcohol.

But as I say, Mr. Speaker, I feel that just because we cannot solve the problem completely by its removal from society we have to look at it on the point of principle. If we start imposing restrictions on individuals in society, or trying to impose restrictions, on people who either manufacture or advertise what is a legal product in our society then indeed I think we are infringing on individual's rights and perhaps, if we cannot be too carried away by the serious disease factor of tobacco.

I think we should look at this dangerous precedent we set by a complete ban in the light that individuals in the advertising business are trying to advertise a legal product in society and are prevented from doing what is their job in society. I think this important distinction should be made by somebody who questioned me on this subject and said, "Well, we're not advertising cyclamates". And the answer is very simple — that cyclamates themselves have been banned from use, so that it is a very different matter. I think the distinction should be made clear that it is one thing to advertise a product which is legal in society, and something quite different to try and push a product which is illegal.

And so while this party supports the bill, Mr. Speaker, we are very uneasy about the fact that it is really predicated on a good intention where the regulations will all be drawn up after: this Legislature has gone home.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Because, Mr. Speaker, and I accept the Attorney General's comment, we in the Conservative Party all along in this session are eager to

[ Page 213 ]

cooperate and to recognize the good intent of the government, this is the main governing reason that we will support this bill. But I think that, certainly by January at the latest at the regular session, we should be given some more specific delineation of the measures and the attitudes and the specific actions which the government proposes to take. And if I've misunderstood on this particular score perhaps the Attorney General can explain in summing up. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hen. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, like those of the new Members that have spoken before me I'm very pleased and privileged to be standing here now in this House in Victoria. I certainly consider it to be one of the great privileges that can happen to any citizen in this province.

As a teacher I used to teach the parliamentary process and encourage young people to take an interest in the Legislature. Some of you may recall that I brought students down three years in a row and they sat in these very galleries. And they also went on to Olympia, I might point out, and made a comparison of the Legislatures. So I think that Mr. Speaker's trips to various Legislatures certainly will be advantageous. And a definite benefit to the young people who come up with ideas of how this Legislature could be improved after they've seen the one in Olympia. And they could very well have drafted some reform and some improvements, especially in regards to the use of committees.

But it is a privilege, it is truly a privilege to be here. And one thing that I'm really hoping for and I think that we're going to have it — I think the mood is here and I think that it can be generated — I think that we're going to have a very positive and constructive parliament from both sides of the House. I know that over the years people get in bad habits of sort of needling each other and so on. And needling is probably reasonable up to a point. But as a new Member, and I think I speak for all the new Members we are looking forward to something better this time — to a House, to a parliament where everybody is trying to make a positive contribution.

Pretty well everything that could be said was said. I wrote a whole lot of notes and I pretty well have to throw them all out. I have to throw out my newspaper clipping because it was used, and I have to throw out my quote on youth because it was used. And I agree with it. The points that were made by the Hen. Member for South Peace River and the other speakers I completely concur with. And it enables me to be briefer which is perhaps a good thing.

There are two or three points though that were not made, at least not as well as I think they should have been.

The first one is that I think the main point of making the change is the fact that there were some ridiculous effects from the passage of the previous legislation on banning the use of tobacco which were not foreseen at the time the ban was passed through this House. And as a result of experiencing these things we come back and we've done what Mr. Bennett often did, we've taken a second look. And it's important to take a second look because it's important that the legislation that's passed is credible legislation.

Now, I for one am completely in sympathy with the ban. I would like to have a ban on the use of alcohol completely, and the use of tobacco. However, there are practical problems in implementing a ban which have to be recognized.

Now, in regards to the regulations that are going to be drafted, I have confidence that the Attorney General will be firm, that the regulations that he brings forward will be sound, and that he too is concerned with the problems, the increasing problem of lung cancer as it is outlined in this newspaper article which was also quoted by the Hen. Member for South Peace River. I have confidence in the Attorney General in this respect.

