[ Page 225 ]

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 2, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GIFT TAX ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you ready for Bill No. 2? Are you ready? All right. Is the Opposition ready for Bill No. 2? Are you ready? I like to give everybody time.

Hon. Members will recall the Legislature passed the Gift Tax Act at the last session, after the Government of Canada withdrew from this tax field. While very little revenue is anticipated from the gift tax it is necessary to protect the collection of the succession duties.

Most of the provinces will be entering into a collection agreement with the Government of Canada whereby Canada uniformly collects the gift tax. It is British Columbia's desire to also enter the collection agreement. However, I am advised by the Hon. John Turner, Minister of Finance for Canada, that our gift tax legislation, as it presently stands, does not meet the required uniformity necessary before Canada will act a collector.

This bill, therefore, amends the Gift Tax Act to meet the Canadian Minister of Finance's requirements as follows: gifts to all charities in Canada will be exempt from the gift tax. In the present Act only gifts to charities for use in British Columbia are exempted. We are Canadians and we agree with that.

Gifts made by companies will be gift tax exempt. In the present Act gifts by companies are subject to tax. We'd like to encourage companies to be philanthropic. The companies can give their money away in British Columbia.

Gifts to the Government of Canada will be exempt from tax. In the present Act they are subject to tax. We have no objections to people giving money to the Government of Canada. Anybody who wants to give money to any government is welcome to do it. We believe in governments receiving gifts from taxpayers or anyone else if it goes for the good of the citizens.

In addition, British Columbia is exempting tax gifts to hospitals and educational institutions.

Other minor wording amendments are included at the request of the administrator of the gift tax for the Government of Canada.

There is also an amendment to this Act on the order paper. This amendment will increase exemption allowed by the British Columbia Gift Tax Act by exempting gifts made by an individual to a non-profit organization for use by that organization for charitable purposes.

The present exemptions under the Act passed last spring are: gifts made at time of death, gifts to the Province of British Columbia, gifts to municipalities in British Columbia, gifts to charitable organizations for use in British Columbia at the absolute discretion of the organization, up to $10,000 per year to spouse or donor, up to $10,000 per year to other persons with a maximum of $2,000 per person tax free, up to $10,000 once in a life time to a child of the donor to be used in farming operations carried on by the child. We will continue all of those existing exemptions and widen the Act as I have already described.

The widening of the Act will include the exemptions and I'd be pleased to hear any other suggestions of the Members.

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

[ Page 226 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, in the great spirit of cooperation that has been prevalent on this side of the House since the opening of the session that we on this side of the House are going to accept this amendment.

We'd like to have no gift tax at all, but since the government doesn't see fit to do that, well, we're going to co-operate on this side of the House, as I said, to continue the spirit of co-operation that has been so prevalent since the beginning of this session.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the shortest and most difficult acts to follow that I've ever had. (Laughter). It's not only flip-flop but it's flip-flop, flip-flop. (Laughter).

Well, I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot more to this bill than just the second reading of it because it is a second endorsement by the New Democratic Party of one of the most difficult to interpret, poorly drafted and woolly conceived pieces of legislation that was ever introduced by the former government.

The government across the side will recall, when this was introduced, and it was during the dying days of the government in exile as the lady Member says. It was introduced during… We're in British Columbia — I don't think you're in exile. Hey? (Laughter) …introduced during the dying days of the 1972 session. And it was generally accepted by the then House, the Social Credit excepted of course, that the author of this particular piece of legislative misfortune was the then Minister of Health. I think to be kind to him that one could consider this was hardly off mark at his best. But yet the then government, Mr….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I'm being frank, my friend. Frank and fair, both. Yet the then government, with its now proven infinite capacity to follow its leader over any cliff blindly supported it. Save and except one Member who was sitting in the gallery today.

And I'd say that, although appreciating the validity of the criticisms of this piece of legislation, so did the New Democratic Party even though they fully appreciated that this came in as battering-ram legislation. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the gift tax came in, in this year of 1972 on a Friday and on the Monday the House Leader refused any kind of adjournment whatsoever and he rammed it through second reading that afternoon. I think that's a poor way to deal with any kind of legislation.

Before I leave that point I want to very much compliment this government in bringing in its legislation tout de suite so the Members and the interested members of the public have time to study and consider it well before debate. Because there's no question of a doubt the government has a responsibility to govern, but they've also got the responsibility to listen to the other point of view and hopefully benefit from some advice from those quarters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is giving me a great deal of concern about this piece of legislation we have here today, as I said at the outset, is the fact that the New Democratic Party did not see fit to sift and screen this gift tax of the Social Credit. They appreciated the imperfections in the bill yet they're coming in today and they are endorsing the form of the statute. I just think that this is something they should not be doing.

But I'd like to go back to that piece of legislation. It was 29 pages long. There were 68 changes in it from the time the bill was first presented and it was rammed through without proper study, without proper consultation and without amendments. And I very much doubt, Mr. Speaker, that if even two or three per cent of the Members ever read it and I also would say, without any question of a doubt, I doubt very much if any Member in the House ever understood it, any member whatsoever. And this point was never ever denied. Yet notwithstanding that fact, the government of the then day and the New Democratic Party backed it 100 per cent.

[ Page 227 ]

The argument was raised and you remember this, Mr. Member, being raised from the then government side, that this was revenue legislation and as such it had to be difficult to understand. Now, what a lulu of a premise that was. I'd say what a very sorry commentary upon the job of the legislator and what a sorry commentary on the parliamentary process and what a rotten way to treat the public. Enact a bill that a legislator does not understand, that Joe Q. Public doesn't understand and then tell them that it's got to be like that for their own good. Yet you have this government today endorsing this folly of the former government. I will finish, Mr. Minister of Finance, as you are now sitting…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Ce soir? Bonjour? I will finish with a suggestion to you which I indeed hope that is one which you will pay a great deal of attention to. But I'm not quite ready for that.

Now, I read…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Adresser l'Orateur, s'il vous plait.

MR. GARDOM: Merci, monsieur! (Laughter).

I read one section, Mr. Speaker, when the debate of this bill came up and I'd like to read it again. I'd like to read it again, and I would like any member in the House to house to hold up his hand after I've read and tell me that he can explain it to me. Because I can assure you I haven't the foggiest idea of what it means. And it says that — and you'll find it in section 11 - (b) (ii) of the Act which you are endorsing tonight, Mr. Speaker, the government is endorsing tonight. It says this: "before the making of the gift, neither the donor nor his spouse had made a gift the whole or any part of the value of which was, by virtue of this clause, not subject to tax under this Act…"

AN HON. MEMBER: We understand you very well.

MR. GARDOM: "… or was, by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 112 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), as it was before the first day of January, 1972 and after the twenty-second day of October, 1968, not subject to tax under Part IV of that Act as it was before the first day of January, 1972…" as it was the beginning now and ever shall be, Mr. Speaker.

"or by virtue of paragraph (ba) of subsection (4) of section 112 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), as it was before the twenty-second day of October, 1968, exempt from tax under Part IV of that Act as it was before the twenty-second day of October, 1968; and …". (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: Ain't that a lulu? Hey? (Laughter). Holy smokes! Now that's real gookly gobble!

AN HON. MEMBER: Take your seat and I'll explain it to you. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: Oh, you fell into that one once…

As the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre was illustrating this afternoon, it's got to be capable of being understood and being effectively enforced. But we don't have this here. And I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, when the Legislatures of a province or a country start to become rubber stamps and push out incomprehensible kind of stuff like this you find in

[ Page 228 ]

this particular statute, they may as well go ahead and leave their seats and go out and find a spot for posterity in the wax works across the street. Because they are not doing a public service in my view. Not one bit.

I think that they have abandoned their functions to some kind of self-designated oracle — an expert who doesn't have to test the face of practicality and public acceptance and certainly it is without public accountability.

Now, I say this, Mr. Speaker. If you happen to come in with a law, with a bill that is not clear and concise and certainly not capable of proper performance, forget it. Forget it. And that would be acting in the public interest and not against the public interest. The Liberal Party's position, Mr. Speaker, on gift tax and its twin throwback, succession duties, has been the same ever since I have been in this Legislature. We say that these taxes and these statutes are not necessary.

I'd like to go back a couple of years, a few years, to illustrate that point. First of all, in Canada we had estate taxes, not succession duties, but estate taxes. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we had gift taxes and we had a different form of income tax.

Now under the old Estate Tax Act, the federal Act that is, governments taxed estates and the federal government did all of the work, did all of the collections, it kept the books and so forth and so on, and the province received about 25 per cent, about a quarter of the revenue. And the system worked, it worked quite well. There wasn't any fuss and there wasn't any muss.

Then came along the B.C. Succession Duty Act of the former administration. And this, Mr. Speaker, in our view was just one more tax and another set of confusion to boggle the taxpayer. The federal statute dealt with estates but the B.C. statute was different than that, Mr. Speaker. It dealt with to whom the bequest went. And there was an awful lot of intertwining between the two.

And the B.C. Act was duplicating and it produced more complication and more bureaucracy and I'd say little if any real net revenue. And there are lots of delays and uncertainty in problems of interpretation and there was one case after another going to court on the problems of interpretation. The thing did not work well.

O.K., then at long last we see perhaps a federal ray of light, and the federal posture shifted and I think it was a good thing. And a new tax philosophy slowly came into being. And this followed an amazing amount of study. First of all, there was the Carter Commission which you will recall which considered income tax, death tax, and gift tax. Secondly, was the federal government white paper which rambled all over the lot, admittedly. Thirdly, it came before the taxation committee of the House of Commons, and then we had months of parliamentary debate in Ottawa. It resulted in one thing, it resulted in the new federal Income Tax Act, and as I said, a new tax philosophy for Canada.

This new tax philosophy for Canada has not yet had a good try. It has come in but it's not really and truly had a good try yet. And the new tax, it abolished death tax, and it introduced a new capital gains tax, new rates, and a brand new statute. And the performance of this statute is still today very, very much in embryo.

But you've got to remember this and this is the point, with every respect, I think the government is missing. The old federal gift tax and the old federal death tax have not gone up in smoke. The revenue-producing aspects of those statutes have not gone up in smoke, because they are included in the formulation of the new Income Tax Act. True, they may be a great deal less obvious. In fact they're not obvious at all. And they may be a great deal less identifiable but they are still there, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully we've got a far more equitable taxing system in Canada than we had before. But the federal Gift Tax Act and the federal Death Tax Act have not disappeared and they are still there. And the province gets its fair share, it gets its recognized share.

"No", says the Hon. Premier, "not the fair share". He's looking for more. Well, I wish him good luck in that. But it gets its share as do other

[ Page 229 ]

provinces in Canada of the federal income tax, which they do in the process of collection, and conceivably the provinces receive a cheque at some time for that.

So I say why go ahead and duplicate and why complicate? Because what you're doing by affirming, by condoning the actions taken by the former government, you're just going ahead and producing one more spaghetti plate of tax law which is going to end up in the lap of the B.C. taxpayer. And I say that you're perpetuating something that is unnecessary and completely antiquated. You're compounding the red tape and the confusion and the duplicity and the bureaucratic delays. Sure, there's no question of a doubt the estate planners and the inheritance accountants and the fiscal advisers and some of the lawyers will be happy as sailors at sea but I can assure you no one else will be. No one else.

And I say scrap it and go ahead and give this new federal Income Tax Act a try. I would suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Finance that there will be no actual money lost, no actual dollar lost by virtue of the fact that you will still be receiving your share of all the federal taxes including the capital gains tax. So why do we have to go ahead and have this independent tax whack.

