[ Page 2241 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act (Bill No. 168) Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 2241

Oral questions Federal reaction to BCR construction subsidy request. Mr. Smith — 2241

Supply of BCR boxcars. Mr. Phillips — 2241

Sale of lands for drilling leases. Mr. Phillips — 2242

Status of IWA shingle mill strike. Mr. Wallace — 2242

Analysis of drilling lease areas. Mr. Smith — 2243

Payment for Glenshiel Hotel. Mr. Chabot — 2243

Drilling in the Peace River area. Mr. Phillips — 2243

Comptroller General's report on B.C. Hydro. Mr. McGeer — 2243

Comptroller General's report on B.C. Railway. Mr. McGeer — 2243

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act, (Bill No. 15). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 2244

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. (Bill No. 17). Second reading.

Mr. Richter — 2244

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2244

Guaranteed Income Act. (Bill No. 21). Second reading.

Mr. Richter — 2245

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2245

Voluntary Emergency First Aid Act. (Bill No. 22). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2246

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2247

Canada-British Columbia Indian Lands Determination Act (1973). (Bill No. 20). Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 2247

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2248

Municipal Transit Subsidy Act. (Bill No. 30). Second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 2248

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2249

An Act to Provide for Fair Practices in the Sale of Motor Vehicle Fuel.

(Bill No. 38). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2249

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2250

Credit Information Protection Act. (Bill No. 39). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2250

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2251

An Act to Control Pyramid Selling. (Bill No. 60). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2251

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2252

An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act, 1957. (Bill No. 61).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2252

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2253

Election Expenses Act, 1973. (Bill No. 81). Second reading.

'Mr. McGeer — 2253

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2253

Prevention of Restraint of Professional Practices Act. (Bill No. 82).

Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2254

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2254

Ombudsman Act. (Bill No. 83). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2254

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2255

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2256

Administrative Tribunals Appeals Act. (Bill No. 84). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2256

Mr. Lauk — 2256

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act. (Bill No. 85). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2256

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2257

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act. (Bill No. 86). Second reading.

Mr. Williams — 2257

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2258

British Columbia Bill of Rights. (Bill No. 88). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2258

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2259

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2259

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act. (Bill No. 89). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2259

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2260

Taxpayers' Protection Act. (Bill No. 90). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2260

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2261

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2261

Rural Students Aid Travel Fund Act. (Bill No. 91). Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 2261

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2261

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2261

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act. (Bill NO. 92). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2262

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2262

Air Ambulance Aid Act. (Bill No. 93). Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 2262

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2263

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2263

Stimulation of Employment Act. (Bill No. 94). Second reading.

Mr. Curtis — 2263

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2263

Abandoned Refrigerator Act. (Bill No. 95). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2263

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2264

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2264

An Act to Amend the Trust Companies Act (Bill No. 96). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2264

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2265

Mr. Gardom — 2266

An Act to Provide Access to Public Buildings. (Bill No. 97). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2266

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2266

Mr. Gardom — 2266

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2266

An Act to Amend the Capital Improvement District Act. (Bill No. 98).

Second reading.

Mr. Curtis — 2267

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2267

Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act. (Bill No. 99). Second reading, Mrs. Jordan — 2267

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2268

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. (Bill No. 104).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2268

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2268

Mr. Gardom — 2268

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2268

Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act. (Bill No. 105).

Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2269

Hon. Mr. Nimsick . — 2269

Proceedings Against the Crown Act. (Bill No. 107). Second reading.

Mr. Chabot — 2270

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2270

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Act. (Bill No. 112).

Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2270

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2272

British Columbia Auditor General Act. (Bill No. 113). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2272

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2273

An Act to Amend the Coroners Act. (Bill No. 115). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 2273

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2273

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, this is rather an historic occasion and will go down in history as an historic occasion, I believe, because today is the second time in the history of British Columbia that Victoria is visited by a chief from the Haida Indian nation in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Chief Bruce Brown is in the gallery.

Chief Brown has given me a message that he asked me to read to the Legislature today. It says:

"Greetings from the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

"Our forefathers last came to Victoria in the last century. They came in ceremonial canoes now exhibited in the museum. They came to petition Governor Douglas. They returned home with empty promises and the unsolicited gift of smallpox. Fifteen thousand people, including whole villages, were wiped out.

"This is the second time we have come to Victoria, and we expect to return home with something more than empty promises this time."

I'm sure they will.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to withdraw Motion 15 in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY CARE

FACILITIES LICENSING ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 168 intituled An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 168 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

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

FEDERAL REACTION TO

BCR CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDY REQUEST

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Premier. Has the Premier any report to give to this House concerning the federal reaction to his request for a subsidy for the construction programme of the B.C. Railway?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Negotiations are continuing with the CNR and the provincial government.

MR. I.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Stage two?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stage three.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question to the Hon. Premier: does the $19 million which you have requested as a grant apply to capital construction costs that you are presently experiencing in the extension of the B.C. Railway, and is it the intent to use any of this grant, if and when it is received, to perhaps build a new link between Terrace and the north?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Between Terrace and the north where?

MR. SMITH: Of the province — Dease Lake.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the $19 million requested is not so much a grant as a share that has been offered to other provinces in the past. The former administration requested it on a valid basis and we are continuing that request. That request is part and parcel of continuing negotiations that we're having in terms of a general transportation plan for the north.

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

SUPPLY OF BCR BOXCARS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the President of the British Columbia Railway (Hon. Mr. Barrett) just a small question with regard to the supply of boxcars. Is the situation improving? Have the new boxcars that were on order arrived yet? If so, how soon will they go in the field? I have an industry in my area that we're going to have to close down if we don't get some relief pretty soon. It's a very serious situation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a very serious situation, Mr. Member. The new boxcars have not arrived;

[ Page 2242 ]

however, we have taken steps to locate any boxcars that we can.

Now, there was an earlier question related to this about leasing boxcars. At the time that question was asked there were no boxcars available to be leased. Since that time I've had a meeting with the new vice-president (as you know, there are two vice-presidents of the railroad now), Mr. Mac Norris. Mr. Norris tells me that there is a chance of us getting some lease cars. I told him to pull out all the stops and make every effort to get them.

The northern economy, the central interior economy, is booming. The need for those boxcars is drastic. We will do everything we can to supply the area with those boxcars. It's an anomalous situation. Business is so good we can't get the boxcars.

AN HON. MEMBER: It must be our speeches.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not our speeches, no. Not even the wind in this chamber can drive those boxcars. (Laughter).

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

SALE OF LANDS

FOR DRILLING LEASES

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question I would like to direct to the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. This morning the Minister announced the results of a recent sale, and I'd like to ask the Minister: to what does he attribute the fact that only 48 of the 98 leases were disposed of?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, when they were drilling on the outskirts of the parcels that were put up for sale, there were quite a number of dry holes and there were a few bids that were low and not accepted. The sale, in comparison with other sales, was very good. We only put up 525,000 acres for sale at this time; a year ago they had over 900,000 acres for sale. This time the price per acre was $8 and something; at that time it was $6 and a few cents. So actually, in relationship, the sale was a very good sale.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: the reason that it was $8 instead of $6 is because the majority of the leases…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is asking a question, kindly phrase it as a question. He appears to be making a speech, and that is not permitted during question period.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask a supplementary question…

MR. SPEAKER: Would you ask the question then?

MR. PHILLIPS: …as to why only 3 of the 12 drilling reservations were disposed of in this sale. There were 12 put up and only 3 were disposed of. We only received $3 million and it should have been $14 million from this sale.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You look back at the history and I don't think you will find any place there was ever a $14 million sale.

MR. PHILLIPS: There was never this much interest in energy either.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The competitiveness is shown by the amount of acreage put up and the average price per acre, which is higher than it was last April. We know that April usually is the lowest time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't want a continuing running argument on this question, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just a supplementary question: does the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources feel that his policies have discouraged the oil companies from bidding on this land?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's our policies that have increased the competitiveness and the incentive to do what they've done.

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

STATUS OF IWA SHINGLE MILL STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A question to the Minister of Labour: has he any statement he could give us regarding the long-standing shingle mill strike by IWA against Canadian Forest Products? We are receiving quite a bit of correspondence and it would help me to answer the correspondence if the Minister could give the House some information on the status of that strike.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I am unable to give the Member any new advice which would appear helpful in this particular strike. There has been a long-standing impasse. Efforts through my office to try to develop negotiations again have failed at this point.

Until I receive some indication that the parties are prepared to sit down together again and negotiate, there would appear to be little that can be done to

[ Page 2243 ]

bring them together.

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

ANALYSIS OF AREAS ATTRACTIVE

TO BIDDERS ON DRILLING LEASES

MR. SMITH: A question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources: as a result of the sale for drilling leases and permits in north-eastern British Columbia, has the Minister done an analysis yet on the areas that they actually accepted bids on, as compared to the areas where they refused bids or where they received no bids, to determine the interest potential of the industry in that whole area where you originally put bids up? In other words, were they attracted to areas where there was a great potential for natural gas production, as compared to other areas where the success rate has been quite low?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, we had many areas that were not really attractive. As you well know, in order to put up parcels, the department has to know some potential about it to know whether the prices that are offered should be refused or not. Now there were quite a number of test holes put down which were dry. In some of these cases they didn't bid at all. You know as well as I do that this is what happens. But in comparison, as you say, there should be an analysis of the whole thing. I haven't had time to complete the analysis yet.

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

PAYMENT FOR GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. CHABOT: A brief question for the Minister of Public Works. I am wondering if the Minister is able to advise the House now the reason and the location of the additional payment of $110,000 on the Glenshiel Hotel.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the matter has been covered during the Minister's estimates and is simply a repetition of something that has been canvassed too often.

MR. CHABOT: Would the Minister be willing to have a public inquiry to find the $110,000?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you wish to make any charges in relation to this matter, kindly use the order paper with a notice of motion and take responsibility for that motion. But not in question period.

Any further questions? The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

DRILLING RIGS IN THE

PEACE RIVER AREA

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a further question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and ask him how he justifies the statement that parcels were not evaluated by drilling as a result of lack of drilling rigs when there are indeed drilling rigs which are lying idle in the Peace River area.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Drilling rigs have been at a premium in the Peace River area.

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

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT

ON B.C. HYDRO

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier if he's had an opportunity so far to study the interim report of the Comptroller General regarding the financial operations of B.C. Hydro, and if so, would he be prepared to lay before the House the report that was given to him.

Slow progress. He's a slow reader, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm halfway through, Mr. Member. It's just that I have other duties that I've been attending to. I notice that your colleagues are attending to duty as well.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT

ON B.C. RAILWAY

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask another question of the Premier. Is the Comptroller General making progress in his investigation of the financial operations of the B.C. Railway?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, although I do not have the report. Once both reports are finished and I have had the opportunity to read them, I'll table them here in the House. They cover the internal administration of both Crown agencies. The reason I ask the studies be done is because they should be public business.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members.

[ Page 2244 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 17, Mr. Speaker.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. According to my understanding of standing orders we should proceed with the orders of the day as they're printed in orders. The first order under public bills in the hands of private Members is adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 15. I would think that that would be the appropriate order to call under orders of the day. I would ask the Premier if the Minister is prepared now to discuss Bill No. 15.

MR. SPEAKER: The House has just made a decision which was not at that time contradicted by the Hon. Member to proceed with Bill No. 15. But looking at standing orders in regard to today, Thursday, private Members' day, standing order 27(l) says, "All items standing on the Orders of the Day (except Government orders) shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper." I would take it from that that we must proceed in the order of those items that are standing on the order paper. Now this is second reading of bills. I assume we would commence where we left off, which would be Bill No. 15.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 15, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member who adjourned the debate is not in the House and I must dispose of it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. King adjourned the debate and he's here.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry. I had Mr. Gardom down. I'm awfully sorry.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn…

MR. SPEAKER: What are you rising upon? A point of order or are you wishing to speak?

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have ever heard a debate to be adjourned in the House being called and to be adjourned a second time. The Minister has had many days to consider this particular bill. In view of the failure of the Government to grant adjournment on second reading this morning…

MR. SPEAKER: There's nothing exceptional on that point.

MR. McGEER: I think that this is really an abuse of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There's nothing exceptional about adjourning a debate more than once. Therefore the point of order is not well taken. The Member who had adjourned the debate has risen and moved that it be adjourned. If you do not agree with his motion you can vote against it.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bill No. 17.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INCOME TAX ACT

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill No. 17, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, this is a procedure that is followed in other jurisdictions. It is again an incentive for people to undertake certain improvements by way of mortgage money on their properties to create a more serviceable building or matters in which it enhances their property.

Along with that, where taxes are a matter of concern in some areas such as farmers, they do have the benefit of deducting their personal property taxes on their buildings, et cetera, from their taxable income. This provision would extend this prerogative to other areas of our society and the bill being a very short bill, very explicit, I would move second reading.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): With regret, I would urge that this violates standing order 67. It is an impost on the Crown and I think it is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: In addition to standing order 67, a number of Speaker's decisions are found in No. 3 of our Speakers' Decisions at p. 22 and pp. 28-9, in that the measure would interfere with Crown revenues and consequently would be out of order in the hands of a private Member without the assistance of a message from His Honour. I so rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 21, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2245 ]

GUARANTEED INCOME ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, this has been a point of considerable interest, not only in the Province of British Columbia but across Canada. We think it would be an exciting new concept to build a floor income into the economic life of Canada as part of a guaranteed income policy.