Now there is one point though that hasn't been mentioned as yet in regard to regulations that I would like to propose for consideration by the Attorney General. And that is that sporting events that are advertised or promoted or where the name of a cigarette company is used no longer be all-

[ Page 214 ]

owed in this province. I think that this recent thing that we had with Rothmans' tennis tournament is a case in point. Obviously the cigarette company is clearly trying to create a good climate for the name of its product and is using the name of its product in conjunction with a popular sporting event. And so by transfer trying to give a favourable view or a favourable feeling about its particular product. And this is one of the techniques of the cigarette companies to create that kind of a friendly, warm climate for the sale and promotion of its product. So I hope that that will be one of the regulations that will be brought in, that such a thing, no longer be allowed.

What an interesting spectacle we had of a sporting event using the name of a cigarette company, a company promoting the sale of death-dealing products, literally, and whose headquarters is in a country that promotes the immoral practice of apartheid. And this at a tennis tournament.

Now, I played tennis too when I was younger, and I should start playing it again. I'm beginning to get a little heavy in the middle and it's time to think about that. But, I'm concerned about the use of sporting events. such as the Rothmans' tennis tournament to create that kind of friendly, warm climate for the promotion of a death-dealing product. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member, for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'd like, too, at this time, Mr. Speaker, to offer best wishes to the new government and to yourself this being the first opportunity I've had to do so.

The name of this bill is the Tobacco Products Act and I think it's important that we understand what kind of a product that is. I think, contrary to what the Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has said, Mr. Speaker, that smoking is harmful, we must understand that it's far more than harmful. The Attorney General has said that it kills by inches and he's absolutely correct. Smoking does kill by inches.

In this country probably in the next year we'll probably see 20,000 people die from lung cancer. Lung cancer is virtually unknown in non-smokers and a few years ago before smoking became as prevalent as it is today there was hardly any incidence of lung cancer. It's a relatively new disease and cause almost exclusively by smoking cigarettes.

We should not either be embarrassed about the legislation that is now on the books because we shouldn't be embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, about doing what is right, and doing what is right to help protect the health of the people in our society. I take issue too, with the comments that the advertising doesn't do anything. Anyone who thinks that advertising, in this instance or any other instance, doesn't sell and doesn't sell cigarettes, Mr. Speaker, is extremely naive about the impact of advertising in our society.

The Attorney General has suggested that in this new legislation we will follow the example of the United States, Mr. Speaker. I think we are in severe trouble if we do that in this country, in this province. We'll get nowhere in the control of this most offensive form of advertising if we follow the example of the United States because the example of the United States is there for all of us to see. They've copped out in the United States, as they have in the Government of Canada to a large degree, with regard to the advertising of tobacco and cigarettes particularly.

You need only to turn on your television set to one of the American channels, Mr. Speaker, and you'll see that the glamorization of cigarettes is still evident through the devious processes of the tobacco flacks and the little cigars, so-called, on television. There's no difference in cigarettes — packages are much the same and we're getting in effect cigarette advertising in a country that supposedly has banned cigarette advertising.

It bothers me too, Mr. Speaker, that we've heard cries of bankruptcy from the media. I think that's nonsense. I've been connected with the media for some time. I was, Mr. Speaker, connected with a radio station that this very day can't find enough time on its air ways to satisfy its advertisers. Not one of them wants to push tobacco, they want to buy commercial time.

[ Page 215 ]

I publish a monthly newspaper and I don't have enough pages to satisfy the demand of the advertisers — none of them pushing tobacco — who want to tell people about their products. If you've looked at the advertising content of your favorite newspapers, particularly on Thursday or listened to your favorite radio station you'll know that the advertising industry has never had it so good. The banning of cigarette advertising and alcohol advertising, if it comes to that, will have no effect on the fortunes of our various Press and media.

I don't think either, Mr. Speaker, as a new Member, that they should consider that this issue has anything to do with the legislating of morals. Nobody has said "do not smoke", Mr. Speaker. All we have said in this previous legislation is that if you're foolish enough to smoke, go ahead. But we want to make the dangers as clear as possible and we don't want to promote those dangers.