Now, since there's not going to be any actual profit by retaining the Gift Tax Act and the Succession Duty Act what are you doing on the other side of the coin, and very much so. I think you're going to go ahead and stimulate the exodus of capital from the Province of B.C. I think you'll do that very much. And I don't think we should be doing anything to go ahead and persuade capital to fly over the Rockies east into Alberta. There is no question of a doubt about that.

What we need in British Columbia more than anything else I think coming from this government, which has certainly not come from it in the days since it has been in office, is an emphasis that we wish capital to remain in B.C. and come to B.C. I think this is one way to bring that about.

So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to avoid duplicity, to avoid administrative headaches, to cut out unnecessary departments instead of increasing them, and to suspend also an ever increasing war of paper with no forecast of true, true realizable return but rather a true loss, and to avoid the capital drain please don't go ahead and try to just improve the score by amendments. I say cancel the whole thing completely and I'd say repeal the Gift Tax Act and repeal the Succession Duty Act and give the Province of British Columbia a very good break which it should be having.

There is another concept which I think this statute is missing and certainly your amendments are missing — I like your amendments, no question about that. As far as they go. But I would think it would be far preferable to go ahead and abolish both of these statutes completely — and this is the family unit concept and you are doing some harm to this by not repealing these statutes as opposed to amending them.

Gifts, Mr. Speaker, between husbands and wives since October of 1968 have been tax-free in Canada. And husbands and wives were looked upon as family units. Each contributing, as they do in fact — certainly in the equitable sense — to the family wherewithall. O.K. But then the tax gatherer, he was told by the federal government that he had no place, no place in the family unit and I think this was a very good thing.

You have the situation where the husband could earn money, he could buy a house or a farm or an interest in a business, or develop it and so forth and so on. And then he was able to see that his wife, in consideration of love and affection or dawn to dusk services that she happened to perform, could receive an interest in one of these capital assets that I'm talking about. And there would be no gift tax whatsoever.

And that's the right kind of a thing because the majority of the husband and wives' homes in this province are in the names usually of each party and that is the result from husband and wife giving one between the other. And this has become an accepted modus operandi in this province, the giving between husband and wife without attracting any kind of tax. And you've got a $10,000 limitation which I am aware of. But that's as far as it goes. But you don't need it in there at all.

[ Page 230 ]

And the tax gatherer, very much, Mr. Speaker, since the lack of welcome that he had in the family unit in Canada and he left it four years ago and that was in October of 1968. That is until this year when the former government came in barreling with  this particular Act, the Gift Tax Act. As I said before, it was a retrograde step and an anachronistic step. And I'm using the word "anachronistic" advisedly for the Hon. Member for New Westminster (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and now Minister of Health. He said last year, in referring to succession duties, "I feel succession duties is an anachronistic type of law." And I agreed with him completely. And he wanted an estate tax to exempt the spouse. And the Member from Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), he spoke in the thing, too — he's not in his seat at the moment — he wanted to exempt common law spouses and I agree with that as well.

But the Member from New Westminster said this, "I can see no reason in the world why any government would look upon a spouse as a person who should pay tax on her husband's estate". And I agree with that philosophy. And he was correct when he stated that. Fine and dandy. We'll go ahead and extend exactly the same principle to gifting and have total exemptions between husbands and wives as opposed to a limited exemption that you brought in here.

Now, I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that it seems evident from the attitude of the Minister of Finance, from the government, that they're not yet quite directioned to throw out succession duties and gift taxes absolutely. But I think they are eventually going to come to that. And I think they'll come to that I hope before very long. Because they've got to remember one thing which has been illustrated by other Members in this House before. It's not the offshore-ites who are going to suffer because they can go to Liechtenstein, I suppose, or they can go to the Bahamas or what-have-you. But it is the middle income people who are making such a terrific contribution to the development of B.C. who would bear the blunt of the thing.

So what I'm asking this evening, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Finance — will he do this? Will he accept an amendment making gifts between spouses and succession duties between spouses tax free in the Province of B.C.? Because he should do that, and he should certainly go ahead and support the statements earlier enunciated by one of his own Members — two of his own Members for that matter.

Because I think what you are doing, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker, is socially unnecessary, equitably unnecessary and practically unnecessary. I think you can do the right thing, I think you should completely hoist this bill and completely hoist the provisions of the gift tax bill for all of this year. I'll tell you why.

The public of B.C. have not been treated squarely by this Legislature concerning this legislation. The posture of the former government was, at the very beginning, totally inflexible and then you know they brought in some very softening orders-in-council which were, and probably still are, completely ultra vires.

But you've inherited or, better stated, you have had left at your doorstep the things that they've produced here. Then they went ahead to the public and they promised to repeal. Now you are doing things in your own way to try and tidy it up a bit.

I congratulate you for that, but you've not gone far enough. You've gone too far in other areas but you haven't gone far enough for this one. (Laughter).

But the public have been pulled up and down and left and right and down and centre like a piece of toffee, Mr. Speaker, and there has never been such vacillating, contradictory, governmental postures foisted upon B.C. in one year than we've had in this statute.

The Social Credit bring it in. The New Democratic Party say it is a rotten bill, it's badly drawn and so forth and so on but they vote for it. The Social Credit go ahead and they bring in a bunch of ultra vires orders-in-council, then they say they're going to repeal it. Then the New Democratic Party inherits a bad bill with ultra vires orders-in-council type of stuff. They bring in some of their own amendments saying they're going to improve but what they should be doing is washing the whole thing completely down the line.

[ Page 231 ]

I think they should be saying this, Mr. Speaker: that the Act will not be effective in 1972. Go ahead and look at it if you want to. Say it is not effective. This statute, the Gift Tax Act, is not effective in B.C. for 1972.

Now you say you can only do so much in 35 days and I agree with that. O.K. Go ahead and look at the thing from now until the next session. If you can't be persuaded to accept the philosophy that you're duplicating, that you're encouraging the outflow of capital, at least come in with some legislation that can be understood and is not patchwork quilt kind of stuff, and some legislation of your own making. Because you've inherited a bad job here and you're just trying to cure and correct, and it won't work.

I hope this talk is popularly received too. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, thank you. I'm not sure if I can be as articulate as the Hon. lawyer from Vancouver but I will try and be consistent.

We are opposed to the gift tax bill. I cannot expect, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Party and this kind of philosophy can be acceptable to the socialist party but I will try with fairness, Mr. Minister, to at least outline our position whether you agree with it or not. I don't think that is the most important thing.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, we accept the fact that if we have succession duties then of course we must of need have a gift tax. Therefore, in a logical way, if we are opposed to succession duties as we are, we must inevitably be opposed to the gift tax.

I would say in passing that within the terms of the gift tax we certainly like the amendments and I would like to pay tribute to Mayor Elford of Oak Bay who contacted the Premier and brought about improvements.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the remark, Mr. Speaker, of the Premier's. I would say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that just a few days before that, I tried to do what Mayor Elford tried to do but I wasn't so lucky.

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: No. no. Let's get this on the record.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not so pretty.

MR. WALLACE: No, no. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I must qualify that remark. I spoke to one of the members of the Premier's department in the Ministry of Finance. Unlike Mayor Elford I hadn't the good sense to go right to the top. But I did discuss this with one of the Minister's staff and he interpreted the law for me and said that there was no way that things could be changed. I think that what has since happened is good.

Anyway to get back to the principle. We believe, speaking to the principle of this bill, that succession duties, and really, if I may repeat, we're really talking about the two things because you can't talk realistically about one without talking about the other, that succession duties in our present society, as the tax structure exists, is an unfair form of tax.

We believe that with income tax following the trend it does, and with the particular emphasis publicly stated by the Liberal federal Party very recently, that the segment of society that undoubtedly must cover the costs of increased social programmes will be the middle income group. This has been stated publicly and in fact the federal Liberals have warned the middle income group to be ready for the slug they are about to receive.

We believe that since society thrives on incentives and since individuals thrive on incentives, that if an individual by his own effort and hard work and being a law-abiding citizen does build an estate that he's being taxed all along the line. He has spent more money and therefore he has paid

[ Page 232 ]

more income tax. He is now subject to capital gains tax if he invests wisely.

I see the Attorney General smiling. I didn't expect you to accept this, Alex.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Want us to pass the hat for all your millionaires?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is the point where I think the socialists and the Conservatives differ. I think, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill, this very clearly points out the difference in philosophy between the socialists and the Conservative Party. That it is not the millionaires that we are thinking about. We are thinking about anyone who by incentive and hard work contributes to society, and in the process, perhaps by not having a 40-hour week and by not having many of the fringe benefits of other people, by his own efforts and initiative builds an estate which is, I say, taxed all along the way.

We feel that when that person dies, having put much of his effort into his work in order to look after his wife and family and any other relatives that he might have, that it is unfair at that stage in the game to tax him once again after he is in the grave.

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I might be permitted to say that I'm repeating comments that I made in the debate when the former government was in power when I said that another philosophy of the Conservative Party was the need for investment capital in British Columbia. This is all on the record in Hansard and I repeat that argument tonight.

It is not only that incentives should not be blunted at every turn. It is also to the benefit of all of the citizens of British Columbia that we should encourage investment of capital in this province. And if we have this advantage compared to many of the other provinces who have instituted succession duty and gift tax then I think there would be a diversion of capital from the east to the west. We're always saying, Mr. Speaker, that our capacity to develop industry and business is limited because so much capital seems to find its way to eastern Canada.

I should also say that I'm very interested to know in voting on this bill, Mr. Speaker, what will be the attitude of the Social Credit Party, where the leader of that party poured scorn on me at great length and also predicted that in Oak Bay at the next election I would go down the drain as a fat cat. I would like to repeat that I'm back.

In the election campaign, as we've seen in this House, the Social Credit Party did another 180 degree turn and promised, Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign to repeal succession duties and the gift tax. I will certainly be fascinated tonight to see how the Social Credit Party votes on this vote. Because if they can go through the gyrations they've done in the last few months and then go back another 180 degrees I think it will be indicative to the public of this province that they are indeed not only in doubt about their leader but absolutely lost on policy.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: You will see our leader. Don't get upset about that. I'm not upset, so you shouldn't get upset.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm the House Leader. Make it very plain. Don't get excited.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: It's interesting how these other parties who don't know who their leader is, they assume that the other parties are the same. We are quite clear about who our leader is. Our leader is Derril Warren.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think I may make comments on the amendments. While unfortunately the major issue in this bill we have to oppose, the amendments,

[ Page 233 ]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment in passing, I like very much to encourage what we, as Conservatives, refer frequently to as the private sector. When Kiwanis and Rotary and many organizations provide benefits to society and very often to a very deserving segment of society in terms of low-cost housing I think this is the kind of incentive and the kind of interest which should at all times be encouraged when there is such a trend nationally and internationally to ask governments to do for individuals what they can often do for themselves. So that while we unmistakably oppose this bill, the intent behind the amendments very much meets our approval.

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

MR. P.L. MCGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, you know the Premier has turned out to be an extremely good listener and I think the whole atmosphere of the House has changed since he has taken over the government.

And I want to make an appeal to him and to all the Members of the House regarding what we in the Liberal Party believe has been a retrograde step in taxation across the country. It doesn't just now involve the Province of British Columbia. It really involves all the provinces of Canada.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No, just a moment, Mr. Member. Because when these succession duties were originally introduced into the House our Liberal Party opposed them predicting at that time that the step would lead us right into the tax jungles across Canada. We weren't opposed, Mr. Speaker, at that time and we still are not opposed to taxation, and very generous taxation, against the wealthy people of the nation.