This programme offers additional benefits to those over age 65, the disabled, the handicapped and the blind. The Social Credit Members of this Legislature feel that the guaranteed income plan would include the great range of Canadians, irrespective of age who, for one reason or another, have not managed to obtain through our economic system an adequate living wage.

The whole helter-skelter, band-aid system of social welfare payments, unemployment insurance benefits and the like have been drawn into the picture to accomplish on a make-shift basis the principle of income support for those in distress. This system is a proven failure. It encourages waste, it encourages duplicity on the part of recipients, it encourages the growth of wasteful and unnecessary bureaucracy. Now that we have reached a time in history when everyone carries a social security number and statistical and computer technology has advanced to the point where every individual could be easily registered into a guaranteed income plan, we believe that such a plan is long overdue and would represent the last great social service breakthrough of this century.

The bill before you indicates how simple it would be to introduce such a plan resting itself on reportable income only. As the bill clearly indicates, resting it on the income principle would permit at least three things to happen. First of all, there would be no question about the income levels for those who were over 65 and those who were handicapped in any way. They would not be required to carry out the confusing recording of forms in order to qualify for benefits.

Secondly, the plan, resting on income, would have an implied incentive for those receiving any part of guaranteed income to seek employment.

Thirdly, the plan as the Social Credit Party envisions it, would permit all the energy of government to be redirected towards incentive employment plans, which could include all of the programmes for retraining, programmes for occupational incentives, the programme for training on the job — for programmes for training through Manpower, for programmes for upgrading of education, for programmes for apprenticeship, thereby concentrating the philosophical approach of the government towards the work ethic itself.

Guaranteed income programmes would then walk hand-in-hand with a major emphasis on the part of the government towards the ideal of government concentrating on programmes designed to maximize opportunity.

The government would be steered away from the hand-out description that can be so readily applied to the whole welfare state.

This party would continue to fight to bring this major social benefit to all Canadians. It is clear that an income supportive programme resting on the ethics described above would move away from the problem associated with unity of our country which so often rests on economic prospects and not those things which are often emphasized — namely culture and race.

There is no good reason why income across the nation for the aged and the handicapped should be different between one part of our nation and another. There is no good reason why a minimum wage level should be different between one part of our nation and another. There is no good reason why income support payments in one part of our nation and another should vary.

Programmes such as this bill envision, Mr. Speaker, would cut down forever the income disparity between parts of our nation which so often are cited as the cause of many of the feelings of disunity which this nation suffers.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that all parties in the Legislature would be pleased to support this bill in second reading to display to the rest of the nation that in British Columbia we support the principle of a guaranteed income plan for all Canadians, that would do away with the welfare state for ever.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we have evidence that the Government's policies are somewhat directed along this line in relation to the Mincome plan which they have already established. While I probably have some questions in relation to the Mincome plan as presently administered, I am sure that any programme would have bugs in it somewhere along the line, which experience would have to iron out. At this time I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I must draw your attention to the fact at this time that the bill would be out of order in the hands of a private Member, since it requires in section 5 that money be expended from consolidated revenue funds and that can only be done on a message from his Hon. the Lieutenant Governor. I therefore rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 22, Mr. Speaker.

VOLUNTARY EMERGENCY

FIRST AID ACT

[ Page 2246 ]

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

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to discuss a bill on this, the first private Members' day that we've had probably in 21 years in the Province of British Columbia. I'm glad that the Members on the Government side are applauding this innovation, and I want to compliment the Premier and the Government on having introduced for the first time a genuine private Members' day.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to become a regular event in British Columbia and a source of encouragement to the private Members whether they be on the Government or the Opposition side to bring forward progressive legislation on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

It also gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in being able to discuss a bill that is not only in order, but has been on the order paper for over two months; so that the Government will have had ample opportunity to consider this bill, to judge its merits, and there will be no requirement for the Government to adjourn it for further consideration.

Getting on with the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which is the most important part…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order, you're in order.

MR. McGEER: Thank you. Even the Premier concedes that I'm now in order, which is a rare event in British Columbia. And we want to thank the Premier for his tolerant and broadminded attitude, which could only be exceeded, Mr. Speaker, by his accepting the principle of this bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's not go to excess.

MR. McGEER: Well, we'll see. But I'm sure that the Premier will listen very carefully as will the Members of his cabinet and that they will be nodding their approval of a piece of legislation which quite obviously is in the best interests of the people of this province.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could claim complete originality for this bill but unfortunately I cannot do so, because similar measures have been put forward in other jurisdictions who have recognized, as I do, the desirability of providing the kind of good Samaritan legislation that would encourage a man to help his fellow man in need.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we need to recognize is that the laws of our Crown provide that people who are injured can sue. This is a deterrent, unfortunately. I'm sorry to have to stand in the Legislature and say that this is so, but it is a deterrent to people helping out others in need. This applies particularly to professional people whether they are first-aid attendants, para-medical people, nurses, or doctors, because there is a presumption at the time of an emergency that these people not only have competence to deal with whatever problem arises at the scene of the accident, but have the facilities as well to deal with it adequately.

But Mr. Speaker, this isn't the case. A doctor may be driving down the road and he doesn't have his stethoscope and he doesn't have his little kit bag that has all the injections that he might give. He just isn't prepared the way they are in M.A.S.H. or any of these other television shows that we regularly watch, where the people who appear on the scene of the accident are completely competent and perfectly prepared. It just isn't that way.

Because it isn't that way, and because those who happen to be passing by the accident are well aware of the liability that they might incur should they appear at the scene of the accident, and be later on judged to have made some mistake, they might hesitate to render the services that they otherwise would be capable of doing.

The simple purpose of this legislation is to let it be known that those who are providing voluntary first-aid are doing so on a voluntary basis. They expect no reward of any kind beyond the satisfaction of giving the person who is injured the opportunity perhaps to life, and certainly to better health than if they were completely ignored.

That being the case, there seems to be no reason in my mind why this could not be recognized in law; to say that the individual who voluntarily renders that emergency first-aid assistance should not be completely relieved of some civil suit that might be entered upon later by my friends and colleagues who are in the legal profession and who would be bound to act in the interests of a client who came to visit them at some later time, having had an opportunity to consider all of the possibilities at the time of that event and decided that the person who was there had not done everything that it was possible to do.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I regret having to draw this to the attention of the House and the public of British Columbia, but it is a deterrent. Because it is a deterrent, and because there is a very easy way of getting around this deterrent, I think this bill would be in the interests of British Columbians who are alive and healthy today but might themselves be along the roadside tomorrow — the victims of some emergency situation, an automobile accident, a fire, or whatever it might be — and the person who could most give them aid might have that little bit of hesitation because of the liability he could incur by rendering this first-aid assistance.

So I would appeal to the Government to see this bill in the spirit in which it is put forward and to set a precedent today, not just for having a private

[ Page 2247 ]

Members' day, but for accepting this bill.

So it is in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I humbly move second reading of Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister for Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Member for Point Grey for having put forward this bill. It's an excellent idea. It's a "Good Samaritan" bill, actually. There's been a draft of this kind of legislation circulated to all provinces in Canada and it is being thoroughly studied now, a uniform draft for the whole country. Hopefully, this kind of legislation across the country will be developed in the very near future.

I've asked the health security project to look into this question. We're getting the right kind of vibes, to put it in present day language, Mr. Speaker. It would appear to me that we're not long from the day when we will have a "Good Samaritan" bill in the province. However, we do feel that we have to take into consideration not only this aspect of it, but all other legislation that's on the books. This has to be thoroughly studied across the country.

So, Mr. Speaker, on that note I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a request from the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) that the House would give leave to pass over his bills at this time and move on to second reading of Bill No. 29.

Leave granted.

CANADA-BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN LANDS

DETERMINATION ACT (1973)

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman — Mr. Speaker, pardon me. I'm getting my terms confused this afternoon. Too many sittings, I think, too close together. It's beginning to get to us maybe.

In speaking to the principle of this bill, it is the hope of myself and the official Opposition that the principle of the bill will be accepted by the Government. We are certainly trying to provide in advance a legislative manner to deal with a problem which is of utmost concern and a topic of discussion not only all across Canada, but in places like Australia and many other nations today. This is the matter of native people with hereditary claims to land that has been theirs from time immemorial.

The bill concerns races and tribes that have never signed a treaty with any white man's organization or with the people who came to occupy their lands, who have never been defeated in a battle to determine the fact that the land became the possession of somebody else because of the result of that battle.

At the present time, the focal point in British Columbia is, of course, the fight being waged through the courts by the Nishga Indians of the Nass River area. I think the fact that they have won a major victory in that court, even though a positive decision was not handed down in their favour, indicates that all of us in an informed and enlightened society today must take recognition of the fact that the people who occupied these lands before we invaded them do have some rights and privileges that we've extinguished by one means or another.

Some of these rights have been extinguished by treaty. I suppose because of that, that's prima facie evidence that they no longer have a claim. But we do have native people in the Nass River area and as I understand it, some in my particular part of the country in north-eastern British Columbia who have occupied those lands long before the white man ever was a fact in Canada, who have never signed a treaty, who have never fought a battle to determine in that manner to whom the land was eventually to belong.

These people have a right to present their case and have their day in court, which they've been doing. I think they've been waging a very good battle for those rights.

So basically, Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill is to provide a means for the Province of British Columbia, in cooperation with any other government authority, to extinguish whatever rights might be awarded to them as a result of court actions or as a result of a determination outside of the courts. I think if we believe in justice for all people, then we have to concede the fact that we did, in years gone by, suppress the rights of native people, not only in British Columbia but in all of North America and many other nations.

The bill does not require the expenditure of funds until such determination is made in the courts that there is a claim and that that claim has a financial value. But it does provide for a device and a means that could be used by the Province of British Columbia and, I would hope, would perhaps be a pattern for other provinces that are going through some of the same matters before the courts at the

[ Page 2248 ]

present time. But we'll deal with British Columbia because we are most familiar with it.

It provides a means for the province to give an indication to these people that, provided the decision comes out in their favour, the Government would go on record as supporting that decision. The bill would provide a mechanism for the province, in cooperation with the federal government, to extinguish that claim in a manner settled by court law and by a court decision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 29.

MR. SPEAKER: It's my duty to point out to the Members that section 4 clearly requires a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor before the consolidated revenue fund could be used to pay compensation. There is in section 2 a power to delegate to a Minister from this House the right to determine the compensation, both of which would be out of order in view of the fact that it would have to be done by message. On that ground and standing order 67, I would have to say that it offends against the standing order and is therefore out of order.

MR. SMITH: Speaking to your ruling, if I might for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, the fact has not been established in any jurisdiction yet that there will be any impost upon the Crown in the immediate future. There's been no decision handed down yet that would require the expenditure of public funds.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that section 4 states that "the expenses incurred in carrying out the terms of any agreement…" which means that as soon as this were authorized by the Legislature, there would be expenses incurred by the various steps that are set out in the bill, all of which would thereby — whether you pay compensation or not — be a charge upon the Crown that should be taken from consolidated revenue according to section 4. Therefore it would offend against standing order 67.

MR. SMITH: But only after a court decision has ruled in favour of Indian people having hereditary claims and aboriginal rights in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member in that this could cause expense, even to the point of a court determination and the actions of any Minister. Consequently, all the way through there would be an expense that would require a message bill.

MR. SMITH: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I'll accept your ruling, but really, I cannot see that there's any expenditure, either by the province or anyone else, in extinguishing the rights until those rights are proven in court. That will become a prima facie case in the courts at the time the decision is handed down. It's up to the Indian people themselves to establish that right in court. It wouldn't be an impost on the Crown until such time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it's a financial imposition on the Crown and has been ruled out of order with respect to a private Member's rights.

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct.

MR. SMITH: By what rule?

MR. SPEAKER: Because if you once open the doors to a contingent liability to the province, it becomes a charge that can be acted upon. Therefore it would be out of order. The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 30, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SUBSIDY

ACT

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think I'll mention the name in case I get ruled out of order before I get started.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia has now embarked on a rapid transit bureau, a rapid expansion of transportation facilities for pedestrians or potential pedestrians in the lower mainland and the lower Vancouver Island area at considerable expense in the purchase of 90-odd buses. This has been done predicated on the concern for the preservation of the environment and the downtown parking problems and the new approach.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that non-metropolitan communities such as Kamloops, Prince Rupert or other areas of the province face in a smaller way the same problems of congested downtown parking, a concern for the environment — in the beginning of the estimates — before damage is done. And a serious problem of where single-car families, low income families and senior citizens do not have any transportation or only limited transportation available to them and they are cut off from the activities of the community.

Many of these communities also, Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the need to redevelop — and some of them are older communities — are embarking on very

[ Page 2249 ]

expensive and long-range redevelopment programmes of their downtown area. Involved in this is the concern for parking and future parking and is bringing to the fore more and more the need for a transportation service within these communities. To date this has been done, in any communities that do have them, by private companies. The Crown now has a policy, brought in by the previous government, whereby if the municipal transit system is established, the Crown will pick up 50 per cent of the deficit.