The manufacturers cannot, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, advertise a product that is the major cause of lung cancer in the world today. A product that is totally addictive to its user. And I can't accept the argument that it isn't addictive because I've gone through the withdrawal pains of a four pack a day smoker and if it isn't addictive I don't know what it is, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think we can say that we're stepping on anybody's rights. No issue is involved here. We're only trying to protect the health of all of our citizens.

One of the previous speakers, my colleague on my right, Mr. Speaker, gave adequate evidence of what some of the other Members of the previous House, including those now on the government side, have said during debates last March about this particular piece of legislation. Certainly the Attorney General, the present Attorney General, was very vocal in his comments. I won't repeat those again except to say that he did say that with regard to this advertising the right to know gives way to the danger of the human health. That's important. And it was correct then and it's correct today.

Many more of the present House speakers, Mr. Speaker, on both sides of the House including yourself, gave unqualified support for this legislation when it was proposed in March, 1971. I don't see where the principle has changed. I don't understand in this instance what has happened to change that principle in the minds of some of our members.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, is in favour of this legislation. He's said so on many occasions, both before and after the election. And he voted for it, Mr. Speaker. He said that he was in favour of this legislation. Yet he says he wants to scrap this excellent piece of social legislation because it isn't working. Well, Mr. Speaker, we should be making it work. One way or another we should be having discussions not just throwing it out holus bolus. Let's talk about it before we throw it out because I think we can make it work. It is working to a certain degree because we don't see the proliferation of the most offensive form of advertising there is — the advertising of tobacco in this province at the moment.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I made reference to a radio station with which I've had some experience in the past and I just wanted to say that this radio station never accepted any tobacco advertising even in its early days when things were really tough. It never accepted this tobacco advertising because it felt it would have been doing a disservice to its listeners. I always agreed with that principle — have for years. In fact this radio station still carries a rather, in my opinion, hard-hitting series of anti-smoking messages on a regular basis.

I was privileged to have written many of those and voiced them on the air — they're still running although I'm no longer connected with the radio profession at the moment. The theme of the series, though, was "stop smoking and start living". One of those spots and the Attorney General may be interested in this to add to his collection, Mr. Speaker, was that cigarettes are killers that travel in packs. We must always remember that cigarettes do kill and are contributory to some of the health problems in our society today. I do not think that we can condone, Mr. Speaker, the

[ Page 216 ]

advertising of medically proven killers regardless of the pressures that we may face from external influences.

It would be a fair statement, Mr. Speaker, to say that virtually every government in Canada and perhaps in North America would like to ban the advertising of cigarettes. For one reason or another they haven't had the nerve. However, this government did. With concurrence of the unanimous vote of this House.

British Columbia in effect took the lead and had the fortitude to provide leadership in this important field of social legislation. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we don't throw it all away because of a weak argument that it isn't working.

I understand and I agree that there is a problem with regard to this legislation. Particularly with regard to outside publications. But I think that too should be a problem, Mr. Speaker, for future discussion. That we should talk about that problem and see if there isn't some method by which we can solve it. Because I think we're making a major mistake and I agree with the speaker on my right that this is not legislation for the moment but it is legislation for far into the future — one which we will regret if we throw it out and don't replace it with something equally effective. Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): I'm very surprised that we have a law before us that is badly drafted. I've heard it mentioned it can't be enforced and there's many other things are wrong with it. I always had the impression that this House had the capacity to draw real good laws with all the caliber that there is around here. And I think many of us new Members are in sort of a quandary as to how this can come about. I thought we only do this on city council — apparently it happens elsewhere.

Now, I would point out that when I get my daily paper in my living room every day and there's no advertising, no cigarette or liquor advertising in it, then I pick up another paper that's from Edmonton or Toronto or New York and it's splashed, all over. So obviously the law has not been doing its job.