But this has not been what has happened as a result, first of all, of the introduction of the succession duty, and secondly, the introduction of gift taxes. Right across the country and the Premier, if he checks into it, Mr. Speaker, will discover that right across the country gift taxes raise very, very little revenue.

And he will also discover, Mr. Speaker, if he checks into it, that while succession duties raise more revenue they do not raise a significant amount as far as the Province of British Columbia is concerned. It's about 30 million dollars a year. (Laughter). But just a minute, just a minute, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on a bit because…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No, no, Mr. Speaker. Just hang on a minute. That revenue that came through succession duties was revenue that was coming in lieu of estate taxes which at one time were levied by the federal government. And had there been no change from the old days of estate taxes, and had we only moved in British Columbia or had we encouraged the federal government to move to close the loopholes in the estate taxes, we would have got exactly the same amount of revenue transferred from the federal government.

What's wrong with the present Gift Tax Act is that it levies double taxation because the federal government again has done the necessary job of taxing the wealthy by bringing in the capital gains tax. And the provinces of Canada and British Columbia should work in concert in my view — and the Premier and the Minister of Finance of this province should be the man to lead all of this — to levy one single tax against the wealthy people of this country and to have a share of that come to the provinces. What we've done is to descend into parochialism and bureaucracy and meanness.

Mr. Speaker, the House Leader of the Conservative Party was as guilty as any Member on the Social Credit benches for being a party to all of that. Because when the amendments to the Succession Duty Act came up in the 1970 session, where for the first time in the history of the British Commonwealth we began taxing charities, he voted for the government and all he cared about during that debate was that art works be given free so that they wouldn't

[ Page 234 ]

leave the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I'm talking about the present Member for Oak Bay, a model of inconsistency on this particular problem.

But, Mr. Speaker, what we had over past years is bureaucracy, pettiness, meanness, taxing of charities, a reduction in the amount of money being given to hospitals and other good works, not just by the wealthy of British Columbia but by average people. The Premier knows, as one example, that the amount of money raised in the Miles for Millions walk this year was a third of what it was three years ago, and that a question was raised as to whether the people who received the money for the Miles for Millions walk would have to pay a tax to the Province of British Columbia because the money was intended for starving people on another continent.

This is the kind of thing that comes, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance begins getting his advice, not from the people, but from the tax bureaucrats of his own department.

We would appeal to him to look at this whole question and recognize that one substantial tax on the wealthy applied equally all across the country is the way to produce results. If we continue to have one province trying to gain a little bit of advantage over another province by adjusting the taxes here or adjusting the taxes there, we are going to find capital shifting across the country in terms of all these petty little changes. Every tax department in each province across Canada will be chasing each other around looking for loopholes, advising the Minister to introduce dozens and dozens of amendments and what we will wind up doing really is not penalize the wealthy of the country but penalize the middle income group and indirectly penalize all those organizations that benefit from generosity of those people.

We have said this so many times in the House, Mr. Speaker. It has fallen on deaf ears. But I hope with a new government and a Premier, at least they will consider the things we have to say because I don't believe over all these years that we have been talking nonsense to the House or to the public of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm a little bit puzzled to begin with. I can't understand why you are all fighting each other over there. You are bitter about this person voting that way or that person voting this way or this person reversing position. I really just feel it's one of those rare times when the division between the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit and the Liberals and the Conservatives is evident. British Columbia is not another Liberia. It will not be a tax haven and that's clear, and we mean that distinctly.

We want to be fair and the suggestions made by the mayor were welcome. I appreciate the remarks of the Member for Oak Bay. I listened very closely when I sat on that side of the House about the private sector being taxed and I agreed with you. But like so many situations we were faced with under the former administration we had to make decisions on all blacks and all whites and no grays. You know that.

Now we are trying to correct it in terms of our philosophy. That's why the amendments are here. In terms of the tax jungle, my friend from Point Grey, if it's wooly-headed, I got it from the federal minister. He's a Liberal and you're calling him wooly-headed right in the middle of an election campaign.

Interjection by an Hon. Member. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know if that's a compliment or an insult. (Laughter). I appreciate the point made. Let the people decide. I'll tell you something. They did decide. One of the issues that developed in the

[ Page 235 ]

last provincial campaign was the gift tax and the succession duty tax.

The Kelowna Charter was an issue. It was announced before the election campaign began. It was a reversal of policies and speeches. Would you like me to quote from some of those statements? In the best tradition of North American populism we have the introduction by the Member from South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) railing against the rich. Good heady stuff. But when the campaign fund sources out there said, "Hey, baby, we don't like your Succession Duty and Gift Tax Act. You're heading for a heavy time in election campaign. Come out with the Kelowna Charter." And that's what he did. It was the Kelowna garter. It was trying to hold this government up and it was a complete reversal of policy.

We sat over there and we agreed with the amendments. I went through the campaign and I attacked the Kelowna Charter even while there was a wave of misinformation over hot-line shows about this gift tax. I attacked the Kelowna Charter every speech I made, everywhere I went in this province. The poor candidate suffered with it. I went through the recital of what the Gift Tax Act was all about and I want to tell you something. They're not accountants, lawyers, tax adjusters or anything else. They are very ordinary people out there and when I told them there was a $10,000 a year exemption per year between husband and wife they understood what I was talking about. Most of the people who live in this province would dearly love to earn $10,000 a year, not just receive a gift of $10,000 a year.

The Member says it could have been this way. What's the use of arguments? Could have, would have, should have. If and maybe. The fact is that we're faced with a federal bill and we're conforming to the federal bill.

Who was the tax jungle created by? The federal Liberals. Well, I want to tell you this. We are going to get our best share while we fight in that jungle on behalf of the people of British Columbia. We're not opting out of the jungle.

You know, I really get kind of amused when I hear that appeal. You have a responsibility to make the appeal for the waterfront properties that you represent. You have a responsibility.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And that's it.

MR. GARDOM: Don't compound it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And I'll tell you this. I'll take the risk of losing West Vancouver and Point Grey any day on this issue all over British Columbia.

I know that the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is a very humorous, loveable fellow. There is no way that he would really believe that rich people will leave this Province of British Columbia because of taxation. Because that would mean that he believes that some people who are rich would be so irresponsible that after having made their fortune in British Columbia they'd take it out of British Columbia rather than give back a little bit of what they made out of this province. There won't be any Cadillac exodus from British Columbia.

But I want to say this. If one rich man leaves because of this law or because of succession duty then I say let him go. And good riddance! We'd be far better off without him rather than having someone living around here who's trying to escape their social and financial responsibility to the people of British Columbia.

Private capital will not flee this province. I believe the wealthy who have become wealthy in this beautiful province will meet their responsibilities, will stay in this province and will give money to charitable institutions. I agree that the former government was wrong in that regard. I believe in incentives in giving. And that's why these amendments are here — to give as much incentive as possible to people to give. And I don't believe charity should be confined to home. It's good that it begins at home. But if somebody wants to give money outside to a religious mission

[ Page 236 ]

they will be tax free. Good works throughout the world should be a good thing and welcomed by this government. And we won't tax them.

We're happy that we have some people wealthy enough to give that kind of money. We're not against that. And when I received the call from the Mayor of Oak Bay, it was a darned good suggestion which I had overlooked. Not my staff — I had overlooked it. Although I have feelings about the role of private charity in this regard, they have an excellent role and I encourage the service clubs to contribute to the kind of work they are doing.

The notes that I've made are a little bit jumbled as I followed the jumbled arguments. We don't think we get our fair share. And to say that the federal government is going to have this new experiment with capital gains — how long, how long we have waited in this country for some capital gains. And the capital gains tax that we have is so watered-down compared to what the Carter Commission wanted. If we would only go as far as the Americans have gone in capital gains I'd give some sympathy to that argument. But the capital gains tax in this country is only a beginning and I don't want this to escape.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, all the money — that's right. That's right. The buccaneer developers of the early days of this country, all the money they never paid in capital gains, including such property-stricken companies as the C.P.R., you know, and all the people that were involved in that particular development in this country.

When you say that $30 million isn't enough — I was trying to get another $30 million today. I only got part of it. But I'll tell you where this money is earmarked. Thirty million dollars may not be very much to you but $30 million worth of $200 a month guaranteed to the senior citizens of British Columbia goes one heck of a long way.

Now, as I said at the beginning, this is one of the few times that we can separate on the basis of philosophy. You have every right to your philosophy as I have a right to mine.

I don't agree with yours. And you don't agree with mine. The solution is not to hang the members who got elected, Madame Member. The solution is to go to the people of the province and say exactly where you are on issues. This was a major issue in the campaign. We made it very, very clear where we stood. There was no Kelowna Charter, there was no turn-around or anything else. We say the rich are welcome, the capital we want it to stay, but it must pay its fair share. That's what we're doing tonight and those who don't want to support us on that, please don't. Put your name on the book and I'll go out and tell the people what we did and you go and tell them what you did.

Mr. Speaker I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 2 be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-45

[ Page 237 ]

NAYS-7

Bill No. 2 read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 11, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GOVERNMENT LIQUOR ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill No. 11 which is called An Act to Amend the Government Liquor Act but which takes us back in effect to square one where we were before in 1971, with one minor exception. Now, in going back I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that we recognized the creeping plague of alcoholism in our society. Leaving behind the debris of broken lives and families and staggering social costs. And we believe that the glamorization of alcohol in any of its forms is an insidious social evil.

Yet once again, and this harkens back to the previous debate, we're faced with the facts that the previous legislation was unworkable. We were not able to stop, under the laws, magazines from outside such as the one I'm holding in my hand which displayed liquor advertising. On the other hand, a small British Columbia publication in one of the small places of B.C. was prohibited from carrying any liquor advertising.

So we propose very simply in this legislation that liquor advertising shall, as it has been heretofore, be confined to newspapers or periodicals and that it be subject to the control of the Liquor Control Board so that there will be no undue glamorization in these ads.

But neither will there be discrimination between British Columbia publications and those from outside. Because that kind of a law that permits so far as the ordinary citizen is concerned, a liquor ad here and not a liquor ad in some other publication looks like a very uncertain law and is not a law that can command respect.

And so, with the sole exception that we are eliminating in going back to square one — the old disclaimer that "This advertisement is not published or displayed by the Liquor Control Board of British Columbia", we are going back at this time to where we were before.

But let me add that this bill does not begin to tackle the problem of alcoholism that I was talking about. We make no pretense that it does. And as was said in the case of the tobacco legislation that we were discussing earlier, it seems to us that we need a lot more input, as the modern word is, contribution from this House to committees of this House from the people of the province as to how we can best cope with what I said was a creeping epidemic of alcoholism with all its attendant evils.

So the major social problem remains but in this legislation we propose something workable and something fair and I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, this abolishing of regulations with regard to the advertising of liquor is on about the same basis, Mr. Speaker, as the abolishing of the ban on tobacco advertising only it's worse. And I say it's worse, Mr. Speaker, because there's no companion legislation to even bring in the regulations. They're not saying in this one that they are going to meet with the pressure groups and find out what can be advertised and what can't be advertised. They are going to abolish it completely. Another step backward.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the government on this bill is just merely just giving lip service to the fact when they say that they realize alcoholism is a growing plague on the people, to realize that alcoholism costs a lot to cure. And yet they are not even going to bring in any regulations

[ Page 238 ]

whatsoever. They're going to allow liquor to be advertised again. We are going back to where we were prior to 1971. The Hon. Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, stood in the House this afternoon while talking about the banning of tobacco ads, telling about how he realized what a bad thing it was and all the time standing in the House with cigars in his coat pocket. Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Attorney General have a bottle of Haig and Haig in his back pocket tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, ginger ale.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why are the ads on liquor going to be confined to the newspapers, Mr. Speaker? I would like the Attorney General to suggest why the ads are going to be confined to the newspapers. What about Guide Magazine? Or is that considered a newspaper, Mr. Attorney General?