In view of the new programmes of the New Democratic Government, and in view of the fact that many of these towns are at a crucial stage in their redevelopment, the need for planning is here. Perhaps the Speaker would be interested in knowing that these subsidies are growing very heavily, because they are private companies — in Kamloops, $57,000 a year; in the City of Prince George, $48,000 a year and this will go to $55,000 in 1974 and $60,000 a year in 1975.

The little community of Penticton pays a $4,928 subsidy. Chilliwack pays a $3,600 subsidy.

Mr. Speaker, this presents an unequal subsidization throughout the province in various communities. I submit that if the Crown was to recognize the right of the municipality to lease out their contracts to private companies instead of going into the municipality transit business themselves — subject of course to a fair wage being paid to the employees of this transit; subject to the fact that there be no excessive profit taken, that the private company under lease to the community should have a fair profit on their capital plus their wages — that this be recognized as being subject to the present Act and then the Crown would share in the deficit financing that is going on and which is placing an unequal burden on taxpayers in various parts of the province. It is also leaving many citizens and many communities with only limited bus service or no bus service, such as in the communities of Cranbrook, Nelson and Fort St John, where there is no bus service at all.

Mr. Speaker, we're all very much concerned about the role of the senior citizen in our communities and that they be involved. So often senior citizens' homes — public housing shared in by the Government — have to be placed on a fringe area or certain areas of the town. Then, if there is a bus service, it will only pass once or twice a day. This automatically excludes those senior citizens from taking part in evening activities in the community, or many Sunday activities.

If the Crown would not be prepared to look at a lease arrangement acceptable under the present Act, I would ask them to accept second reading of the Municipal Transit Subsidy Act under my name on the order paper .

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Point of order. Impost on the Crown.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I almost made it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the title itself tells the story. It's out of order under standing order 67.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 38, Mr. Speaker,

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR PRACTICES

IN THE SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 38, An Act to Provide for Fair Practices in the Sale of Motor Vehicle Fuel is one which does in a far more acceptable way some of the intent of another rather odious Act which I don't want to refer to this afternoon because if I do so, it will be out of order.

I want to say again that it gives me great pleasure on private Member's day to be able to present a bill to you, Sir, and to the House, which is clearly in order and which I know because of the fact that it's been on the order paper for almost two months, will be one that has been carefully caucused by the cabinet and by NDP Members so that there will be no need to adjourn the bill.

Getting to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it deals with a subject dear to the heart of the Attorney General and some of the other Members of the Government, as well as to some of the former Members of the Social Credit Party — and I think of our very admired and departed former Member for Omineca (Mr. Shelford). This is, not by a board or any edict of government, to cause the retailers and wholesalers of gasoline to reveal to the public the true source of what they have for sale and to state by a clearly displayed sign what the cost of that fuel will be and where it came from.

It really is an Act, Mr. Speaker, not just to protect the public, but to protect the lessee of a service station from the rather odious advertising practices that have worked to the disadvantage of the public as well as to the man who operates the service station.

I think the Members of the House are probably all aware of the unfortunate custom which exists today, where some kind of advertising display will be thought up by an executive of the oil company in consultation with an advertising firm — and, Mr. Speaker, we won't suggest the names of any advertising firms today. In any event, the idea is that they will think of giving away balloons or paper darts or glasses or hockey pucks or something as an advertising promotion. And the retailers of the gasoline company will be called together and informed that this is the latest sale promotion and "You're going to have to display this particular

[ Page 2250 ]

product free to your customers or you'll lose your lease."

So what happens to the man who has a service station in Coquitlam or Vancouver East is that he's told that he puts his money out now to buy whatever the gimmick is. It doesn't make any difference to the price of his gasoline, but he's forced to buy from that oil company — Imperial Oil or Shell or whatever it is — the gimmick at his expense and to display it for those who come in to buy gas at his service station.

Mr. Speaker, as Members for Coquitlam and Vancouver East well know, the people who come to that service station come for the personal service that the lessee of that service station offers. They're not impressed by being able to get a set of dishes or a hockey puck at reduced prices. They just want to have their gasoline pumped at the regular price and to get good service from the operator of the gas station .

This is what is presented, Mr. Speaker …

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under section 9 of this very drastic piece of social legislation, everybody guilty of an offence against this Act "is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000." 1 say that that transgresses the prerogative of the Crown in that it seeks to impose a penalty. It's therefore out of order and there have been Speaker's decisions to that effect. The Hon. Member will have a chance on the Government's bill to renew this speech.

MR. SPEAKER: I am going to accept the point of order, Hon. Member. Would the Hon. Member be seated and I'll explain the two grounds on which it appears to be out of order.

A decision that was made by Mr. Speaker Perry in 1936: a bill that gave powers to impose on the Crown by a private Member in regard to punishment or penalty by a citizen would be out of order. Then a second ground: it would be out of order if it anticipates a matter that's on the order paper that deals with the same subject put on by the Government, because it would thereby require, if this were accepted, changes in Bill 148; therefore it's anticipating Government policy on Bill 148 and would bring it to naught if this were passed in its present form. Therefore I rule it out of order on both grounds — the second is a decision of a Speaker which was upheld by this House in 1918, Mr. Speaker Keen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 39, Mr. Speaker.

CREDIT INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT

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

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize, of course, that the Members of the Government have been spending the time in between sessions studying the fine rules of the House and learning the technicalities. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General would have been delighted to welcome bills from the Opposition, particularly when they're so well thought out.

This particular bill, Mr. Speaker, has been regarded in the past as being in order. Again, I wish I could claim originality of authorship. But, Mr. Speaker, I must regretfully say that others have seen fit to introduce this legislation and have spoken to it probably far more capably than I can today. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I refer to one of the finest MLAs in this House, the former Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. B. Clark). That's not to take anything away from the present Member.

But the former Member was an outstanding representative of his riding. Of course, we were very proud to have him on the Liberal benches. We were very proud of the legislation that he introduced, which included bills that were along this particular line.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): What happened?

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm going to come to "what happened?" to the Minister of Agriculture. I would think that the Members of the Government would be very pleased with what happened. The advent of the Conservative Party, of course, had a great deal to do with the election of the present Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). But I suspect that that will be readjusted.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be diverted from the principle of this particular bill. The Hon. Members know that I can be teased off the principle of the bill.

The Credit Information Protection Act which the former Member for North Vancouver–Seymour presented was one which I think had general acceptance of the House as far as the principle was concerned.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour defended individuals who had come to grief because of abuses of credit information agencies. He cited many instances of that occurring. I'm certain, however, Mr. Speaker, that the last thing that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour would have anticipated is that he himself would have become a victim of such abuses.

I'm not going to go into the details before this House. I only want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that having presented this bill year after year, it is a bill which requires any individual to be given information if he feels that false reports have been given concerning his financial status to lenders who would otherwise be prepared to grant him credit. Many

[ Page 2251 ]

times the Member cited instances where innocent individuals had been prevented from gaining credit because of false reports being presented about them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour, since he has been in this House, has himself been in that situation. What more compelling argument could one find for presenting the bill once more than to say that the Member who was the former champion has himself been a victim. Who knows who might be next?

So, Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the Government to accept this bill on behalf of the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour and introduce something into the legislation of British Columbia that is long, long overdue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Conflict of interest.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to point out to the Hon. Member, as it is my duty to do, that if a bill places any requirement that a body of persons must obey that will cost them considerable money or will impose a duty or impost upon them that is a burden, then it becomes out of order.

The authority for that is a very similar one to the one that the Hon. Member has raised in his bill. You'll note in his sections dealing with the consumer reporting agency and the consumer report files and so on, all of this requires activities on the part of those persons pointed out by the Member as having a duty under this bill to supply information, to do certain things in regard to that information. All of this is an expense upon those agencies or organizations.

In Speakers' Decisions, Vol. No. 3, at p. 35, Mr. Speaker Whittaker in the Journals of 1939 at p. 77 pointed out that a bill that would have required ground accommodation at a mine or below in the mine for employees to wash and dry themselves and change their clothes, would cause an impost upon the individuals pointed out by the bill. No private Member could do that since that type of imposition — or impost, if you like to call it that — is defined as being one that requires a compulsory contribution as a result of this legislation upon certain people pointed out under your bill.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker Whittaker ruled that bill out of order and he was supported by the decision of Mr. Speaker Perry in the B.C. Journals of 1936, p. 125.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, surely you're not going to be governed by that kind of a nitwit ruling. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Judge Whittaker was a Liberal judge.

MR. SPEAKER: I must not accept that in regard to either of the Hon. gentlemen, who were much more learned than 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: True, that's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those Liberals just can't get along. Second reading of Bill 60, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO CONTROL PYRAMID SELLING

MR. SPEAKER: The same Hon. gentlemen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's still out of order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I almost hesitate to speak to a bill now because there are so many ways of finding bills out of order that I hadn't anticipated before.

In speaking to the problem of pyramid selling, I realize once more that the Attorney General has presented an Act to the Legislature which doesn't quite show the approach that would be most effective in dealing with the problem. This one, Mr. Speaker, would be quite effective in dealing with the problem of pyramid selling.

We don't need to have a lengthy debate this afternoon about the pyramid schemes, Mr. Speaker, which rely on the gullibility of individuals and which all, without exception, end in disaster. It's been a matter of misfortune that we have not had adequate legislation in this province to deal with the problem before. The Province of British Columbia, as is too often the case, has permitted the problem to get out of hand and has allowed other jurisdictions to take steps to control the…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I can take a moment to welcome back to the House this afternoon the former Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. J. Tisdalle). Contrary to the suggestion made by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), the former Member for Saanich was just seeking a front-row seat so he could listen to the debate on this particular bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're incorrect. This bill has nothing to do with the Flat Earth Society. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: Well, the Premier is recalling some of the classic debates in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pyramid, not flat earth.

MR. McGEER: Perhaps we're not going to enter into one of those classic discussions this afternoon.

[ Page 2252 ]

But, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't for one moment diminish the importance of the pyramid-selling problem, nor does it reduce the obligation of this assembly to come forward with a bill that best deals with this run-away difficulty in British Columbia.

We could spend the afternoon here discussing the individual pyramid schemes that have come forward, many of them inspired by our neighbours to the south. I recall one that was the subject of a recent television programme on the CBC, where the man who had introduced it into British Columbia admitted that he himself had gone broke and made apologies to others he had goaded into his operation.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill would make it necessary for those who are embarking on such a pyramid-selling scheme to register here in British Columbia. I submit that this particular bill is the best bill dealing with this problem that's on the order paper in this Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any conceivable way the Hon. Member could find that I could find the bill is in order? I think it's out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 61, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, 1967

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

MR. GARDOM: You know, it was a pleasant thing to see the former Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Tisdalle) sitting in the gallery. (Laughter). It's a funny thing to find that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) drove him out, too. Really and truly.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill I would like to make a couple of very short comments about the situation of the environment in the Province of B.C. and anti-pollution laws.

Anti-pollution laws in our province are still very, very far from being sufficiently encompassing and are still very far from being effective.

We've always advocated over here that in this area the mandate in B.C. should be very short and simple and very definitive, and that is: "polluters beware." We think very strongly and advocate very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that we need in this province an environmental bill of rights and certainly a ministry of the environment. Under its aegis, among other things, Mr. Speaker, there should be the administration of a province-wide clean air Act, which would I hope tend to clean up and assist many of the debates that we have in this House.

New industries, Mr. Speaker, should certainly meet environmental standards or their doors should remain closed; and old industries should be encouraged by depletion allowances and interest-free loans to certainly come up to scratch.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of a conversion from polluter to non-polluter would provide many jobs and more work, and perpetual offenders should certainly be encouraged to phase out. The public interests, without a question of a doubt, should be the main interest.

Insignificant fines have never ever proven to be the answer and neither have the insignificant prosecutions. I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that penalties should be stiffened and injunctive processes should be made available against defilers. Now to the intent and the spirit of this bill, which complements the remarks which I have already made, and the spirit and the intent of this bill is this: to cover the situation concerning people and industries who do business with the government and who have government contracts.

If these individuals, if these companies or these concerns repeatedly pollute, they should face cancellation of those contracts because the Government of B.C., the government business of B.C. should certainly be done with the clean and not with the dirty.

Under this bill I propose that the government should not contribute to environmental pollution by contracting for either goods, material or services with anyone who is in violation of the provisions of the Pollution Control Act. Anyone who is ordered to abate any pollution, or we'll say, is convicted of an offence in contravention of the Pollution Control Act, would become ineligible to enter into any contract for the procurement of goods, materials and services with any provincial department or Crown agency or other instrumentality of the province during a three-year period following the date of such conviction or such finding.

I also propose within this bill, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister be empowered to provide regulations whereby parties who contract with the government would have to furnish specific proof of compliance with applicable water, land or air pollution control laws, and that such compliance would be a term — make it a term and make it a condition — of the contract.

