[ Page 355 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1972

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, there is one announcement I wish to make with some regret. I wish to tell you that one of our attendants who served this House faithfully for many years, Gerald McIlvenny, died in hospital this morning. I would like, on your behalf, to express to his family our condolences at his passing and advise you that he served this House for many years as a respected attendant. I'm sure I'd be expressing the sentiments of the House if this fact were recorded in Hansard, and a letter to that effect go to his widow.

The other point was raised by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). We have taken the opportunity to examine the rules with respect to this question. The Minister gives his answer. It is not the business of the clerks or of the House, other than to see that the answer is tabled with the House, and it's not the business of the House so far as a matter of privilege is concerned. There is no matter of privilege involved. It is not a matter of debate except in dealing with the Minister at some subsequent occasion —  therefore there is no point of privilege at all. I think that is the only ruling to make — and I could give it to you in more detail if you like.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I would like to bring to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Chant, the former Minister of Public Works, is in attendance tonight. He was a Member in two parliaments, one in Alberta as minister of Agriculture and again in British Columbia for a number of years as Minister of Public Works. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Chant.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 2, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GIFT TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 2, An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Sorry, the amendment has not been sent up from my office.

I move the amendment as it appears in my name on the order paper, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, speaking to the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Premier.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I wish to commend the Hon. Premier for introducing this amendment to the Gift Tax Act. As the Hon. Premier said in debate in this House a few days ago, he and his government are prepared to welcome the attitude of giving on the part of the citizens of this province for those worthwhile community objects which serve the citizens of this province. And while the legislation, as it stands before us today, and as it is amended by this bill, does deal in a specific way with giving and the exemptions which are accorded to such gifts, the Hon.

[ Page 356 ]

Premier has, in the course of moving this amendment, expanded the exemptions from the gift tax in respect of all those worthwhile community projects which may, in their own good time, devise — purposes which it would be impossible for this or any other Legislature to divine in advance.

The amendment which we have here today gives the opportunity for citizens of this province, having determined what worthwhile gifts they believe should be made, to make the appropriate representation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for an exemption and I'm sure, upon the submission of proper material, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will see fit to grant the exemption in the proper case.

As I heard the Hon. Member from Comox (Ms. Sanford) speak today, she mentioned the breath or the wind of change which took place in this province just two months ago. And when I look back on the undutiful day in this House a couple of years ago, when the Minister of Finance of the previous government saw fit to bring before this House retroactive legislation which had the most devastating effect upon charitable giving in this province, I could not help but think of the amendment which we are dealing with tonight. It certainly is a new wind of change that blows in this province and this amendment proves it to be the case.

I have had my differences, and we on this side of the House have had our differences, with the Hon. Premier and his party. I'm sure that we will in the future, and I'm sure the Premier would welcome those differences, but on a subject such as this — the matter of giving for good community purposes — I trust that no Member on any side of this House will ever have reason to differ.

Now as I think of this, I recall that, as a consequence of what the previous government did a couple of years ago, a significant charitable act on the part of an individual in this province was subjected retroactively to the impact of legislation in this province and of tax. And I speak of the gift that was made from the Woodward estate to the Woodward Foundation. By reason of the action of the previous government, and of the lawsuit that subsequently ensued, the charitable recipient of that gift was penalised to the amount of $1.6 million.

I hope that as a result of this amendment and of the attitude which the Premier has displayed in bringing it forward that that kind of result will never again occur. I hope that, as we discuss this amendment, the Premier may see in his wisdom to exercise the power which is his as minister of Finance to redress what I think was a wrong by the previous government and restore to the Woodward Foundation the succession duties which they were obliged to pay as the result of the unthinking action of the previous government, in order that the Woodward Foundation may continue to carry out to the fullest extent the wish of the late Mr. Woodward, those beneficial acts which the late Mr. Woodward had in his contemplation when he made his will. That would bring to full circle the change which the past two months has witnessed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the comments of the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound and I think the House should know that that Member was partially instrumental in this amendment appearing in its form on the order paper and now being debated as part of the bill. It's a custom in the British parliamentary system that Opposition Members do not appear on the amendments that the government accepts but there is no question, and the House should know it, that that Member had an influence in that amendment appearing in the form it's in.