The Attorney General just stood in this House, Mr. Speaker, and said that the liquor advertising was going to be confined to the newspapers. Now did the newspapers make some kind of a deal with the Attorney General. This is the thing that really bothers me. What kind of a deal have the newspapers made with the Attorney General if they're the only ones in the province that are going…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am listening to what the Attorney General said. And I take his interpretation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Point of order, please. And the point of order is, and I don't know whether my friend is being jocular about it or not, but he is suggesting that there is some kind of a deal behind this legislation. I don't think that he should make that suggestion and I completely deny that there is some kind of deal behind this legislation. I don't think that he should make that suggestion and I completely deny that there is any deal whatsoever. I think if he is making it seriously he really should withdraw it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker, but I was merely asking the Attorney General why just newspapers? I am listening to the Attorney General, he stated right here in this House that it was going to be confined to newspapers.

Mr. Speaker, we're not doing any flip-flop on this. We're against the promotion of alcoholism, we're against the advertising of alcohol. We're not against people having a drink, we're not against people having the right to drink, but we're against pushing it and this is what this legislation — when you pass this bill this is what you're going to allow to be done. You are going to allow the liquor companies to push their products again.

The Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, in their election campaign in 1971 in the Province of Alberta said to the radios and TV's in the Province of Alberta, "Elect us and we'll let you advertise liquor on the radio and the television."

To this date there is no liquor advertising on any radio station or any television station in the Province of Alberta. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why? Because once the Conservatives were elected in the Province of Alberta and took the realistic view of some of the problems that were being created by alcoholism they took a second look. And I'm asking you to take a second look tonight to realize what a backward step you're taking.

We're not going to wiffle-waffle on this. We're against it and this side of the House will vote against this backward step.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Not all of this side agreed the last time this was debated in the House. There wasn't unanimity on the side of the Opposition — the New Democratic Party side in any event. And at that time many of us felt that this particular law, or this particular

[ Page 239 ]

regulation at that time, or the amendment to the Liquor Act at that time would do exactly what it has done. It would bomb out and, Mr. Speaker, it has.

Now the fact that the Member across the way indicates that it's worse than the cigarette ads and worse than this and worse than that, and he wonders why there isn't companion legislation — it was already there. It was already in the Act and all of the charges that you made against the Attorney General were in the original Act. And that's why I feel that it was quite unfair that these charges were made.

Now, Mr. Speaker, going on from that, there were no deals made. The fact of the matter is we saw two pieces of legislation that had made a laughing-stock out of the government of the Province of British Columbia and we felt that there was no reason why the government of British Columbia should continue to be a laughing-stock of this province. We felt that we would bring in legislation to at least place us in a position where we could take a proper look at the whole question.

Let's just think about alcoholism and the promotion of alcoholism that you are talking about. If you wish to call it alcoholism, or whatever you like to call it, we all know what I'm talking about — and 1952. In 1952 there was planned a detox centre that still hasn't taken shape in Vancouver. There is nothing in this province towards going after the real root cause that's the problem in this province.

We have to get to grips with the sickness. As far as I am concerned, as I pointed out in 1971 during the debate of this issue, at least advertising has this going for us: it can promote the drink of moderation as opposed to the drink of despair. As far as I am concerned, this is just placing us in a position where we can be viewed by the public as people in a Legislature that's giving some thought to legislation. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to defeat alcoholism we have to work.

We want to teach moderation and that moderation can be taught in our advertising and in our schools and in our health care. But to be standing up in this House and defending a piece of legislation that was laughed all over the country as far as I am concerned just…

MR. PHILLIPS: Ginter didn't laugh at it.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Ginter was one of your boys. I don't care what Ginter did. I don't care what Ginter did, Mr. Speaker. As far as we are concerned we feel that we must get back to a little bit of reality in B.C. Thank heavens we have.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a realistic step, I think, and I'm very pleased to hear the remarks this evening of the Hon. Minister of Health Services with respect to the main problem.

But I agree that British Columbia was made a laughing-stock by this band-aid legislation of not too long ago. Most of the arguments presented this afternoon with respect to tobacco advertising I think apply with equal force this evening. The Progressive Conservative Party in this House will support this Bill No. 11.

I feel compelled to say as one who uses the British Columbia Ferries as often as anyone else moving back and forth between Vancouver Island and the mainland that I do, as an individual citizen, look forward to the day when I can walk up to the news-stand and have something better than the choice between the National Enquire, Beautiful British Columbia or Captain Marvel comics.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Well, again I appreciate the attempts of the previous administration at controlling these forces of addiction and here we are talking about alcohol. But I think we've got to be honest as

[ Page 240 ]

adults. A lot of us are caught up in various addictive things and this whole thing I think is really a people thing, a people problem, a dehumanize thing. I think it must be very clear that this party and certainly, as a Member in this House, I am greatly concerned about the alarming dependency people have on various chemical and other forms of addiction. Maybe this is a kind of isolation.

I think it must be very clear we have to do something about it. I haven't seen in British Columbia, in my lifetime, much being done. There are ad hoc, there are garden-variety attempts to treat the alcoholics but really it's not very convincing. There are very, very few people in this province who have really taken the proper clinical training. This definitely is available in parts of North America to look at this. I often wonder if maybe there could be some money, certainly some of the many millions of the dollars that we make in taxing people that use alcohol, used to help bring these people back to some sense of fulfillment.

I found that on the west coast of Vancouver Island where there is really very little advertising and certainly no television or radio and very few people even bought Time magazine which obviously is advertising alcohol — T.V. Guide of course was totally useless — that these people certainly had lots to drink, that they spent a lot of money at this. These people, both physically and geographically were very isolated, but often were able to relate to themselves very well.

The word "Ginter" came up. "Ginter Ale" really bothers me, Members. It's the type of advertising which I think is very misleading — that little kids think it's smart to drink a soft drink out of a beer bottle. I think this kind of identification, which is the result of this previous legislation that we are trying to repeal, is not at all helpful.

I really hope that we can go to the people of the province that are working in the addictions — I hope that there will be a House committee, maybe it will be with the education and social welfare — and find out from the people who have worked and spent a lot of time in the churches, in the halfway houses, in the various other lobbies that can help us come up with a meaningful way of controlling the onslaught of this addiction and many others.

I want people to be fulfilled. I want people to be able to get in touch with themselves. I think it's very unfair that we do discriminate against publishers and magazine people in British Columbia because we have to fly this kind of copy in from other parts of the country.

I really hope that on one of the disclaimers on alcohol ads we will say that it would be harmful to drive if we are going to drink.

I rise in support of this bill. I rise in encouraging all of the Members of the House to seriously look at educating people as to the effects of addiction, looking into family life education in the schools and to any other group that will give us an ear. Mr. Speaker, I support the repeal of this bill.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I see we've just had with us in the galleries, the former Deputy Speaker and I think it would be a nice thing if he was acknowledged by the House. I also see, Mr. Speaker, in the galleries, the former secretary to the Speaker of the House and I would certainly like to pay her welcome and thank her for her courtesy to all Members over the years.

This is rather a jolly time to discuss this particular amendment, Mr. Speaker. As the Attorney General said, it is a restorative amendment to something that was before 1971 and, you know, that the statute then really wasn't too bad a statute. I don't know what year it came in or the government that was responsible for its introduction. But it did not permit liquor advertising on billboards and that's still the law of British Columbia and I say thank goodness for that. We certainly hope that that continues and that liquor advertising does not find its place in the billboards of this province.

[ Page 241 ]

We are definitely going to go ahead and support this bill because the amendment that was introduced by the former administration, as the other speakers have stated so clearly a few moments ago, was absolutely incapable of any kind of fair enforcement. I think the majority of the Members of the House wish that the measure would work but it did not work so we have to go ahead and stop it.

However, I would suggest to the Hon. Attorney General when he is looking at his new amendment when it passes which it obviously will do, that he give some thought to what kind of an effective public message that he could perhaps come up with in each liquor advertisement that is published in the Province of British Columbia. For example something along the line of, "Don't Drink and Drive" or set forth the impairment levels or set out the penalties for drinking and driving.

Secondly, I think it would be a very good thing — without getting into the problems which he indicated to the House were going to be considered by the government, the problems of alcoholism — I think that we should be encouraging the public to reduce pollution by having a refund for liquor bottles and not just beer bottles and pop bottles, as is the case now. I think it wouldn't be a bad thing either, Mr. Speaker, to encourage the bottlers of these various products to furnish something that has a good second use. Perhaps they could have bottles that could be used as drinking glasses or water pitchers or vases or lamps or cookie jars, you name it. But something of some kind of use and value so that there would be a little better way to try to have an incentive to keep these things off the sides of the roads and off the fields and forests. I just want…

HON. MR. HALL: What about the cork?

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon? The cork? Well you might need it to float before you're through. Before your legislative tenure is over you might need a few of those to keep above the water.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I think he's losing weight since he's taken office, to tell you the truth. He's looking very svelte and enjoying his new position and smiles a great deal more than he used to in Opposition. It's a nice thing to see.

Before I sit down, I really and truly…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon? "He's doing a good job"? Do you want me to relay that to him? He says you're doing a good job. Don't you fellows speak? (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. You can't help a few interjections from across the floor at times, Mr. Speaker, and I can recognize the problems that you're suffering under tonight, indeed.

But, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: I hope you're going to sit down soon. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: I would very much suggest to the Hon. Attorney General that he has got to remember two figures here, and only two figures, and he's a man of interest in figures. That is this: over $80 million has been the net profit from alcohol in the Province of B.C. and $300,000 was put forth, set aside for alcoholic rehabilitation. That is a rotten track record and I hope you improve that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

[ Page 242 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make one comment first about another comment that was made by the Hon. Member for Dewdney, which relates to education. I think we all agree that we must have a vigorous educational process going with regard to the uses and abuses of alcohol.

I wonder why we should be wasting our money in the first instance with educational programmes against the abuse of alcohol and at the same time still allowing advertising of the use of alcohol. Because we all understand, I hope we understand at least, in this day and age that advertising is about the most powerful educational tool we have in our society. Why use it for the abuses or uses of alcohol? It seems to me that there is something hypocritical about this whole question. Do we or don't we believe in abusing alcohol?

I think we are falling into a trap here, once again, the same as I mentioned with regard to the uses of the advertising of tobacco, cigarettes in particular. We are taking the easy way out, we're falling in line because it is easier. I wondered why we never lead in British Columbia, which is what in my opinion we were trying to do with this legislation. Let's lead for once. Maybe even make a mistake if we lead — but, let's lead.

No one can disagree, Mr. Speaker, with the need for treatment facilities in this province for the abuses of alcohol and the abuses of alcohol are well documented in many of our major cities particularly. So, we need treatment facilities, and we must have them. And I'd be the first person, Mr. Speaker, to vote in favour of all kinds of treatment facilities. I'd even agree, Mr. Speaker, and I think I can do this in a fair amount of unanimity by saying that I believe that the application of this law perhaps was clumsy on occasion in the past.