I think that what I've suggested here is an extremely needful procedure, and I hope it will receive the support of the whole of the Legislature as I am sure it will. I am therefore delighted to move second reading and with perhaps the hope of getting to third reading today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is aware that he's providing for penalties upon people in regard to the violations that he indicated in his statement and consequently also placing a burden upon the Crown

[ Page 2253 ]

on both those grounds under standing order 67 and interfering with the prerogatives of the Crown with regard to penalties. I would deem it to be out of order.

MR. GARDOM: The only curious thing that I note from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is the great change in your attitude from when you were a Member of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I used to fight hard in that job, too. (Laughter). But it is out of order, I am afraid.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 81, Mr. Speaker.

    ELECTION EXPENSES ACT, 1973

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. This is Point Grey's day.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to discuss a bill which I know is dear to the heart of the Attorney General of this province. Indeed, I recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General introduced a remarkably similar bill on previous occasions. The bill itself, of course, has a very laudable objective, and that is to limit the possibility of a political party buying office by having at their disposal enormous amounts of election campaign funds.

The entire thrust of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, is to equalize the amounts of money that can be spent on election campaigns so that all political parties will have a comparable chance to win the favour of the voters at election time. Therefore the people will decide on a much fairer basis who should represent them than has been the case in the past.

Some may suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this particular bill is out of order on technical grounds. But I submit that the bill is very much in order on moral grounds and the Government, because it's taken such a keen interest in this kind of legislation when it was in Opposition, could well accept the general principle of the bill this afternoon. They could let it be known that in the future in British Columbia we were going to get away from this tradition where the big unions and the big corporations of the province made these huge donations to political parties in order to buy a share of power.

What we want to have is completely free elections in British Columbia, and to completely exclude Canadian unions or international unions, or big corporations, be they international or Canadian corporations, from contributing to the election of Members of this House.

Instead, we have this very modest proportion of money being spent. It will be a disappointment I know to the media who have done so well in the past by the lavish expenditures on elections, and they would be limited in the future to merely the news, Mr. Speaker, if this bill were to pass. But the people would know once that election was held that the Members who appeared in the House were entirely responsible to them and not to any special-interest group that might contribute to their election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the Election Expenses Act, 1973.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated comfortably before I announce I can find nothing wrong with the bill. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you explain to the Hon. Speaker?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): It seems to me that there is an impost there. However, I think the debate is worthwhile and certainly…

AN HON. MEMBER: But you're going to adjourn.

HON. MR. HALL: That's right. That's what's going to happen because we've already made a clear and decisive statement that there will be a new elections Act before a new election takes place.

The bill is almost a carbon copy of one produced by the official Opposition prior to August 30, 1972, as indeed are so many of the bills. One might say in passing that one wonders why some of the money is being spent on the research staff over there. (Laughter).

However, speaking to the principle of the bill, this is certainly in line with New Democratic Party policy in terms that it seeks to limit the kind of things that the Member for Point Grey has said.

However, I am going to move adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that this Government has already said quite distinctly and firmly that there will be a new elections Act and this is part of the principles this party formed on our last election.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 82, Mr. Speaker.

PREVENTION OF RESTRAINT OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES ACT

[ Page 2254 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the other Member for Vancouver-Point Grey. Oh, I'm sorry, the same Member.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Bill No. 82 I know is a bill that keenly interests the Minister of Mines, and I don't know whether he'll adjourn the debate or recommend it to his colleagues in the Legislature.

But I do confess, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) was correct that some of these bills — and this is one of them — bear a remarkable similarity to bills that had been introduced before.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it is a convenience to the Queen's Printer. But it's been an embarrassment to me, Mr. Speaker, because I've received a great deal of criticism about the language in this particular bill. (Laughter). We will not have anything to do with theft.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I did want to present the bill in a form that the Government would understand. That's why it bears this similarity to bills that have been introduced in the past.

Regardless, Mr. Speaker, of the exact wording of the bill — and I want to make it clear to the Premier and to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) that we would be prepared to accept amendments to this particular bill if the Members on the other side wish to provide them.

But the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is one which again I would judge all sides of the House would accept. This is merely to restrict the rights of professional people — and some of the categories are listed in section 2 — who are perhaps licensed and given privileges under separate statutes in this Legislature, to use those rights for pecuniary advantage and to therefore rest on other statutes in a way that's contrary to the interests of the common people.

I think it was in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that this particular bill was brought forward by a former Opposition party. But we're not ones, Mr. Speaker, to be narrow-minded on that account. We recognize the validity of it; we support the general principle; we are certainly prepared to accept any amendments to it that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources or the Attorney General or the Premier would like to bring forward. Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in moving second reading of the Prevention of Restraint of Professional Practices Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination charge anybody with theft. But this is almost a duplicate, I'd say, of the bill that I had on the order paper for a number of years.

MR. McGEER: We just wanted you to know we were in favour of it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm totally in favour of the bill…

AN HON. MEMBER: However…. But…. (Laughter).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …but I've had a promise that one of these questions has already been dealt with and that…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! Throw it out.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …and that this question is going to be dealt with by the Government, As you will understand, we've been very busy with the legislation that we've got before the people at the present time. In due course this will be dealt with.

If it isn't dealt with I'll be with you. I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House after today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 83, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Hey! We've got a winner this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Number 84. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 83.

OMBUDSMAN ACT

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the late Senator Kennedy talked about the "impersonality of society." He talked about the gap between the government and the citizen. And the late President Kennedy talked about the better accommodation of government to the citizen rather than the other way around.

By the ever-mounting role of the state, which is

[ Page 2255 ]

being emphasized in British Columbia today as it has never ever been emphasized before, that demands checks and it demands balances on the exercise of administrative authority. The red tape is growing, bureaucracy is skyrocketing and still nobody has put a hand on the brake to help poor old Joe Public wade through the maze.

Long ago, Mr. Speaker — I am referring now to the common law of England — when common law remedies were found to be inadequate because they were either oppressive or impossible, the court of equity was established in the era, if I remember correctly, of Henry IV in England. They were established to do the right thing — to do equity, exercise fair discretion and to help them assist people over the areas and the hurdles of precedent.

The job of an ombudsman would be to do equity in the realm of government to assist and screen complaints and, indeed, funnel suggestions to appropriate governmental departments for action. He would have very wide powers. His guidelines would be fairness. His job: to help cure the effects of the "impersonality of government," which is indeed growing. His job would be to give an ear to the little fellow, to rectify petty officialdom and to rectify delay.

He would be entitled to investigate either on complaint or on his own motion to hold hearings and make all necessary inquiries as he deemed fit. If he concluded that omissions needed rectification or laws needed reconsidering or practices should be altered or reasons should be given for decisions — and we don't have the "Sunshine" law in B.C., you know; you've not brought that in — then it would be incumbent upon the ombudsman to report his opinion and his reasons to the appropriate Minister. If within a reasonable time no action were taken, then he would have a clear route to the Lieutenant-Governor and to the people's palace, which is this Legislature.

As a safeguard, it would be mandatory that each and every year he would make a complete report to the Legislature on the exercise of his function so that we could shore up the administrative weaknesses where needed and where he would find them.

The ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, should be a man of character, of conviction and great capacity for human understanding. In order to ensure the total independence of his position, he should certainly be as well-recompensed and as well-sheltered from the political arena as is a supreme court judge.

We find complementary legislation in just about every part of the world. We find complementary legislation in Canada — New Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta, just to mention a few examples.

I appreciate the technical difficulties with the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I know what your ruling will be.

But indeed, I'm speaking to the principle of something that has been too long avoided and too long neglected in the Province of B.C. I think it's of paramount necessity that it become a matter of fact.

It's very encouraging to notice that the Hon. Premier did knock his desk in approval of the statement that I've now made. So I do hope that before you, Mr. Speaker, make a ruling upon this particular bill, we could have an expression of governmental opinion. Certainly I would say from the Premier, who's already indicated by a wink of the eye, a twitch of the ear, a shrug of the shoulder…

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're with you.

MR. GARDOM: We're which?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're with you.

MR. GARDOM: You're with me?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, we're with you.

MR. GARDOM: Well! At long last. It took us a long time to convert you but I'm delighted to hear that you're with us. I'd like to know from the Hon. Premier when he feels that we will have an ombudsman in the Province of B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not this session.

MR. GARDOM: Not this session. Does he contemplate we'll have it in the fall?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, ah! Careful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Soon.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member finished?

MR. GARDOM: I am sorry. I intend to sit down, but I have just noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Premier is groping for words, which is a very novel kind of a situation. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member grope for his chair? (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: Excuse me. I've not moved second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you move second reading?

MR. GARDOM: Thank you. 'deed I do!

[ Page 2256 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has moved second reading of the bill. I must admit that he's trying exactly what I tried to do, except I decided to take up a collection instead of having section 8, which demands the consolidated revenue pay the bill for the ombudsman.

I must find that section 8 offends against standing order 67.

MR. GARDOM: With reluctance.

MR. SPEAKER: With reluctance. I am deeply reluctant.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you. Something borrowed, something blue; something old, something…. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're looking for suitable candidates. Some of them are in here in the House. Maybe after the next election.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 84, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

APPEALS ACT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 84 is intituled the Administrative Tribunals Appeals Act. The purpose of this Act is to enlarge the scope of judicial review from the decisions of government boards and tribunals.

I think, as the former speaker mentioned in his bill on the ombudsman, we're all concerned on this side of the House about the ever-increasing number of governmento boards and tribunals and commissions which are being set up.

This bill is not meant to be in disrespect to the principle behind setting up some of these commissions per se, but certainly we in this party and I think from the comments of the other Opposition parties, we are all rather concerned, without reflecting on a vote on a particular bill that was brought into this House and subsequently amended, that the individual in society needs all the protection he can get, and he needs to have all the avenues of appeal that seem reasonable in our democratic process.

While I'm no lawyer, I understand that many of the appeals that are available even today have to be passed on a point of law. Even at the original hearing, if certain facts have subsequently been proven to be erroneous, there is no avenue of appeal on an error of fact. As a layman, this would seem to me to be a very undemocratic and unjust situation as it affects an individual coming before the commission or the tribunal. The main intent of Bill 84 would be to give the individual this added degree of protection and to allow him the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, based on errors of fact. I take pleasure in moving second reading of this bill.

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

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): As the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) would say, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this type of a bill. I would say that from a first glance, this type of appeal tribunal for administrative law is long overdue in this province, and I heartily support the principle behind this kind of a thing. I want to assure the Hon. Member for Oak Bay that I will do anything in my limited power to bring about this kind of view to the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: How limited?

MR. LAUK: Extremely limited. It grows more limited by the day. (Laughter).

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Live a little.

MR. LAUK: I therefore, with that promise to Member for Oak Bay, move adjournment of the debate for this bill until the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 85, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUPREME COURT ACT

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

MR. GARDOM: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to empower a court in the Province of British Columbia to include in the amount for which a judgment is given, interest on the whole or any part of the judgment for the whole or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action, be it for death or damages — whatever it may be — arose and the date of the court award.

This will have quite a few desirable effects. It should have the desirable effect of encouraging the settlement of lawsuits. It should have the desired effect of giving well deserved relief to plaintiffs where the defendants in lawsuits have been able to use the plaintiff's money while the litigation is in process.

We live today, Mr. Speaker, in a day of high interest rates. The procedure I've suggested is not an uncommon one, and it should certainly be encour-

[ Page 2257 ]

aged. This amendment will just permit that thing to happen.

We find the problem occasioning in all sorts of cases, certainly in the claims of larger magnitude — building contract situations, the field of accident claims and so forth and so on.

If we find, Mr. Speaker, that a defendant in a lawsuit is guilty of improper delay in not earlier paying a plaintiff and depriving a successful plaintiff of the use of his money, or the damages that he may claim, then that individual should certainly face the penalty of an interest assessment at such rate as the court considers proper from the time that his cause of action arose, or in the whole or any part of the debt or damages as arose.

We see for practical example, in the Province of B.C., no end of people who have very, very legitimate claims. You may be suing for the price of a car that you may have sold. You may be suing for damages that have occurred to you — very, very serious personal injuries; it may be on a building contract claim, as I discussed. Between the time that you have been improperly and negligently injured, or between the time that your contract has been unlawfully breached, the litigant, the plaintiff, the individual who is seeking his remedy is deprived of interest. And sometimes, it is more beneficial for a defendant in a lawsuit to wait until the outcome and save the amount of money on interest rather than pay.

A very simple little illustration for some of the Members: we'll say that you have a claim for, say $20,000, and you would be entitled to that $20,000 on January 1. By virtue of the difficulty getting into court, and the off-the-statement of the law's delay, you might not be in court for two years. The interest, say at 8 per cent or 10 per cent, whatever the appropriate figure may be, you have been deprived of…and sometimes defendants take a great deal of advantage of this and refuse to pay claims, and certainly, when we get into claims of great magnitude.

I'm not going to talk about a case that is before the courts today — though this particular case is a case involving more money than has ever been before the courts today and is also congesting one court longer than any case has ever congested the court. I would hazard a guess that if we had the provision that I am talking about right now, whereby a judge would be entitled to award interest from the date that the remedy presented itself — which is not from the date of judgment but from the date the cause of action arose — that you would have been able to cut down this lawsuit and make the courts available more for the people as they should be.