Also, the Mayor of Oak Bay did phone my office and advised me of this particular amendment and I said, "Sure, I'll look into it." I did, and I must say that I was a bit taken aback in her surprise that she could even get through to talk, let alone have that kind of fast action.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's unusual.

[ Page 357 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, let me put it this way. It was a darn good idea. I want to thank the Member and Mayor Elford for bringing it to my attention.

I appreciate what you have said in terms of going back. I've given it a great deal of thought. I'm aware of the Woodward case and the whole situation that brought this around, but we can't go back now. We just can't. There are too many other matters. It's not a question of isolating one in terms of history. We must live with the situation as we found it. All I can say is that as long as this amendment is here, as long as this government is here, it will not occur again.

We encourage giving. We have no antipathy, we're not opposed to anybody's selection of a charity. As long as it's for the community good we don't care if it's the North Pole or the South Pole or anywhere else. If people have a good cause and it helps human beings anywhere in the world — well, let them go to it, as far as we're concerned.

I have had letters from church groups and I want to let them know that overseas missions will be excluded, unlike the previous government. I hesitate to make a comment about the Godless socialist bit, but let them understand that this group that was labeled so unfairly has no bias against church groups doing mission work overseas or anywhere else. We'll see by law that their right to give in that direction is protected.

As for service clubs, I'm not a member of a service club myself, but I recognise the work that many of them do in terms of specific community projects. That's excluded now. We've left it open enough in the amendment so that, no matter what the cause is, all they have to do, as the Member says, is lay out what they hope to do with it. If it is a bona fide case, and it won't take much to prove that, we're not going to pass judgment on charity. We say, "O.K. that's fine".

If any individual or any group in this beautiful province of ours wants to share a little bit of what they've gained out of their life experience in this province with anyone else in the world then, if in our own little way that all we can do is administratively say, "O.K. that's fine too." We want to encourage it.

Everybody who is listening — if you don't want the government to get your money through succession duty, give it away to charity. We won't complain about that.

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

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Well, I guess as one whose very livelihood and every cent I've ever earned since university was from charity and from the church, I'm very glad to speak towards this proposed amendment to the bill.

I just would like to say that a lot of the most imaginative things that we've seen in society have come because there has been seed money. I could think especially of United Community Services in Vancouver, the Inner City Service Project and many other very creative groups that have sometimes independently been funded in a way that allows for creativity that governments and other groups maybe just aren't that flexible to deal with.

It allows for people over a long period of time to do some very creative planning and I'm very glad again that there is this flexibility. I've had many phone calls outside and inside of the church hoping that we can get back to this kind of flexibility.

Certainly this brings up the whole fact that as Members, when we go back to our constituencies, we should let this word be known, asking for people to feel that freedom again. I don't feel that this House and this government has any monopoly on new ideas and planning. We want to hear it from many people in a constituency. I'm glad that, in a financial way and in a budgeting way, these groups will be able to hopefully expect a little more money.

Which brings up the whole fact that, in the church and in many groups in the community, we've reached a plateau. We're already sliding as far as savings go. Charity is not all that fantastic or as large as it was at one

[ Page 358 ]

time per capita. We still hope that people are gracious and altruistic and that we can rely on independent money without strings attached to allow new innovative programmes for people.

Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to speak briefly on this matter and I hope that the House will give it its support.

Amendment to section 2 approved.

MR. WILLIAMS: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the passing of the Premier's amendment I would be pleased to ask leave to remove the amendment standing in my name.

Leave granted.

Sections 2 to 11 inclusive approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 2, An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting after today.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): We'll accept it now, Mr. Speaker, with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Now the bill is before the House for distribution if the Hon. Members want it in their book at the moment. Do you want to proceed without distributing it? In that case, Mr. Premier, we can proceed with third reading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the bill now be read a third time, Mr. Speaker.

Bill No. 2 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 3, Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act.

On section 1.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on section 1 standing in my name.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I would like to merely pose a question to the Hon. Minister with respect to the amendment which he has made.