Nevertheless, it was a difficult law and one that needs to be applied I think. It must not be thrown out.

Also I'd like to bring up the question of fairness. Isn't there something unfair to allowing booze ads in print — I won't say newspapers, but print — yet ruling them off the airways? Are we saying for instance that the electronic media is more effective than the printed media? If we are, I wonder what the print media has to say about that? Or are we in fact opening the door, this first tiny step, to full-scale advertising in all of the media. Is that the intent, Mr. Speaker, of this legislation? If it is, it is a gross mistake.

If it is in fact the first step toward an expansion of booze advertising rather than a restriction of it, that would be a backward step.

I wonder if in fact we were made a laughing-stock because of this legislation? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker. Probably the only place in which we were made a laughing-stock, was among the various people who perhaps had vested interests. The newspaper associations perhaps.

Everybody seemed to be in favour of this legislation at one time in this House. But, when the weekly newspaper association said "Jump", the Members seemed to say "How high?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Not everybody!

MR. McCLELLAND: Almost everybody, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the headlines in the Vancouver Sun would seem to indicate that that's the case these days. But they say the honeymoon is soon over.

Mr. Speaker, it would be a backward step for us to knock out this legislation along with the tobacco advertising legislation. We haven't been made a laughing-stock. We've led in this legislation in areas which major governments have not been able to take the lead and haven't had the nerve to take the lead. Let British Columbia continue in the lead.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome another former Member. We seem to be full of former Members today. He is the former Member

[ Page 243 ]

for Richmond, Mr. Ernie LeCours — he's in the gallery and I'd like you to make him welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L.NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of this bill.

I can't even read my own notes here, which if any one could see them I think they could sympathize with me. But, Mr. Speaker, I think that there has been a great deal of hypocrisy in the past and this has led to the introduction of very hypocritical legislation which tried to sweep the real problems under the carpet. Here we're talking about whether or not advertising should occur in newspapers, whereas the previous administration has allowed the proliferation of larger beer parlours — beer parlours, which I say are force-feeding people like cattle. Force-feeding them.

I'm against large beer parlours with 4,000 sq. foot areas, where they are force-feeding people. I like a nice cozy pub and thank goodness we have a few of them in the Kootenay area. Perhaps we're 10 years behind the times and that's one place I'd like to be behind the time.

I have seen periodicals and I have seen government advertising on Spokane television, in conjunction with advertising from international breweries and other liquor and also tobacco interests and I don't think it's been a laughing-stock, Mr. Speaker. It has been a matter of great anger. There are many people who see money being squandered on advertising to American media. An absolute mockery to the type of methods which were brought to bear on a Victoria newspaper that did the same type of thing.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking in favour of this motion. Thank you.

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

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, one of the complaints that the younger generation have of our generation, Mr. Speaker, is our hypocrisy. The fact that we say one thing and that we do another.

We've heard a lot of statements from the former government about how much money was spent on education to stop people from drinking. We also heard about their decision to stop the advertising of alcohol because alcohol was bad. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the former government were the sole pushers of alcohol in this province. They had a virtual monopoly on it. If they really did believe that alcohol was bad for people it wasn't necessary to stop advertising it, they simply had to stop selling it.

I rise in support of this bill. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief.

I just want to make reference to the fact that in British Columbia we have the highest number of alcoholics per capita in Canada. We have a great deal…we've had a great deal of advertising. From the advertising comes sales, from the sales comes a lot of money which seems to be pushed into sport, by liquor companies.

That may be okay, but I'd like to see the liquor companies put far more money into the business of education of prevention of alcoholism. I think if we're going back to square one in the legislation then the liquor companies should realize that they would have an opportunity over the next several months to perhaps change the approach to the sale of liquor and that if they must sell it they must also advertise the abuses and problems that follow.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I find it rather interesting to hear some of

[ Page 244 ]

the pious talk from the Members of the former government, addressing themselves to the problems of alcoholism.

I think that one of the things that we can do to solve these problems is to get rid of some of the archaic liquor laws in this province.

The previous government banned advertising but they succumb to the pressures of the hotel monopolies in opposing the establishment of neighborhood pubs and decent facilities where you could go and get a drink without getting sloshed.

The hotel monopolies have the attitude of "Keep on drinking, boys or get out." You can't sing, you can't dance, you can't have decent food or wine instead of beer, you just drink and then get out and get into your car and go out and have an accident. I think that's wrong.

When they have decent liquor laws maybe people could go to a neighborhood pub, socialize, have a good time, some good food and drink and not get sloshed to the eyeballs and not go out on the street and kill somebody and maybe come home at least half-way sober.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I'll be very brief also, Mr. Speaker.

I also feel that by taking this step ahead we're going back to square one.

But this in itself seems a strange statement and many of us have made it and I wonder if it doesn't sound like we've been imbibing in what we're trying to discuss on advertising here, when we speak of going back when we go ahead. However, it is true.

Liquor of course is evil, we all know it, if it's used in excess. It has been used all over the world for colonizing purposes and now that the colonization is over, I suppose they feel we can cut back on the sales of it.

Perhaps we could have in the advertising on the bottles, or on the labels — we could enforce this as one of the regulations of the board — that one of the common themes suggested is "speed kills" — we could put "booze kills" on that. It might help a little.

I've been interested in some of the discussions of one corner of the House about the deals and the suggestions that deals were made and this is the type of suggestion that's been made in a couple of the other debates also from the same corner of the House and it seems to me that this suggestion can be most readily made by people who are used to deals in the past perhaps. And there's been talk of pressure groups, Mr. Speaker. This was one of the planks or one of the things that was discussed a lot in the last election. Our party said and I said on many occasions that we were going to withdraw this hypocritical legislation that would stop advertising but allow the unlimited sale of liquor.

On election day we say the biggest pressure group in the province took effect with their pressure and put the social democrats into this House. Thank you.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Briefly, I would gather that the Hon. the Attorney General has decided that over-consumption of alcohol is bad for you and I suppose that's the result of his long and careful research. (Laughter). Because I'm certain that he wouldn't make any such statement carelessly in this House.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard discussions about alcoholism and hypocrisy and pressures and all these things during this debate and surely we must on all sides of this House recognize that the debate on this bill is the same kind of admission that we made on the tobacco products bill.

Mainly that because of the advertising which takes place in periodicals normally circulated in the Province of British Columbia we cannot ban and we can scarcely control that advertising without indeed banning or controlling circulation of those very periodicals.

That's the problem that we face and that's the admission which is made in this bill, as it was in the tobacco bill. I hope that the Attorney General

[ Page 245 ]

having heard the debate and the concern expressed from private Members on all sides of the House will seriously consider doing what he suggested could be done at the time we debated the tobacco products, and that is by next spring when we meet again be ready to place before the House or a committee of this House some positive suggestions in a way in which we can really attack the problems of overcoming the over-consumption of any of these hazardous products. That's what we're after.

If need be at that time that the Attorney General must exercise some of the power that he has through his department in controlling these various advertisers then we can consider that at the same time. Let us again, Mr. Speaker, take the positive approach —and to them both. Go after over-consumption — then we'll go after the pushers as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to announce that it will be government policy that we will put this whole matter before a House committee in the spring.

We will ask everybody from the community to share their points of view with us. I feel that in reviewing my own position on this I have to admit that the nights that I've supported it, and I still feel that way, I wanted it to work. I really did. I thought it was a chance whereby we could make some impact on the very severe problem of alcoholism. What it did was bring to the attention of my youngsters the hypocrisy of what I'd done.

My own youngsters brought me magazines and Members brought in this House and showed me liquor ads and said "What did you vote for? What did you do?" And when I had difficulty in convincing my own youngsters, I knew that we'd gone into some kind of jungle that just wasn't workable.

I received many, many letters from people who feel strongly about this. Most people do feel strongly about it. They want the ad ban to work — it's like if we could only close one eye and the problem would go away. But it hasn't gone away. It's still there.

We make a great deal of money out of the sale of liquor in this province — nearly $80 million profit last year. There's no purposeful commitment of any of those funds to rehabilitation of alcoholics. It's the fault of the previous administration but that doesn't excuse us.

We're now responsible. We have to come up with some answers. I want to ask the House to come back in the spring. Put the matter before the committee. Ask the committee to go to work. Ask the community to help us. It's not a party problem — it's society's problem. And I hope we can find some answers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General winds up the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think Hon. Members will agree that everything that can be said has been said. I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 11 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 3

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MR. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation): Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the principle of the bill I would hope that you'd permit me a slight historical preamble to this bill.

In 1925, in the House of Commons in Ottawa there were two labour Members elected to parliament — J.S. Woodworth and A.A. Hobbs. During that election the Liberals and Conservatives found themselves evenly split. Mackenzie King

[ Page 246 ]

approached Mr. Woodworth and asked him if he would consider supporting the government. And Woodworth's conditions for supporting the government was, one, that he do something about unemployment insurance and, two, that he introduce an old age pension scheme. Finally in 1926 the bill was passed, referred to the Senate but of course the Senate in those days wasn't like the Senate is today. They promptly threw the bill out. There was an election, there was a constitutional crisis and the government got back in.

In March, 1927 the legislation for old age pensioners was finally passed.

In 1931, in the House of Commons, Mackenzie King, who by that time was in opposition, was bragging to the House about how the Liberal Party had introduced the old age pension scheme.

The Prime Minister of the day, R.B. Bennett, set him right in the following words:

"What would the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre have said if, when the bill was introduced, he had listened to the speech he had listened to this afternoon? What would he have thought? He was the man who forced this upon a reluctant administration. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre never made any bones about what he wanted. He was frank and open about it and he said, 'The necessity of one party is my opportunity and I'm going to press it to the full for the benefit of my friend', and he did."

And who were his friends? The old people of Canada for whom he, with the help of a handful of labour and former M.P.'s, had won the first thin edge of the wedge of security. Now 46 years later in British Columbia, in this Legislature, it befalls to this N.D.P. government to complete the work so ably started by Woodsworth and Hawthornthwaite. It can be said that the measure of any civilization is how it treats its senior citizens. And today in British Columbia we have 205,000 of them. We have double the average per capita in British Columbia, double. Our government has estimated that at least 110,000 of them are in urgent need of assistance to bring them to a minimal level of income that would allow them to live in dignity.

The unfinished work of the socialist movement in its concern for people of all ages is about to be initiated. The last session of the Legislature there was an attempt by the Members of the party from this side to introduce an amendment that would guarantee the provision of a minimum income of $200 a month for senior citizens over the age of 65. The amendment as it was, was ruled out of order. Then we went into the pre-election campaign and we got the Kelowna Charter, and the then Premier announced that he would be giving some increases. The former Lady Minister without Portfolio who is not now in the House said that, "it was ridiculous to think that it was possible that we could pay senior citizens $200 a month, it would break the province." Then we had the Premier later on in the election, the then Premier, announced that they wouldn't get $200, they would get $225 a month. So let's examine what he was talking about then.

In British Columbia there were 205,000 senior citizens. About 110,000 were getting the guaranteed income supplement either full or partial, and we have a provincial supplementary allowance — 16,000 people were getting anywhere from $1 to $41 off that. He talked about a pension of $191 a month, and yet in the whole of British Columbia only 1,254 people were getting $191 a month. And when he said during the election, "we will put it up to $225", he again was talking about that same small group of people.

