[ Page 261 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1972

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that we have with us today a group of students from the Semiahmoo Senior Secondary School in White Rock along with their teacher, Mr. Doug Oram. I ask the House to join with me to welcome these students to our assembly.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the floor of the House today a past Member of this Legislature for some nine years, a Member of the previous government and our last Whip. I'd like all the Members to join in welcoming to the House today Hunter Vogel.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my welcome to the former government Whip. He's a man of humour, gentleness, conciliation and understanding as a former Whip. I can only say that because he is a former Whip. (Laughter).

I'd also like the House to welcome a group of students from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School in the town of Port Coquitlam.

Introduction of bills.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act.

Leave granted.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved. Bill No. 29 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

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

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw the amendments to Bill No. 3, Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Administrator.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Administrator transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 3 intituled Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act, enclosed herewith, and recommends the same to the legislative assembly.

Dated at Government House, October 25, 1972.

[ Page 262 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I move the said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 3 amendments.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise recommending the introduction of the proposed amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee's resolution recommending the introduction of the proposed amendments to Bill No. 3 approved. Amendments referred to the committee having in charge Bill No. 3.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are numerous amendments to Bill No. 4, Handicapped Persons Income Assistance Act, I'm adopting the normal practice and asking leave of the House to substitute a new Bill No. 4 in the revised form.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members there will be a short adjournment until the new bill is distributed — the substitution.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue the amendments to Bill No. 3 that are available for the Members on the other side.

MR. SPEAKER: They'll be distributed as well. Hon. Members, I think we can proceed now.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT
(continued)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3. Was material made available to the opposite group? Adjourned debate on Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like first to also welcome our good friend from Langley, the former Whip, who was not only a gentleman and a scholar but an extremely accomplished debater in this Legislature. It makes me feel all too painfully, my own inadequacies in this area.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Clap while you can, my friends, because I must say I'm a little taken aback by the amendments that are introduced to this bill. I don't intend to discuss them at this time but I do feel that it is further evidence that this government is confused and that it is having to listen to what the Members of this side of the House told them a long time ago.

[ Page 263 ]

It's further evidence of the so-called semantics that the Premier talks about, that we're in danger of costing the taxpayers of this province $50 million. I think $50 million semantics are very, very expensive. It's not the bill, Mr. Premier, it's the amendment, and we're not debating that at this moment.

However, we are pleased that he got it in even if it is a little difficult at this time.

I would like to say, Mr. Premier, that the opposition will support this bill, Bill No. 3, on second reading in principle. However, we must state very emphatically that we are alarmed and more alarmed in light of what is going on in this House today, at the removal of bills because they're so cluttered with amendments and the putting in of amendments and roller-coaster of amendments around this House. We are alarmed with the loose way that the government has approached the question of pensions for elderly people in this province. Indeed their story is one which has evolved on a changing basis day by day, as the days go by. It is a bill, Mr. Speaker, cluttered with regulatory powers, the application of which I suggest, is unknown to all — unknown to the very fine civil servants that the Minister has in his department, unknown to the executive assistants of the Minister, and I would suggest unknown to the Minister, unknown to the federal civil servants, unknown to the federal officials and unknown indeed to the federal Minister and even to the Prime Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: It is a bill…. No, Mr. Minister, we don't know how your bill operates. We know how it should operate and we do know how pensions and assistance to the elderly in this province should operate.

It is a bill, as well, which would have been far better had it been brought into this House as a result of agreement, signed and sealed by the federal government, and then delivered to this House. As we warned the Members opposite when they were in Opposition and we've warned them since they were the government that in order to have federal sharing you had to have agreement with the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan.

And on pages 411 to 435 in the 1972 edition of Hansard there is a record of warning after warning which was given to the Members of the Opposition concerning the procedure for establishing federal sharing. You have chosen, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, and your cabinet colleagues to ignore those warnings and we see the result of it — this roller-coastering of bills and amendments.

As I have suggested, you have chosen to ignore the warnings, and in choosing to ignore these warnings, you have not only confused everyone on the issue, you have placed the taxpayers of British Columbia in the position of perhaps being out of the picture as far as federal cost sharing is concerned.

You have been raising false hopes in the minds of the senior citizens of this province as well as extreme confusion. When one reads the statements by the new Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) when he was known as the Member for Cowichan-Malahat, and as they existed in our Act, when he talked about confusion and fuddle-duddle regulations and how he could do better, we wonder where that Minister was when this bill was drafted. Isn't there any contact between….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: You just can't sit still can you, you've got to say something.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I never used that phrase.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I don't recall which phrase you are referring to, but I would suggest that your very eloquent expressions to the House at that time — and if you've read Hansard and then hear, you know he is quite

[ Page 264 ]

eloquent — complained of this confusion, complained of the red tape, complained of the regulations and we want to know where you were when this bill was drafted, because it becomes clear that this bill has even more opportunity for confusing the regulations for the elderly assistance. This is particularly true in the light of the amendments which are now on the order paper and those of course which have been withdrawn.

How many more amendments are coming in, Mr. Minister, before we get through this bill. The Minister is obviously withdrawing from the income test originally considered because the amendment to section I permits him to do this. I now see that he has withdrawn it and we'll speak of that change when we come to the amendment that he submitted.

The Minister is acting more and more, as this story evolves, as he issues false ultimatums to the federal government, and says, "You'll do this" and "I'll do that", as he weaves this way and that way, like a confused bewildered pixie.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I don't like to interrupt but you shouldn't say the Minister uttered false ultimatums.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. If you request it, I withdraw the statement suggested. It appears that he uttered false….

MR. SPEAKER: Well, no. You can't say it indirectly if you can't say it directly, and I suggest that….

MRS. JORDAN: His ultimatum to the federal government, made in all good conscience, was utterly hollow and he is weaving this way and that way and acting like a bewildered pixie as he tries desperately to make the British Columbia legislation fit the realities of the agreement with the federal government which is Canada-wise with all the provinces.

Even more remarkable is the amendment which stands in his name with respect to section 2, which has now been withdrawn, but at that time it was associated with and defined assistance which could be regulated under the Social Assistance Act of British Columbia. I see by your amendment that you have heeded this.

Members here will recall the often acrimonious debate which took place with our former Minister with respect to section 3 of the Social Assistance Act. One wonders if the most compelling reason for this exercise in confusion, however, is to lay the political groundwork to this, so that the government can easily say to the citizens of British Columbia over 65, "If the regulations are faulty, if the regulations are obscure, if the regulations are confusing to you, then blame Ottawa". Are you not saying, "If the way in which the benefits are arrived at under this plan is obscure, if they are insufficient, blame Ottawa. If your position with respect to eligibility prevents us from doing what we said we would do in the political arena, don't blame us, blame Ottawa."?

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that the shenanigans of this government in the way in which this bill has been handled and the confusion which has generally surrounded it will haunt this government. The bureaucratic implications involved in this bill and in this confusion are frightening. Already the Premier has indicated that the start-up date for the introduction of this plan may need to be moved past December. Why? Because nobody on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, understands what they are doing. In other words, this bill provides a veritable treasure house, an opportunity for the Minister to have a blank cheque in the matter of regulation, who's to blame for his failings and how to cover up for his political statements.

And we see the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources smiling over there and he has said, "What we did in the Opposition, we will do in government". And he agreed to that statement again when it was made on the floor of this House during this session. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a complete opposite of what the Opposition said they would do if they were government.

[ Page 265 ]

I should indicate that the bill that we have on the order paper from our side of the House indicates the willingness to work out a sharing arrangement with the federal government so the benefits for those in need can be maximized and federal sharing to help bear this cost can be obtained. Working with the federal authority — through you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, you should listen, you are only just beginning to get the message — those in need would have been able to enjoy a maximum of $225 a month. And there is the money there for them under regulations which were more widely established and certainly more widely understood.

We have no confidence, Mr. Speaker, in the stated financial commitments which this bill represents. From Members opposite we have had an estimate of anywhere from $40 to $60 million in recent times, sometimes with only a 48 hour period in between. And then sometimes we have heard it suggested that it will cost $60 million by the Premier and again sometimes within only a 48 hour period. I suggested this shouldn't surprise the people of British Columbia because the financial ability of the Premier is under serious question and because, as recently as last February, he suggested that the programme as reported on page 413 of Hansard and February 10, 1972 was $16 million a month and would cost $96 million a year. No wonder the Premier's financial ability is in question.

When one sees the amendments, the bills coming in and being withdrawn, the changes that are taking place, one might well ask what is the role of the Premier in this art of what can be called nothing else but camouflage. I've already discussed the records of debate during the last session of the Legislature which shows that the Premier had no understanding whatsoever with respect to the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan. We might wonder then why the continuing suggestion that somehow the interpretation of the Canada Assistance Plan is so obscure to him even yet. Surely the Premier has read it carefully.

I'm sorry he is not in the House to hear this debate but I will quote for him sections from that Act and perhaps he will listen. And I quote from the Act regulation C sub-section 9, "The Governor-in-Council may make regulations defining the expression, personal requirements, budgetary requirements, or further, on agreement with provinces, shall contain such other items, terms and conditions as the Minister," referred to here as the Federal Minister, "and the province may agree upon…or as the regulation," and in this case it is the federal regulation, "may require. Furthermore," quoting, "an agreement shall provide that the province (a) will provide financial aid or other assistance to, or in respect of, any person in the province who is a person in need." And "need" is described in paragraph (a) of the definition, and "persons in need" in section 2, "Any amount or manner that takes into account his basic requirements." It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, the terms of that Act.

So what is the real basis for the Premier's baggage-compartment meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday?

First of all, I regretfully must suggest that it is to fog up the issue. And to fog up the contractual agreements which exist between the Government of Canada and all other Canadian provinces with respect to the application of the Canada Assistance Plan.

And secondly, I regretfully must suggest that it is to obscure the fact that, in moving towards the use of the Social Assistance Act, persons over the age of 65 will be under social assistance. They will not in fact be recipients of pension legislation. And I would ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister would deny that.

And if, even there, the amount of shareability with the federal government, Mr. Speaker, must be through agreement and must bring the British Columbia Social Assistance Act into harmony with the regulations which might be required under the Canada Assistance Plan and to ensure the eligibility for the people involved and to ensure the shareability on the cost of this programme.

Mr. Speaker, the financial or understanding of the Canada Assistance Plan by the Premier and by that Minister must be questioned. Because when seeking to establish this programme on an income test basis as provided under the

[ Page 266 ]

current income supplement programme of the federal government, he knew the facts on February 10, 1972 and on that date he knew that this was not possible.

It's quoted in Hansard by the then Leader of the opposition and now the socialist Premier as follows, "The federal government will continue to be prepared to share with the province in the cost of additional supplementary allowances based on need. Based on need. Alright. There is no ceiling. There is no ceiling on the level of federal contribution to this purpose. It is being left to the provinces to determine the amount of supplementary allowance it wishes to pay."

Mr. Premier, or Mr. Speaker, the Premier, the socialist Premier of this province and his Ministers have bounded all over British Columbia giving this message to senior citizens and confusing them. We can only conclude, because of the recent and past statements, that he simply and charitably didn't then and probably doesn't now know what he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministers opposite, with their hands in the cookie jars, are giving every indication that in authorizing and coordinating expenditure in the Province of British Columbia fiscal chaos is your policy and is their stock in trade.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I interrupt? I don't think that it is parliamentary to accuse the ministers of having their hands in cookie jars unless you're talking about their appetite for food. If it is any other implication…

MRS. JORDAN: That could open up a whole new debate.

MR. SPEAKER: …then I think you should withdraw it.

MRS. JORDAN: Withdrawn at your request, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MRS. JORDAN: I would suggest again that the evidence of their actions since taking office has indicated that in authorizing and co-ordinating expenditures in this province, fiscal chaos is their stock-in-trade. And British Columbia has gone in 43 days from responsibility to chaos. And we regret this very much, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Hon. Liberal Leader.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I feel it's only fair to point out to the Minister who introduced these amendments and also to the Premier that I was surprised to see the amendments put forward to this bill and then discuss the bill right away. I've been glancing through the amendments as fast as I can to make sure that there is no change in the principle of the bill. It's a very complex matter we are discussing. I would have preferred more time but nevertheless….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I gather from this exchange, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier regards the Hon. lady Member as the Leader of the Opposition. At least we're getting something straight. (Laughter).

But as far as we're concerned in the Liberal Party, this has been a complicated bill. There have been very involved discussions dealing with the differences among income tests, means tests, federal or provincial agreements, tax sharing agreements, agreements with other provinces as well, which is in this bill. And I am a little distressed that the amendments were not put forth earlier than today and at this time.