I really believe that there's nobody in this House that is in favour of pushing tobacco or liquor in any way, shape or form. I think we're all interested in finding a solution to either restrict or discourage this type of addiction and I think the real thing that we could be looking at is the labeling. The packaging and the labeling, when you think of medicine or disinfectants and many other things that are on the shelves on the stores and what-not and gopher poison and what-have-you, they have to be properly labeled so that everybody is reminded whenever they look at it that it is what it is identified to be.

Now you can put a label on that, it is poison or that it is harmful or that it is unhealthy — or you can even put a skeleton and cross bones on the side of a package of cigarettes and then people will be continuously reminded that it's their own risk that they're touching these things with and there's nobody else that can help them but themselves.

But if we wind up in a weird and bureaucratic type of law that is going to allow some newspapers not to advertise and others not, you've just got a bad law that is going to be nothing but a nuisance. I think we're here to legislate laws that are good. Let's do away with the bad laws and go to work on the good ones.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a couple of points.

The first of all in answer to the Member for South Peace River two hour long criticisms. I think that the regulations that already have been briefly touched upon will meet many of those problems.

[ Page 217 ]

We sympathize with his point of view insofar as the abuse of tobacco and the use of tobacco at all is concerned. But you see, laws are to be obeyed. Laws are to be drafted so that they are at least possible of enforcement. Laws should be designed to deal with the problem. If we spent more time, Mr. Speaker, discussing the approach in terms of health that we should take in this government by way of education, in our schools and also on television and radio through the government, advertise the problems of the use of tobacco, we'd spend our time more wisely.

The attack on the advertising industry is really some sort of red herring and I think we should get to the real problem as soon as possible. The enforceability, as I say, is the crucial issue. We are not, and we should not allow ourselves to become, a government of deception or hypocrisy. If the law cannot be enforced, we should change that law. We can't be a government of deception and hypocrisy and call it virtue.

I say just one more thing, that when a law is so manifestly unworkable, and I'm quoting from my recollection of what a great statesman said, that when a law is so manifestly unworkable, that it brings the law generally into disrepute, parliament in its wisdom should replace the law in the fear that all laws and the Legislature itself will likewise be held in disrespect.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, fellow Members, I rather thought I was going to go through this session without rising, but what we heard from South Peace was almost too much. An hour and 10 minutes of back and forth and swish and swash. I think he could have said it just as quickly as the previous Member, who said the same thing better.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right, and we were sufficiently effective to bring you to your knees too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand and commend you on being elevated to the high post of Speaker of the B.C. Legislature.

I think this is a very good choice. one, because of the many years of experience that you had in previous Houses. I know at different times other Speakers would call for your advice. Also, you've had very good professional training to equip you to be an unbiased, fair Speaker.

I thought the Member for Oak Bay spoke very well when he was referring to Bill No. 10. That this was a fair statement of the government's intention. I think that's all that any government can do is attempt to state its intentions through legislation. Possibly that is what the previous government did when they attempted to outlaw liquor and tobacco advertising.

I rather wonder that if because of the miserable failure of the previous government, that possibly that was the reason the Member for South Peace River was ticked off. And to make such statements of government of laws and not of men. To talk about political payola. He says governments can do anything. He says they can be all things to all people. Then he went on and on about pressure groups. Mr. Speaker, if there is any group in the Dominion of Canada that should know about pressure it is that defeated group across the way.

Of course what he was saying was "don't do as we did, do as we say". Very virtuous — very, very parsimonious platitudes. Most parsimonious, most parsimonious. A government of virtue and a great government of inconsistency. They passed a law outlawing tobacco advertising. Outlawing the advertising of liquor. Did they enforce it? They enforced it to those that applied no pressure to them.

[ Page 218 ]

But if a newspaper would dare criticize their legislation in editorials and then if they dared run an ad about tobacco what happened? Last February the Victoria Times ran a little ad advertising tobacco products and what did the then Attorney General say? He stated publicly that if you the Victoria Times are going to break the laws then thou shalt not be rewarded. Thou shalt not receive government advertising. This is your government, this is your record, and this is why you tried to be so parsimonious. If you had said that to all newspapers that advertised in the province, within the Province of B.C., that would have been one thing. But did you?