The original definition of income meant income as taken into account in fixing the guaranteed income supplement payable under the Old Age Security Act of Canada. The amendment has introduced other words and those are, "and such other income or financial resources as are determined under the regulations". Now I have no objection to the words as they originally stood and I have no objections to the words "and such other income".

But I would like the minister to indicate to me what he contemplates by adding the word "or financial resources" because by the plain meaning of the word, "income" is what comes in, and "financial resources" of an individual may not necessarily come in. They may be assets which are never realized — in fact which may not even be realizable. I'm only concerned

[ Page 359 ]

to know whether or not it is the intention of the Minister under the regulations to somehow or other draw within the meaning of "income" and therefore influence the entitlement of any citizen to the assistance which this bill will give of some financial resource not of an in-coming nature. Because really what is important to the prospective recipients of the assistance under this Act is what comes to them on a regular periodic basis, and without some explanation from the Minister I would have to oppose this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: What we've done in fact is to widen this definition somewhat in order to bring in some people, not too many, but there are some people living in the province who are not getting G.I.S. or old age pension, who would qualify if they were able to qualify for that. I have in mind for instance people who have lived here five, six or seven years, in the province, in Canada, and yet are in need and we are thinking in terms of those people, some of them have pensions from for instance Great Britain. We have a number of cases already that people have contacted us about. So we have in mind to broaden it, to bring these people into it. There aren't many, I think there are less than 300 in the province, and we will view each case, but we need this kind of scope.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please confine the discussion to the amendment. I recognise the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm indebted to the Minister for his answer, but his answer is not responsive to the question that I posed. In order for a person to get benefits under this legislation, we first of all take the old age pension that he receives and then we take the guaranteed income supplement that he receives and then we add to that the monthly income of that person, and if there is any short-fall between those figures and $200 a month, then the person gets some additional moneys.

What concerns me is your use of the words "financial resources". Now if it's a pension that comes from some other jurisdiction then it's still income because it comes on a regular periodic basis. But that is not what "financial resource" means, and I remain unconvinced by the Minister's answer and the example that he gives is one that I understand. A pension from Great Britain, or from Australia, or wherever the case maybe is income and certainly it would be taken into account. Under the regulations that you have, the regulatory powers that you have, you might exclude that amount of money, if you so wish. That's fine, that is a decision which is the Minister's responsibility to make.

But it is the use of the words "financial resources", and what I really want to know, I suppose, is whether or not the Minister may have in mind looking at the assets of any particular individual and saying, "Well, we appreciate that your income is insufficient for the purposes of this Act and therefore you should get some assistance from us but when we have looked at the other financial resources available to you, we do not believe that you are entitled to assistance, but that you are entitled to utilise those additional financial resources and therefore we will deem them to be income" and if the Minister will indicate that is not his intention, then perhaps my inquiry will be satisfied.

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

[ Page 360 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Would the Minister be agreeable to amending the amendment so that it reads "income" instead of "financial resources"?

HON. MR. LEVI: No.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, on the same point, I discussed this at some length with my colleague from West Vancouver—Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) and perhaps if we deal in example as the Minister attempted to do, or began doing, we may get a little further in this inquiry. I would like to know, Sir, whether other financial resources, or financial resources as mentioned in this amendment, for example, would include the possession of real estate. In other words, we may have an example of a…

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it wouldn't.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …well, if I could just finish my example, you can repeat that if it's correct with the example as well. If, for example, you had a person who had $250,000 or $500,000 worth of Gulf Island property who had lived on it for many years —  a farm with the family perhaps — whose income was not great, whose income might be indeed the old age pension and some portion of the guaranteed income supplement. With these words it would appear to me that you yourself as Minister or your successors could deem the $500,000 worth of property in some way as income, because after all "financial resources" could be interpreted to be resources such as real estate which have a value on the market.