[ Page 267 ]

Nevertheless, I'll try to deal with it, hoping that I have not omitted something by my very brief reading of the amendments which are in themselves complicated. I hope that in discussing the principle of the bill here I will be will not stray too far because of the fact that these amendments have been put forward.

First, may I say as far as the principle is concerned, Sir, we are very definitely in favour in this party of raising the pension for senior citizens to $200. My Hon. friend from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) speaking in this House this year in February spoke long and very well, I thought, in outlining what he then called a charter of rights for the elderly. And prominent in that charter was, of course, increasing the pensions for senior citizens and I would like to pay tribute to him. Tribute which the Press, that unfortunate dragon which the Premier finds so difficult, has already paid him in an article — by the way about the Premier, and not an unfriendly one, about a week ago Sunday — in which they point out that it was Dr. McGeer — excuse me, Sir, that it was the First Member for Point Grey — who had introduced this proposal in the House.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Having pointed that out I would like to add a few comments, comments which perhaps might have been made by the Minister in his introduction.

The number of senior citizens that we're dealing with, the number of people affected in such legislation, is going up steadily. In less than 20 years, for example, the number of senior citizens has increased from just over 6 per cent of our population in Canada to its present level of 7 per cent. As the age for the federal pensions has decreased, and it has been decreased over the last few years, this has also tended to increase the number of people brought under the scope of various pension Acts.

This bill is thus an important matter, not only for the individuals concerned, but because we are in an area where the number of people who might be under the coverage of the Act and the bill that we're discussing today is increasing substantially.

Mr. Speaker, it's a difficult subject to discuss even in principle because there is this confusion between a means test and an income test. Confusion which has been made even greater, I'm afraid, by the amendments that the Hon. Minister has put forward. But perhaps if members will bear with me, and some might keep a pencil in hand because I will be quoting some figures which I think are important, I would like to explain this scheme as it stands now.

First you have a federal pension — the Canada Assistance Plan, the basic federal pension of $82.88 for those over 65.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's old age security.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's correct — the old age security, not the Canada Assistance Plan.

You then have the guaranteed income supplement, again a federal programme, which permits another $67.12 to come to a senior citizen who requires it. On top of that we have the federal-provincial joint supplement, of which the former Premier of this province was very proud, bringing up the total potential income under the three schemes to $191.10 per month. I should here add, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to bear in mind that the federal programmes are both fully cost of living adjusted so that we can expect, with the present rate of cost of living, that these three schemes together will raise the pension level to $200, regardless of what we do here today, sometime in the middle of next year.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's the point. The Premier has mentioned "for how many people?" We'll get into that in a moment. But I'm trying to explain in step by step form….

[ Page 268 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So we have a situation where there are two schemes which are federal and one which is joint federal-provincial. The number of people involved is very important and the Minister correctly pointed out yesterday that in British Columbia we have a far higher percentage of the population over 65 than other provinces.

The number of people in B.C. obtaining the basic pension, the old age security, at present, as far as I understand, at least for the month of August, was 208,000 and a few odd. This cost the federal government $17,266,000, figures which I'm sure — he's nodding his head — the Minister agrees with me on these.

The guaranteed income supplement paid 106,000 of those 208,000 people another $5,047,000. He again nods his head, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted that at least on a factual basis we agree.

The provincial supplement was slightly under 17,000 in the month of August, if I'm correct — 17,000 people which cost the Province of British Columbia $260,000 in that month and cost, of course, the federal government another $260,000. So it's a joint fifty-fifty scheme.

So that is the basic situation as it stands now without amendment. Now, how does this work out? And here we come to the point, Mr. Speaker, raised by the Premier a moment ago when he said how many people are under the federal-provincial joint scheme. If you start looking at it, there aren't a great number who are under that third joint federal-provincial proposal which is perhaps erroneously called the provincial supplement. I understand that the total number of people who receive the maximum is approximately 1,200 or slightly above that — not a great number in a province which has as many senior citizens as we have.

Perhaps if we looked at it from an entirely different point of view and started dealing with the figures that I just gave to the House and started looking in terms of the total costs we could also get another look at this problem we are discussing today. If we just talk in terms of totals we find that the total federal contribution to the senior citizens of this province in terms of straight pension and G.I.S. and half of the other supplement comes out to about 98.8 per cent of the total money that the senior citizens receive. The provincial contribution — and again the Minister nods his head so we are one on the figures — comes out to something like 1.2 per cent.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He says $3.5 million. I would dispute that figure but it is not very relevant. I'd say it's slightly above three million but perhaps his figures are a lot better than mine.

We have a situation where around 1.2 or 1.3 per cent of the actual money getting into the hands of the senior citizens of this province that comes from the provincial treasury. And this despite the boasts of the former Premier that we of course had this fantastic scheme. It does appear that senior citizens of this province were not being given much in the way of a substantial contribution by the previous government.

Thus we welcome again the determination of the new Premier of this province to go it alone when the situation requires that. In other words, as has been reported by people like the Press, that horrible bogeyman of his, he will go it alone and use provincial money, it is not possible to share costs under federal and provincial sharing arrangements.

I think it should well be borne in mind that at present we only contribute 1.2 per cent and it might well be increased to something approaching 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 per cent without breaking the provincial treasury. And of course, as the Premier mentioned — or I should say His Honour the Lieutenant Governor mentioned in his Throne Speech to us — this is a wealthy province and we can well afford to supplement what is basic across the country for all citizens of Canada.

[ Page 269 ]

So I am very pleased that he has taken a cooperative approach and I'll deal later with the actual cost-sharing arrangements themselves. I understand that they might be somewhat off the principle of the bill but now the bill has been so confused by amendments I think I'll have to take at least some time of the House to do so.

Now, I mentioned the guaranteed income supplement. The guaranteed income supplement, for those who were kind enough to take my suggestion of jotting down the figures, comes up to $67.12 a month. But, Mr. Speaker, in this guaranteed income supplement there is a provision which I strongly urge the government look at most carefully and adopt.

And that is the fact that you are given a certain credit by the federal pension authorities for income that you have elsewhere and the ratio of this credit is two to one. In other words, if you get $20 in outside income, apart from your Canada Pension of $82.88, you only have to consider $10 of that for purposes of calculating the G.I.S. Now, what it means is that there is some encouragement for thrift, and I say "some". I think it's a pretty penal provision to take away 50 per cent myself. Taxation at that rate is pretty horrendous and I don't think many people would like it, but we treat our elderly citizens this way unfortunately.

Nevertheless, it does allow some credit for income which comes in from another source. And perhaps at this stage I would just like to go through one more example. I only wish, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps I had taken the trouble — it's a mistake on my part — of preparing these figures putting them down in black and white so Hon. Members can have them in front of them. But, nevertheless, if they jot them down it's not too difficult to follow.

The O.A.S. and G.I.S. programme operate so that for every $2 of independent income, you are given a credit of $1. I will give you an example: a recipient with an independent income of, say, $50. His G.I.S. would be reduced by $25. He's given a 50 per cent credit for his other investment income from the current maximum of the $67.12 which I talked about earlier. O.K.? So his combined monthly old age security and the G.I.S. would thus be $82.88 plus $42.12 or $125 from government sources. And then he would be of course permitted to keep that $50 that he gets from other income so his total income would be $175 per month.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's no income tax…. No, $175, Mr. Attorney General. I'm sorry, I should have put this down for those of us like you and I who are weak in math.

Nevertheless, we have a situation where he then gets $175, $50 of which is from his own sources. Now, this province, and it will be this government as I understand them and as I understand the legislation, the principle of this bill would then augment that $175 by $25. The Minister nods his head. I'm happy that once again what we understand is correct.

But what I think is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, is that man with an independent income of $50 means only $600 a year. It means he's got $9,000 or $10,000 as his total worldly wealth that provides him with income. It's not a big sum. The man is a small man, I think in economic terms.

So, what happens to him under the proposed scheme? Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see, the Minister has given no indication — in fact he's indicated that the man will not get any credit as he would get under the G.I.S., the guaranteed income supplement. He gets no credit whatsoever.

He could theoretically stay with his $175 from his own sources and federal sources, and then take an extra $25 from his friend, the Hon. Minister who is being very kind and listening very attentively to this. But on the other hand if he says, "Gee whiz! This isn't worth it if I have nothing to my name. I'll get the same total of $200", and the $50 which he has for himself he can give away to anybody else.

So say, Mr. Speaker, you're in the position of being that elderly person. Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, you're somewhat younger than that and so am I. But say you or I were advising that senior citizen and we said, "Look, if you keep your investment which is $9,000 or $10,000 you are going to get

[ Page 270 ]

hosed." There is no question about it. The government is simply going to pay you $50 less. The full amount of what he would otherwise get from his income, from those investments. So you have to advise him he has a number of choices.

You could say to him, "Well, you've been thrifty, you've tried hard to put a little aside, you've got $9,000 or $10,000 and society is now going to reward you by not allowing you really to keep a penny of it." That's what it really boils down to. He gets no benefit whatsoever from having been thrifty. He gets no benefit from having kept something aside in case of a rainy day or as my good friend from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) so eloquently described the other day, if he gets in trouble with the costs involved in nursing home care.

That type of nest egg will give him no benefit from the point of view of income. So back to my example.

You or I, Mr. Speaker, are advising that senior citizen and we say, "You've got a number of choices. You could take a trip and blow the whole thing. You would be just as well off, you will get just as much money per month afterwards. So take a trip, go first-class on the France or one of the other major liners. Go around the world, which you could probably do for $9,000 or $10,000, which is great."

And I see the Premier nodding. I am surprised the Premier nods. This is a serious matter for many people who would like to keep something aside. Mr. Premier, in this Act you have admitted that you are going to be putting — Mr. Speaker, through you, to the Premier — you have admitted that you are changing the rules. If I can understand your Act and amendment and other changes, you are still going to continue a faulty system which you yourself now have the ability to change.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, after those remarks by the Premier, I can only say that perhaps he should start looking at things a little closer. Because here we have an Act for provincial senior citizens. And he is using his old happy excuse, which he learned from the former Premier of this province, simply saying, "Oh, it's all Ottawa's fault." The provisions of these various Acts are complex and that's why I am distressed that I haven't had enough chance to look at your amendments closely.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I can preserve my position, I am willing to continue to put an adjournment in and continue the debate later. Mr. Speaker, there has been some interchange here for the Hansard reporters.

I mentioned to my Hon. friend he had learned a great deal, in fact too much, from our friend for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett). One thing I have learned is how the present Premier himself got trapped into precisely that same type of snare, which was put forward by the former Premier. Now he offers it to me.

Candidly, his own actions so far in this House and the legislation that he himself has brought in have resembled in so many ways previous legislation that I don't intend to risk my position in this debate, and this discussion….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you accept it. Well, if the Premier is willing, not only to accept in his own name but also on behalf of the other Members of his party, I think I'd be happy….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the House Leader assures the House that he would accept your adjournment.

[ Page 271 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I will certainly then move that this House do now adjourn so that we can consider these amendments brought in.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. The motion is that the debate on Bill No. 3 be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I may be out of order in bringing this point of order up at this time, but I am sure you will be lenient in light of my inexperience in Opposition, but I did understand from the Whips that the Premier was very anxious to get second reading of the bill through on a principle basis in order that we could get on to the amendments in starting the debate today. I would like to have reserved the same type of position as the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. And I wonder if the Premier will allow me the same privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member. You have spoken….

MRS. JORDAN: Well I thought our Whips were to indicate to us the programme of the House….

AN HON. MEMBER: Settle it with your Whips.

MRS. JORDAN: I did. I'm very close to my Whip in seating arrangements. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please! The Hon. Member indicated at the start of the debate that she was commencing her speech on second reading and she has now relinquished the floor. I cannot reopen it without the unanimous consent of the House at a later time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is a new experience in this House, after 20 years. But if you want an adjournment, ask for one. It will be granted. Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Next order, then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill No. 5.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Whips settle their questions out of the House? We're waiting for the chairman. I've sent for him.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MEDIATION COMMISSION ACT

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

On the amendment to section 11.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I had hoped that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) would make a statement to the questions that were put to him so late last night.

[ Page 272 ]

Now, he attempted, but it appeared that it might get through without the necessity of his giving an explanation on the many questions that were put to him. But to refresh his memory possibly he is not familiar with, or does not remember, the points that were raised just last night.