Here is a copy of Dick MacLean's Guide, published in Vancouver. This happens to be the January 1972 issue published some four or five months after the legislation took effect. September 15, 1971. Now there is a full colour plate in this issue. There was a tobacco advertisement. The previous one had been a liquor advertisement.

Now did your Attorney General stand up and with great parsimony say they are going to prosecute this? Did they say that? If he dared threaten the Victoria Times, why didn't he enforce the law against this? Could it be because a former Premier's picture was on the front page? Is this why we are hearing such a big song and dance, Mr. Speaker, across the way this afternoon? One hour and 10 minutes of gobbledygook. Inconsistency, parsimony. What's it say inside? It gives full coverage to the Premier's book. Yes, someone was smoking behind the Premier's back.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Member for South Peace had never been in this assembly before we could excuse him for this. He is not a rookie man. He, has been in and out and he is back in again. But, Mr. Speaker, unless he and his group can be more, constructive and more consistent, they won't be back.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I think that the remarks of the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) show what the real approach should be towards this problem of tobacco use. It's only by getting the overwhelming support of the general public that one can bring about any real change. I think it is noteworthy that action of the public of this province will result in at least one of those colour plates not being used in the future by that magazine. That's the real issue.

Now while we may criticize the legislation which stands on the books today, regarding restraining tobacco advertising. I think that one thing the previous government legislation did prove is that the ban doesn't work. In fact the government of the day which brought that legislation before us itself must have known that the ban wouldn't work because they didn't put any teeth in the legislation. The Attorney General of that day was unable to take any action, if there was a breach of the prohibition, rather it was left to the individual citizens in the province to seek a remedy.

My concern however, Mr. Speaker, and I direct this seriously to the Attorney General is that this legislation won't work either, if it is truly your intention to restrain the consumption of tobacco in this province. If it is truly your intention to restrain the consumption, if it is truly your intention to keep people from being misled, with regard to the composition or toxicity of particular products, this kind of legislation is not going to bring about any change.

It's only a half-way measure, and the reason that it won't work is: that it too suffers from the same tragic defect as the ban suffered from. That's because it's a negative approach to the problem.

The only way that we will reduce or restrain the consumption of tobacco or liquor or whatever other substance we may feel is not in the best interests of the citizens to use, is to approach the matter positively, to go about it in a very positive way, to convince our citizens that they should refrain from, its use positively, by educational programmes in our schools, by insuring that the advantages of non-use are fully placed before the citizen, again by public advertisements that may be necessarily paid for by departments of this government.

[ Page 219 ]

Only in that positive way are we ever going to be able to change the habits of any of our citizens. By making for our young people the clearest demonstration that the non-use of hazardous products is the way in which they can best discharge their responsibilities, can best enjoy the bodies that they have.

This is the way in which we will bring about a reduction in consumption. And if I have one real concern about the remarks made by the Attorney General at the commencement of this debate it is that in the brief discussion of the regulations that he will be bringing forward to accompany this bill, he showed already that he was prepared to go less than the full way.

He's exempted certain products. He's going to have a problem defining those that are exempted. He's even saying that you may advertise even in the restricted way in some media, but not in others.

Now, Mr. Attorney General, I suggest to you very seriously and I think all the Members in the House are in accord with the basic intent of this legislation, but if you really intend to do what you say you intend, then there can be no half-way measures. You cannot exempt cigars. Just because there is perhaps not as much evidence of their toxicity as there is of some other products. You cannot do the same for pipe tobacco because perhaps there isn't as much evidence. Because what do you have if you are, able to realize to the fullest measure the direction in which you go, you would result in no one smoking cigarettes but people smoking cigars and pipes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look what it did to Benson.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well we wouldn't want anyone to suffer that state. I mean look what it did to John Turner.

