[ Page 2947 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Statement Rail car assembly at Squamish. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2947

Mr. Fraser — 2947

Mr. McGeer — 2947

Mr. Wallace — 2948

Routine proceedings

The Agricultural Land and Green Belt Reserve Act (Bill No. 185).

Mr. Curtis. Introduction and first reading — 2948

Oral questions BCR Boxcar shortage in Peace River area. Mr. Phillips — 2948

Facilities for girls from Willingdon School. Mr. McClelland — 2950

Filing of appraisal reports of Glenshiel Hotel. Mr. Gardom — 2951

Commencement of education commission. Mr. Wallace — 2951

Regulations Act (Bill No. 1). Report and third reading — 2951

Companies Act (Bill No. 16). Report and third reading — 2952

An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965. (Bill No. 31). Report stage — 2952

Division on third reading — 2952

Cattle Industry Development Act (Bill No. 32).

Report and third reading — 2952

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act (Bill No. 33).

Report and third reading — 2952

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42).

Report stage — 2952

Division on third reading — 2952

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44).

Report stage — 2952

Division on third reading — 2952

Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill No. 64).

Report stage — 2953

Division on third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Revenue Act (Bill No. 74).

Report stage — 2953

Division on third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Evidence Act (Bill No. 100).

Report and third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill No. 101).

Report and third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Health Act (Bill No. 122).

Report and third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1961 (Bill No. 129).

Report and third reading — 2953

Water Utilities Act (Bill No. 146).

Report and third reading — 2953

Telecommunications Utilities Act (Bill No. 147).

Report and third reading — 2954

Alcohol and Drug Commission Act (Bill No. 173).

Report and third reading — 2954

Public Works Fair Employment Act (Bill No. 153). Committee stage.

Mr. Brousson — 2954

Hon. Mr. King — 2955

Mr. McGeer — 2957

Division on amendment — 2958

Mr. Phillips — 2958

Hon. Mr. King — 2959

Mr. Brousson — 2960

Hon. Mr. King — 2960

Mr. Chabot — 2960

Hon. Mr. King — 2961

Division on section 2 — 2961

Mr. Brousson — 2962

Hon. Mr. King — 2962

Mr. Morrison — 2962

Mr. Wallace — 2963

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2963

Hon. Mr. King — 2964

Mr. Williams — 2965

Hon. Mr. King — 2965

Mr. Brousson — 2965

Mr. Morrison — 2965

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2966

Division on amendment — 2966

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2966

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2966

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2967

Mr. McGeer — 2967

Division on amendment — 2967

Report stage — 2968

An Act to Amend the Infants Act (Bill No. 37). Committee stage.

Mr. Williams — 2968

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2968

Mrs. Jordan — 2968

Report and third reading — 2969

Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act (Bill No. 103). Committee stage.

Mr. McClelland — 2969

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2969

Report stage — 2970

Ocean Falls Corporation Act (Bill No. 164). Committee stage.

Mr. Smith — 2970

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2970

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2970

Report stage — 2971

Ocean Falls Corporation Appropriation Act (Bill No. 165).

Report stage — 2971

Division on third reading — 2971

An Act to Amend the Park Act (Bill No. 174).

Committee, report and third reading — 2971

British Columbia Cellulose Company Act (Bill No. 179).

Committee and report stage — 2972

Division on third reading — 2972

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act (Bill No. 180).

Committee stage — 2972

Mr. McGeer — 2972

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2973

Mr. Williams — 2973

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2973

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2973

Mr. McGeer — 2974

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2974

Mrs. Jordan — 2974

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2974

Mrs. Jordan — 2975

Ms. Young — 2975

Mr. Richter — 2975

Mr. Chabot — 2975

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2976

Mr. McGeer — 2976

Mr. Wallace — 2976

Mr. Chabot — 2977

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2977

Mrs. Jordan — 2977

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2978

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2978

Report and third reading — 2979

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I would like to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this morning at a regular meeting of the British Columbia Railway Board the following decisions were made, and as a direct result of that meeting I would like to announce what the decisions were.