I'm not a lawyer, perhaps I'm wrong in this understanding, but I wonder if the Minister would comment as to whether or not under these circumstances "or financial resources" might not indeed get us into the means test rather than the income test which he of course has been promoting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: I think I said earlier that this dealt really with very exceptional cases. Very exceptional cases, and relating to cases of hardship. Somebody that has a legacy of say $100,000 and he would forgo that to qualify.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can see the Minister's point of view, and I certainly appreciate his intentions. Our problem is, as I have been making this point time after time, we are here making law, we are not necessarily examining ministerial intentions. I am concerned that "other or financial resources" as worded here might interpret by a succeeding Minister other than yourself in a way differently than you have given it tonight. The Attorney General is absent, I see. There are lawyers present, but it is a point which I feel is fairly important and I see that you now have the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who is a lawyer of distinction and perhaps he will be able to in the few minutes that you have with him, to comment on this.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to pursue this argument at length and I don't want the Minister to think that we are necessarily critical of the attitude or philosophy that he may be bringing into the session. I think that in many instances he may be right, but if I might just be clear on this one respect. Is the Minister, in fact, indicating that in those exceptional cases where some person may have very low regular periodic

[ Page 361 ]

income, but have some readily realizable financial resource — such as the legacy you mentioned — that the Minister believes that it is appropriate for him to look at the availability of those additional funds in considering the entitlement of an applicant to benefit. Well, I'm not quarreling as to whether you are right or wrong, I'm just asking. As you say, if you have a legacy of $150,000 or $200,000 available to you and you say, "no I won't take that, I'll just as soon keep the pension", then you feel that you should be able to take it into account?

HON. MR. LEVI: Right.

MR. WILLIAMS: …and it would apply to bonds in the bank where you accept the coupons, and so on? That's fine, thank you very much.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper under section 1, line 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the amendment standing on the order paper in your name is out of order and that it violates standing order No. 67. I rule it out of order.

MRS. JORDAN: You're not allowing any debate on this amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's out of order. I recognise the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name to section 2.

Amendment to section 2 approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'll have to ask you for a ruling. There's another amendment of mine standing on the order paper under my name to section 3. Is that also…

Section 3. "Section 3 notwithstanding sub-section 1 of section 8 shall include the payment of a guaranteed minimum income…"

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe you're speaking on section 8.

MRS. JORDAN: Bill No. 3, section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule the amendment to section 3 out of order as well as No. 2 on the same grounds.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

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

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry I'm going to pose a problem for you, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper under section 8 part 3.

"Notwithstanding sub-section 1 of section 8 no order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under this Act or any regulations made by the Minister under the Social Assistance Act shall preclude the payment of a guaranteed minimum income assistance to a person over the age of 50 years and who is

[ Page 362 ]

the spouse of a person over the age of 65 years and who is eligible for the payment of guaranteed minimum income assistance under this Act."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Out of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Premier please stop influencing the Chair? I'm prepared to accept the Chair's ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm consulting authorities and I would rule…

MRS. JORDAN: Would you like me to wait for a moment, Mr. Chairman? Until you consult?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'll rule it out of order on the grounds that it violates standing order No. 67.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 8, 9 and 10 approved. Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 3, Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. LEVI: Now, Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House.

Leave granted.

Bill No. 3 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 4, Mr. Speaker.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 4, Handicapped Persons Income Assistance Act.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, dealing with regulations under this bill I recall that the Minister in second reading this afternoon indicated that instructions had been given by him to staff within his departmental responsibility…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the Hon. Member if he is speaking to section 4?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, regulations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That section has to do with offences in the revised bill.

[ Page 363 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was looking at the first bill that came in, pardon me.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, this afternoon the Minister indicated that directions had been given to staff within his jurisdiction to make certain reviews of cases which are marginal. I assume that the impact of that would deal with those people who are entitled to assistance under the Social Assistance Act.

The reason I raise this is I recently had occasion to be concerned about the granting of pension rights to a person under the federal Act. And to my dismay, I got a copy of the regulations and then I got a copy of the interpretation of definitions under the regulations. And I must say that it is almost impossible for me to believe that interpretations of this rigidity would have been produced by anyone in 1972.