The Attorney General brought up a defence on behalf of the Minister of Labour in this assembly yesterday and last night as to the reasons for these awesome powers that are instilled in the Minister under this section which we are discussing. And at that time the Attorney General said that these powers were necessary in order to insure the safety of workmen in premises or factories.

Now, he made a great to-do about the necessity of protecting the workers' safety. And it's quite obvious that he's not familiar with the Factories Act and he was not discussing the right Act. Because all the provisions for protection of safety, and health and sanitation of the working people of the province — and that includes elevating devices — comes under the Factories Act and has nothing to do with the Mediation Services Act.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General and Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): They're ultimately the same.

MR. CHABOT: So I would hope….

AN HON. MEMBER: Stick to business.

MR. CHABOT: I would hope that the Minister when he speaks on this section would give us some indication as to why it's necessary to have the powers which are written down in this particular section which are not evident in the Factories Act. Which are not necessary in the Factories Act. And if it's necessary as the Attorney General appears to think, it's not necessary to have those powers in the Factories Act. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to have them in what is to be known as the new Mediation Services Act.

The amendment which has been introduced by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) is a pretty sound approach to the powers that are required for the administration of this Act.

I would like to hear the Minister explain to us why he does not support the amendment which has been put forward. An amendment which I think each and every Member of this House deep in his heart can readily support. I'm sure that there are members in this assembly here today that have apprehensions about these awesome powers that have been put in the hands of the minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why didn't you when you were Minister?

MR. CHABOT: There's a great difference.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would have worked great for you.

MR. CHABOT: There's a three-man board. A three-man board — big difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Get off it!

MR. CHABOT: Big difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: No it isn't.

MR. CHABOT: I would hope that the amendment be seriously considered because I think it's an amendment that is worthy of consideration, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you will agree with me, Mr. Chairman, that it makes

[ Page 273 ]

sense. That there should be a warrant prior to the invasion of a factory or a plant in the Province of British Columbia.

There was a lot of criticism just a few months ago when certain premises, because of a certain labour dispute, were entered. But I want to assure you that those premises were entered into only after having obtained a warrant — and the criticism was still there. And I'm frightened of the criticism that will come down upon the Minister if he does not have this authority from the courts of this province. And I ask the Minister to give this serious consideration and let us know why he will not accept this amendment. I'm sure in his heart he believes that the amendment is right and he'll probably when he stands in his place will support the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the criticism twice by various elements of the Opposition. The Liberal leader or the Liberal Member, I beg your pardon, from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) dealt at length yesterday with the reasons why he had offered the amendment to section 11 of the Mediation Services Act.

In doing so he indulged in some pretty sweeping and inaccurate statements. I just want to point out that the powers that are contained in section 11 of the Mediation Services Act, I have to repeat myself apparently, were contained under the former Mediation Commission Act. They're identical to those powers contained in section 44 of the Mediation Commission Act. That similar powers are contained in many other statutes in the province. It seems very unusual to me….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Tradesman's Act.

HON. MR. KING: …the Apprenticeship and Tradesman Qualification Act, section 18. Department of Labour Act, section 9. The Hours of Work Act, section 9. Workman's Compensation Act, section 63. And on it goes. All the powers under…

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Does that make it alright?

HON. MR. KING: …all the powers under the Public Inquiries Act are granted to these policing powers for the purposes of this Act. And I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the fears and the apprehensions that are being dragged in by my friends across the way are simply "red herrings" to divert the issue and I'm certainly surprised that those people who have tried to portray themselves as voices of reason in this institution would seize this opportunity to stir up industrial strife and suspicion when none exists. None exists whatsoever. There has not been one criticism registered by an organ of labour, management or the public regarding this particular power vested in an authority. The only question and the only debate, Mr. Chairman, has been regarding the compulsory sections of the former Act which the former labour minister certainly sat silent and accepted when he sat as Minister of Labour. I can sympathize a little bit more with the Liberal Party because I understand that they haven't had too much experience in industrial relations.

The Hon. the Leader said what we are asking is very simple and I agree it is a very simple amendment that you are offering and one that would do harm to the labour relations climate in British Columbia. The description was yours, not mine. It is simple, because it would certainly destroy the effectiveness of the legislation and would create more labour strife and it would emasculate the Labour Relations Board, which now will exercise this authority, from performing the duties which will be assigned to them to the new Mediations Services Act, so I can understand the ineptness of their amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I have a little more difficulty understanding and accepting the criticism of the former Minister of Labour. Certainly he occupied the office

[ Page 274 ]

long enough to be familiar with the powers which were granted to him under the statutes. Apparently, he didn't know they existed. Again, I repeat, no wonder we have degenerated in this province to a situation where we had a climate of confrontation, constant strikes and lockouts between management and labour.

Certainly if the Minister wasn't familiar with the legislation that existed he was in a very, very poor position to access its adequacy and its effectiveness. Now I really don't know what I can add to this. The powers, as I indicated, are not only common to other labour legislation in this province, they are necessary in order to give an industrial inquiry commission the power to enter into a plant in the case that the labour dispute develops and to allow the inquiry commission to investigate into the causes of it.

What would the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) suggest we do in a case of technological change? A material change during the currency of a collective agreement. Would he suggest that we run around the country trying to secure warrants from the court while the strike is developing in a plant and we're emasculated to the point where we can't act and intervene? Certainly that's stupidity, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman.

I would point out that in the Province of New Brunswick, the industrial relations Act contains similar powers. In the Province of Newfoundland the labour relations Act contains similar powers — Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta. You know, I could understand the concern had there been any criticism offered from the people who are governed by this legislation. But when I find a group of lawyers, for instance, trying apparently to transfer the authority for conducting and intervening in labour disputes from the labour department to the courts of the province, then I must find their motives a little bit suspect. Because certainly labour management relief and the good working relationship will never be accomplished through court action.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, that the powers are not unusual. The inference that they are simply being a "red herring" developed from across the way without the basis of any illustrations whatsoever. I think it's necessary for the good conduct and the sound development of labour management practices within this province and again, Mr. Chairman, I commend this legislation to the House.

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

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make four points briefly, one or two of which haven't been touched upon in the debates so far. Some of which have been touched on, but apparently not grasped by many of the Members.

The first point, Mr. Chairman, is that this amendment to the Mediation Commission Act was designed primarily to get us back to square one in order that we could begin to study what changes needed to be made in labour relations in British Columbia. It would have been a mistake, Mr. Chairman, in my view for us to have done other than to get back to square one at this session of the Legislature and that's what the amendments have done. That's the first point.

Second point is that labour relations in British Columbia have deteriorated for a number of reasons. They don't all have to do with the former Minister, or the former Ministers. One of the reasons we are having as many problems in North America as we are in labour relations is because for some reason the lawyers and the courts have horned their way into the whole ball game.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that one of the major difficulties today in labour relations is that you can't turn around without bumping into a lawyer, or you can't turn around without bumping into a judge and that fouls up the process between labour and management. That complicates it, not just the question of expense which the companies can afford and the unions can't. Not just that question, but the whole question of people coming in with an entirely different understanding, with an entirely different framework and with an entirely different purpose.

[ Page 275 ]

If we can keep lawyers and judges out of labour relations, we would be a lot better off, and I don't like the amendment for that reason. All by itself, that's reason enough not to accept that amendment.

The third point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I don't know whether anybody opposite has read section 7 of the Mediation Commission Act. But briefly, Mr. Chairman, section 7 suggests that every person who is bound by a collective agreement, if those terms are not lived up to, it is an offence against the Mediation Commission Act. That means the Minister has to enforce the agreements between parties.

If for example, Mr. Member from Columbia River, in the agreement there are provisions relating to safety and those provisions are violated by the company, then it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour to get himself involved in that situation. It is his responsibility to look at the safety situation in that particular mill, plant or whatever.

Therefore, Mr. Member from Columbia River, you have missed entirely the point that was made by the Attorney General. Read section 7 of the Mediation Commission Act.

The fourth point that I want to raise is tied in very generally. It's a simple one, and that is there are a great many situations in everyday life where people in our society are vested with the authority to make decisions, like stopping an automobile then checking to see whether it is safe.

What's the difference between a policeman's responsibility there and a labour inspector's responsibility in a factory? Mr. Chairman, I'm really quite disappointed that this debate has had to happen, because unfortunately I think the public is being misled terribly by some of the members opposite me. Thank you.

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

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed and astounded at the rationale put forth by the supporters of the amendment. As was mentioned the labour Minister, the past labour Minister has had this right of entry, and I would put to him, that if he had been more involved in the past he would have solved many of the problems that we have had. He has been asked to intervene in many of the past disputes and has refused. Yesterday analogies were used as to the powers of entry for the Workmen's Compensation Board for health standards for fire inspection, weights and measures, tests for materials or foods. 22-4 of the Labour Relations Act along with the arbitration aspects of it gives the arbitrators or chairman of the board the right to inspect on-the-job sites. The Ontario Labour Relations Act has a like situation and it's very obvious that the people across the way here are not really knowledgeable of what goes on during the job.

I mentioned yesterday for the purpose of inspections, problems or situations do not remain the same when advance notice is given of inspection.

One of the old frustrations of many of the employees concerning the Workmen's Compensation Board is that the Workmen's Compensation Board Inspector comes to the job, many times he sits in the office and the word is out that he is in the area and the unsafe situation maybe occurring on the job may be cleaned up in rather a hurry. So this is one of the reasons why you need on-the-spot inspections. For instance, I think many of the M.L.A.'s here if they had prior knowledge or had knowledge of some of the constituents coming to the Legislature, they probably would act a lot different. Very obviously you see some of them looking up in the galleries to see if some of their constituents are there before they get up and speak on many of the subjects.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself.

MR. RADFORD: Now what is the purpose of the bill which has been mentioned? What's the purpose of the labour Minister or his designate making

[ Page 276 ]

an inspection, or visiting a work area, the materials, the machinery, the appliance the equipment or these things? We mentioned yesterday that technological changes were coming about very fast in industry. They're causing many problems, they're causing problems of jurisdiction. Causing problems of changing work loads. Situations of altering the bargaining unit.

Yet safety causes many disputes. So it's only sensible that a labour Minister or his designates would go down and see what the causes of these situations are for himself — rather than sit behind a desk and listen to somebody else's opinion. For instance, the situation which comes about in the longshoreman industry today. You have the problem of the cargotainers. These are situations that have to be investigated on the spot. They have to be investigated during working hours. So that the situations can be seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's good.

MR. RADFORD: And this is one of the reasons why the labour Minister should have the right of entry. I too agree with the previous speaker on the problem of legal implications, lawyers, being involved. When labour relations first came about there was no involvement of legalistic situations, they were solved. But because of legislation we had to bring in legal help. I think warrants would only interfere with our labour legislation. You know it's hard for you people, I suppose, to assess some of the feelings of the people on the job but when you get into legal processes many times this is when feelings get stronger with people.

Costs are also astronomical today, for both labour and management, and you know it's often been said, and you've probably heard this story in past days, the two farmers who have a dispute over a cow. In the old days they used to shoot it out. And the winner got the cow. Today the two farmers have a dispute, and they go to the lawyer and the lawyer ends up with the cow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! (Laughter).

MR. RADFORD: And I guess we have some learned people right in our own caucus that have ended up with a few cows too. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. RADFORD: The problems in labour relations are very complex today, because of some of these things that I have mentioned. And labour relation problems cannot be solved by superficial surveillance. And labour relation problems cannot be solved by issuing or granting warrants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this debate with repetition of points. But the Hon. Minister a few minutes ago suggested that no one in industry or labour had been objecting to the kind of clause that we are at this time. And I know there have been a number of interviews in the Press, and a number of comments made publicly on this subject. Only one comes to hand quickly and I think this should be clarified for the benefit of the Hon. Minister. I want to quote from Mr. Herb Fritz, who is the immediate retiring president of the Amalgamated Construction Association and a very much respected executive in the construction industry in British Columbia and right across Canada. I'm not sure if he was president, certainly he was a senior officer of the National Construction Association of Canada. He's been involved for many, many years in labour negotiations and I think is very much respected on both sides of the bargaining table.

If I can quote from an interview with Mr. Fritz just three or four days ago, he started off by approving the bill that we have in front of us, the entire bill, saying that it's only sensible to abandon an approach

[ Page 277 ]

which didn't work, and try to find one which will. He said this gives the government in our industry a chance to get a new look at the legislation — to come up with a better method than we had in the past.