2. Tenders have also been called now for 1,000 bulkhead flatcars and 100 chip cars on a lease-to-purchase basis. These tenders should be in the hands of B.C. Rail in mid-May. A decision will be made on their lease-to-purchase at the next board meeting to be held on May 18, 1973.

All of these matters, Mr. Speaker, directly affect the economy of the north, and they are all designed to ease the boxcar shortage and to facilitate the growth that has taken place in the industry in that area.

Earlier in the session, Mr. Speaker, I announced that an internal study would be instituted by the government of the accounting procedures of the B.C. Railway. This study has now been completed by the Comptroller General and it leaves some unanswered questions. As a result of these unanswered questions the following steps have been taken: 1. An outside engineering firm will be engaged to review the contract-letting practices of the B.C. Rail. 2. An outside accounting firm will be engaged to review problems raised in Mr. Minty's report. I want to say that no inferences should be drawn from this report.

Upon completion of the above two reports, all material will be forwarded to the public accounts committee in the fall session for detailed review and study by that committee. This action is to ensure that modern business practices can be instituted in the B.C. Rail operation.

A division of responsibilities in the railway has taken place. Mr. Joe Broadbent will continue as vice-president and his duties will now be to supervise all the development aspects of the railroad. Mr. Mac Norris has been promoted to vice-president in charge of operations and both gentlemen are seated in the House today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, we would like to welcome the various announcements the Premier has made in reference to the British Columbia Railroad — the assembly plant to be established at Squamish in January 1974.

I would say to the House, Mr. Speaker there is an urgent need for cars now and if the assembly plant at Squamish needs transportation, I don't know how they are going to get the materials there because there aren't the cars now to get it in operation by January 1974.

I am happy to hear of the lease-purchase arrangements going on and hope that process can be speeded up because things continue to deteriorate in the interior and even on the north part of the line.

I am happy to hear that Mr. Broadbent is carrying on and that Mr. Mac Norris has been promoted.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Members of the Liberal Party and myself, as a member of the public accounts committee, certainly welcome the announcements of the Premier today in reorganizing the B.C. Railway and starting if off on a more aggressive plan for the future. I think that speaks well for the Province of British Columbia. Indeed, we wish that many of these steps had been taken earlier, particularly with respect to the boxcar shortage because in boom times, as we are having now in the forestry industry, the availability of rolling stock would have been of great benefit to the economy.

I would just like to ask one question of the Premier if he would care to respond, and that is: in the economic analysis of the assembly plant that is to be constructed, will we be able to produce boxcars in British Columbia, as the estimate, at competitive rates? If so, might the day be reached when boxcars produced in British Columbia could be sold on the national markets in Canada and the United States?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I offer welcome and good luck to the two top operating officials of the B.C., Railway in their respective roles.

[ Page 2948 ]

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear this announcement by the Premier. I think it is the kind of initiative which we on this side of the House look forward to. In fact we like the initiative of having a statement in the House instead of us having to read about it in the newspapers tomorrow. That is something which I really like about this first regular session of the new government — that we have this kind of information given to the Members first.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Debate later.

MR. WALLACE: That comment I just made probably wasn't in order, but it is how I feel about it anyway.

The idea that this will not only fill a need for boxcars, but will create jobs, of course, is very welcome. My question that comes to mind is that it isn't only a lack boxcars, as I understand it — it's the fact that other parts of the country and the United States at this time of the year very often retain the boxcars of other rail lines within their boundaries apparently for purposes of tax benefits. If we just produce more boxcars, is there still going to be a problem of these cars being retained in other jurisdictions when we need them badly ourselves?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you care to leave that for the question period?

I ask leave to file Mr. Minty's report, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

THE AGRICULTURAL LAND
AND GREEN BELT RESERVE ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 185 intituled The Agricultural Land and Green Belt Reserve Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 185 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.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask this on behalf of all of the new Members of the House. I wish to be a student of the procedures of the House. In order to make my question clear, may I review the incident in the House which prompts my question?