Therefore, I rise at this time considering the regulatory section of this bill to ask the Minister if the instructions that he has already given to his staff with regard to social assistance will be somehow or other committed to writing so that staff in considering future applications for assistance under this Act will have a similar freedom of discretion.

Because the case that I had to concern myself with was a woman in my constituency who was receiving benefits under the Social Assistance Act and who applied to get disabled person's benefits.

Now, it was only a few additional dollars. Miserable — I think $5 was all that she could possibly get. She went through the medical examinations, three of them in fact, and then they were all considered by this medical review board and they applied the rigid definitions as to whether the impairment was total and whether it was permanent and whether it was major. And I happen to know this woman and there is no question from any ordinary view of her particular case that she was a handicapped person, and she needed every possible assistance that should be given. I just trust that the regulations that the Minister will produce will ensure that we can obviate some of the problems that are obviously created by the rigid interpretations which are given under the federal Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to assure the Hon. Member and the House that the days of the distinction between a person who is disabled, between crawling and able to walk are over in this province.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 approved. Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 4, Handicapped Persons Income Assistance Act reported complete without amendment.

Bill No. 4 read a third time and passed.

[ Page 364 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker. Oh, sorry…

AN HON. MEMBER: Some Members don't have copies, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, Hon. Members, in deference to the Members and the rules of the House it would be presumptuous to distribute those before the House has ruled on the matter. Consequently they're distributed to you as soon as you've consented. If you want it the other way by unanimous consent we could distribute these ahead of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some have been distributed.

MR. SPEAKER: The revised ones have been distributed after the matter has been dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some have been, and some haven't been.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, some are missing the revised copies?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to see that they are distributed immediately. Sorry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker.

TOBACCO ADVERTISING RESTRAINT ACT REPEAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 9, Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act Repeal Act.

On section 1.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the Members to relax? Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. And the Attorney General has suggested that he might accept this amendment, which certainly pleases me. The impact of the amendment would be that the ban on cigarette advertising would really not take place — the repeal of the ban on advertising would really not take place — until such time as the Attorney General has had the opportunity to bring in his regulations. And I certainly appreciate, I certainly appreciate the attitude on the opposite side of the House, I think that if they agree to this it's pretty nice. That's right. Because…

HON. MR. BARRETT: We accept them.

MR. PHILLIPS: You accept them? Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this kind of suggestion from the Opposition. No, we do. I discussed it with the Leader of the Opposition who is not in his seat at the present time, and the Hon. Members. And their proposal was that the repeal of the old tobacco legislation should not be instanter, and in effect you are giving me another couple of days in terms of the new regulations so that it all can be done possibly by Tuesday next. I appreciate that and I know how difficult it is speaking as a former Opposition Member and perhaps a future Opposition Member… No, no — never! (Laughter).

[ Page 365 ]

But I appreciate how hard it is to follow the technicalities of the legislation and make constructive proposals of this kind. And I hope the Hon. Member will convey to the Leader of the Opposition our appreciation of this, and so far as I am concerned it's a very good amendment and I hope it passes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section I as amended pass? I recognise the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I just have a couple of points I'd like to ask the Attorney General. One of them has to do with the nature of the products again as I spoke in the House the other day, and I wonder whether the Attorney General because of the, way he feels about this product, and the Health minister, would actively encourage the prohibition of advertising on a national basis, and whether the Attorney General and the Health Minister will meet with our federal Health Minister and perhaps Attorney General and talk about the problem. Because I think, Mr. Chairman, that we must not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about a product that is causing a major health problem in this country. And I think we must also agree that the principle of the legislation was right. And I'd also like to thank the government for going back to the original order of the discussion of these bills because it makes the Opposition's proposals much easier, and it makes our position much easier. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just briefly in answer. The answer is certainly yes, we will press the federal government for a total ban with respect to cigarettes. And I'm sure, having had many words with my colleague the Minister of Health, that he's very concerned with the deleterious effect on human health with respect to this matter. And that he will be petitioning the federal government.

Amendment to section 1 approved.

Section 1 approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 9, Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act Repeal Act reported complete with amendment.