But, Mr. Chairman, Fritz was firmly against the sweeping powers of search without the requirements of a search warrant proposed for the labour Minister, so he can obtain information relating to industrial disputes. "I don't believe that any one person or body should be given that power", said Fritz. "This goes against the whole idea of the basis of our society and I hope the government will reconsider this part of the bill." I think that clearly, Mr. Chairman, spells out the position of a great many people in management.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I've listened through the arguments and I feel that as a Member of a party in this House I should take a stand. I've spoken on this point in the general debate on the bill and make no apologies for having changed my mind during the debate. And I feel that in the same vein that this is a power which will not be used in the light of the various points and views expressed by the government and for that reason the Conservative Party will not be supporting the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we've had a number of additional remarks, made today and of course many last night. Perhaps it's a better debate today when we are all a little fresher and haven't had such a trying time as some of us had yesterday.

I should, however, repeat that it's perhaps good that we're having a second look — and there is an opportunity for second thought.

We have had statements made last night by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) asking what law abiding person has anything to fear from people coming in to the place of business et cetera. Well that is perfectly true. But it is the same type of argument that would permit, of course, the police unrestricted access to a private dwelling. That type of argument.

Now he hasn't suggested this take place, obviously not. But it's a type of argument which I find most unfortunate because we are dealing with the what I think is the thin edge of a wedge. Not planned, not deliberate, but just because this Legislature is handing powers over to the executive, ignoring their duties to respect citizens, talking instead about corporate bodies, be they unions, companies or civil liberties associations, when they should be talking about their own duties as representatives of the people of British Columbia to defend the liberties of individual British Columbians.

Now, we've had a fair bit said about other bits of legislation where these provisions exist. Right, and in each one we expect it to be put forward by the government and a need for it in that specific legislation to be justified. Because otherwise we have a situation where the bad supports the bad, or perhaps — indeed we don't know — the good support the bad. But nevertheless what may be necessary in one Act in terms of safety of elevators may not be necessary in another.

Therefore we've been listening with great interest to the reasons being put forward for this power in this legislation. And we have not been impressed except for one comment of the Minister of Labour which I think is the kernel of truth in much of the chaff which we have heard, and that was when he said a short time ago that this power is necessary for his officials to carry out the duties that will be assigned under regulation.

I believe that's the correct statement. The Minister nods his head in agreement with me.

Well, Mr. Chairman, surely it's the duty of the Minister and the cabinet at this time to indicate what sort of duties will be assigned under regulation. We don't like the idea of permitting Ministers almost unlimited discretion under regulation to assign such powers. And if we are to give a

[ Page 278 ]

power which the government think is necessary for something as yet unspecified, it's time they told us what it is they intend to do under the regulations so then we can judge whether or not the power is required. Now, we don't know — he hasn't told us he's….

HON. MR. KING: It hasn't started yet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister states it hasn't started yet. But the Minister himself must have some idea why this power is needed for those duties which he is assigning. And I don't think he's given us a clear understanding of it. Like my friend, I have no wish to prolong this debate. We feel that it's an important point of principle and on that we leave our case to rest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS-15

NAYS-36

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I request that at the rising of the committee, that you do report to the Speaker that a division took place on the amendment to section 11 and ask leave to have the division recorded in the Journals.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

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

MR. CHABOT: On section 12 I have an amendment deleting the words "or any court" in the last paragraph. I think it is most important that this be deleted because there are some, again, very stringent powers being taken up by the Minister of Labour and his officials in the Department of Labour. There is a possibility, and these possibilities always exist that in obtaining the type of information that might be obtained in this section, an indiscretion might take place. I think that an individual or a company or a trade union should have the right of redress. Unless this deletion "or any court", "by any court" is redress. I think that there's a possibility of abuse with the inclusion of these particular words in this particular section.

[ Page 279 ]

I can't understand what fear there is on the part of the Minister relative to information he may accumulate in the carrying out of his responsibility under this Act. I would hope that he would say why it's necessary to have these powers in which the courts cannot question some of the information that is gathered in carrying out the responsibilities under this Act.

I move the amendment standing in my name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment in order. The discussion will now be confined to the amendment. I recognise the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I think we've gone through this exercise before where the previous amendment would have had essentially the same effect of restricting the powers of an Industrial Inquiry Commission, or an Industrial Relations Officer to inquire into disputes concerning the interpretation of a collective agreement, and various other matters. Certainly this would be an undue and unnecessary and restrictive device to hamper him in the carrying out of those duties.

I think it has very little to commend it, I oppose it, Mr. Chairman, and urge that the House also reject this amendment.

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

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, just briefly to clarify my views on the Member from Columbia River's amendment. If he means by deleting those words to encourage further investigation by a court, then it's most unfortunate.

I'm not one of those that think labour/management relations should be kept completely out of courts, but they should be a last resort.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. LAUK: And I mean a last resort, not like the history of the previous government and the previous labour relations in this province, where they were in court every day.

However, it must be pointed out that the first amendment to this amendment Act, by the Liberal side, had slightly more merit than this one.

We have here a power given to the Minister and his agents and offices to accumulate information and sometimes that information is acquired on the understanding of the parties of labour and management that it will be strictly confidential. It's essential that that Minister or his officers obtain the information to arrive at a conclusion and a recommendation to the parties. If he is hampered in this way under the threat that the information may be ordered revealed to the public by a court, then he will not be able to obtain the information that is so necessary to reach an agreement and avoid a work stoppage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of students who have come down from George P. Vanier Secondary School, in Courtenay. They are here with their sponsors, Mr. Art Tingle and Mr. Peter Sanford. I would ask the Members to join me in welcoming them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, I would just like to make a point. We welcome the students, of course, and we're happy to have them here but, I'd just like to point out to the Hon. Member that….

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I'm just taking this opportunity to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the normal course of debate you do not normally do that.

[ Page 280 ]

MS. SANFORD: Alright. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. SANFORD: I would just also, Mr. Chairman, like to point out that I feel that the argument that is taking place, the discussion that is taking place, on this particular section is a discussion that we've already had in this House, and I would encourage the Members to move as quickly as possible towards the question on this particular section.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Closure, closure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Is this, Mr. Chairman, to be known as closure? Are we not to have our rights in this House in this debate to speak up on behalf of our constituents? Because I think this is what this whole bill that we're discussing is about, taking away the rights of the individual.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member, I would point out there has been no ruling from the Chair. Every member has the full right to speak.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was very interested and I wasn't going to enter into this debate until such time (Laughter) as I felt that my rights as a Member in this Legislature were being ruled upon by the opposite side. You know, I was very interested. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have four labour specialists over on the other side. We have the First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young), we have the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and we have the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) so by the time we hear from all the labour specialists on the other side of the House, for they have certainly had their opportunity to have their say and I don't propose, Mr. Speaker, to be a specialist on labour. I don't propose that. But I do propose to know something about the rights of the individual. The small individual businessman whose entire rights under this Act could be taken away from him with the swipe of a pen by the Minister of Labour.

The Second Member for Vancouver Centre stood in this House last evening and said that this was a simple — I want you to note the word very closely, Mr. Chairman — a "simple" mechanism. A simple mechanism. Certainly it's a simple mechanism. The Minister of Labour doesn't have to do anything. He doesn't even have to phone the fellow. Just barge right in! It's a very simple mechanism. I'm surprised that the learned gentlemen from Vancouver Centre wouldn't give the opportunity to a small businessman to phone his lawyer first.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on the right section.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now what the Minister has said and something that….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member get to the point on the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that certainly there are rules in different labour Acts permitting various people to go into various businesses to do various things.

For instance, in the Hours of Work Act, somebody can go into your place of business and they can look at your payroll to see…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. PHILLIPS: …that the employees haven't worked. But they can go look at your financial statement and if they start looking around in other

[ Page 281 ]

than the thing they came in for they're going to be kicked out. Certainly, or I'll go running to my lawyer. Any small business would. But under this Act anybody can walk in to any small business — I'm talking about any small sawmill operation, any small manufacturer, the Minister of Labour can march in, unassuming and do anything he wants to. He just can't look at certain phases. It's all encompassing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, a point of order….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace sit down and let the Hon. Attorney General make his point?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think the Hon. Member is on the wrong section.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the wrong bill!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is an amendment to delete three little words "by any court". And as I understand the amendment it's agreed that all of the information is confidential, but the question is whether it should be or it should not be delivered up in a court in a court proceeding. And that's the sole question before the committee at this time.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm trying to help the Member. I want to help him to get down to the point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would merely draw the attention of the Hon. Member to section 61-2.

1 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, alright. The thing that I wanted to point out is that the point was made in this House, very clearly, that this is a simple mechanism. "A simple mechanism" by the other side of the House, by the Minister of Labour to walk into any small manufacturer, any place of business maybe into an apartment block and check the records….

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the committee has already debated the amendment that the Hon. Member is referring to. And we're not on the amendment that deals with whether or not such evidence shall be admissible for the purposes of litigation. We've already indulged in the debate the Hon. Member is now referring to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is correct.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, before you debate whether the evidence is going to be allowable you've got to find out how the evidence is going to be obtained.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really!

MR. PHILLIPS: However, that's the point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is 1972, not 1952.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 282 ]

YEAS-10

NAYS-41

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rises, I would hope that you report to the Speaker that a division took place on the amendment and ask leave that the division be recorded in the Journals.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are standing on the orders in my name amendments to this same section 12 and I refer specifically to the first amendment to section 12 dealing with the second sub-section. And my remarks at this moment are restricted to that specific amendment, of sub-section 2.

Mr. Chairman, this sub-section deals with the confidentiality of information which the Minister receives in the course of the performance of his responsibilities and quite properly extends to the Minister a discretionary power to determine if in his opinion that information or the release of it would be prejudicial to the person from whom the information was received. And to that extent we are in favour of giving to the Minister this discretion.

However, in the same sub-section the Minister is given a further discretion. And that is that he can direct that the information be made public and it can be made public in a manner which he also may direct. And I suggest to the committee that this is an excess of discretionary power. Because you see, Mr. Chairman, what takes place first of all is the Hon. Minister receives information during the course of a proposal, or a concerning a dispute. Quite obviously by reason of the nature of information the person by whom it is supplied indicates to the Minister that the release of that information would be prejudicial. The Minister then considers that request, and the information in respect in which it is made and he arrives at a decision whereby in his opinion he says, "yes, it would be prejudicial".

Having reached that decision, Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is wrong for this assembly then to say to the Minister, "however, if you reach the decision that's prejudicial you have a choice. You don't have to keep it in confidence, but you can make a specific direction as to the way in which the information will be made public".

I think that it becomes a conflict in the hands of the Minister who first of all makes a decision that the information is confidential, it's prejudicial to release it. And then he can exercise a further by saying by having made that decision I decide that it's going to be released in a particular newspaper or in a particular way.

We are opposed to the extension of this power to the Minister. It's a discretionary power and I appreciate that discretionary powers don't necessarily result in arbitrary powers in any sinister sense, but it does introduce the possibility of ill-controlled authority. It will always raise strong

[ Page 283 ]

suspicion of abuse and the inability of any person that is injured or who believes he's been injured by the action of the Minister, by the use of this authority, to obtain redress cannot fail to convert that suspicion into appearance of certainty.

That the near willingness of a cabinet Minister to accept political responsibility for the use, or abuse, of this kind of power is neither a real nor effective safeguard I suggest. The matter that we are debating in connection with this amendment is not unlike what we debated a few moments ago. It is the question of whether or not there is to be a barrier placed between the powers of the Minister and the citizens.

The Members of this assembly, and I know that the Hon. Second Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) speaking a few moments ago, in the light of what he said, I would expect that he would support this particular amendment.

But the Members will appreciate that there's no redress in the courts of this province or any citizen who may be injured by the exercise of this discretionary power even if that is a discretionary power which has been legally exercised by the Minister, because that power is given to the Minister by this Legislature, and it is beyond appeal to the courts of this province.

I agree with the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) that too often the intrusion of members of the legal profession, and of the courts, in the affairs of unions and management in the resolutionary disputes has resulted in hardship, indeed has fostered feelings which have been detrimental to the resolution of the dispute which they are really intending to serve. Nonetheless, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we can in this House scarcely contemplate with equanimity any substantial interference with so fundamental a constitutional principle of the rule of law. And I trust that's not the direction that we're going.