You know the best bargain that people ever receive in society today, Mr. Speaker, is the access to the courts. For the price of $20, which is the issuance of a writ, and a $5 hearing fee, you can have one of the most grand hearings. I'm using the word "grand" in the truly philosophical sense, in the truly historic sense of justice.

We've got a great system of justice and it goes back about 700 or 800 years. For that very, very tiny expenditure of money, you can have a hearing according to those laws of justice which have developed over these many years.

The point that I'm making and wish to emphasize is one that has troubled not only the lawyers, of which I am one, it has troubled very, very greatly the judges in our province. And the people who have suffered from not having the remedy that I'm speaking of are the general public. This is a very, very worthwhile measure and I indeed hope that I will be successful in my motion for second reading, which I now move.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate, in a way, to get into this debate. I think there could be a fairly tenuous argument put forward that the bill is out of order, but I don't wish to pursue that particular argument because I think it's a good bill, one that I remember the Member speaking of a year ago, and persuading me, as an individual, of its worth.

There have, however, been a number of changes since those days when we shared elbow space over there. One is the Crown's venture into certain areas of business that the Member referred to, such as insurance. The second is that we've had little time to go over all our statutes. I understand, though I'm not a lawyer and not familiar with all the Attorney General is doing, that he intends to move into these areas.

I therefore think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wise for me to give the Member all the assurance I can, as a Member of this Government, that his idea is a valid idea and one that should be pursued. I certainly will pursue it with the Attorney General, who has just returned. I was going to, on his behalf, move adjournment of this debate, but instead I will, on my own behalf, move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUCCESSION

DUTY ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, calling Bill No. 86, An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act. The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has introduced that bill. It must be in order, considering the authorship — although from the title it makes it seem a little doubtful.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I could move

[ Page 2258 ]

second reading of Bill 86, I wish to assure you and the Hon. Attorney General that it is perfectly in order. I know that the Attorney General, true to his reputation established over this past session, has not read this bill. But I ask him to accept my firm assurance that it is in order. It does not constitute any impost upon the Crown. It does not deal with any of the Crown's prerogatives.

However, it does do something that the Crown forgot to do last fall. The Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) last fall made a major step forward in the amendment to gift tax legislation in this province by providing that gifts for certain specific purposes, namely for educational institutions or for hospitals or gifts which were to be devotedly exclusively to non-profit corporations carrying out works or objects of benefit to the community generally, were to be excluded from tax under the Gift Tax Act.

But the Hon. Minister of Finance neglected to recognize that a gift made within three years of the date of a person's death, although it might be free from any tax under our gift tax legislation, was caught under our succession duty legislation in this province. The sole purpose of this amendment to the Succession Duty Act is to ensure that a gift to an educational institution, to a hospital or to a nonprofit corporation for the purposes of the community generally which happens to be made within three years of a person's death would not be caught under the succession duties.

It is a strange anomaly that we have in our taxing legislation that reaches back three years prior to a person's death and takes into his or her estate all gifts that were made within that period of time. Therefore, by accepting this amendment, as I know the Government will, they will carry out the true intent of the amendment to the gift tax legislation which was passed in this House and so widely acclaimed during the fall session of 1972.

At that time, the amendment had a very significant effect upon gifts made, in particular to municipalities and to organizations of the municipalities that were concerned with the construction of housing accommodation for our senior citizens. There was a specific case in Oak Bay which highlighted the need for a change in the gift tax legislation. However, as it has turned out, the succession duty statute, by not being amended in the same way last fall, has caused consequences to those very worthwhile endeavours, which I'm sure that the Government did not intend or foresee at that time.

The amendment that I propose at this time will ensure that endeavours of the nature of those which I mention either will be free from gift tax or, in the unusual circumstance that the person who is the donor dies within three years of giving that gift, will be free from the grasp of the tax collector.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. learned gentleman at the Clerks' table is able to satisfy the Attorney General and the Hon. Provincial Secretary as to the wisdom of this amendment which, as I say, makes no difference whatsoever to the true intent of the Government, as so clearly outlined in their gift tax amendments last year. I move second reading.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A point of order. I would say that the bill is out of order because it transgresses upon the revenue legislation of the Crown. It exempts a group from a form of taxation and is therefore out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree that the Hon. Member may say that it does not transgress against the intent that he says some bill had. But the actual fact that he has to answer and I have to answer in determining the matter is, does it subtract from the revenues of the Crown in any way? The answer I get, both from the Member's speech and my own reading of his proposal is that it subtracts from the existing revenues enjoyed by the Crown. That must be done, in this instance, by a message because it does interfere with the revenues of the Crown under standing order 67. I therefore must regretfully find it out of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker — Bill 87. Could we by leave of the House pass over that bill?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Second reading of Bill 88.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BILL OF RIGHTS

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

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This subject, the British Columbia Bill of Rights, is something which both sides of the House in this parliament and in the previous ones that I have attended have all supported.

I think all parties strongly promoted the contents of this bill in their election campaigns. In this session of the Legislature which began at the end of January, much reference has repeatedly been made in debates on estimates and in the throne speech and budget speech to the fact that we have a federal Bill of Rights but there is a need to provide for the lack of discrimination for the citizens of British Columbia in relation to employment, opportunities and wage rates.

In other words, what the bill is trying to do is eliminate all discrimination in relation to colour, creed, religion, sex, education and so on, and to ensure all the freedoms we pay lip service to so often — freedom of speech and free assembly, freedom of

[ Page 2259 ]

the Press…

AN HON. MEMBER: Freedom from the Press?

MR. WALLACE: Freedom of the Press. (Laughter). I'm sure the Hon. Member is being facetious. We politicians couldn't even function without the Press. They could get along fine without us probably, but we can't get along with them.

To get back to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, the important element in the bill is that if there is any preceding legislation of this province which denies the principle and the assurances of no discrimination in this Bill 88, then of course Bill 88 supersedes the authority of preceding laws.

Mr. Speaker, if one listens to the voice of the public and talks to the constituents around his own riding and across the province, this is indeed the kind of bill which people are seeking. With respect, Mr. Speaker, we have had admissions from the Government side, including the Provincial Secretary, that there is a great need to do away with a great deal of discrimination against women in the government civil service.

This is rather a specific example, but I feel that the record shows in this session and in many other sessions that all Members of the House are in favour of a bill of rights. Therefore it gives me great pleasure to move second reading of Bill 88.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If I may speak to the point of order just for a moment. We appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member has drawn this bill up. It's something that's under active consideration by the Government. Only the pressure of time, really, means that it may not be presented at this session.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. This year or very soon. We do appreciate seeing the opinions of Members. But the Member has included section 6 and I think that renders this bill out of order

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, one of the provisions of standing order 67 is that one must not interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown. Only the Crown has that right — to interfere with its prerogatives. If it isn't by message, then no private Member can do so In section 6 it says:

"There is hereby repealed any provision heretofore passed by this Legislature requiring that the consent of the Crown in Right of the Province be obtained before the Crown in Right of the Province can be sued."

That is the prerogative of the immunity of the Crown, a doctrine that goes all through the history of England.

MR. WALLACE: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the bill were amended by deleting section 6, would it then be in order?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm afraid I can't…

MR. WALLACE: I'm actually speaking for this party and I think from the sentiments on…

MR. SPEAKER: I can't deal with the theoretical aspect of it at this stage. If it got to committee — but in principle…

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask leave to withdraw section 6 from the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: No bill can be amended before second reading, I'm afraid. You have to deal with the principle.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of Bill No. 89, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased this bill was called by the Minister of Education, because it's a bill to end discrimination against women in one aspect of the provincial administration.

I apologize to the Members for the rather complicated verbiage but that, unfortunately, is the way bills must be drafted. It's only to be certain, Mr. Speaker, that this particular piece of legislation is completely in apple pie order.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know why it has to be so long.

MR. McGEER: Yes. Well, it would be nice just to be able to dismiss all discrimination with a word and a wave of the hand. But what we have on our books, Mr. Speaker, is discrimination — or rather discretion — in the hands of the Deputy Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, which is used to discriminate against the female sex. Mr. Speaker, I think that's completely wrong and this is why this particular bill has been brought forward.

I'm so pleased that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has arrived. She herself is aware of some of the…

MRS. JORDAN: Did you miss me?

MR. McGEER: Well, indeed we did, Madam Member, as far as this particular bill is concerned,

[ Page 2260 ]

because we very much want your support and we recognize how valuable a contribution you will be able to make to the debate on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, for those Members who aren't completely familiar with the Hospital Insurance Act — and may I plead that I was one of those who wasn't entirely familiar with it until it was brought to my attention — under section 8 the Deputy Minister may declare who is head of the family.

Mr. Speaker, right now the Deputy Minister of Hospital Insurance is a man. He has been declaring that only men shall be head of a family. We had this one intolerable situation occur where a man had been the wage-earner in the family. His wife had been a student and he immediately qualified as head of the family for BCHIS purposes. Then they left the province for a time and they came back to British Columbia and the tables were turned because, you see, the wife has the education now. She had the job and the poor dumb man was going back to college to try to get some education so he could earn a decent living. She was head of the family. She was bringing in the income.

But when that family applied to the BCHIS, the Deputy Minister ruled that the student was head of the family, and it worked to the financial disadvantage of the husband and wife because they had moved from the Province of Ontario and therefore did not qualify for BCHIS on account of his being a student, even though she was working. Had she not been married and supporting her husband as a student at the university, she would have qualified as head of the family and would not have had to pay full hospitalization should anyone in the family, including herself, have become ill.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's one of these situations where discretion is permitted on the part, in this particular case, of the Deputy Minister. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister has power over the Minister in this particular situation, which seems to be another absurdity.

But it can all be corrected. In fact, this bill does exactly that. It's a mini-bill for women's rights. It corrects a gross abuse. It's completely in order. I know that the women of the House will certainly want to support this legislation on behalf of other working women who have been discriminated against in the Province of British Columbia so that we see justice and equality.

On behalf of the lady Members of the House and all women in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 89.

MR. SPEAKER: It does not appear to interfere with the prerogatives of the royal family.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the point is well made. The Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and I cooperated in the early days of this government when I was the Minister responsible for Medicare. Together we moved into this area of investigation that's commonly called the health security programme. Part of that programme is a complete review of the Hospital Insurance Act.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the discrimination which is apparent and which is confirmed by the Member's eloquent words, I, as Provincial Secretary, am trying to make sure that every single discriminatory action is halted, is stopped, is removed from our Acts, statutes, regulations and discretionary powers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And your own home.

HON. MR. HALL: And, as the Attorney General says, my own home. It seems to me that there are better ways to go about this particular problem than that which is encompassed in Bill 89, which calls for an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Surely we can get to the stage where we can simply state what we want to have achieved and have it carried out by Deputy Ministers and other civil servants all the way down the line.

I think the bill is a valuable piece of input, as they say, that should go to Dr. Foulkes' health security programme by way of the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke.)

I move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 90.

TAXPAYERS' PROTECTION ACT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is another bill which has been discussed, or the content and principle of which have been discussed, many times. It was also part of the election promise of this party. At the federal level we have an auditor general whose basic purpose in life is to assure the taxpayers of judicious use of funds and to detect and expose any squandering of funds, and the federal example, I think, is very hard to find fault with. Maybe some of the tactics and some of the politicking involved is unfortunate, but Maxwell Henderson has certainly served the federal purpose very well.

It is our feeling that the same kind of complete freedom by a government-appointed official to investigate and report to society and to this House on the methods and results of government spending and government funds is something which, with the ever-growing size of government and the involvement of government in a far wider range of responsibility

[ Page 2261 ]

than ever before, is a measure of protection to the individual to ensure that his money is properly spent by government.

I move second reading of Bill 90.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the auditor general would necessarily have to be paid by the revenues of the province. I think for that reason the bill is out of order. I don't see the Liberal Party, in any case, supporting the appointment of an auditor general after their experiences in Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: Section 2 of the bill clearly puts it as an infringement against standing order 67, because it does call for the expenditure of public money and an appropriation from the Legislature. I must, therefore, rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 91, Mr. Speaker.

RURAL STUDENT AID TRAVEL FUND ACT

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's certainly a great opportunity for me to stand in this House this afternoon and speak for those in the province who are for equal opportunity to our educational facilities in this province. I know that I speak on behalf of all of the Members of the Government backbench who are for rural ridings when I ask them to support this bill.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that some of the students who seek higher education from the rural ridings are at a disadvantage. In the beginning, they do not have access to our major museums, which are mainly in the lower mainland and in the cities. They do not have access to the libraries which have more books than the libraries in the rural ridings. They do not have access to the planetarium in the lower mainland. They do not have access to the aquarium. They do not have access to the zoo and wildlife habitats that we have in Stanley Park. These are all part of learning.

They do not have access to the universities and the higher learning institutes that we have in the lower mainland. When they do travel to the lower mainland and the cities of Vancouver and Victoria to attend these institutes of higher learning, they do so at their own expense. Not only do they have their travelling expenses, Mr. Speaker, but they have to provide for their own keep while they're here. They have to look after their own spending money and they have to provide their food and lodging.