But seriously, Mr. Speaker, we cannot go half-way in this. If there is a belief that by restricting advertising in this way that it can be helped, then make no exemptions with regard to any products. Indeed, consider extending this kind of legislation to other substances which are hazardous to health. But at the same time assure this assembly that your government has before it for consideration legislation which will approach the problem positively, that you and the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Education will together join in bringing before this House at the next session positive legislation, which will attack the very root of the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the debate on second reading.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the last point raised by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) with respect to cigars and pipe tobacco may I say in all seriousness that if the medical evidence is there the advertising restrictions will be applied to those products as fully as we intend to apply them now to cigarettes. And I'm quite prepared to listen to the advice of the Minister of Health, or any Members of this House, or any Members of the public who may want to submit hard evidence on that point. But we are attacking this because it is a health hazard and I do want hard evidence prior to action.

Now it has been said that a ban will not work. And that's perfectly true. But a ban would work if it was imposed by the federal government. And the Hon. Member for South Peace says that the pressure groups will be beating at my door. I'm not worried about those pressure groups, Mr. Member, but I would like all of the people of the Province of British Columbia to be a single pressure group to apply to Ottawa with all their force for a complete ban on cigarette advertising. It's a negative measure, as the Hon. Member says. of course it is, it can't begin to tackle the problem of the illness arising from tobacco. And therefore the government ought to think positively as the Hon. Member suggests and perhaps it's a job for the committee on education and social welfare to come up with those recommendations that will deal not only with this health problem but with the problem of alcoholism itself which is referred to in another bill. Second reading has been moved, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 220 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-42

NAYS-10

Bill No. 10 read a second time and ordered, to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker.

TOBACCO ADVERTISING RESTRAINT ACT REPEAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 9.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill No. 9 I repeat what I said in Bill No. 10 because this is companion legislation and I think the whole subject matter has been very well canvassed and I move second reading of Bill No. 9.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill No. 9 as the Attorney General has said, is basically the same as the debate on Bill No. 10. We certainly don't propose to obstruct and hold up this legislation. At the present time this side of the House is definitely against this bill, we'll vote against it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, when I start taking my instructions from the, Member from Oak Bay I'll have to sit in some other House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe up in the gallery.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe up in the gallery? (Laughter). However, Mr. Speaker, we feel that, if there were legislation brought into this House which would outline the so-called intentions of the government and would show to us in black and white what they intend to do, how they intend to enforce and how they intend to keep the ban on advertising, then we might consider repealing the legislation that is already on the books.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason and I'm not going to again go into all the ramifications of the bill and the reasons why — although I know that now I should because the Minister of Health Services is in the House and I had some advice for the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. He wasn't in the House. Maybe I should just repeat that portion of the speech. Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against this motion.

[ Page 221 ]

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to prolong this debate. I do think that many things have been said. However, I think that one might have an opportunity to think things over. I suspect that this House has been sort of wooed by Panatella pitch, but I would like to add to the debate that if, as I suspect, the Attorney General of this province and the government of this province most sincerely do recognize the dangers of smoking — if as I suspect, they would really sincerely want to bring pressure to bear on the federal government, to meet the commitments that they almost made to the people of Canada when they introduced this Bill C-10 and then reneged on it, then if this is the case, and I would think this is what the Attorney General had in mind, then I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this had been in his mind, he would have been in a far better position to call on the people of British Columbia to back up his stand and his government's stand. I would believe that the Premier of this province who was a social worker, and a very good social worker, would be very sincere in his desire to see that tobacco is not advertised in this province.

The Premier has seen, as I have, the havoc wrecked on a family where the father has emphysema, or heart disease and cannot work and is on welfare. I'm sure he has, as many of us have, stood at the bedside of patients who are dying with cancer of the lungs and seen the heart-break it would bring.

To go back to my point, and the fact that I'm sure he is sincere, and the Attorney General is sincere, I would say if it had been in the mind of the Attorney General to bring this pressure to bear, to call upon the people of British Columbia to rise up and go to Ottawa, he would have been in a far better position if he had this bill in this Legislature.

If this had been his thought and he had brought it to this Legislature, it would have been far more credible to have given it a try, once assuming office.