It's all very well to say that, "oh, courts do this, and lawyers do that," but I recall to you, Mr. Chairman, that in the final analysis it is the strength of the courts of this land of ours which will provide the only barrier to unbridled use of bureaucratic power. What issue we have before us is not so much a matter of whether these powers are being exercised today by this Minister fairly and equally, and generously, or in a reasonable or enlightened manner, or whether they'll be exercised that way in the future. What we have before us in this amendment is a question of whether or not we will be governed by clearly-defined laws based upon the principles of equity and justice rather than laws which are designed to serve the needs of administrative expediency.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to those people in this assembly who are concerned about the directions in which labour/management relations are going in this province that one of the problems which requires urgent solutions is to get away from those measures that may seem to be expedient at the moment. Those measures, those solutions to problems which seem so fulfilling right now, but which on second and third consideration, and at a later time prove to have been the wrong solution. Indeed, the very bill that we are amending is a clear example of what I say. We had in 1968, following lengthy studies, the government of the day bring forward the Mediation Commission Act. It was going to be the be-all, and the end-all, and the solution to the problem. And we all know it hasn't been.

It was expedient at that time, and expediency throughout the operation of the Mediation Commission is one of the things that has destroyed its very usefulness, and has resulted in us dealing with legislation today to do away with that commission.

Now, I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that in this amendment all I'm urging the Members to do — yes, give the Minister the discretion upon the receipt of information to determine whether or not it should be disclosed. If he determines it should not be disclosed let that be the end of it. Let us not permit him to make the second choice of having said, "it shall not be disclosed, but I direct it be made public in a specific way". Because that is what these words say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

[ Page 284 ]

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague in his very learned and eloquent address to this amendment. And to express my very deep concern over the philosophy of the party opposite, that is evidenced by the legislation they are bringing into this House.

Mr. Chairman, this is the same kind of blank cheque legislation they used to oppose so well from this side of the House. The former government, the former Social Credit government were a holier-than-thou kind of government. They operated under the great umbrella that "Father know best". But look, Mr. Chairman, how the present government starts to operate when they become government, instead of opposition, when they get into power. The Member from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), Mr. Chairman, says that he has confidence in the Minister of Labour. He has given these powers, but he is going to be the watch dog, and he says we will be the first to speak up if these powers are in some way abused.

Mr. Chairman, are all the Members of this House, the people of British Columbia are they satisfied with that kind of protection? Is that what we are being given? The Minister of Highways, Mr. Chairman, last night spoke in a slightly different context, but he said these powers are okay. They are quite satisfactory, as long as no one has anything to fear.

Mr. Chairman, isn't this as the Liberal leader has already said, isn't this the beginning of the police state kind of powers, kind of operation?

Last session, spring of '72, Mr. Chairman, I remember telling the House how another government across the mountains some 35 years ago brought in a bill, an Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information. That was 1937, and the Social Credit government of Alberta.

At that time that government had 56 members. They were a big government, a really big government. But now on the other side of this House, Mr. Chairman, we have in terms of the number of seats in this chamber, a really big government. And aren't they bringing in, in effect to the wording of this section, some kind of management of the news?

Listen to the wording, Mr. Chairman. It says: "Where information relates to the business of any person, the Minister may direct that the information be made public in such manner as he directs". Isn't that the beginning of the management of news and information, Mr. Chairman? Isn't that a holier-than-thou kind of approach? Isn't that a "father knows best" kind of approach? Isn't that blank cheque legislation?

Mr. Chairman, the Premier and this government during the election, and since, have promised open democracy. They promised a new kind of government for British Columbia and then you bring in this blank cheque kind of legislation, time after time already in this short session. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to this House that it is the same script as before — only the players are different.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: We too campaigned on the concept that there should be maximum protection of the individual and society in the face of ever-increasing powers of government, not only this government, any government. And certainly I always felt that the phrase "in confidence" meant what it said unless as in the case, let us say, of the medical profession you are compelled by the court to disclose information which was provided by an individual.

I certainly feel, and would agree with the speakers from the Liberal benches, that this wording undoubtedly leaves too much discretion to the Minister to pick and choose which parts of confidential information should be disclosed and not only which parts, but very clearly the manner in which the information can be disclosed. While I've listened very carefully to this whole debate both on principle and section by section, I have tried very hard to evaluate the arguments from both sides of the House. But on this particular section I have no doubt at all that this gives far too much discretion to any one man, particularly as we have heard from all quarters that we are dealing with an extremely complex and involved matter in terms of labour/management relations.

[ Page 285 ]

We have also heard from one of the members of the government himself that the ability or the likelihood of participants in a dispute providing information depends very much on the assurance given to the person that it is indeed in confidence, and that useful constructive facts and opinions might not otherwise be forthcoming.

I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that if a person in a position to provide important information has some doubt in his mind as to how that information might subsequently be used by the Minister, he is certainly less likely to disclose what indeed might be a very constructive and useful part of the argument, or part of the whole dispute.

In other words, the phrase "in confidence" should mean such, and if other than by the courts of the land, the person is compelled to disclose information considered by the court to be necessary to be disclosed, then I think that such discretion should not exist in the hands of the Minister, and we will support the amendment.

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

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I rather doubt whether my Hon. friends on the other side of the House have read the section. For their edification, I'll read the introduction. It says, "the Minister may receive and hold in confidence a proposal made by any of the parties for settlement of a dispute". Now, no-one's compelled to reveal anything they don't want to reveal. I don't know why the Liberal Party insists, Mr. Chairman, on dragging in all these insidious "cloak and dagger" powers. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) suggested that there was some awesome power that might be well wielded by the Minister here. I suggest he's not reading the legislation, the right of….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Labour Minister sit down for a moment? Would you make your point?

MR. WILLIAMS: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, deals specifically with an amendment to sub-section 2 of section 17, not to sub-section 1. If the Minister would please read that, he will know, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Minister to confine his remarks to the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: You cannot divorce section 2 from the intent of article 17, it's the information provided there that we are dealing with in the sub-section, so I don't think you can divide them. I think that's a little bit unsound. But certainly, Mr. Chairman, this information can't be elicited from any of the parties involved unless they are prepared to give it and on that basis it may be held in confidence, that it would be prejudicial to them in any way. On the other hand, it could constitute some type of violation of a collective agreement by either party and therefore require publication in the provincial department's statistical information. That's publication and I see nothing whatsoever insidious or dangerous about such a provision in the Act. I think the Liberal Opposition are trying to develop another straw man on this issue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if we could get away from our arguments which were put forward earlier dealing with legal principles — not that I don't think that the principles eloquently expressed by my colleague on my left from West Vancouver are not good ones, but perhaps if the Minister would look at this in a different way, we may all see this amendment in a different light, and we may succeed in getting a little further with this.

[ Page 286 ]

I would ask the Minister once more not to get trapped into hasty statements in attempts at rebuttal. I think that if he listens to his colleague, the Second Member from Vancouver Centre, had he listened to the comments made earlier which may have been slightly off the point when dealing with the earlier amendment, but nevertheless apply to this one, he would have perhaps understood a little better what we are driving at.

Think of this in a practical way. As Minister of Labour you want to get the confidence of parties. You want to have them come forward and give you information which will allow you to help resolve a problem, which you see, Sir — Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister — as being a difficulty. Something which may lead to an industrial dispute. Perhaps a strike, perhaps a lockout.

You want to get their confidence, and you want to get information from them, so you can discuss their problem, their real problem. Therefore I think it's really important to make sure that anything that could possibly lead them not to give you that type of information, should not be in this Act.

In other words, if I can quote the Minister, Mr. Chairman, he stated that "well, if they are prepared to give it, they're prepared to give it and if its prejudicial to their interests they of course won't give it."

Well, that's precisely what we should get away from. We should be getting to a period of trust — which, God knows, has been talked about long enough in this debate — in to a period of trust where even if it may be prejudicial to their interest they trust the Minister enough to tell him what's on their mind.

If they have a section like this in this bill whereby he can send it out in dribs and drabs, leak it to gossip columnists and the papers, if he thinks that's the most appropriate way of getting this information used, or else putting it in banner headlines — which I note will annoy his colleague the Premier — nevertheless he could do it that way.

If he goes about it in this sense I'm sure there are many unions and many companies who simply will not deal with the Minister on the basis of confidence and trust, which we think is important, to get labour relations in this province in a better climate — not that I regard the arguments of my learned colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound as unimportant, they are critical — but nevertheless there is another, what you might call more practical, application of this amendment which deals only with the Minister's ability to handle his portfolio.

I think if he looks upon it in that light and ignores, because he obviously in his more recent comments did not accept, the arguments put forward earlier by our friend from West Vancouver–Howe Sound or indeed the Hon. Member from Oak Bay — if he ignores that, for a moment goes back and thinks for himself, as a Minister, trying to get something done, deals with it practically in those terms perhaps he will see the virtue of the amendment that my colleague is putting forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to section 12, the first part, concerned with section 17, part 2 of the original Act, shall this amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS-17

[ Page 287 ]

NAYS-33

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I request that at the rising of the committee, that you do advise the Speaker that the amendment was moved to section 12 and a division took place and ask leave to have the division recorded in the Journals.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Chairman, may I with leave of the committee withdraw the amendment to section 12 standing in my name to sub-section 3 of section 17?

Leave granted.

Sections 12 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 5, An Act to Amend the Mediation Commission Act, reported complete without amendment.

Bill No. 5 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS-41

NAYS-10

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 6. Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 288 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MALE MINIMUM WAGE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 6, An Act to Amend the Male Minimum Wage Act.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On Section 4:

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I just mentioned earlier in the debate that none of us were really sure by how much the rate should go up and over what period of time. And the bill in section 4 states $2 per hour, and no further suggested raises. I did comment of my concern for some of the senior citizens in the light of this $2 raise, and by today I have in the mail a copy of a letter from the Glengarry Private Hospital announcing to the patients' relatives that on April 1, it went up to $14 a day, and that the rate will now become effective at $16 per day, in the Glengarry Private Hospital in Victoria. And I think, Mr. Chairman, to be complete at least I should read the letter very briefly.

"It has been announced in the Speech from the Throne that the minimum wage will be increased in the near future from $1.50 per hour, to $2 per hour. We are therefore accordingly forced to increase our accommodation rate effective 22nd November 1972 or on the date the new minimum wage becomes effective, whichever date is later. When this change becomes effective the daily accommodation charge will be $16 for the above patient. Should you wish to discuss this matter with me personally please make arrangements to do so at your earliest convenience."

I think, Mr. Chairman, this brings up to date the fears that were expressed from both sides of the House. In fairness, it wasn't just the Conservative Party. All parties expressed the concern that perhaps while the raise was necessary nobody really knew how much it should be raised, and over what period of time it should perhaps go up again. And I am just suggesting for the information of the House, Mr. Chairman, that here is one very deserving segment of the community in Victoria at least where the response has been very quick. This letter is dated October 23 — two days ago. And I think the House should be aware of this having happened and the likelihood that it will continue to happen.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, along the lines of my Hon. friend from Oak Bay I wonder whether the Hon. Minister might indicate whether he does have in his mind some scheme or other which would allow some sort of subsidy for cases such as that outlined by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay where there is a social need being performed by people who are very badly paid, at the present time, or are paid below the minimum wage, or what the minimum wage will become. Is it not possible for the Minister to at least let us in on his thinking as to whether he intends to allow some sort of subsidy scheme so the provincial treasury can at least cushion the shock and thus patients in private hospitals, and people in a similar position who might also be affected are not subjected to the full impact right away — as my Hon. friend from Oak Bay has indicated will be the case with respect to this particular private hospital?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Since we're now into a specific under this section I have to answer in specifics and since the House rules have been broken I hope I'm allowed the same latitude.

[ Page 289 ]

It is not this government's policy to favour profit-making in the health field. Let's have that clear. We do not believe in hospitals operating on a profit. And I think all of us have that same sympathy.

We have inherited a situation that we wanted altered for years. The first promise given by the former government to alter this situation was in a 1956 campaign by the former Minister of Health Eric Martin. It was a promise continued in every election campaign by the former government, never acted on. Recognising that we do not believe in the profit operation of private hospitals, nonetheless do we believe that any employee in a private hospital should subsidize the hospital by being under-paid, therefore making the private hospital economically viable.

The Members have touched on a very serious problem and it is a matter of urgent priority with us to ensure that under the British Columbia Hospital Insurance Scheme, every citizen of this province gets the service they're paying for through their taxes — that means chronic care — through the Government of British Columbia.

I will ask the Minister, as I've asked him before, again to review our present arrangements with private hospitals. I will ask the Minister to ensure that no patient to the best of our ability — with the situation that we've inherited — no patient to the best of our ability will suffer because of this particular amendment, or any other amendment.