While city students are attending these universities, they can not only live at home — which, as you know, in many cases would be much cheaper because they'd be living with their families — but they do not have to provide for the travel funds. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that they can be home on the weekends to relax, which would probably enhance their ability to learn come Monday morning, They'd certainly be more relaxed. Also, Mr. Speaker, they have the opportunity to be with their families on long weekends and such holidays as Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that no one would want to deny these rural students the right to spend the great season of Christmas with their families. It would be a shame. I know, Mr. Speaker, that even you wouldn't want to deny them that.

MR. SPEAKER: It's nothing to me. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, this is truly a hindrance to the students of the rural ridings in obtaining higher education. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for all the Members of the backbench. I know that the Government is going to lend a very sympathetic ear to this bill.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that as time goes on it would probably mean that the Government will have to dig into their back pocket to help these students with some travel aid. But I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is sympathetic. Even though there's a remote possibility that the bill could be ruled out of order this afternoon, I know that the Government will take a sincere look at it. I know that many of their own backbenchers are interested in seeing this come into being.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, I do know that they'll take a sincere look at it because they are a Government that wants to provide equality of education for all. I therefore take great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 91. Thank you.

HON. MR. HALL: I assure the Hon. Member that we will take a sincere look at it. I must point out that it is out of order in the hands of a private Member. But I assure the private Member that there'll be a further opportunity to delve into this important matter when the Government calls resolution 36 on the order paper on page 5.

At that time, we'll have an opportunity perhaps to have a unanimous vote in terms of the principle to which you have just addressed yourself. I must point out, however, that sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 would appear to render the bill out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it's obvious from the sections of the bill that deal with the obtaining of the money to pay on this travel fund set under title that it would offend against standing order 67. I have a duty,

[ Page 2262 ]

therefore, to rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 92.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there's a real danger of being out of order on the basis of tedious repetition on this bill, I'm afraid. This is a bill which very simply is intended to fill the tremendous gap in the coverage of hospital insurance to those patients who are presently in nursing homes and private hospitals. They come under the category of intermediate care.

We have canvassed this problem in the House many times. It's disappointing that this was a very prominent issue which was supported strongly by the Government when they were in Opposition. It is one very disappointing part of the early performance of this Government that we're still without just, fair and equal treatment to the people requiring intermediate care.

The other persons in general hospitals receiving either acute or extended care are covered at $1 a day. But the people who require this other intermediate level of care are presently undergoing tremendous financial hardship.

I move second reading of Bill 92.

MR. SPEAKER: On the question that I have to determine at this point after the motion, it appears that it would widen the number of facilities that would have to be provided for a group of persons requiring intermediate care of all types and the acquisition of buildings and natural facilities to go with that expansion of the number of people to be provided for. Consequently, it would have to be on the basis of a recommendation from the Crown.

I must therefore find it out of order under standing order 67.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 93.

AIR AMBULANCE AID ACT

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, it gives me great pleasure to stand here in the Legislature and speak for equality of opportunity to share the facilities of our health services anywhere in the province.

Mr. Speaker, we should work on the principle that all persons in British Columbia are entitled to equal treatment from our health services and from our Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. At present, due to the logistics in the province of where people live and where these facilities are, this is not the case.

I'm sure you're well aware, Mr. Speaker, that hospitals in the rural ridings — and these are good hospitals — and, even in some of the larger areas in the northern part of the province cannot, due to the way medical science is progressing, provide all the services that are required by citizens who do not live in the immediate area. I refer to such services as brain surgery, heart surgery, cancer operations and indeed cancer therapy. This is the way it is, Mr. Speaker, and the way it will always be. It would be both physically impossible and economically not feasible to provide these services in all areas in the province because we are a large province.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that in certain outlying rural areas there are no hospital facilities at all. I speak mainly for the northern parts of the Omineca riding and the Atlin riding and certain parts of the North Peace riding, where development is taking place. Some of these areas are many, many hundreds of miles away from any hospital facilities at all.

So there are really two parts to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I think that we in British Columbia should take a very close look at how we can assist people who require these services to obtain them without a great financial burden to themselves. For instance, a person who hasn't been able to work may require special attention. In many cases they may be in financial straits themselves. Then if they have to provide plane fare to the lower mainland, it works a great hardship on them.

I would really hope, Mr. Speaker, that our Government would take a very sincere look at this. It's very difficult to put a monetary value on life. You can't do it. But I'd like to point this out, Mr. Speaker. If the owner of a small plane or a larger plane or even a company plane goes down anywhere — suppose you were making a trip between here and Prince George — some branch of the government would spend thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars from the public purse to search for that plane. Indeed, if the people are injured from the plane crash, they would be flown out to the nearest medical facilities.

I think we should exercise the same kind of judgment, Mr. Speaker, in looking after those who we know require medical facilities.

We know where they are, and we should certainly not impose additional financial burden on these people. If necessary, if not done from the public purse, it could be done through some form of insurance where everybody in the province, indeed, pays into this, so it would be sort of an equalization fund.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister without Port-

[ Page 2263 ]

folio has spoken on this. I am given to understand that the government is sympathetic to this request, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we move, and move fairly swiftly toward implementing this. I hope the government will move very swiftly toward implementing this because there are many, many cases, particularly with older people, who require the additional facilities. It is just too much of a financial burden, Mr. Speaker, for them to provide their transportation to acquire the facilities available in these hospitals, Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in being able to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, again the Government accepts the principle of the bill, and there will be an opportunity for further debate and a resolution of unanimity for resolution No. 24 on the order paper by the Hon. Minister without Portfolio.

I will say, however, that at the moment there are currently both my officials from Civil Defence, chief pilot Toye, Minister of Highways people and of course the appropriate staff of Hospital Insurance working as an active committee, and have been for some time — working on this even to the size of the doors on the planes and so on. Certainly, I know it is going to be a happy day for the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder). I certainly want to congratulate the Member for speaking sincerely as a northern Member on this problem. However, the Member from the north calls for $1 million, and I can't buy that just at the moment.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill is clearly out of order — standing order 67.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 94.

STIMULATION OF EMPLOYMENT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, I have been with the Hon. Minister of Health Services (Hon. Mr. Cocke)…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CURTIS: I heard the question.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to move second reading of Bill No. 94. Much has been said in this chamber this session on the subject of unemployment, and the purpose of Bill No. 94 is to draw to the attention of the House the need for stimulation of employment. A little less talk, perhaps, and a little more action.

Unemployment — the major problem in British Columbia at this particular time. An opportunity will be found in any one of several areas to stimulate employment and to reduce the rolls of unemployed in the Province of British Columbia — particularly, I think, in areas of activity where we can improve our environment and assist other levels of government at the same time.

The Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, will note that several points have been set out in this particular bill with respect to parks, both provincial, regional and municipal; with respect to the acceleration of capital works and incentives to the private sector, because we happen to believe that simply to increase the amount of money available from the provincial purse is not likely to be of that much assistance.

We need to generate more activity in the private sector in terms of construction, reconstruction, renovation. The subject is one which I know is of concern to every Member, regardless of where he or she sits in the House. And we are attempting in this particular document to indicate the several ways in which this very serious matter can be attacked, and attacked forthwith. I have great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill No. 94.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill appears to require the expenditures of large sums of money in most of the provisions that are set out in section 1(a-j). In view of that fact, it would be impossible that it proceed either without the consent of the Crown by message or other signification by the members of the Government. In view of the situation, I must declare that the bill is out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 95.

ABANDONED REFRIGERATOR ACT

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, let me very hastily say there is nothing facetious or an attempt at any distorted humour in this bill. After it was tabled in the House I took exception to some of the remarks from the Fourth Estate. I praised them this afternoon. But at the moment I don't accept their facetious remarks when this bill was tabled.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about ice boxes?

MR. WALLACE: That's included in the bill, Mr. Member, if you've read it. "Refrigerator, ice box, freezer cabinet or similar refrigerating unit."

[ Page 2264 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am also sure that this bill is in order, since it does not call for the spending of public funds. The reason is very simple. It is one of these areas of protection which happens not very often in society, but when it does it is a particularly disastrous and distressing human situation.

The most recent example occurred in Esquimalt. I am sorry that the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) isn't here, because I know he is sympathetic to what this bill intends to do, or tries to do. But this occurred in November last year when a nine year old boy, who also happened to have a disability in speaking, was found in a refrigerator which had been abandoned less than a block from his own home. It was some 21 hours before he was found.

I don't think anyone in this House would hesitate to agree that if there is a way in which this kind of tragedy can be prevented…surely any way that would help to prevent it should be used.

I also agree, Mr. Speaker, with the comments as received that it is probably trying to legislate integrity. You can't make people take the necessary steps to discard their refrigerators and ice boxes in a safe fashion. But the fact is, first of all, that if we put legislation on the books, it does draw public attention to the danger. And I don't think everybody is aware of the danger.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I canvassed every province in Canada to find out if this has been legislated, and there are only two provinces that have any kind of legislation. One is Saskatchewan, the other is Newfoundland. It isn't by statute in Newfoundland, but it is by statute in Saskatchewan.

But part of the principle of this bill is that if anyone else, other than the owner of an abandoned refrigerator, finds such an object in a place accessible to children, that person can remove the door and the hinges, or at least disable the refrigerator without himself being left open to any civil suit or to any damages. I think that since it is a very simple bill, its purpose is very clear — to try and prevent these tragedies happening with young children — and since it does not involve the expenditure of public money; it is basically a bill for society as a whole, particularly for the protection of children such as we discussed yesterday. I would hope that the Government would…

I don't care if the bill comes in under my name as private Member, I just want this bill to be given the publicity that it needs, and to be put on the statute books. So I would hope that the Government would consider accepting the bill, and I now move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate the Hon. Member drawing this bill, and giving the matter public attention. I have tried to do the same thing, because basically that is what is needed. We have to alert people to this danger — even though it is only the old type of refrigerator that locked in that way. The new magnetic ones are not dangerous, hopefully. But the old ones still present a menace to children.

We have tried to publicize that municipal inspectors have the authority under the Health Act, as part of the safety of people, to pick up these things, dismantle them if necessary, and call them to the attention of the owners. But it is really a matter of getting the message out there. Even passing a bill and imposing a penalty which might result in a bereaved parent being charged and fined in provincial court really doesn't do much about it. It is more education, and more a matter of the municipal people referred to doing their best to locate these dangers and preventing them from causing accidents.

But the bill, I think, is out of order, Mr. Speaker, because it does seek to impose a penalty. Much as we'd like to see this brought to the floor of the House. Out of order under rules of the House, particularly vol. 3.

MR. SPEAKER: At p. 30 of vol. 3, Mr. Speaker Whittaker clearly sets out — that's the Speaker's Decisions, December 6, 1938. Journals, p. 100, the Hon. Speaker says:

"A bill imposing fines and imprisonments cannot be originated by a private Member except with the consent of the Crown."

And he refers to 1932 Journals, p. 75; 1936 Journals, first session, p. 119. This matter was determined by a vote of the House and therefore it's binding on us unless changed by the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 96, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE TRUST COMPANIES ACT

MR. GARDOM: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I would very much like to bid welcome to somebody who's fairly close to me, Miss Briony Gardom and her very good friend, Miss Susan Heathcote, who've come over this afternoon. If they're finding the House a little dull this afternoon they are quite free to leave, providing they're dressed and clean for dinner at 6 o'clock tonight. (Laughter).

Speaking to the principle of this measure, Mr. Speaker, it must become mandatory that the report of the inspector of trust companies be made public and filed in the Legislature. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the Trust Companies Act, the inspector of trust companies only has to file his report with the Minister of Finance and with the Attorney General — that is with the Premier and the

[ Page 2265 ]

Attorney General — and neither of them has any responsibility whatsoever to file that report in this Legislature.

I would say that in this matter we have to insist upon full public accountability.

I would say this — and this is a very, very strong statement and I'm going to totally stand by it: had it been mandatory that the report of the inspector of trust companies was subject to public scrutiny, which I am asking here this afternoon, the Commonwealth Trust debacle would never ever have occasioned in the Province of B.C. That situation must never ever have the opportunity again to rear its head in this province. This proposal will be a safeguard against just that.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that truth doesn't need any blinds and it needs no covers. I say end the secrecy and have these reports a matter of public record.

Something that is still of considerable concern to hundreds, indeed thousands of people in the Province of B.C. is that there has not been any governmental explanation of its own neglect concerning the Commonwealth Trust situation. British Columbia still does not know what the two watchdogs — and the two watchdogs were the then Minister of Finance (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) and the then Attorney General (Mr. L. Peterson). We still do not know what those two watchdogs did as to whether or not they were sleeping behind the stove and turning a blind eye or a combination of both.

People do know, however, one thing in B.C., and that is this: the government of its day refused a legislative inquiry and by their own bill they killed the royal commission, the very one they appointed. They forced it to resign.

All of this has been no salve whatsoever to the men and women who have lost their life savings. They still want an answer from government concerning its then participation for sweeping the Commonwealth Trust mess under the rug. The sweeping of that mess under the rug hasn't helped them one bit.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I am proposing this afternoon will at least give some assurance to those people that the new Government and the existing legislators in the Province of B.C. know one thing; that they have learned via the tortuous path of trial and error that there's something rotten and wrong with the law.