Since then they've seen the light, they're going to introduce some kind of legislation, which I can't refer to now. Now it's possible, but let me remind you that under the previous administration in the last budget,$1.6 billion was the budget and the total contribution of this province to senior citizens was $3.7 million. That was the commitment the previous government had to its senior citizens, $3.7 million out of a budget of $1.6 billion.

When we took office the first thing that we did, and I might say that it was quite a surprise to the people in Ottawa, we called them and we said we want to talk about $200 a month under the Canada Assistance Plan. And we talked, and we talked, and we talked. We talked over the phone, we had

[ Page 247 ]

Mr. Cragg come out. He went back to Ottawa, he came out again. The Minister, Mr. Munro, came out and we kept talking.

Today the Premier met with the Prime Minister of Canada and we're still talking. We didn't get all we wanted but we are still talking, and we are still talking tomorrow and that's a new era in British Columbia in dealing with Ottawa.

Who are the senior citizens of this province? They are the people who 40 and 50 years ago began to make their contribution to the building of this country and they made it what it is today. They suffered enormous difficulties as a result of a serious depression which lasted almost from the middle twenties to the beginning of the Second World War. And one can say this group were deprived in the main of their best earning years. They were unable to put away money for their future security. And so, we have the best example of one of them amidst the free enterprise system that we are supposed to function in, that today in British Columbia 110,000 people who are senior citizens are living almost below the poverty line. A week ago we were confronted with the horrifying facts that the cost of living had gone up 10 per cent in this province with an increase of 5 per cent in food prices within one year.

Many political parties have given lip service in helping the senior citizens. But none of them have really done anything about it. I noticed that when the Tory Leader, Mr. Stanfield, was in town in September he was prepared to offer them $15 a month more. He said he feels a $15 federal increase would be a sufficient measure to ease the burden of elderly persons because of the rapid rise of costs — that's the Conservative solution, $15 a month.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the principle of the bill and I will try to be as explicit as possible in order that the senior citizens who are waiting for the legislation have some understanding what it is we are trying to do.

The principle of the bill is to provide a method that will ensure that any person over the age of 65 years who is in receipt of old age security and any part of guaranteed income, a supplement, and if their income is less than $200 a month, then this government will make up the difference to provide a guaranteed minimum income of $200 a month.

We talk about minimum income, we are not talking about maximum income. I want to point out that a single person will get $200, a married couple will get $400. And I want it understood for the people out there who are worried that if their income is more than $200 a month from other sources we're not about to take anything away, and I know that some people have actually phoned my office in concern about this.

We are basically concerned at this time about 110,000 people that we want to bring up to the $200 a month. It is our desire that when you pass this bill we can accomplish it — to end the legacy of tea and toast for pensioners that was fostered by the previous government where most of their money went for high rents and they ate meager food and they suffered serious deficiencies.

When I came into my department I found that there was no research on nutrition standards on lower incomes and it was just a continuing condition to the catalogue of neglect that this previous government had been responsible for.

And let me say this, and I want to compliment my staff because, contrary to what was reported in the Press, they didn't actually carry me on their shoulders when I walked in the office but I did feel euphoria. They had a couple of weeks lead time on me and they were ready and they worked hard. They as much as myself have been responsible for bringing about a significant change of thinking in the federal people.

We have given leadership in our short days in office, and I want to announce while I'm on my feet that at the end of next month we are going to host the provincial Ministers of Welfare in Victoria, and we are also making some of our own proposals towards the agenda.

There is great interest in the country about the kind of legislation this government is planning.

[ Page 248 ]

Before I close I want to say one other thing. We know that out there another 90,000 people are at this time not covered by the legislation that we have before us. We have decided that because we want to get sharing that we would go the way we have suggested in the bill. But I would like to say that I am sure that out there in the community there are people who have an income $200 a month or more, but that there are also people who do not have an income of $200 who feel because of pride that they don't want to apply because of the previous very difficult means test arrangement that took place.

And then there are other people who don't even know that they can qualify. Now, it's our intention once the legislation is passed to use all of the means possible to get across to the senior citizens of this province just what is available to them. We will use the stuffing of envelopes and we will use Press statements and TV and whatever is necessary so the people know what their legislation is all about and what they will be entitled to.

You know, we on this side of the House are mindful of the enormity of the task that we've taken on. We want to develop programmes for the senior citizens that will give them the kind of recognition that the past government in 20 years never had the simple humanity to do.

Now let me talk about two concerns that I have. I have one concern and it relates to the whole question of social consciousness and social responsibilities. I'm talking about the effect of rising costs on pensioners that will flow as a result of this legislation. We already have information that pensioners are being given notice of rent increase. Food costs are going up. In terms of the rent increases the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) suggested that we should amend the Landlord and Tenant Act. We have a couple of other ideas.

What I'd like to do is to make an appeal to all of those people who rent to seniors — be they small home-owners or large apartment block owners — that we are trying to make up 20 years of neglect to senior citizens and we don't want to see the increases go down the drain simply because they want to make another buck.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that this is a general problem in terms of people that rent to senior citizens, but there are people out there that are going to take advantage of this. I say here in the House that I will be quite prepared after checking the information to name names and to name companies of people who are going to sweat money from our senior citizens.

In respect to food prices we are discussing in my department the possibility of encouraging development of food co-ops, not just for senior citizens — not just for people on fixed incomes. But generally for people who want to participate in food co-ops because it's my feeling that we are  going to have to create a form of competition that will show the large food monopolies that the average person in this province is not going to stand for the rising costs of food. And I'm hoping that many people from different socio-economic levels will participate in these once we have made the announcement, which I hope will be in the next three or four weeks, about how we are going to do it.

This is a very happy day I'm sure for everybody in this House. Particularly for socialists, because socialists have always said that their role is to do things for people and I think that we can make no better start than to carry on the work Woodworth and Hobbs started back in 1925.

We have brought our senior citizens to the threshold of a promise of dignity and reward for their service in this country and in this province. Let none of us disappoint them.

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

MR. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, in light of statements made by the Premier just before dinner and their importance to this legislation we would move adjournment of the second reading until the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 249 ]

Motion approved.

SESSIONAL ALLOWANCES REDUCTION ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 13 is the Sessional Allowances Reduction Act which contains three essential points. It first of all seeks to eliminate the normal sessional allowances that are paid to Members of the House together with the special allowances to the various officers of the House and other things that are contained in the Constitutional Act.

In its place this bill seeks to pay the Members of the House a special allowance for this special session at a special daily rate.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, it seeks to tidy up our rules insofar as where an Act like this is necessary because of the special nature of the session that the rules and regulations regarding the tabling of reports be non-operative at a session that this kind of Act is introduced.

It's self-explanatory. It's the kind of thing that has happened before and I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 13 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill No. 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 8, Mr. Chairman.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 8, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act; Hon. Mr. Strachan in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order.

Sections 1 and 2 approved. Title approved.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 8 reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill No. 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 5, Mr. Chairman.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MEDIATION COMMISSION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 5, An Act to Amend the Mediation Commission Act.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the committee please respond one way or another as to the way you feel? If you are in favour say aye.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

[ Page 250 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 10 pass? There is an amendment? I believe there is an Amendment on section 10.

Shall section 11 pass? I recognise the Hon. the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment for section 11 standing in my name on the orders of the day. Mr. Chairman, section 11 of this amending bill deals with section 16 in the Mediation Commission Act and gives to the Minister powers of entry into various premises. Powers which are in this existed under the previous legislation but were exercisable by the commission, powers which I readily appreciate are necessary from time to time in order for the Minister properly to carry out his responsibilities under this Act.

However, the section as it presently stands gives the Minister absolute powers in this regard and I have to think that this is retrogressive and one that we should no longer have on the statutes of this province.

I suspect that in almost every instance when the Minister or any of his officials have need to enter into any premises for the purpose of carrying out the responsibilities under this Act that the permission, the access, is readily available to them. I think it would be tragic if the minister himself were obliged to exercise any supreme authority in order to make such entry, and I would think that it would be a mark of distinction to the Minister if having found that there were instances when he or his officials were refused entry in order to carry out their responsibilities, that he then went before a court of this province specifying the reason that he was to enter and obtain, as I'm sure he would obtain from a court of this province, authority by warrant to enter. Any proper case where entry should be allowed and a warrant were obtained would result in such an adverse reaction against the person who refused entry that any other person who might be encouraged to refuse entry would have to think very carefully about taking such steps.

Now we had an instance when, not under the Mediation Commission Act, but nonetheless in respect of some suggested criminal activity, the Attorney General of this province, the former Attorney General of this province, was obliged to exercise the right by warrant to enter upon the premises of certain unions in this province to inspect and seize certain documents.

I appreciate that it was not exactly the same circumstances, but no one could help but be compelled to accept the reasoning and the comments put forward by those unions and their leaders in regard to statements such as "Gestapo-like tactics", "improper use of authoritarian powers", and so on when the Attorney General of that time was exercising his rights in that way.

In view of the new spirit of co-operation which the Minister has announced and which the Hon. Premier announced, the new spirit of co-operation which we expect in this province to bind between labour and management in the conduct of industrial relations, it would be equally appropriate if that same spirit of co-operation were indicated on the part of government.

The amendment which I propose would I believe encourage and engender that same spirit of co-operation. We are not in any way refusing the Minister, in a proper case when entry has been refused, to obtain the necessary authority, but we are removing by one step the Minister from being in a position where he could be criticized for what some people might believe to be an abuse of the power which the section as it presently stands would give to him.

I always believe that with Ministers of the Crown it is best to remove them from this kind of criticism whether it is justified or unjustified. I believe that Ministers of the Crown should be kept free of this kind of criticism because once it has been levelled against the Ministers, justly or unjustly, then in subsequent efforts of the Minister to carry out his responsibilities, the question always remains as to whether the previous criticism does not indicate an attitude on the part of the Minister which is not in keeping with the office he holds. As I say, we are not in any way trying to prevent the Minister from carrying out his responsibilities. All

[ Page 251 ]

we say is if you want to go into premises ask first. Either the Minister or his officials, present himself and make the request for entry. If it is refused, then come down hard on the person who refuses that consent, but at least give the occupant the opportunity of welcoming the Minister or his officials for the purposes of this particular business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate will be confined to the amendment contained on the order paper standing in the name of Mr. L.A. Williams on page 7.

I recognise the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to repeat a statement I made earlier when discussing this bill in principle, and that is I feel that we welcome the statements by the Premier that he intends to consider amendments on this side of the House on their merits.

We welcome that statement and we hope that in this case, as in others that we have put forward, he will be true to his words. I'm sure he will be.

I think that in this debate and in previous debates on bills before this House, we have made somewhat of an error, Mr. Chairman, in assuming simply because a bill was so obviously better in previous legislation, therefore a bill was good, or as good as we could make it, and I think this is a mistake.

There are many cases where a bill is improved simply as a passage of time because second reading today of a couple of bills dealing with mistakes of today had occurred, so I think that even if it's just a question of time leading us to recognize our mistakes, it is quite possible to improve bills. Therefore you fall into the error of saying because the bill is better than the previous bill, therefore it is good.

In this particular instance with this particular amendment, my feeling is the amendment that would limit the powers of the minister, the powers which could be exercised arbitrarily under this present bill that is before us, would be an even further step in the right direction.

As I've stated before, and I repeat now, we do not envisage this particular Minister misusing his powers willfully or anything of that nature. It is not a question of that. But we must assume, Mr. Chairman, that times will come when Ministers change and perhaps this power might be of use and when I consider and think back only a few months to a situation where officers acting under instruction of the Attorney General received warrants and went ahead and caused no end of confusion and a great deal of bitterness in this province, I wonder whether or not the new request that the Minister go to a court to get a warrant in the case he's refused entry would be so damaging to his powers.