I publicly make the appeal to the private hospital field to understand very clearly that we are now the government, we intend to move in this direction and for people in the private hospital field to avoid the interpretation of editorials which say that it is alright to say one thing in opposition but it's not necessary to do that once you become government because people understand that politicians change their mind.

I want the private hospital operators to understand that when we said in an election campaign that we don't believe in private hospitals operating, we mean it, and we intend to act on it.

To avoid any further cynicism by the public we intend to act with as much dispatch, with as much openness, as we can.

The Minimum Wage Act must go through now. The consequences we don't know in many areas. They might pop up from time to time, from week to week. I've said earlier that we will initiate an economic study of the consequences of this. We're working in a vacuum because of 20 years of neglect in this field.

That is a statement of fact. Just a statement of fact. No research. Nothing, when we came to office. We're trying to do what we can. I want to thank the Hon. Members for their statements on this. We'll have to accommodate ourselves as the situation arises. That's the best that I can say at this point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, and through you to Mr. Premier, for application to be made to the government in circumstances such as this? In which case I wonder if the Premier could indicate whether it should be the Minister of Health Services, the Minister of Labour, or what area? We fully understand and appreciate your lack of information on the effects of this. It's just that in the interim period before your material is gathered, when hardship may result for certain segments of the society, particularly the elderly and sick people and we would like some indication of where they can turn to for help.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This has been an area of court action between some hospitals and some municipalities. Outside of our jurisdiction. The previous administration was forced to court to take some action in terms of coming to the decision of settlement with municipalities. I would expect that in specific situations we have to turn to the Department of Welfare.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 290 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well no…. In instances now that exist, as the doctor will tell you, it's the Welfare Department has been subsidizing the private hospital field. I don't see any change in that for the time being. It's a mechanism that exists. I would expect that the case should be made directly to the Welfare Department as it stands now.

I hope it is only an interim period but, as the matter stands now, the route exists through the Welfare Department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I realise, Mr. Chairman, we're all speaking out of order. We'll try and keep it to the point.

Could I interpret it through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, that the government intends, either directly or indirectly to create non-profit facilities for the provision of chronic care under the B.C.H.I.S.?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is the ideal goal. In this regard, knowing very well my feelings about the role of charity, in this regard, this services clubs and other organizations, do have a role to play. I welcome that role.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 6, An Act to Amend the Male Minimum Wage Act reported complete without amendment.

Bill No. 6 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 7. Mr. Chairman.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 7, An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, under the revisions that we are presently dealing with in section 5, there is a provision now as there was in the former section of this Act for salaries and bonuses to come before an arbitration board.

Under the old section of the Act there was a provision that the Arbitration Board findings would not be final until they had been approved by the tenant electors. In other words, even though the Arbitration Board handed down a decision it was possible that that decision was not final and binding on the school districts or the teachers until such time as it had received consent from the tenant, or owner electors, I should say.

Now, that's a change and one of the changes that we opposed when we were speaking on second reading to this bill.

But, the one thing that I was really concerned about with respect to this section is that we deal with a term which says "salaries or bonuses or both". I would just like to know from the Hon. Minister within the context of this section on the Act, what constitutes a bonus for the purposes of a section.

[ Page 291 ]

Does it include, for instance, rental allowances, paid to a teacher in certain and special circumstances? Does it include travel expenses perhaps? Does it include such things as a sabbatical leave, which would be given to teachers to go into continued studies or continue studies for degrees? If so, how would it come into the play of this particular section of the Act? Could it include fringe benefits, particularly those that would not have been declared as income under the meeting of the Income Tax Act? In effect, when we talk about salaries and bonuses, just what part will the bonuses play in the future with regard to the actual costs of the financing of the educational system within the province?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): In reply to the Hon. Member, you're aware that this section has the same wording as it was when your government brought in the Act. But, it doesn't change the fact that the matter of interpretation of bonuses was negotiated in the same manner as when your government was in power. So, we will carry on in exactly the same manner.

It will be up to the boards when they are discussing the matter of bonuses to deal with it. I don't quite see the relationship between your question of bonuses and relating it to the fact that the referendum has been removed. I don't see the relevancy of the question, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Peace River. I would ask the Member to address his remarks to the Chair please.

MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will. The question has been posed that, by the Hon. Minister to myself I presume, or to me through you, Mr. Chairman, that there was no relevancy between the idea of one particular clause within the Act and the question that I asked regarding bonuses. I wanted a further clarification of what the position would not be of the Crown and the government with regard to what would qualify as a bonus under this Act.

I think that we made the point very well and very clear in this House that regardless as to what may be qualified as salaries or bonuses, there will be no further requirement on the school districts or the division, or the school division involved, to go any further than to arbitrate the case before the Arbitration Board. I just wanted to explore the area of bonuses to see if it was to be opened up in applying the interpretations of this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As far as opening up, as I think the Hon. Member knows, there have been districts which have opened up this area. As a matter of fact we have moved into some degree in working conditions. I think this is perhaps, the sort of thing you are suggesting here.

As you know the whole philosophy behind this Act is to restore to the boards their local autonomy. I think the teachers and the school boards will negotiate the matter of this, and will come to an agreement. If one party is concerned about the interpretation, of that agreement, and the word "bonus" as it refers to this Act, then they can bring it to my attention.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I'm under the right section here. I did have some questions to ask. It's in relation to kindergarten, for one point. Is this right? On the basis of instructional units; and my remarks to the Minister will be addressed through you, Mr. Chairman, at all times.

[ Page 292 ]

I would like to just comment on the fact that the Minister did mention that kindergartens would be compulsory in all school districts in the future and I am to assume this is to start in September of 1973. I regretted in the House and was quite concerned at that time about whether or not attendance at kindergartens was going to be compulsory. I see by the media that she did state outside this House that kindergarten attendance would not be mandatory in British Columbia and I commend you for this.

And I assure you, madam Minister, that should you ever try to make attendance in kindergarten in British Columbia compulsory you will receive strong opposition from this Member and this citizen in British Columbia.

I feel that there are some points that should be clarified in relation to kindergartens and I would like to know from the Minister how she is intending to house these classes in September of 1973. There are a number of school districts which are using their school facilities to the fullest and for sometime now….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be seated and the Hon. Minister state her point of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't think the matter of how the department is going to house kindergartens is really a matter for discussion under this section. I answered the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) when we were having a general debate on the principle of the bill with reference to kindergartens.

But under this section we are simply dealing with the basis for the calculation of instructional units. You see there is nothing to do with the capital costs of kindergartens.

MRS. JORDAN: Is there somewhere in this bill where I might ask this question because I have received a number of enquiries….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan was out of order under section 61-2 and I do not believe that there is a section.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you not wish to discuss kindergartens in any way, shape or form?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated.

Section 7 approved.

MRS. JORDAN: I asked a question through you, Mr. Chairman, whether or not the Minister did not wish to discuss kindergartens ….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declared the Hon. Member out of order.

On section 8:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: On section 8, Mr. Chairman, this is the section which sets the amount by which a school district may exceed the basic educational programme as a matter of course up to 110 per cent, and within certain circumstances they may be allowed to go beyond that, provided two-thirds of the School Board members vote in favour of allowing them to go beyond the 110 per cent limitation set out.

In the old Act the limitation of 110 per cent applied to the smaller districts and 108 to larger districts. So this is an increase giving more latitude to most of the school districts within the province.

[ Page 293 ]

I think it's a fair statement to say that there is going to be a tremendous amount of pressure on the school boards to provide whatever services they can, not only within the 100 per cent but also to perhaps expand beyond that point, if the teaching profession and those that are advising them feel that they have a good chance of making a strong case before the elected trustees of the school district.

It does seem to me, and as I've said in a previous debate on second reading, that this is going to place the elected board members in a very critical position. They will be asked to make decisions, perhaps which they do not completely agree with 100 per cent, and provide funds beyond a limit which they think would be really advisable when you take into consideration the overall cost of education and the inflationary effects that it's having on our economy, as well as many other things that are.

I believe that the authority as it stood before, where it could be referred back to the Minister of Education, certainly was a better way of handling this than the way we're presently proceeding. There's going to be a tremendous amount of pressure over a period of the next few months even on school boards to move rapidly into new fields and to increase expenditures to a great degree.

In that respect we all know the budget of the province can only devote so much of the total funds available to the educational field. I would hope that we do not get ourselves into a position where other fields of service to people will suffer because of the tremendous increase in demand for funds to finance our education system.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I believe that we've been going backwards in education for some years in British Columbia, largely because of the kind of attitude which is expressed in section 8. And I well recognise that the amendment to section 197 that we're discussing now is a considerable improvement over what we had at the time the new government took office.

But since we've been going backwards for many years the present arrangements really only get us back to where we were in 1968 or so. And I hope the Minister today could give us some indication that this particular section is going to be scrapped in the future and we'll have a much better formula for arriving at school board budgets.

Looking back over the history of the last three or four years I can't think of any good at all that has come from this 110 per cent formula. I can think of tremendous amounts of harm. I disagree completely with what the Member for North Peace River has just said.

The school populations in British Columbia are relatively constant in the primary and secondary system, and will remain so for a number of years. And it just happens to be the way our population shift has taken place. There will be more in the secondary school system, fewer in the primary system. We're not going to have an enormous increase in the number of teachers because the number of teachers we need is just proportional to the number of students we have in the system.

But there are some school districts that will experience considerable growth. And this will take place from year to year and will demand a considerably greater increase in their budgets than relatively more static areas of the province. And this sort of a section takes a flatiron to the business of school board budgeting in the province.

Again, may I reiterate that we've been marching backwards for some years. I compliment the minister on having turned education around in the province. We still aren't back where we were a decade ago but I hope that through further amendments to section 197 we can get ourselves back on the tracks again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Education.

[ Page 294 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I appreciate the remarks just made by the last speaker. And I just want to reiterate that I'm aware of these problems in the formula as it now exists. The whole formula is going to be under review.

But secondly, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that there is the section which was not discussed in any detail today on the rights of the Minister to change the instructional units costs. I think the Hon. Member, who is well-versed in the formula, is aware that if there is a change in that, particularly at the elementary level, it can certainly alleviate some of the pressures we have had in some of those areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe this isn't the time or the place to do it, but we do have in the galleries today a former Minister without Portfolio, the Hon. Isobel Dawson. I'd like the members to join with me in welcoming her to the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enquire of the Minister of Education, and I hope she'll correct me — as a matter of fact, I know she will — if she is wrong, if this will allow school boards in rural areas to budget for more busing facilities. Will this allow school boards in rural areas to carry students to independent schools? As the Minister may not be aware of, we have a problem in my constituency which arose last spring. A problem that was….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River be seated? Would you make your point?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, the two questions that the Hon. Member has just asked me are not at all pertinent to this bill. Because, when you're asking about busing and the busing of independent school children, you are talking about auxiliary school costs which do not come under this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would direct the Hon. Member's attention to section 61, part 2 — speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion.

I recognise the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) dealt a few moments ago with the philosophy of the finance formula and how it might be applied in the future. I would like to deal specifically with some of the problems right now under section 8 — of the immediate practicalities of the finance formula and the budgeting of school boards in 1972-1973.

Several weeks ago, the Minister invited school boards to discuss the present state of their budgets with her. As a result of those discussions a Press release was put out from the Hon. Minister on October 13 and I'm just going to read two lines from that Press release, Mr. Chairman.

First line of the first paragraph said, "28 school districts will be allowed to over expend their 1972 budgets". The first line of the second paragraph says "The government has approved the awarding of grants totaling…" so much, and it went on.

Now, Mr. Chairman, those statements are really opposite to each other in terms of the school boards budgeting under this 110 per cent formula. There are some school boards in the province who interpreted the Minister's request for this discussion of extra budgets, that anything they receive extra now would be charged against them next year in the calculation of their budget for 1973. There has been a good deal of confusion existing about this.

I think that the Minister, in closing the debate on this section, might clarify the point. I'm sure the Minister understands my point and she might clarify the situation.

[ Page 295 ]

The other question I would like to ask the Minister under this section 8 is on a totally different subject, but I will raise the question while I am on my feet. That's the matter of the two-thirds majority requirement of a school board. I asked this question the other day in discussing the bill in principle and the Minister, when she so rigorously answered two or three of my questions, didn't answer this particular one.