He has three provinces in Canada which are of the same political faith as himself. The Premier has said that these provinces will work together. Surely in this matter of banning tobacco advertising they would have been most willing to cooperate. He had the 10 health Ministers in Canada in favour of banning tobacco advertising and in favour of this legislation. He has the medical profession of Canada backing this legislation, he has no less than three international medical congresses backing this legislation and calling internationally for the banning of cigarette advertising for all the reasons mentioned.

He had, I believe, the wish of the people of the province to do this.

I just suggest in taking my place in this debate that if it had been the intention of the Attorney General, a sincere intention to make this legislation work to really appreciate the dangers of tobacco — tobacco kills, I don't know of anyone who had died or suffered ill effects from not using tobacco, I know many who have died and suffered from using it — if this had been his intention, Mr. Speaker, I say again he had everything at his command. He had the strongest case that any Minister has had in the world to ban tobacco advertising. I feel very regretful that he hasn't done it. If this had been his intention, the sincerity of his intention would have been questioned.

This side will not support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I call the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is whether Bill No. 9 be read now a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 222 ]

YEAS-41

Bill No. 9 read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today-

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to file an answer to the question standing in my name on the order paper. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I have a statement. Question No. 10 on the order paper answered by the Hon. Premier on October 20 indicated that no government vehicle has been allocated to me as Minister of Highways. That answer was essentially true, because it was based on information that I had at that time — the information which I had given the Premier. However, last night while in Vancouver I was informed that there is a government vehicle in Vancouver which had been allocated to the previous minister of Highways (Mr. Black) for his sole use and sole discretion. I am taking this opportunity of informing this House of the correction to the answer to question No. 10. The vehicle in Vancouver is at the present time still in the name of the Minister of Highways.

EON. MR. BENNETT: He didn't even drive a car. So, no car could be there for his disposal at any time. He didn't even drive a car. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the original answer to the question be withdrawn and a correct answer be put on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: This conversation apparently is out of order. All we can do is accept a statement made by a Minister correcting an answer. If the Hon. Members wish to withdraw the original answer that's something they can take up and we will consider at 8 o'clock.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I said it was assigned to the previous Minister for his use. I didn't say he drove it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that clears it up, Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It takes us a little while to find out some of these things. (Laughter). maybe there are things you never knew about. Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, order!

[ Page 223 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as you know I met this afternoon with the Prime Minister. Our talks lasted approximately 30 minutes and they were very amiable.

First, let me state clearly that every senior citizen in British Columbia over 65 and covered under the legislation before, the House will be receiving as soon as possible a guaranteed minimum monthly income of $200.

However, I am disappointed that there is a continuing disagreement over the interpretation of the Canada Assistance Plan. The differences between the federal government and our provincial government are still a matter of semantics but I will not let legal niceties interfere with getting financial assistance to our senior citizens. We are now in the midst of discussion with the federal government over sharing the costs of our guaranteed income programme. We feel the Canada Assistance Plan is the proper route for this cost-sharing programme, but the federal government does not agree.

Therefore, as suggested by federal officials, we will be going through the Social Assistance Act for cost sharing of our programme for the time being, and we expect to receive federal funds following this route.

We will continue our efforts to share the cost of our pension plan under what we think is the proper legislation, namely the Canada Assistance Plan. To facilitate the use of our present Social Assistance Act to implement our legislative programme of a guaranteed minimum income for our handicapped people, it will be necessary for this government to introduce amending legislation this session.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I request, Mr. Speaker, that copies of this statement be available to all Members at 8 o'clock?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister of Social Rehabilitation.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Social Rehabilitation): I wish to file answers to questions on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister files answers to questions. One other thing before we adjourn. There will be a picture taken in the assembly at 10 o'clock Thursday morning — that's not Wednesday morning — Thursday morning. And I hope every Member will be able to attend.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Premier indicate to the House the order of business this evening?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, we will return to Bill No. 2. And then on to Bill No. 11, and then Bill No. 3, and a question on 4. We have to consult with our legal advisers on whether or not to seek complete withdrawal or if amendments will do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill No. 13?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, as well, we hope.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.