There has been no reason given yet by the minister, no convincing reason given yet, of the need for these powers. The only arguments put forward, of course, were by the Attorney General who pleaded historical practice in other provinces.

Neither of those reasons are good enough for us here today. I think that we must realized that perhaps, if only for experimental period, this amendment should pass. The reason that I say for an experimental period is that we know full well that this Act must come back. The Minister has told us that this is simply a first step. Other Members speaking from the government benches have said the same thing. This has been a first step in amending the Act in question, therefore I fail to see what harm there would be in passing this amendment, in reducing the powers of the Minister and seeing that at the spring session when, as we expect, we will see further amendments to the Act in a new bill, at that time we can consider whether the experimental programme was worthwhile. I don't see there can be any great harm in attempting for a period of months, not very many months, before the spring session, of putting this amendment into force and reducing the powers of the minister — as my Hon. friend from West Vancouver–Howe Sound has suggested — and giving an opportunity to the people of the province to see that not only are we improving the legislation, but we are really making an effort to make it the best we can.

[ Page 252 ]

No reason has been given, yet, for these powers to be given to the Minister. I personally feel that if powers were unfortunate when they were exercised by three men on a mediation commission perhaps they can be equally unfortunate when exercised by a Minister acting individually.

Therefore I would strongly advise the Premier and the Minister of Labour to take this amendment very seriously. It's a serious attempt to restrict arbitrary power, of which there is too much in the past.

It's a serious attempt which, if they like, they can consider is an attempt for a trial period between now and the next sitting of this House. If it proves that the trial is wrong, that the trial period proves that the proposal is wrong, well then we will get up as many Members did here today, and say, "Well, I made a mistake before, I'm now correcting it".

But, let us at least try, because we have too much arbitrary power in far too many provincial statutes and others in federal statutes as well, and it's only here in the Legislature that we can curb this particular type of abuse, in my mind.

So, I urge all Members of this committee to support this, to examine it on its merits and to support the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit bemused by the great anxiety that is registered from across the floor. But, with respect to this particular power, the Hon. the Leader of the Liberal Party suggested that if the power was vested in the Mediation Commission it might be more dangerous now to have the same power vested in the Minister of Labour.

I think it is singularly unusual that he should express this concern when none of the parties involved in labour-management relations in British Columbia at any time criticized this particular power when it was vested in the Mediation Commission. It would appear that this is more of a political concern than it was a concern of the people who live in the framework of this Act.

I would like to point out too, Mr. Chairman, that the powers that are granted to the Minister or his designated representative are for the purpose of this Act.

To suggest that this may create a repetition of night raids by the R.C.M.P. is simply a red herring which is not valid in any sense. These are powers that are made necessary for the policing of the Act. Anyone that suggests that voluntary entry might be granted by management or labour in all issues is a little bit naive, I think, when it comes to labour and management conflict in the province. It would appear that the words "and with the consent of the occupant thereof" that has been suggested as an amendment are redundant and there would be no need for this sub-section if the employer was prepared to grant consent in every case.

I might point out that if we lack the powers to enable a board of industrial inquiry or any other agency that was set up to investigate into all labour disputes, if we denied them these powers, they certainly wouldn't have the right to grant protection to the workmen in the plants that are provided with certain safety standards — for instance – under similar legislation.

If the words "are under the authority of a warrant issued by a court" were to be added, it would mean that where a mediation officer or any other person designated in writing by the Minister found it of vital interest in a case to enter an employer's establishment he would be required to go through the courts to carry out his duties that are set out in this Act. This could create, of course, interminable delays while the industry was tied up.

An example of such a situation, one which has occurred on many occasions is where employees have gone on a strike to enforce safety provisions of the collective agreements. The accident prevention provisions of the Workmen's Compensation regulation — in such as this it has been essential for the departmental officials to take necessary action in order to prevent,

[ Page 253 ]

or settle existing disputes.

I wonder if the Members across the way are prepared to pay the penalty of having a dispute continue for weeks, while officers of this department ran around trying to gain permits and warrants through the courts that could be objected to by the parties involved in the dispute. It's simple nonsense, Mr. Chairman.

There are other examples that could be given here too. Would the Hon. the Leader of the Liberal Party suggest that the Minister of Health Services be required to go to court to obtain a warrant to examine and scrutinize the administration of hospitals? Obviously you'd be taking the teeth out of the legislation.

If that is the objective of the people across the way, Mr. Chairman, I must register extreme concern and some degree of doubt about the sincerity of their efforts to bring co-operation and industrial peace to this province.

I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, we're disappointed in the words of the Minister and we'd ask him to take a second look right now. Because if he doesn't realize it, the Attorney General does. With cause, it's possible to get a warrant immediately and the difficulty which the Minister is going to run into, and we say this very sincerely, Mr. Chairman, is that the powers, police state powers, which he has shown himself desirous of retaining will be the powers that will lead to prolonged industrial disputes.

The new Minister started with a tremendous well of goodwill. Mr. Chairman, he's permitting it to drain away very rapidly before his first crisis confronts him. Had the former government listened a little more closely to what that Member said when he was in opposition — and which many Opposition members had occasion to say — that government might still be in office. Because the bitterness they engendered by not taking advice and heeding very simple proposals that were put forward in the interests of all the people of British Columbia counted heavily against them.

So we say once more, this is a simple amendment. It makes it a little more difficult, but only a little more difficult, for the Minister to operate. But the difficulty of his operating his office sometimes more than repays itself in getting labour-management to work together.

Sometimes it isn't the simplicity of the labour office that counts; it's the good will which exists in the Province of British Columbia. That ultimately must be the test of whether we have labour-management harmony in British Columbia.

So once more, Mr. Chairman, we ask the Minister to reconsider what he has just said. Take a second look, right now.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General and Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.): I think one of the reasons we don't want to have to go to a court and ask for a warrant is that we don't want to, in a simple inspection of, say an unsafe elevator, turn the employer as it were into some kind of a criminal. That's a criminal proceeding.

Now let me say without any equivocation that, supposing that an inspector suspects that an elevator in an industrial establishment is unsafe, he has to go and look for a court and ask for a warrant. I tell you flatly, Mr. Chairman, that somebody could be killed while that person is running around looking for a warrant.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON MR. MACDONALD: Why increase this legal bureaucracy, even a simple matter of that kind? You want to go to a court and ask for a criminal warrant, as if it were a criminal case? It's not. It's normal administration of the Act.

I've had some experience in the labour field and some with employers and

[ Page 254 ]

so forth and I ask the members of the committee if there have been any complaints.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ever, ever?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It just happens that I haven't heard of one complaint in the years I've practiced labour law, not one.

AN HON. MEMBER: With the old legislation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not one.

AN HON. MEMBER: With that government?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Has my friend over there had complaints from an employer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ever?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I haven't heard of one and I suggest we proceed and take the question because it should not be accepted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. the First Member for Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): I support the legislation as written and I am against the amendment as given.

I think that the Minister must have access at any time. I think on-the-spot inspections are an important factor. Problems and situations do not remain the same when advance notice is given.

As an example I believe that in inspections for health there's no notification given. Inspections by Workmen's Compensation Board are given without necessary notice. Fire protection or fire inspection is given without notice. And I feel that to enforce the regulation where warrants for inspection are given is only going to compound or bring about more problems than already are in existence in a situation. So I support this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to repeat something that has been said in the debate on second reading. It's difficult for those of us who have had some experience in labour relations to understand just what it is to some of the members in the Opposition — particularly the Liberal Party — are trying to get at. Because there haven't been to my knowledge any complaints from the three groups that I think might have some cause to complain, if those Hon. Members were correct. There has been no complaints from management, there has been no complaints from the labour movement and to my knowledge there has been no complaints from the Civil Liberties Association. And if all that has been said across the floor was in fact accurate then I'm sure that the Civil Liberties Association would have been in here screaming.

The situation, these powers of entering, Mr. Chairman, are similar in my view to the powers that a policeman has when he stops a motor vehicle that is behaving in a somewhat erratic manner. We don't expect that policeman to go to the court and ask for a search warrant before he inspects that car. He does it right there on the spot.

The same kind of situation has to apply to factories. We're not saying that the labour department or the Minister or the inspector or any designated authority can go into that factory anytime except during working hours. That's a public place during working hours. Working people are going in there in and out to go to work. Why can't the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) or his designate go in there at the same time? Really, I'm just astounded. I expected a little better from Members who've been in this House for a number of years.

[ Page 255 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GABELMANN: I expected that they would not raise what is essentially a red herring in an attempt to confuse the public.

Mr. Chairman, I can't say much more about it except that I am totally amazed by some of the statements that have been made across the way, and I think we should pass this immediately… No, I'm sorry, I think we should defeat the amendment.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GABELMANN: That's the problem with a new Member, Mr. Chairman. We forget about the funny rules we have here. I realize that I have been speaking on the amendment…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GABELMANN: I suppose I wouldn't have made that slip Mr. Chairman, if you'd ruled me out of order for speaking on the motion instead of the amendment. However, I hope we do defeat the amendment immediately and then pass the main motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not surprised that the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour sat down saying he didn't have anything more to say because he doesn't understand the effect of the amendment.

This is not a red herring on the part of this Member in bringing this amendment before this House in any respect. And I'm not concerned whether any employer or any employee or the Civil Liberties Union or anybody else may have complained about the existence of this kind of authoritarian power in the hands of a minister of the Crown. What we're opposed to is any continued extension of this kind of power. And here we have a Minister who is coming along making significant changes in the Mediation Commission Act, changes which are in effect powers the Mediation Commission had — the commission which the N.D.P. in this House criticized severely. Yet he wants to take the same powers unto himself.

We expect a new government, we expect a government which is going to treat the citizens fairly on every turn. You do not treat the citizens fairly on every turn when you go to them and say, "I want to inspect your premises and you can't stop me." That's what this regulation says. We've got it in this statute, we've got all through the statutes of this province. We have from the previous government inherited a whole host of regulatory powers which the Ministers of the Crown can exercise without a by-your-leave from anyone. And we hoped when this new government came through that we would have something different. And when we found that this section was brought in without any change we thought perhaps we should pose an amendment. It's as simple as that.

You know, I can imagine that in 1933, in a country in Europe the people said, "Oh, don't worry. No one has ever complained because of the use of the power that we are not exercising." And everyone knows what happened to the unbridled extension of that kind of authority.

Now, I'm not suggesting this is going to happen here, but that is the same kind of extreme example as the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) used when he said, "Oh well, if you want to come in and inspect an elevator". And somebody else said, "Maybe if you come back after having given them notice their problem will all be solved."

Surely, Mr. Chairman, what we're after is the solution of the problem.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Maybe if we get a federal Liberal Party, they have the same legislation in Ottawa.

[ Page 256 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I oppose the regulatory powers there as well as any place else.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your own party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, Barrett, smarten up!

MR. WILLIAMS: It's easy to…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. WILLIAMS: …We had from the Hon. Premier the suggestion that we're prepared to consider fairly any amendments which may be brought before this House, and yet we have from Members of the government the suggestion that when amendments are brought before the House and are ready for debate that they're red herrings and all that sort of nonsense.