If you have a school board of five members attempting to perhaps pass a bylaw because they had the kind of problem that rose out of this section and if they are a scattered school board, as many districts are in British Columbia, and if there are weather problems, how do they solve the problem of getting the four out of five votes required to pass such a bylaw. There are time deadlines when you have to pass a bylaw of this sort. You haven't got time to wait until the next meeting sometimes when somebody who is tied up by weather or sickness or someone can't get there, and I think a statement from the Minister on this subject would be welcomed by a number of school boards in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes. Well, the first question, and it wasn't really an accurate report when you were referring to the special emergency fund which the Department of Education allowed. It wasn't allowing an excess over their previous budgets, Mr. Member. It was special emergency funds.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: …but it's supposed to be special emergency funds. That is the principle behind it. I think you are aware of that. I know your question is quite valid and I want to answer it, I hope to your satisfaction.

Boards are concerned, you have said, as to whether or not this special emergency fund which have been given to those which we felt would create desirable learning environments where they have been undesirable before, will be placed on them in the next budget.

A very explicit letter went out to all the school boards which I will send to you, Mr. Member, and all the school boards have received it. This letter stated that when their budgets were up before the department for analysis they would be studied very carefully, and there is no intention to have this put on their next year's budget unless, of course, the board showed that they had a surplus.

I think you would agree that if a board was in a financial position with a surplus and if we are going to be responsible, there might be consideration given there to perhaps having the board pick it up. There was no intent there to penalize the board in their preparation of their following year's budget.

As to the matter of the two-thirds vote. I really feel, when it comes to even a small board that is widely separated even because of bad weather, when it comes to a very serious matter of whether they are going to go over the 110, I think that arrangements can certainly be made, Mr. Member, for those boards to get together.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Education if she would give me any indication of when the regulation regarding the busing of independent school children might take place. It was an election promise from the present government….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have a very serious problem in our area….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 296 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Member be quiet.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's snowing up there today and the children are standing out in the snow waiting for the school buses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I appreciate this Minister's answer to the previous speaker but one, because I too was concerned over the contents of the Press statement and I hope she will send me a copy of that letter also.

But also in looking through the Press release that she made, I see some points that she might be pleased to clarify. How, for example, does it seem equal that Quesnel should get $2,400 for one teacher and Armstrong….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Would the Hon. Member for North Okanagan be seated?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The money which was allotted to the school boards came under a section where we are allowed, under the school Act, to help with what we considered a special emergency fund. We are not discussing that in this Act.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the content that I'm talking about was related to your Press release which was previously discussed. May I explain that question in another way. In your release which was discussed…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated please.

MRS. JORDAN: …you allowed for over-expenditures on the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member be seated, please.

Section 8 approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 7, An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act reported complete without amendment.

Bill No. 7 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS-43

[ Page 297 ]

NAYS-10

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 10.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 10, Tobacco Products Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Tobacco Products Act.

Section 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move, Mr. Chairman, the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

The object of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to offer hopefully a better attempt to prevent the confusion and the unworkability and, I think, the public resentment that resulted and developed from the former government bill. But the powers, Mr. Chairman, that the former government gave itself by way of statutes and powers that the present government proposes to give itself within this bill that is now in front of us, No. 10, is by way of regulation.

I have just now received in my desk — unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to read it — the regulations that the Hon. Attorney General is proposing. I gather that it's just a draft, so we're not too far along the line in that. But I do feel very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that we do have specifically, under section 3A of the Act which I'll read in a second, once again, the disposition of the government deciding that it's going to grant itself almost unlimited powers.

The former bill of the former government really had nothing to do with selling or distributing or offering or exposing — whatever that means in relation to tobacco I'm not too sure. What we have here is really open-end legislation, giving something here a totality of power to be decided, not by the Legislature, not by the 55 people who are sitting here, but behind the green door of cabinet. Perhaps, I should say, in view of the rather dramatic changes that have occasioned around here over the last few days, that the door may have changed colour from green to perhaps fuchsia.

In proposing this amendment I want to indicate very, very clearly what is proposed.

Now, if the Hon. Members will take a look at existing 3A as it now stands, the cabinet may make regulations respecting the labelling, the packaging, the selling, the distributing, the offering, the exposure, the promoting, and the advertising of tobacco in the province. What I'm suggesting is that that section 3A be deleted and that we afford something definite and positive today.

The amendment reads: "by the deleting of section 3A, and the submitting of another section, no person shall in the province sell, advertise, or promote the use of tobacco unless there is legibly stated, on any package, promotion, or advertising of tobacco products, a warning that the use of tobacco is dangerous to human health."

So, then we'd have something very….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 298 ]

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: …both French and English?

MR. GARDOM: If you'd like. Do you like them both in French and English? Well, what ever you say, Mr. Minister.

But, there we could have something that would be plain, and it would be simple. We'd have a legislative enactment that would come in front of the people and be decided here by the 55 members of this Legislature, today. Not something that can be delegated to the rarified cabinet to pronounce as and when they chose.

Now I know the Attorney General's interest in accelerating something along this line. I commend him upon it, however, I do feel that it would be far better, both for the Legislature, for the general public and those people who are engaged in this business, if they would know today exactly where they stood and how — instead of having to wait to see what the regulations may or may not be.

You have of course total power to change these regulations in any manner that you see fit. I think that the jist of this cigarette advertising situation was most terrifically stated, I may say, by two speeches in the House. The Member from Langley (Mr. McClelland) gave a very interesting and illustrating talk on the rather contradictory philosophies that we are facing here, and also the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), when he talked about a more positive approach to dealing with hazardous products.

So, I would suggest to the Hon. the Attorney General and to the House, that if you go ahead and you accept this amendment, there will be something today that is definitive and that is decided by the representatives of the people, all of the representatives of the people. The 55 people who are here, as opposed to the delegation of power to the cabinet.

Secondly, and I would suggest for the interest of the Hon. Attorney General, I think he has his pencil in his hand, and for consistency in our laws I very much commend him, not only to a private Members' bill which came in, in 1971, concerning cigarette advertising, but that was very largely structured along the lines of the government liquor Act. Now, you, Mr. Attorney General, made a statement — and I don't know if it was inside the House or outside of the House — that doesn't concern me in the slightest. But, you indicated to the people of B.C., that your government was saying "No" to billboard advertising. I commend you very much for that stand, indeed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, your amendment allows it.

MR. GARDOM: No, my amendment, this amendment here, does not go ahead and permit billboard advertising, this indicates a specific warning.

Now the Hon. the Attorney General said that the amendment does permit it, which it does not. But I would be very happy — and if I could have a page here — to send over to the Attorney General a very nice little statement which will adequately take care of his billboard advertising. And the terminology used here, Mr. Chairman, is much the same terminology that we find in the new government liquor Act, which prevents billboard advertising.

I think that these two statutes should almost be twin statutes with rather a great deal of consistence in their statement.

I think if the Attorney General would accept something along this line and he could bring in himself, as an amendment before this session is over, something that would say this: "No person shall exhibit, or display, or permit to be exhibited or displayed, any advertisement or notice of, or concerning, cigarettes, cigars, tobacco in any of its forms by any electric, illuminated or other signs, contrivance, or device or in any building, hoarding signboard, billboard, or other place in public view."

This is a parallel situation with the government Liquor Act.

I would move the amendment.

[ Page 299 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Members to confine their remarks to the amendment. I recognise the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Members made a very good speech on two amendments, but the one on the order paper is the one we're discussing. I think that one unquestionably would allow billboard advertising of cigarettes with a warning — which could as my friend says be in either French or English. But, it would allow billboard advertising.

We don't want to do that. Now the scheme of this Act, and why we're doing it the regulation way, I think I explained yesterday, is that in section 2 there is a general prohibition. In the regulations there will be permission to advertise in certain very limited ways. We want flexibility in that field because those regulations are going to have to be changed, possibly from time to time. Now, for example if the warnings on cigarette boxes are not big enough in terms of their print. If they're illegible, we're going to specify that in the regulations. It may be that we'll have to turn as some of the Americans are doing, to giving the public information as to the tar and nicotine content.

AN HON. MEMBER: You favour warnings, Sir?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Favour warnings…but no billboards.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course not.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but your amendment allows it and that's why…that's one of the reasons this side is opposing the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: …Mr. Attorney General is misreading a clear amendment like this….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Your amendment would permit the billboards. Not the one you are sending me over by the girl page boy, but the one we're dealing with here. So, we say that we need some flexibility. I've explained what the regulations are and I'll give further details if the House wants it but, I think I made that fairly plain.

Let me add this, Mr. Chairman, that we intend that this matter shall not be withdrawn from this House because the Premier's indicated that there will be a committee and among the things that committee will have before it will be the existing regulations, and I hope that will be this spring, and that there are ways in which we can fortify our protection against the danger to health.

We intend to do so, and we want to keep this House, and its committees, as fully informed as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): By the Hon. Second Member from Point Grey's amendment, he would not quote the situation that was discussed, Mr. Chairman, when this bill was discussed in second reading by the House.

It was raised there, and this is what sub-paragraph A, of section 3, is trying to get at. It was raised there that there are certain ways of advertising tobacco which are misleading and which make the use of tobacco attractive, especially to young people. They can identify with certain symbols in advertising and it's precisely this that the Attorney General wishes to have under his review by way of regulation.

Why would the Hon. Member from West Point Grey, delete paragraph A? On using his argument of sweeping powers of regulation and not B, C or D?

B, C or D deal with the protection of the public in that we can prevent them from using certain tobacco substances which may be more toxic or poisonous than the average. There are provisions for seizing whole quantities of tobacco and so on. If he's so concerned about regulations in paragraph A, why didn't he address his mind to B, C and D?

[ Page 300 ]

Really he is just creating another red herring and he's not dealing, Mr. Chairman, with the essential problem of regulating the advertising of this lethal substance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pickled herring!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I appreciate the oratorical efforts of the last speaker, however, Mr. Chairman, I have just now, as I said, received the proposed regulations that the Attorney General is bringing in.

He is bringing in a warning.

Now if I had only got these to my desk a little bit earlier today, and I had known you were bringing in a warning, I obviously would not have gone ahead with my amendment, which you are not going to accept.

AN. HON. MEMBER: He said so yesterday.

MR. GARDOM: But, I didn't see this….

AN HON. MEMBER: If you were in the House yesterday….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address his remarks to the Chair?

MR. GARDOM: There should be a little bit better method of communications, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you'll do your level best to see that that is brought about. I'm sure you will.

So, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I have now read the regulation and in view of the fact that the government has accepted my suggestion that there will be a warning and in view of the fact that it's evident that the government will not go ahead and accept my amendment I beg leave to withdraw it.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), this amendment to the bill, because I have already received at least the tacit consent of the Hon. Attorney General, and I would like to see added as section 3 and renumbering sections 3 to 6 inclusive as 4 to 7 inclusive, the following. I'll pass this up to you in a moment, Mr. Clerk.

"No person shall exhibit or display or permit to be exhibited or displayed any advertisement or notice of, concerning, cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, in any of its forms by any electric, illuminated or other sign, contrivance or device, or in any building, hoarding, sign, billboard, or other place in public view…" and I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I have the amendment please?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member was good enough to give me a copy of this, and I haven't had a chance to check it out. But, it doesn't sound dangerous.

I'm wondering about sporting affairs — curling — isn't there often at the end of a curling rink a sign with just the name of a company?

Now I would like to see all that abolished but….

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it down!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: "Take it down" you say? Just don't have the name?

No name like "Players" anywhere in a building.

[ Page 301 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, "any advertisement or notice of or concerning…."

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the curling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. the Attorney General has the floor.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again, so I can consider this.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 1, An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act.

Section 1 approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 1, An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act reported complete without amendment.

Bill No. 1 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 11, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GOVERNMENT LIQUOR ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 11, An Act to Amend the Government Liquor Act.

Section 1 approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 11, An Act to Amend the Government Liquor Act reported complete without amendment.

Bill No. 11 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS-43

[ Page 302 ]

NAYS-10

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker.

LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE INQUIRY ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 12, Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) the amendment to section 2 standing in my name in the order paper. Could we pass this up to the Chair?

Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very simple amendment which I'm sure the government will look kindly upon because it guarantees that the members of all political parties represented in the House shall serve on committees to advise the Speaker about redrafting the rules for the House and changing the way in which the Legislature operates.

It's fairly obvious if this is to be a successful and effective exercise then Members from all political parties will need to participate in it. And I'm sure this was just a small oversight on the part of the government and that's why we're proposing this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. However, both the Premier, and in announcements both in and out of the House, we on this side of the House, and the Speaker designate at the time, he was interviewed and the Premier during his term of office since first coming to this assembly on October 17 have said over and over again that all sides of the House will be represented.