There is absolutely no reason, moral, ethical or legal that I know of why the spectre of trust companies' reports have got to always end up in the desk drawer of either the Attorney General or the Minister of Finance. Make them public. Make them public and we'll never ever have that disgrace happen again.

This has nothing to do with the expenditure of funds. This has something to do with effective government and something to do with preventing fantastic losses to people which should never have occasioned.

All I'm suggesting in this bill is a very simple thing, that the inspector annually file his report, as he always has done, to exactly the same people that he always has done. And there should be one Minister responsible, not two. I remember the way the ping pong ball used to dance from one hand to the other between the then Minister of Finance and the then Attorney General, depending upon whose estimate it was and whose responsibility it was.

But I am saying this: make the Minister responsible have the legal duty to place the report of the inspector of trust companies in front of all of the Members of the Legislature within 30 days of his receipt of the same.

If we find, as we did find in the Commonwealth Trust situation, that a trust company was violating the laws of the Province of British Columbia, that it was conducting its business in a manner that was not authorized and — terribly strong words in a Government bill — contrary to the public interest, then, good God! let a person know about that so they don't have to walk into the doors of that trust company which continued open for the better part of 10 months after that order was made. Pretty simple.

If the thing stinks, let the people know about it. If you happen to receive an adverse report from the inspector of trust companies which the former government did, should not the people be entitled to it? I'd like any Member to say that this is the province of the Attorney General or Minister of Finance — and no criticism whatsoever to this present administration. I'm talking about the effectiveness of doing a job and the ability to nip something in the bud.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that if I've introduced this bill before, I am — I hope the word is not "emotional" — about its direction in it, but I have seen perhaps more than any person in this House more of the individuals who have suffered from the result of this thing and they've said, "Why wasn't it made public?"

All that had to happen was that that rotten report came to the ears of the Legislature and we would have saved life-savings of no end of people — big people and moderate people, some of whom are on welfare today.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an expenditure of public money. This is necessity for an intellectual direction and a moral direction, a correct direction and an ethical direction. I indeed implore the Government to accept second reading of this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think a point of order should be raised in relation to this bill. I don't quite agree with the Hon. Member

[ Page 2266 ]

that the only thing wanting to have saved the Commonwealth people was the filing of a report by the inspector in this House. That was one thing.

But there were many other things, such as the trading between the various affiliated companies…

MR. GARDOM: He said it was conducting its business in a manner contrary to the public interest and the doors still remained open. You know that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. That was a very important point. But there were other points. The point I am making is that we're going as quickly as we can to modernize our legislation, starting with companies, Trust Companies Act and the Securities Act and Regulations.

MR. GARDOM: Modernize it today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We don't want to just nibble at this Act. However, let me say this further, that I don't see any reason why, whether or not this amendment is in effect and particularly if the Hon. Member brings it to the attention of the Minister of Finance at the commencement of a session and says, "Can we have a report?" that it could not be voluntarily filed in this…

MR. GARDOM: Would you file it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …in this House. And the Minister of Finance has indicated that he'd like to have that request from you at an appropriate time.

MR. GARDOM: Will he file it now?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know whether there's one ready to file. But we'll do our best to do it voluntarily.

MR. GARDOM: It came in at the end of the year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But we need a much more major review of these statutes than is indicated here, however good the suggestion is. I move adjournment of the debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the aye's have it, but that was an awfully loud "No!" though.

MR. GARDOM: Do the no's have it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not ill, Mr. Member? Has your daughter gone?

MR. GARDOM: She's still there. She's got great staying power. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 97, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO

PUBLIC BUILDINGS

MR. GARDOM: Ah! The hatchet man's back. Nice to see you aboard.

This is a letter that came in, Mr. Speaker, dealing with this bill:

"I'm 29 years of age. I have arthritis, I'm confined to a wheelchair. I am married, I have two lovely children. I have a better than average education. I have a respectable employment background. I'm able to rapidly adapt to new and progressive working techniques…"

but the individual does not have access to a public building.

This is a measure that was suggested by the former Liberal Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. B. Clark), and it's purely and simply this — a measure whereby any public building must, by law, provide access for use by handicapped person. We're not talking too much about money here, we're just talking about compassion. Should not every public building in the Province of British Columbia become readily available and completely accessible to handicapped people? I move second reading.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I was looking around largely for the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) to join in the debate on this, but it does seem to me that we've all had a lot of correspondence about this and Mr. Hyndman, who I think you should perhaps have mentioned in the course of your speech, has of course been a correspondent of all of the MLAs…

MR. GARDOM: Sorry, Mr. Provincial Secretary, the letter was not from Mr. Alex Clark, but he deserves more tributes than any person in the Province of British Columbia for what he's done for handicapped people, make no mistake of that.

HON. MR. HALL: That's the gentleman that I was referring to. I do, however, think that this needs a little bit of thought, and I'd like to see the Minister of Public Works and other members of the cabinet who are presently grappling with the building programme of the Government, together with the renovations of some of the older buildings, tackle this. I think we can agree, generally speaking, to the thoughts expressed by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and the force with which he and

[ Page 2267 ]

his colleague of yesteryear expressed themselves on this matter. I assure the House that the Government is knowledgeable about the problem, but I think I should move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 98, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ACT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House now simply suggests, with respect to the Capital Improvement District Commission, that it be recognized that the greater Victoria and Saanich Peninsula area has grown considerably in population since 1955 or 1956.

The bill does not speak about the expenditure of public funds. It simply expands the area of operation of the Capital Improvement District Commission by recognizing the need for beautification projects over all of the municipalities that comprise greater Victoria. The commission members, it should be pointed out, do not now receive, nor have they in the past received, any salary or compensation. The bill does not speak about the amount of money allocated to it for beautification projects by a vote of this Legislature each year.

It was apparently felt when the former government established the CIDC that it was necessary to include only the four core municipalities of Victoria, Oak Bay, Esquimalt and Saanich. In 1955 or 1956 that was, indeed, perfectly acceptable. The balance of the Saanich peninsula was quite rural and rather inactive. There was no British Columbia ferry service of any kind between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen — just a little ferry terminal at the north end of the peninsula to serve the islands and a much smaller Victoria Airport. The now District of North Saanich was unincorporated, and the now Town of Sidney was a village.

The need for consideration of a larger area, which in its totality comprises the greater Victoria district, or the capital region, if you will, is spoken about in this bill. All it does is increase the number of members of the commission and permit those additional members to be appointed from, in order, the District of Central Saanich, the District of North Saanich and the Town of Sidney.

I move second reading of Bill No. 98.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: As the Minister responsible for the administration of this Act, I'd like to enter this debate. I think the ideas, on face value, did have merit. That is, the more discussion, the more voices, the more eyes and ears that there are in the committee's work, on the surface, it would appear to be the better.

However, I must say — and I haven't checked my file this last day — that I would have preferred this improvement to have come after some discussion with the commission itself. I don't want to appear to be picking on the Member, but he is a member of the commission, attends the meetings and has served it well. I've attended some meetings with him. I would have thought that it would perhaps have been better for this suggestion to come, after they had discussed it, by way of resolution from the commission. But that may be a difference in style between us.

I would, however, like to discuss this suggestion with the commission, and look at it in the fullness of time. I therefore move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 99, Mr. Speaker.

SENIOR CITIZENS HOME REPAIR

ASSISTANCE ACT

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might take the same privilege as the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and ask leave of the House to welcome his master's voice to the gallery. I thought perhaps, having purchased his own Titanic, that Peter Hyndman might have pulled the plug and left the country. But I'm sure the House is glad to see he's back.

With regard to the bill, Mr. Speaker, which I won't name, I think I'd rather re-title it, "The Happy Home Bill." I think every Member, and certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that there are many senior citizens in Canada, and certainly in British Columbia…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: It's the one that's gurgling.

…that there are many senior citizens in British Columbia who are living in their own home and who have managed to save through the years and buy their own home, but now find that they're on pensions or very limited incomes. Through the natural process of ageing they find that these homes need repairs — new plumbing, new roofing, new stairs, painting, sidewalks deteriorating. This is an added expense, Mr. Speaker, that they find they are unable to bear because of inflation, and the devaluation of their own savings through inflation, and the fact that when they

[ Page 2268 ]

purchased their homes years ago they didn't have the opportunity of taking advantage of the provincial government home acquisition grant of $1,000 or a lower second mortgage.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of cases that I know of, and I am sure there are many that you know of, and many that the other Members of this House know of, where these people are having to make a choice. The choice is that if they are going to continue to enjoy a few benefits in life then they have to sell their homes. They're really being pushed out of their homes by repairs as inflation affects them.

The purpose of the Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act would be to make available to all senior citizens over the age of 65 an outright grant of up to $500. I recognize that this would impose a cost which would require serious consideration from the Government. But if you take the number of senior citizens in British Columbia and you take the amount of the grant, and the natural play that there is between when repairs become necessary, this could be considered a very helpful effort and very generous effort on the part of the Government. I would think that the Speaker would find much support for this programme from all private Members on the Government side and I'm sure all Members on this side of the House and certainly within the cabinet.

In recommending, Mr. Speaker, that the Government make available a $500 cash interest-free grant to senior citizens to repair their homes, I would move second reading.

HON. MR. HALL: Sections 3, 4 and 5 appear to offend the standing order.

MRS. JORDAN: Will you consider it and take it under advisement?

MR. SPEAKER: It is obviously contrary to standing order 67. 1 have to rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 104, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, providing I can receive an absolute assurance and undertaking from the Government this afternoon that it's going to bring in its own bill, which I'm delighted to see…

HON. MR. HALL: It's in.

MR. GARDOM: No, no, no. That it will get through the House. I know it's in. That it will get through the House and you won't leave it sitting on the order paper.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It has the support of the Government and, I understand, the Liberal Party. I think the Tories are supporting it. I don't think they would be opposed to it either. It's even greater than your bill in that it's retroactive. So pardner, let's get on with it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: No wonder Shirley has trouble at home. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Member wish to withdraw the bill, or does he wish to speak on it, or does he wish to move it…?

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to talk about Shirley for a few moments, if you don't mind. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Shirley not!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: Never mind, Shirley. I'll have the papers ready Monday morning. Wherever you are.

I'm more than delighted that the Government has appreciated the point that has been raised in this quarter for many, many years. I'm just delighted. It was the grossest of injustices to the Indian community. I cannot but congratulate the Government in going ahead and making the measure that I propose retroactive, which is indeed something that we would have done as well — totally. I'd say I'm more than delighted to — what's the correct word? I haven't abandoned the bill before — request that it leave the order paper? How do you get it off here, Mr. Speaker? You're new at this too.

MR. SPEAKER: Ask leave to withdraw the bill. I've done it.

MR. GARDOM: In view of the Government commitment — I underline the word "commitment" — and I receive the acquiescent and charming nod of the Premier that it is a commitment, because we don't want any "Indian giving" in this bill…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM:…as long as we have the total commitment of the Government that its bill will go through, I am more than delighted to withdraw mine.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to assure the Member that the bill is on the order paper. We intend to proceed this session, even though there are some

[ Page 2269 ]

people who have gone around this province saying that retroactive legislation is bad, and falsely informing people that we as a party would never bring in retroactive legislation. Let me tell you, there are instances when retroactive legislation is necessary to correct a social injustice. That's why that bill is being brought in. I want to assure the Member that when reading of that bill takes place he will get the credit that's due him. Because it's too infrequent in our parliamentary system that people with good ideas and who have fought for particular things don't get the credit that's due them.

I also want to remind the Member that he said when he first got elected that this was one of the reasons why he got elected. Does this mean he's now announcing his resignation? (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: That is rather a long point of order. The Hon. Member has asked leave to withdraw the bill. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Did that carry?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: Good.

MR. SPEAKER: You've been successful.

AN HON. MEMBER: You look mod in your new shirt.

MR. GARDOM: It's an old red shirt.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 105, Mr. Speaker.

INDIAN RESERVES MINERAL RESOURCES ACT

REPEAL ACT

MR. GARDOM: Aha, this is the second step.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't go too far in one day.

MR. GARDOM: This is the second step. The first step was the one that we were just talking about a little earlier. But this bill is to go ahead and repeal an Act that has created a great deal of totally unfair, totally unnecessary, totally unpragmatic, totally un-consented-to and totally silly discrimination against the Indian community.

Under the existing legislation, Mr. Speaker — and I'm glad and indeed hope that I have the total concert and support of the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) with this measure — which is the only legislation of its kind in Canada, which came in in 1943 — I don't know whether it came in with the Liberal government. It came in with a coalition? Well, they were wrong. Whoever brought that measure in were totally wrong.

It's to the effect, Mr. Speaker, that the administration and control and disposal of minerals and mineral claims on Indian reserves are subject totally to British Columbia laws and to the fantastic punitive confiscatory direction that all of the revenues from any minerals found on an Indian reserve are shared totally by governments — 50 per cent by the Government of Canada and 50 per cent by the Government of British Columbia.

This Act makes a great play of minerals and mineral rights only. It defines minerals as meaning gold and silver. It doesn't include such things as coal or petroleum or natural gas or building materials.