On Friday last, after adjournment, Mr. Speaker addressed the House from the floor of the House, after which he returned to the Chair and addressed the House again. All of this occurred after the adjournment of the House. On that particular day it was inconsequential but I wonder if Mr. Speaker would like to cite the authorities by which this is possible. Perhaps at some future time it could be consequential.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I tell you what I could say — but I won't. (Laughter). Actually, I was speaking ex cathedra, (Laughter). We'll take that up next Monday as to what that means.

Oral questions.

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

BCR BOXCAR SHORTAGE
RE PEACE RIVER AREA

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Hon. Premier and President of the British Columbia Railway. I'd like to say my welcome to your news too and ask the Premier if there is anything he can do immediately to relieve the situation in my area, because I'm afraid it's going to throw 115 people out of work.

Due to the crop situation last year and several other things, Mr. Speaker, our area is in a very depressed situation. We just can't afford to go through this exercise. I would like the Premier to comment, if he would.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Perhaps it would be just as well to answer the other questions now concerning the railway.

In terms of the immediate shortage, we have the prospect of temporary relief with co-operation from the CNR this week. Because of the aggressive actions of our management staff, the CNR is releasing some cars to us this week to ease the pressure. The first 100 of the 500 cars that were ordered last year are on their way. We hope they will begin to arrive next week. So there is some immediate easing, but the long-term problem will not be resolved until we take these other steps.

The question raised by the Member for Point Grey: Yes, we are in a position to build at competitive prices. As a matter of fact B.C. Rail has

[ Page 2949 ]

built cabooses in their repair shop over the last year-and-a-half or two years. They've done it…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, one per train. (Laughter).

In any event, the initiative that the staff and the maintenance people showed in building those cars themselves was the spur to ask for this further study. The delay in responding has been that I ordered the inquiry to start last fall. We're not rushing into this project. All the feasibility studies have been completed. All the economic studies have been completed.

The conclusions are that yes, we can build in a competitive price range and that yes, we can go into the eventual sales or lease sale of the cars that we build here in British Columbia. I'd like to add further that we would welcome now private initiative that wished to cooperate with this government into a steel mill in this province. We've got enough capacity now in terms of production to consider a steel mill in this province.

On the control of the cars: for those cars that are used exclusively on B.C. Rail in lumber loading, as long as they're held on B.C. Rail tracks between loading point and unloading point, we're safe. But once they're lost to another rail head, then we're in trouble. It's a matter of …

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Most of them are.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. That's the ruthless world that exists in railroading. We'll just have to try the best we can.

MR. CHABOT: The jungle of free enterprise.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not the jungle of free enterprise. It's a publicly-owned railroad. (Laughter). But it's a jungle, nonetheless.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to ask the president of our great railway if there is any way you can speed up this lease on these extra 1,000 flatcars and the chip cars from your date in May. Is there any way to backtrack that a couple of weeks even?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I want to make it very clear. I've said that tenders have been called for 1,000 cars. Now if those tenders are not satisfactory, we will not go ahead with them, If they are satisfactory, we'll go ahead and we'll expedite it as quickly as we can. That's where it stands at this point.

I must say that we have very aggressive management at the railway. They've done very, very well considering the hardships.

MR. PHILLIPS: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to ask the Premier and the president of the railway if he's had permission from Howard Paish and Associates to build this plant in Squamish. Has this been considered with the ecologists in the area? Maybe the Premier would advise us, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The site is alongside the existing repair shop, in an area that's already developed. So there is no problem in terms of the ecology. As a matter of fact, there's an additional benefit. The federal Department of the Environment wants the railway to move some particular fill that is blocking some area close to the new site. We're going to try to charge the federal government for removing that fill for them. But even if we can't get the federal government to pay for the removal of fill, we'll still go ahead. But there's no ecological problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon….

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a last supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon, First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I don't want to see any monopoly of the period by any individual Member, please.

MR. McGEER: This is a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: what is the quoted price of a standard boxcar that we would get on tender today, and what can we produce the standard boxcar for in the new plant of B.C. Railway?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't give you the price that we'd get it for on tender. There is a detailed pricing list that I can certainly make available by tabling of the various kinds of cars with different equipment. But our manufacturing is within the price range.