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, and I say sincerely to the Premier, that if you are embarking upon this exercise which is going to result in a spirit of co-operation between all segments of this province then you'd better start thinking about changing this kind of authoritarian power in the hands of all of your Ministers. Because this is the kind of thing that is continuing to sicken the people who are the citizens of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with my colleagues of the bar across the way. Sometimes we lawyers get a little bit defensive about civil liberties and human rights and the inviolability of a person's dwelling home as well as their offices and their workshops. At the same time, it's probably unusual not to have this kind of power. And I'm surprised. Well, yes, of course they agree. Similar powers exist throughout municipal regulations with respect to health and so on.

It is essential in times where one considers the law carefully one must measure the public good as opposed to the individual good, of course. There's always the constant argument going on in questions of law. And in this situation it is essential, I am convinced, that this limited — and I should say "limited" because you've over-emphasized what section 16 does. What it does for the purposes of the Act alone, it permits the Minister or his designated authority to inspect these premises. Not dwelling houses, premises where work has been done and where employees are carrying on their duties under a collective agreement or contract service.

It must be important also to the Members of this House to pay attention to the word "inspect". He may "inspect any work, material, machinery, appliance, equipment or thing therein" that is directly related to the work done by employees. It is not a search in seizure. It is not like the powers that are extended elsewhere, in federal legislation, that has brought in some cases shame to this country, such as happened some time ago in October of some other year. It is not those kinds of far-reaching police-state powers. It is a simple mechanism by which a problem can be solved under this Act. The exaggerations by my friend across the way do not do them service.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. the Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I enjoy the lawyer talk, but it goes a bit far when the Members suggest we haven't considered, as we have. We've made a decision. We're opposed to it. And that's fair enough. But when you suggest that you reach back in 1933 for arguments, where were you when the War Measures Act was passed in this country just a few years ago? Want to match records on civil liberties? Who was the only party that stood up federally against the War Measures Act in Ottawa? Was it yours? Was it yours?

I don't mind some rational arguments and confining it to this bill. But when you leave the impression that he's going to have powers outside

[ Page 257 ]

this bill so that some dangerous step is taking place in this province, I think that's wrong and it's unfair and it does damage to the kind of climate we're trying to create.

No employers' groups, no labour unions, or no citizens protested and when that group was in power they had the same power and at no time did you and the opposition stand up and criticize that or bring in an amendment to the bill.

Nor did we. Twelve years we were in this House and the same staff that's serving this Minister now is the same staff that served the former Minister. We had confidence in them then on this particular section — so did you. And I don't know what has changed except, in my opinion, I think you're reaching for newspaper stories rather than assistance in this House. That's my opinion.

There's already been enough newspaper distortion on this debate. Oh, there hasn't been, eh? I'll quote to you from the headline here in the Vancouver Sun last Friday. Here's the headline related to this particular debate. "Barrett Reveals Labour Pushing Us." That's what it said in the headline.

This is the kind of atmosphere that is being created by these kind of statements. And I'm blaming the Sun for picking this up, because of the hysteria that was created around sweeping powers if I'm Minister. Here's the headline, "Barrett Reveals Labour Pushing Us." I ask for the Hansard. At no time did I say what I was quoted in the headline as saying. That's irresponsible journalism.

Section 11, here is the quote that I made: "I think all of us can make it easier. It's not been an easy road with me as leader of this party with the trade union movement, I'll be frank about it. I had my difficulties, publicly, privately… But nonetheless we are here to govern. "

It's the same kind of thing that you're saying over there. Reaching into other kind of areas. And this kind of thing, this kind of irresponsible reporting is…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR BARRETT: Is that a quote? "Perfectly fair headlines". Perfectly fair headlines! Is it Lance Corporal Malone's version of what was said in this House? That's irresponsible and I suggest that when you reach back for analogies of 1933 you're being irresponsible.

It's confined to this Act and let's stay with this Act. Now we're trying to create a better atmosphere. You come up with one specific example of where this has been abused in this province, and then make the case. You can't do it, there isn't one in the history under this administration, under Liberal, under coalition, where the same legislation exists in Ottawa. They're trying to make a straw man. And I don't begrudge you that. But you may be damaging an atmosphere by feeding this kind of thing, creating headlines about 1933 that's simply not valid.

And you know what they made out of nothing…this just wasn't even true. You can just imagine what they will make with your statement about 1933. That's irresponsible in my view.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would request that the Members when they are speaking confine their remarks as carefully as possible to the amendment. I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult to follow that ruling very careful1y. While we have no reason here to wish to protect any newspaper, it was our purpose to bring to the attention of the Premier that perhaps we were discussing an amendment to a bill.

And while I'm delighted that he spoke to Members of this House while waving to the gallery with a piece of paper in his hand and doubtless is determined to make sure that his views… I think it's the third time

[ Page 258 ]

either he, or the Attorney General, has criticized the Press for irresponsible reporting in the last week.

While I'm sure he made his point there the discussion we were having was on this amendment. Now, arguments have been put forward once again that these powers exist elsewhere.

Well, as my Hon. friend to my left says, it doesn't make them right. The left says it doesn't make them right. The Attorney General states there is no abuse. There has been no abuse now. Now let's make sure it doesn't happen. What we are suggesting to this House we think is a very reasonable proposition. That is, for a relatively limited period of time let's see if the Minister can't live without these powers. And if he can live without those powers, powers which we personally feel are excessive, then perhaps we can start looking at other legislation which has been used as examples of why this legislation should go in.

In other words, perhaps we're in a situation where, simply because we haven't tried something new, the Attorney General gives examples of the bad to support further bad legislation.

Perhaps we should try it, perhaps we should give it three months and then if it hasn't worked, this Act must be amended again.

Anyway, at that time it's been said by the Minister, I can't remember if the Premier himself said it but I believe he has, that if necessary we can change back. But at this stage we are dealing with a relatively minor amendment.

We are suggesting not that the Minister or his agents be barred from entering any place which he suspects should be inspected and he has been refused that entry. We are simply saying that if he's refused that entry he goes to a judge and he gets some warrant, he gets some authority. The judge himself decides whether he should go in. We feel this is a judicial restraint upon ministerial powers which we would like to experiment with and let's use that word "experiment" again.

Just for three months. We're not asking for the earth, we're asking for only a relatively limited, relatively short period of experiment with this type of legislation. Now, if it fails we can regrettably go back to the other. If it's impossible…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Attorney General is concerned… Well, this argument could be put forward in so many instances by the Attorney General with other legislation justifying ministerial powers that, having said it, it hasn't got a great deal to do with this amendment.

We think we should experiment with this, we think we should try it, we think we should limit the powers of Ministers. And if we don't wish to limit it this way the powers should be spelled out. But giving this type of power to a Minister we feel is wrong and we only ask the Premier who — until he gets carried away with his attacks upon newspapers — is generally a fairly reasonable chap, we would ask him only that he consider it in this light. We are not asking for a great deal. It is a minor matter, it is a minor amendment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's always the excuse, you know. Many people have said, "You don't need it" or "It's only for the public" or what-have-you. But having now made his statements for the Press I trust the Premier will address himself to this amendment and pay some attention to what we feel is a reasonable proposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have looked at the amendment, I have looked at the section which is about to be amended, I've looked at the powers that are contained within the section

[ Page 259 ]

under discussion.

I think the key phrase in the whole matter is that "the Minister" or any of his agents" may, for the purpose of this Act, enter at any time during regular working hours" any establishment. That's the key phrase, "during regular working hours." Now I ask the question of the Members of this House. Is there any employer in this Province of British Columbia operating a factory, a workshop, or an establishment where they have something to hide from the duly-constituted authority of the government of British Columbia?

If they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. If every employer in this province operating a shop or a factory is operating according to the laws of British Columbia as laid down by this legislative assembly then there's no problem.

Now, what are you asking us to do? You are asking us to warn a certain employer that six hours later, or 24 hours later, or two days later someone will appear at his establishment to determine whether or not he is living up to the laws that this legislative assembly has passed.

Now what sort of system is that going to be? That during regular working hours, during regular working hours — not in the dark of the night, not by any undue process — it is a system whereby the representatives of the government, the Minister's, and we've passed laws to protect the workers of this province, and it simply says, "during regular working hours." That representative has the right to check, to walk into that establishment and see that the laws of this province are being adhered to.

Now, as it is pointed out, this is contained in many other pieces of legislation. It goes back a long time. And I have every faith in the employers of British Columbia, in the vast majority of them, that they will obey the laws. They've nothing to fear from a representative of the Minister walking in to make sure that they are obeying the laws during regular working hours. And it's the regular working hours that make it…you know, some of the plants have guided tours through their plants.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have three minutes left. Some of the employers have regular guided tours through their plants, no problem. And we're simply saying that the representatives of the Minister should have the right to do what guests and visitors have to do, walk into the plant and be sure during regular working hours that the laws are being obeyed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, the amendment to section 11 that has to do with removing some of the powers that have been put into the hands of the Minister. Now, we've heard a lot of foolish arguments in this House tonight relative to these powers, as to the reasons why these powers are assigned. We heard the Attorney General just a few moments ago saying that it's necessary to have these powers to protect the safety of workers in these various plants. That it's necessary to have these powers — I'm talking about the powers.

Let's read the section the Minister made for the purpose of this Act. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of elevator inspections which you have related, Mr. Attorney General. Absolutely nothing to do with that.

You said that a workman's life might be endangered that unless this power is given to the Minister of Labour. You said that it's necessary to check for the safety of factory sanitation. The sanitation, light and air — sufficient light and air. One only has to look where that's written in the laws of this province.

It's not written in the Mediation Commission Act or the Mediation Services Act as presently being amended in this assembly. I think it's important that one looks at the Factories Act as related to this particular section which is being debated at this time. And to seek the type of powers that exist in the Factories Act as related to the powers which the Minister

[ Page 260 ]

wants to assume at this particular time, under this piece of legislation.

And relative to an inspector it says that "every person who willfully delays an Inspector in the exercise of any power under section 12 or 13; or fails to comply," and this is the Factories Act, "or fails to comply with the requisition or summons of an Inspector in pursuance of either of those sections; or fails to produce any certificate or other document which he is required by the Act or regulations to produce; or conceals or prevents, or attempts to conceal or prevent, any employee from appearing before or being examined by an Inspector shall be deemed to obstruct an Inspector in the execution of his duties under this Act."

Now, the next section says this, which is very pertinent to what we're discussing at the moment. It says this, section 15 of the Factories Act that: "Before an inspector enters any room or place actually used as a dwelling as well as for a factory he shall, unless such entry is made with the consent of the occupier, obtain from a Justice a warrant referred to in subsection(2)."

You know, there's nothing wrong with the Factories Act and the powers given in the Factories Act. And I really can't understand why these powers are necessary and there hasn't been a clear definition from the Minister as to the need for these particular powers in this amendment.

Now, there's been — and I'm not going to use that word "red-herring", which has been used so liberally across from the socialist side tonight, but really, there has been some attempts to conceal the true fact for which these awesome powers are sought for the Minister of Labour. Awesome powers. I think before we pass this particular section, that Minister should stand up in this House and explain to us very clearly as to the reason these powers are necessary.

It's not for the reasons, which the Attorney General has attempted to mislead the Members of this assembly — for the purpose of safety inspection. No. I'm not saying he'd do it deliberately. I didn't say he did do it deliberately. But he did it because of his ignorance of the law. They're attempting to bring us into midnight legislation and I would like to move (Laughter)…. Mr. Chairman, it's 11 o'clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm glad that it came from there. I'm glad it came from that side of the House.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm really glad they received theirs.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly! It's the rules!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Hon. Mr. Hall files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:00 p.m.