By leave of the House, Bill No. 9 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS-40

[ Page 366 ]

NAYS-10

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 10, Tobacco Products Act.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tobacco Products Act, section 3. We're dealing with an amendment standing on the order paper in the name of the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not wish to reflect upon the vote but the last one was truly mirabile dictu. We found Alice on each side of the looking glass and just in one very, very quick space of time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order right now.

MR. GARDOM: I'm very delighted to see that the government…

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're trying to influence the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the House please extend the courtesy of allowing the Hon. Member to speak?

MR. GARDOM: Oh, shucks! (Laughter). I'm delighted to see, Mr. Chairman, that the government agreed to an adjournment concerning this particular section. Because I think that what we have come up with this evening will much better state not only the policy of the government, but also the attitude, I would say, of all of the Members of the House concerning billboard advertising of tobacco products. I would like to emphasize one specific thing, and specifically to the Press with hopes that this will get across to the general public, that billboard advertising in the Province of British Columbia insofar as alcoholic products are concerned has not been permitted under the government liquor Act for many, many years in this province.

And I would by way of analogy, Mr. Chairman, because my motion tonight is going to be much along these lines. I would like to just read to the Hon. Members just one section of the government liquor Act concerning bill-board advertising of alcoholic products. And it's section 83-2:

"No person shall exhibit or display or permit to be exhibited or displayed any advertisement or notice of or concerning liquor by any electric, illuminated or other sign, contrivance or device, or in any building, hoarding, signboard, bill-board or other place in public view."

So we've had very long-established precedent in this province for many, many years. I believe even behind 1953 when the Act came in under the former administration, that bill-board advertising of alcoholic products was not permitted here. And what we're suggesting by virtue of the amendment tonight is to dispense with the bill-board advertising of tobacco products. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I did ask leave at the last sitting, which I think was perhaps inadvertent somewhere along the lines, that the first

[ Page 367 ]

motion in my name on the order paper on page 6 be deleted and I believe leave was granted but unfortunately it still appears in the order papers.

So, I would reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that I would ask leave of the House that the first motion — and I did ask it yesterday — be deleted in the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: And secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave of the House that the second amendment that I have on the order paper also be deleted.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Now, Mr. Chairman, with the assistance, and I may say most cooperative attitude of the legislative counsel and certain of the professional staff of the office of the Hon. Attorney General, I have an amendment here which I shall be reading to the House and one that has been circulated to all Members a little bit earlier today. And I do hope that we will have the unanimous approval of all of the representatives that the bill-board huckstering of tobacco will come to an end in B.C.

The amendment, Mr. Chairman, reads this way: section 3 —

"without limiting the generality of section 2 no persons shall in the province exhibit or display or permit to be exhibited or displayed any advertisement or notice of, or concerning, tobacco by any sign, contrivance or device whether illuminated or not or in any building, hoarding, sign-board, bill-board or other place in public view except in compliance with the regulations made under this Act."

and then the second part of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is just straight house-keeping to renumber sections 3 to 6 as sections 4 to 7 respectively and it would be appreciated if one of the attendants would take this up to Mr. Chairman. And the amendment has been seconded by the Hon. member for West Vancouver—Howe Sound (Mr. Williams).

I think many people in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, have worked very, very long and very, very hard for a much better way to indicate to the public of British Columbia that cigarettes and cigars and pipes and purely and simply tobacco and I would say cancer, and emphysema and heart disease are awfully close and awfully deadly relations and I've not heard myself or seen or read anything that has convinced me to the contrary.

And the purpose of advertising purely and simply is to produce sales and nothing else. And if these tobacco concerns wish to do altruistic works in the Province of British Columbia they still can because there's absolutely nothing in this amendment, or nothing in the Act, Mr. Chairman, to prevent them from doing that.

But I would say, Mr. Chairman, that it's plain hypocrisy — or even worse, deception — in my view to attempt to establish an image shall we say of rugged, buoyant health on the one hand and then push a hazardous product as though it was a link with rugged buoyant health on the other. For they have tried to suggest, the advertisers, with visual inference via big Stetsons and those sweeping plains and fine horses and diaphanous ladies that cancer sticks are comrades-in-arms and they are not.