It's a type of legislation that is totally discriminatory against a race. We don't have similar legislation for Italian people in B.C., English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, French, Norwegian, whatever it may be — just the Indian people. They are naturally upset about it and this is the reason why this bill should be repealed and the Indian people in the Province of B.C. should have exactly the same rights toward minerals in their lands — if indeed not greater rights — but at least exactly the same rights as every other citizen in the province. Therefore I move second reading.

And the bill, for Members who have not read it, is just to repeal the existing law.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is so anxious to get credit for something ahead of time that he doesn't do very much explaining what the bill that he is repealing is all about. It seems to me that this was a transfer of mineral rights from the federal to the provincial. Previously, from what I can gather, it was the federal that owned the mineral rights and not the native Indians.

Now the Hon. Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) has been in consultation with the federal government and the federal government are in consultation with all the other provinces and they're trying to bring out some sort of unified policy…

MR. GARDOM: It's not in any of the other provinces.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …in this regard. It would be premature and it would be unwise to pass a bill such as this when they're right in the midst of negotiations on the whole deal.

[ Page 2270 ]

MR. GARDOM: Humbug.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So I will move to adjourn this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion that debate on this bill be adjourned until the next sitting of the House. Is that your motion?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, it is.

Motion carried.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 107, Mr. Speaker.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN ACT

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is a very short bill and a very simple bill; however, it's a very significant bill. It's a bill that the Attorney General might call the "Sunshine" Act or "Sunshine" bill — let the sunshine in. It's the bill which spells out very clearly the right to enjoyment of property in British Columbia.

I'd hoped that it wouldn't be necessary to introduce such a bill in this House. But in view of the actions that have taken place in the last few weeks I feel that there's a necessity to protect people and their rights to enjoy property and land.

When introducing this bill, which deals specifically with the enjoyment of property, one has to think back to people who have brought in legislation spelling this out very clearly. I think that John Diefenbaker, the former Prime Minister of this country, will always be remembered for three things: (1) having received the largest majority that any party ever received in the Canadian parliament in 1958; (2) having introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights; (3) having been voted out by his own party members.

However, that's very historical with the Conservative Party. They have a tendency of destroying or eating up their leaders, as you might say.

I think the most significant thing he did wasn't winning the great majority or getting booted out by his party members, but it was the introduction of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I hope that the Canadian Bill of Rights will always be there and I hope that provincial government will have certain respect for what is clearly spelt out in that bill of rights.

The one that I am proposing this legislation for is to ensure that people have certain rights relative to the enjoyment of land.

I'm suggesting in this bill that there be fair compensation and that there be fair play and that people's rights to enjoy land and to enjoy property be respected and that if they are injuriously affected they have access to the courts. I don't think it's good enough to set up some sham form of procedure or sham form of appeal without people having the right to an independent judicial body such as the Supreme Court of British Columbia. That's what this bill is asking for: that where an overzealous government might move to interfere with the rights of enjoyment of land and property, they have the right of appeal to the courts of the land.

I move second reading.

HON. MR. HALL: Section 2, I think, offends the rights of the Crown insofar as it says "including the right to sue the Crown." That obligation is clearly out of order in the hands of a private Member.

MR. SPEAKER: It's under standing order 67, which deals with prerogatives of the Crown in regard to bills. Under the Constitution Act, section 52, "the Legislative Assembly shall not originate or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the consolidated revenue fund or for any purpose which has not been first recommended by a message and dealing with any prerogatives of the Crown."

The right of the Crown and its immunity from suit has been well known in this province for the last 100 years and can only be altered by the consent of the Crown to change that immunity. Consequently, since the Hon. Member did not bring a message with him when he came, I would have to rule it out of order.

MR. CHABOT: A point of order. Could I go to the Lieutenant-Governor now and get one?

MR. SPEAKER: Presumably, that's what you'd have to do. I must declare it out of order. The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 112, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY ACT

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this is hallmark legislation which I know will be greeted with enthusiasm by the Premier and the members of the cabinet. Because what it does, Mr. Speaker, is to move to develop the same kind of disclosure and accounting procedures in the Crown corporations that have so long been the tradition for this Legislature itself — even in the secret days of Social

[ Page 2271 ]

Credit.

What we have annually, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of this assembly is an estimate book which declares openly what the budget shall be for the coming year and which spells out in detail spending vote by vote. But for many, many years our major Crown corporations, particularly the British Columbia Hydro and the B.C. Railway have not operated with this kind of open disclosure procedure.

It's true that we have an annual audited statement which appears in back of public accounts. But this isn't backed up by the kind of detail which we find in our own public accounts where members can ask for vouchers and examine any individual expenditure that takes place during the year. In this particular case, we have to rely on an auditing firm to undertake the kind of work that should be taken up by a committee of the House. I know that the Premier has taken the first step in inviting our own Comptroller General to move in and examine the ways in which Crown corporations undertake their accounting procedures. It is not as good as an auditor general and presumably in some enlightened period in the future we will have an auditor general for British Columbia.

Still and all, that doesn't get us to the other aspect of the financial operations of a Crown corporation. And that other aspect is: what is the budget of the Crown corporation?

When the B.C. Railway appeared before the public accounts committee I asked that question and was ruled out of order. But before the morning had finished, Mr. Speaker, we did learn from the vice-president of the B.C. Railway that they do have a budget. It's drawn up every fall. They adhere to that budget very closely. The Board of Directors examines, and the administrative officials of the company examine the expenditures of the B.C. Railway and they check that against the budget month-by-month.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Strachan had to help you through the meeting.

MR. McGEER: I don't know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways very skillfully tried to sidetrack the meeting in a quite different fashion than he used to do when he was the Leader of the Opposition. It was only after the vice-president of the B.C. Railway felt completely secure that he chose to disclose the fact that many of us have suspected right along, that the B.C. Railways does indeed have a budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the officials of the B.C. Railway not only disclosed that they had a budget, but they also admitted that part of their budgetary needs would have to be met by borrowing with guarantees of the provincial government. Mr. Speaker, the Premier is the fiscal agent for that B.C. Railway. It's his responsibility to see that that budget can be implemented — whatever it is. But, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that nowhere do we find placed before the Members of this Legislative Assembly a declaration of what that budget is. We don't really know what the Minister of Finance's obligations are to borrow not just from the Pension Fund, but to borrow from the tax surpluses that are inherent in every budget — even though they are never declared.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has quite proudly told us on several occasions in this House that revenues for this current fiscal year are up 14 percent — which means, Mr. Speaker, that the revenues will be up about $180 million for the year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's just this one month.

MR. McGEER: Just this one month, Mr. Speaker. But the Premier must be a worse pessimist than the former Minister of Finance, or he is not telling the people of British Columbia all, because over a period of many years, the revenues in British Columbia have increased at a rate of 12 per cent compounded annually.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, but we're socialists.

MR. McGEER: I well recognize that, Mr. Speaker. But I don't care whether people are socialists, capitalists, Catholics, or atheists — the method of doing public business should be the same. That method is to declare openly what you intend to do with the public funds in the way of expenditure. The missing link for over a decade, Mr. Speaker…

HON. MR. BARRETT: …is the Socred leader. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: …has been the budget for the B.C. Railway and for the B.C. Hydro. And the Minister of Finance has had to play this dual role.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't know what to do with all the information you got.

MR. McGEER: Well, the Premier, Mr. Speaker, suggests that I don't know what to do with all the information I've got. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier doesn't really know what to do with all the budgetary information that he receives, so he files it all in the bottom drawer and hopes at the end of the year that people aren't going to ask too many questions about where the money has gone.

The proper way to start, Mr. Speaker, is to lay before the House what the budget of the B.C. Railway is for the coming year, to incorporate whatever expenditures are going to be made on behalf of the B.C. Railway into the annual budget that is presented here in the House.

[ Page 2272 ]

When we begin to do that, Mr. Speaker, we'll be operating the Crown corporations in a public fashion, the same way that we operate all the expenditures for all the other departments. We'll begin to have the open government that the Premier has been so proud to proclaim, but hasn't been so proud to implement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to answer that poor, strained Member, who has lost not only the Liberal leadership, but lost his memory as well. Now when you are that kind of losing team, naturally you are looking for something to climb back on board again. Welcome aboard.

We've given out more information to the public accounts committee than they've had in 20 previous years and when the Member got through the public accounts committee with the railway chairman and vice-president of the railway there, he didn't know what to do with them. Now this information is plainly available. The information is made available here in this House during the estimates, during the committee stage…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm on the railway. Do you want to get railroaded too? You know, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the Member…just to give him charity, I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 113, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

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

MR. GARDOM: Well, the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) rather laid out the premise for the necessity for this bill, Mr. Speaker. I feel very strongly that we should have a totally independent auditor general in the Province of B.C. who should be entitled to free access at all convenient times to all files and all documents and all records relating to the accounts of every provincial department, every Crown agency, every Crown corporation — Hydro, Liquor Control Board, B.C. Railway, and these many many other Crown corporations that are being developed by this government and suggested by them — the insurance corporation.

I feel that the auditor general is more necessary in this province as a result of the direction taken by the present government than he has ever been before. They are venturing into fields that are unique to government, and certainly totally unique to the Province of B.C. They are getting into the lumber business; they are taking over towns.

I guess the next thing we hear, they are going to be taking over breweries — the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is nodding his head sagely. He is still nodding;…take over mines — he hasn't stopped nodding yet;…farms — he stopped nodding! "Winken, Blinken and Nod." However, that is very pleasant.

But, Mr. Speaker, we need an individual who is totally independent of government to examine in such manner as he himself may deem necessary all of the accounts of the Province of B.C. relative to the Consolidated Revenue Fund or all of the departments that I have been talking about; to assure that these accounts have been faithfully and properly kept; to assure that public money has been fully accounted for, and the rules and procedures have been effectively applied; that the money has been expended for the purpose for which it was appropriated; that essential records are maintained. His report should be independent of the government, independent of the Ministers, and totally responsible unto. the Legislature, and should be filed in the Legislature every year.

We don't have this kind of a watchdog in B.C. We didn't have it under the former administration, and I felt it was very greatly needed under the former administration. But there is not any question of a doubt that it is more needed under the present administration than it was under the former administration.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Unfair!

MR. GARDOM: Why unfair? The Minister of Highways said "Unfair." I'll tell him exactly why it is more needed. Because you've gone into more ventures, and greater the need for the watchdog. Holy smoke, what you are going to be able to be doing, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Highways, who says that I am being unfair in suggesting that the public have an independent eye. What you are going to be doing through these fantastic organizations that you are creating, and these appointments that you will be granting out and these funny commissions — it's the type of thing, Mr. Speaker, that requires the greatest amount of public light. This is another Act towards public light. And it certainly should be one that should be accepted by the Government.

I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to make the ruling on the expenditure of public funds. But notwithstanding that, I do not think for one second that it is inappropriate that we have, from the

[ Page 2273 ]

Treasury benches over there, an expression of Government policy as to whether or not they do or do not accept the philosophy of the need for an auditor general.

I don't think it's just enough to leave this under your cap, Mr. Speaker, to make this directional decision. I hope that I will hear from …

MR. SPEAKER: Are you moving second reading?

MR. GARDOM: Indeed I do.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, at that point I have to rule, when you make that motion, as to the fate of the bill. We have already dealt with this in Bill No. 90, on precisely the same grounds — standing order 67 in dealing with the same subject matter, and I do so rule.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 116, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 116, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) — Oh, I see he is not in the House at the moment. Could it be set aside?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 115, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CORONERS ACT

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

MR. GARDOM: This is the point I was discussing earlier this morning in a debate upon the Government bill — the one introduced by the Hon. Attorney General, and he merely said it was a situation of looking at it. At that time he was looking sort of desperately to his left, and desperately to his right to find some sort of cabinet succour, and they were not there. But now that we have a lot of cabinet succour on the left of the Attorney General, who is not here, and a great deal of cabinet succour on the right of the Attorney General who is also not here, perhaps we could hear from these two cabinet succours as to what their attitude is.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, how do you spell that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: O.K., sucker! (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: What I'm just suggesting here, Mr. Speaker, for goodness sake, let's go ahead and let the poor fellows who sit on coroners' juries receive the same amount of jury pay as everybody else in the province does, as opposed to zilch — what they receive today. Will you agree?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not a dead issue, Mr. Member, although it was discussed earlier today. I know that the Attorney General has taken this matter under advisement.

MR. GARDOM: Under advisement! How deep down? About six feet?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It would take an awful lot of suction to revive it. (Laughter). Therefore, Mr. Member, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unless you prefer to rule it out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is taken, by the Hon. Member for Point Grey, I believe.

MR. GARDOM: I'll accept the motion…

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ruling it out of order? (Laughter). Are you ruling it out of order?

MR. GARDOM: I haven't got the hat.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it is definitely out of order, because it requires an expenditure by the Crown that presently doesn't exist.

MR. GARDOM: But I think in view of the fact that the House Leader suggested an adjournment, we should really at least defer to his wisdom in that.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if he is making a motion to adjourn the debate, I must accept the motion. I thought I heard a point of order from you.

MR. GARDOM: No.

Motion approved; second reading adjourned.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to go to public bills and finish the remaining 17 bills under the Attorney General this evening. (Laughter).

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:27 p.m.