In a caboose, the price is $35,000. We're able to produce them for $27,500. An end price — with the light on.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental question on the same matter, Mr. Speaker: even though we welcome the entry of the government into an assembly shop at Squamish, one of the great problems will be this matter of reciprocal agreements

[ Page 2950 ]

between railway lines and the interchange of cars.

Many of our cars in the forest industry go with product to an export market in the United States. Has the government investigated any way that we can renegotiate these reciprocal agreements so that we don't find a great percentage of our cars being lost to the American rail lines and other lines in Canada without any return? Has any thought been given in that direction? We could very well be building cars only to service the majority of their rail traffic and none of our own.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the complaint of the other railways except, as pointed out by the Member for Victoria, in that instance we'll make money on cars that we build ourselves. We will charge on the cars that we've made. We can make the money on that and the same way on the lease arrangement. But that's not an area where we're interested in making money. As the Member for Victoria says, it's a fact that we can make money in that area. At least there's that comfort.

But the loss of control of the cars — you could start negotiating now and you'd be in negotiation for 10 years before any kind of change would come about.

MR. CHABOT: If you send one to Mexico, you might never get it back.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know. That's a problem. It's a railroad problem, really.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, if I could refer to a different problem, namely the recently released DBS figures which show that British Columbia still has more than half again as much unemployment on a per capita basis as Ontario, and again more than half as much as the prairies, can I ask whether the government has any further programmes regarding tax changes or other measures to stimulate the private sector of the economy?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I appreciate what the Member is saying, but there were 30,000 new jobs in the month of February comparable to a year ago. We've had a great increase in the number of jobs in the Province of British Columbia, but we've had a greater increase in the number of people coming to British Columbia.

I'm thankful that the unemployment figures have dropped in the province. The initiatives of the government in many of its programmes have given security to employment in this province, especially in the north and especially the Colcel deal voted against yesterday by a certain party, but that gives employment security.

Now in terms of this specific announcement of just under 200 permanent jobs, I want to inform the House that all of the subcontracting that can possibly be done by the local foundries and fabricating shops in the lower mainland area will receive the orders from this railcar assembly plant.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We should hope so. Could I ask as a supplementary though, back to my original question, whether you have any further plans to stimulate the economy in the private sector or whether your whole effort is to be devoted to the public sector. That's the original question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, just check with Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley, followed by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

FACILITIES FOR GIRLS
FROM WILLINGDON SCHOOL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Could I ask the Minister if it is true that there are girls who have recently been released from the Willingdon School who are on their own, particularly in the Nanaimo area, who are having problems and who have no supervision. I understand that many of the authorities in that area are rather upset about the situation. Would the Minister comment, please?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): I have read this thing by Judge Wardill. Nobody is on their own; we are arranging for facilities for them and they are being cared for. I might add that I was happy that the more experienced director of the Children's Aid put it right where it was: they're the responsibility of the community and it's up to the community to assist in providing facilities. And that's the way we are going.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, if the facilities aren't there, there could be problems coming up. In another area in the Fraser Valley and in the interior, is it true that there are girls who have been released from Willingdon who are staying unsupervised in motels? Motels or hotels.

HON. MR. LEVI: Staying in motels — I don't know about that. We had to find accommodation for approximately 15 girls before we closed down the facility. Arrangements were made for some of them to go back home, some into group homes. As I

[ Page 2951 ]

understand it there's one that's being supervised in that kind of a hotel situation.

Let's face it, there were only 50 girls in that school when it was operating at full bore, and so there were many other problems that were being taken care of in the community. This is actually what is happening now. We are giving assistance to the community in finding facilities for these girls. We've had no complaints about it.

We will deal with serious problems as they come up. I've instructed the field staff that if there is a need to provide facilities, we'll provide the money to make sure that the proper kind of supervision and accommodation is made available.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any supplementary?