I think if we are doing something wrong in this Legislature in suggesting the illogic of that advertising promise I'd very much like to know what it is.

The second advantage of the amendment that I'm moving, Mr. Chairman, is this — that hopefully it may also reduce some of the visual pollution that is being foisted upon us. I think people in B.C. should be able to look at a lake or a countryside or a seascape without having to peer through a bunch of garish bill-boards. And you know, this is a great start along the line which — what was she called? — Lady Bird, Mrs. Lyndon Baines Johnson, started in the United States. And I would say this, Mr. Chairman, that with the acceptance of this very, very fine amendment the Attorney General may gain in British Columbia the reputation of being Father Bird as being opposed to Lady Bird. (Laughter).

[ Page 368 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment that bill-board signs whether illuminated or not, and any building hoarding and so forth, sort of the shooting-star amendment of my learned friend, is acceptable to the government in the form in which it now appears before Hon. Members.

It was always our intent, and we were going to do it by regulation, but where you can put this kind of thing into the Act and fortify the protection of the public against the bombardment from this particular kind of propaganda and where it can be worked out constitutionally — as I think it has been in the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member who says, "hoardings within the province" I think we're safe within our constitutional jurisdiction. So far as I'm concerned it's a good amendment and it should be accepted.

Amendment to section 3 approved.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I should have stood earlier you missed me I think as I was getting up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On which section?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it doesn't matter. Section 4 if I may speak under that section.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the regulations I'm a little sorry that the Attorney General for instance is allowing, or planning to allow, a choice for the warnings under the regulations. It appears that that's what's being planned. That it will be displayed on the packages. And one warning I think we have is a very positive statement, which says that "cigarette smoking is harmful to you", but the other warning that I understand will be allowed in place of the first is really only an addendum "The Department of National Health and Welfare advises that danger to health increases with the amount of smoking". And we can't argue with that but I think probably they should both be on there rather than one or the other. Because one is a positive statement, and the other is not quite so positive.

The other question then, Mr. Attorney General, through you, Mr. Chairman…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the federal warning and we want to try and improve them and we'll amend the regulations when we can get a stronger warning put on the packages.

MR. McCLELLAND: Fine, that's very good news then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's why we're taking it this way.

MR. McCLELLAND: O.K. the other question has to do with the warnings carried in the advertisements on radio. And in television. The print media apparently has to carry these warnings, but the media, the electronic media doesn't and I wonder whether the over-glamorization of cigarette smoking is not worse on these media and should not those warnings be carried in the electronic media as well as printed.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, let me finish then. It says "programme" in the regulations and I don't know where a "programme" could be but on electronic media.

I noticed that the regulations say at the end that these warnings shall be carried in the Province. I hope that they will be carried in the Vancouver Sun and the New Westminster Columbian and all the rest too.

[ Page 369 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that, with respect to radio and television, there is some doubt about our constitutional jurisdiction in that field.

If the Hon. Member will revert back in his reading to section 2, there is a general prohibition "except such as may be authorised by regulation". We, in this province, aren't authorizing any tobacco promotion on either the radio or television. We are going to the limit of our jurisdiction and, in practice, these things are not occurring at the present time. I hope that, by passing this legislation, that practice will be fortified and it will continue as it is today which means no advertising whatever on radio or TV.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it's banned right under this Act, section 2, "…no person shall, in the province,…promote the use of, tobacco except by compliance with the regulations…" and we don't authorise anything on radio or TV.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 10, Tobacco Products Act, reported complete with amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that the bill be read a third time now.

Leave granted.

Bill No. 10 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 13, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 13, Sessional Allowances Reduction Act, 1972

SESSIONAL ALLOWANCES REDUCTION ACT, 1972

House in committee on Bill No. 13, Sessional Allowances Reduction Act, 1972.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved. Title and schedule approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 13, Sessional Allowances Reduction Act, 1972 reported complete without amendment.

Bill No. 13 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Whips have come to an agreement that tomorrow will be spent as private Members' day and it is my understanding that it is agreed that the administrator will be called to the House at approximately 4:00 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:51 p.m.