All parties will be called upon to judge and evaluate the total work of this committee. I think we should not introduce….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HALL: We should not introduce the political party system into such a thing of the House itself. And I, Mr. Chairman, cannot support the amendment simply on the basis that the assurances of the Speaker himself, whom we have just elected to this position, I think should be honoured in the finest traditions of the parliamentary system and we should not in my view clutter the legislation by the mention of parties political in that sense.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard — the Hon. the Provincial Secretary talk about cluttering the legislation.

[ Page 303 ]

It has long been parliamentary practice that the House has control of its own rules. This establishment of a committee by statute is an exceptional step made necessary because of the long period of time which has intervened since these rules were last considered.

Therefore, when this House comes to consider this kind of legislation it is the legislation of this assembly — not of the Hon. the Premier nor of the Hon. the Provincial Secretary. And their assurances are not good enough for this House when we are considering legislation of this kind. Let it be in the legislation.

No one is questioning the impartiality of the Speaker that has just been elected, but this is the continuing committee which is to serve through the life of this Speaker and every subsequent Speaker. And I think that as parliament changes, and this assembly changes, its complexion legislation that we are considering here for a constant and continuing review of the rules and procedures of this House should ensure that the committee which is advising the Speaker whoever he or she may be, should be representative of all parties.

And I trust that the Hon. Provincial Secretary was being frank with the House when he said that all sides would be represented. That he really meant "all parties" because as he continued his remarks he said that all parties would have the opportunity of considering what the Speaker has done in this committee. And that rather indicates to me that all parties will have the opportunity of considering it when the reports of the committee come back to this House. That's a different thing from being actually a member of the committee which is to advise and assist the Speaker in this important endeavour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment and I won't add much to the comments made by the Hon. Liberal Member for Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) because they were very well put.

I would just add and reinforce as I said in the general debate to the principle of this bill, that this is a bill and a section with wide powers. This is a section and a bill that require the utmost confidence of every single Member in this House in authorizing its powers.

We are not questioning the Speaker, nor would it really occur to us to question matters such as are mentioned in this amendment. But the very actions of the Provincial Secretary since this bill came before the House are indeed raising questions in the minds of the members on this side, and I would suggest on their own side. And when he gets up in this House and there have been reasonable questions answered and he stands there like Lord Hawhaw and says, "my word is good enough". I suggest he is destroying the very confidence that he should be seeking, and that he would get were his conduct worthy of it.

We will support this amendment on the basis that the Provincial Secretary had not conducted himself in a manner which is conductive to the man who, or the position that, is introducing this bill, demanding so much confidence and good will from the Members in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, as one of the Members of the Conservative hordes in the House, and one of the likeliest beneficiaries of the Liberal amendment, I feel that this is gives our party the safeguard needed to insure that one of us comes on the committee.

I am very much in favour of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

[ Page 304 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I think it is a very good amendment. I think we have witnessed since this House opened the taking on of powers by the government which is the very thing which they promised not to do when this House opened.

We witnessed when the bill, the labour bill, was passed this afternoon, the Minister of Labour took onto himself great powers. The Attorney General is taking on himself great powers, when he regulates…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you keep to the amendments please?

MR. PHILLIPS: …the advertising of tobacco and who shall….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment? Would you confine your remarks to the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: And now, the Premier is taking on to himself "you shall and you shall not sit on this committee". I would like to bet that — well no, you can't bet in the House. I'll state here unequivocally, that there will be no Members on this committee from either of the Opposition parties.

I'd be quite willing to make that statement here because I don't think the Premier has an intention of putting any Member of the Opposition parties on this very, very important committee.

It has been already stated in this House this afternoon, the rules of this House have not been revised for a great number of years — 40 years to be exact. Now that….

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder why, I wonder why!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there were lots of other governments. You wonder why. Now, you want a one party system.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: When the rules of hockey are revised all players and all teams, when the rules of the N.H.L. are revised all the teams have a say-so, have a so-say. (Laughter).

Now, we're making amendments, making changes to the rules which are not only going to affect this parliament, but are going to affect the parliament that is going to sit in this House for hundreds of years to come. One party wants to have the so-say, the say-so, in making all the changes. Mr. Premier, if you are sincere, and I mean this sincerely, if you are sincere about the statements you have previously made in this House about giving the opposition parties more leeway, about giving the opposition parties more say in the affairs of this House, you rise in your seat at the present time and make a statement that you are going to allow some Opposition Members to sit on this committee.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we in this Opposition party are going to have to support this amendment. If the Premier doesn't do something about it, we're going to have to go out and tell the 60 per cent of the people in this province that we represent, what a heavy hand of state socialism is now upon the House.

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

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'm glad that the performance by that Member had some levity at the end, as I know that he couldn't possibly be serious. Considering the fact that group over there held up any rule change for 20 years. Twenty years! You know they are so trained with behaving under dictatorship, that they don't even understand how to handle freedom when it has been given to them.

[ Page 305 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Premier address the chair?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said, and I said clearly, that this House will never again suffer under the heavy hand of one-man government ever… ever… ever!

You go out and tell the 60 per cent. Come with me on television. I'll read your name in the order paper on the record voting down time and time again, against amendments, changes, any kind of thing because one man said, "I want it this way" and sat with his back to the Opposition. I've sat here, I haven't turned my back. I want this House to work. I mean it. In this legislation we're asking no law be passed, no changes will take place. I've asked the cabinet to restrain themselves from the debate when the new bill comes in…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …it will immediately go to committee. It will be the ordinary Members of this House who have the report in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dictatorship — he makes up his mind….

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will be the ordinary Members of this House in their own workings to establish that committee. That committee will be served by Members of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: All sides.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All sides when the report comes in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't like that, eh?

AN HON. MEMBER: When the cake is baked, we get a piece.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When the report comes back from the Speaker, who has been elected by this House, that report will go to committee. That committee will composed as all regular committees of this House go, and that committee will sit and bring in its own party recommendations into this House — the way it should be.

The remarks made by the Liberal group have no touch of cynicism, in my opinion. They've been through this in the House. They know what we've gone through, until 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the morning, and we've asked for a simple adjournment. That former group said: "Oh no! We couldn't give an Opposition Member an adjournment. Why, it would break the rules".

We saw that performance and then when they are given an adjournment now, they don't even know how to handle it. The Tories have been through it too. That's what caused one of them to leave that party. Of all the pieces of legislation beyond $200 a month, this one is important for this session because I want that report into this House by the spring session so that all parties can work at it.

There is a section in here that Mr. Speaker may appoint a committee. That's what we are dealing with now. There is no objection in my opinion for the Speaker, in his wisdom, to approach Members. That is the purpose of drafting the bill. I don't want to play politics with it, because their record stands for itself.

We're asking the Speaker to approach Members, ask for opinions, get the job done. The bill, the report, will go to committee, there'll be no introduction of anything, unless it comes out of that all-party committee into this House, by the ordinary Members of this House.

I want those changes. I want them as clearly and as openly, as honestly and non-politically decided upon by the elected Members of this House so that we never suffer again that kind of performance.

[ Page 306 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Words…words…words.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. the Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again our modest and well-thought-of proposals are greeted with gentle words on both sides of the House. We're surprised the number of times they seem to lead to passion, which perhaps is not justified by what we are discussing today.

I appreciate the words of the Premier on this amendment. We all do. I think that it is quite correct for him at this stage to indicate, as a member of the government, the Leader of the government, what will happen to the Speaker's report once it will come into the House, which he has indicated will go to a committee. The purpose of this amendment is somewhat different, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier.

The purpose of this amendment is what happens prior to that report of the Speaker's committee coming to the House.

We put it forward, as I said, in a spirit of cooperation — in an effort to try and make that committee work better and give Members the maximum amount of confidence in it. We appreciate the need for the Speaker himself, Mr. Chairman, to have a fair amount of latitude in what he does. This amendment is, we feel, not an onerous burden on him. We fully expect, thanks to the statements of the Premier, and also the Speaker, and the Provincial Secretary, that we would be included on any such committee. Really our concern was perhaps for a smaller party than our own. It would be unlikely that it would happen that the second Opposition party would be ignored, perhaps the third might be. We simply ask that this guarantee be put in. It's not, as I mentioned earlier, an onerous burden on the Speaker. We do feel, as the Premier made clear, and also the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound made clear that the rules of the House are not only something which the Speaker alone is concerned about, but something that we are all concerned about. After all, we have to live under them just as the Speaker has to enforce them.

Therefore, we would put in what we think is a relatively modest proposal which would simply make one guarantee in this Act that the committee of the Speaker has representatives of all parties.

I trust that the passion of what has happened in the previous 20 years, and not has happened in the previous 20 years, will not lead people to ignore the merit or the lack of merit of this particular amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that there is a difference between the bill as it was introduced in this section and the amendment proposed. I think we can all admit that no Member of this House, no person today active anywhere within the precincts of these buildings, has any experience of any kind in rewriting the rules that govern this assembly.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, they haven't been touched since 1932.

AN HON. MEMBER: …1931.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They haven't been touched since 1932.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So I think it's a safe assumption that no one has any experience in rewriting. The section that's in here….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 307 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …it does now. Now just hold on a minute. I listened to you and….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This section is written to give the Speaker when he first looks at this problem the freedom to examine how best it can be handled and it leaves the politics out of it by saying "the Members of the legislative assembly". Because it is as Members of this assembly — not members of a political party — that we must look at how this House is governed.

This House has been governed too long by a political party and not by the Members of the legislative assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …and I suggest to you that this section as it is now written leaves the Speaker free after he has examined it to determine the best method of proceedings.

If in his opinion — and that's what it says — it is necessary before it's brought to the committee next spring he consult with Members, O.K. — he does so. The amendment says he shall set up a committee. It makes it mandatory. Which is a binding factor then and could inhibit what may be the best procedure of making what would only be an original draft. As the Premier has said it will be referred to the committee of this House composed of members of every political party to decide yes, no, amend, change, do what they please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Provincial Secretary. Would Members be seated? Would the Hon. Member state his point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: Could we ask leave of the House to continue past the sitting hour to complete this?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: I want to point out that the very debate we're having in my view tends spoil the purity of legislation.

I want to point the finger directly at the misunderstanding that they've developed through careless language. That I don't want to see the bill politicised in any way whatsoever. And it's because of my feeling that once you start on that road you find the next amendment, if I may be out of order for one second, Mr. Chairman, that starts to prescribe one, two, three, five, seven, however many members — what proportion. And how I remember the then Attorney General, the Member for Point Grey, standing up with his slide rule and telling us how many Members each side of the opposition was supposed to have on the committee.

It's because I want to avoid that kind of thing as a Member of this House — and I'm only in charge of this bill in the sense that our rules don't allow the Speaker to be in charge of it, that's all — I don't want to get into the kind of debate that we're getting in. I suggest that once we elected the Speaker the assurances have been given. Every single act of this government up until now should have assured those people — those doubting Thomases — that we mean what we say and we say what we mean, if you want to play the power game and nobody suggested that for a second, that we get on with the business. The Speaker has already contacted some people in the House I'm assured. I'm assured the Leader of the Opposition has already spoken to the Speaker about this and received assurances.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, yes. He had already assured me.

[ Page 308 ]

HON. MR. HALL: Thank you. Right, that's all I wanted, Mr. Member. And I think with that in mind that we move on and we expect the call from the Speaker to give what little knowledge we may have to him so that the total input can be brought back to this House and dealt with in the normal way.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to speak at any length but merely to say how well I recall the Provincial Secretary and other members of the cabinet who have spoken regarding this amendment in the days when they were in opposition …

AN HON. MEMBER: And they were long.

MR. McGEER: And they were long — and they were long. Decrying the fact that Ministers of the former government got up in the House and asked them to accept assurances that they refused to put into legislation. The only difference, Mr. Chairman, between this government and the former one in that regard is that they were in for 20 years and you've been in for one month. But the arguments, Mr. Chairman, that have been advanced by Ministers of the former government and the present government are identical and I hope that for as long as Opposition Members are in this House they will forever refuse to accept from any Minister assurances of interpretation of bills when the intent can be quite clearly spelt out in the legislation itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Provincial Secretary for assuring the House and bringing to the House's attention the conversation that took place between the Speaker and the Leader of Her Majesty's Official opposition. And because of that assurance it's now confirmed in the records that the official Opposition will not support the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved. Title approved.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 12, Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act reported complete without amendment.

Bill No. 12 read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. King files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Hartley files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions numbers 47, 22, 25, 76 and 75; and files returns to 31 and 29.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House. motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:09 p.m.