MR. McGEER: I have one, Mr. Speaker. In view of the concurrence of the Victoria area probation officer, Brian Mallard, is there a similar lack of facilities in the Victoria area? Are we likely to be faced with a crisis in that city as in Nanaimo?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, there isn't a crisis, as such, certainly in the Victoria area. We have adequate arrangements here in the Victoria area. It's really a question of flexibility in terms of the field staff. We've asked our field staff to devise alternate facilities. Some of the staff have responded to this; some haven't. We are quite aware of the situation.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It's fair to assume, then, through you Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources, that in fact he did close Willingdon School without having made proper provision for the care of these girls.

MR. SPEAKER: You are not supposed to assume, Hon. Member. You can't assume.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

FILING OF APPRAISAL REPORTS
OF GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Public Works informed the House that he'd be filing the appraisal reports re the Glenshiel Hotel. I understand from the Clerks that these have not yet been filed. Will the Minister indicate when he will be filing them?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Shortly.

MR. GARDOM: Before the end of the session, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

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

COMMENCEMENT OF
EDUCATION COMMISSION

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Education, in the light of inquiries I'm having and deep interest by the educators in the province, when she is likely to be able to give us information on the two commissions which are to be set up and the membership of these two commissions.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): The week after the 23rd. The commissioner arrives on the 23rd to take up full-time work and they will be announced a few days after his arrival.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Alberni.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): With the permission of the House I'd like to introduce some guests in the gallery today. We have three members from the Ahousat band council, They are hopeful that some of the heat generated in the House will produce some light in Ahousat. I'd like the House to welcome them here today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome today some guests from Richmond. Alderman Blair, Alderman McMath and Mr. Brooks, our municipal engineer, who are here visiting us today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to report on bills. Page 15, orders of the day.

Motion approved.

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

REGULATIONS ACT

Bill No. I read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 16, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2952 ]

COMPANIES ACT

Bill No. 16 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GAS ACT, 1965

Bill No. 31 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 17

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 32, Mr. Speaker.

CATTLE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT ACT

Bill No. 32 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 33, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

Bill No. 33 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 42, Mr. Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

Bill No. 42 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 17

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MINERAL ACT

Bill No. 44 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 17

[ Page 2953 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 64, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL LAND TAX ACT

Bill No. 64 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 17

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 74, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE REVENUE ACT

Bill No. 74 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 17

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 100, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE EVIDENCE ACT

Bill No. 100 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 101, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

Bill No. 101 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 102, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Not printed, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With leave of the House may we proceed with the bills that are not printed?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 122, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE HEALTH ACT

Bill No. 122 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 129, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1961

Bill No. 129 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 146, Mr. Speaker.

WATER UTILITIES ACT

Bill No. 146 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 147, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2954 ]

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
UTILITIES ACT

Bill No. 147 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 173, Mr. Speaker.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG
COMMISSION ACT

Bill No. 173 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to committee on bills.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 153, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR
EMPLOYMENT ACT

(continued)

House in committee on Bill No. 153; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Second Member for Victoria pass?

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

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I regret very much the kind of shouting match that erupted last night while we were discussing this amendment. I think, unfortunately, that kind of shouting match is typical of some of the labour relations of this province. I want to say frankly, Mr. Chairman, that it was started by the Premier last night and I am very glad to see that today he is in a happier and more smiling and co-operative mood. I hope we can be a little more serious about the purposes of this bill today than we were last night.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You weren't serious last night.

MR. BROUSSON: The government has said they were out to stop certain abuses in the construction industry by this bill — in particular this clause of this bill. The construction industry, Mr. Chairman, is already about 95 per cent organized and the abuses are very, very rare exceptions. So the legislation is really to take care of just the exceptions.

There are many rural parts of British Columbia — small towns such as Williams Lake, Burns Lake and Creston — all around the province. There are many, many small towns where the smaller firms are not unionized. Under the conditions imposed in this bill, Mr. Chairman, these firms will not be able to bid a government project in their area; nor will they be able to work for a B.C. Hydro project in that area.

As a result, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have local tradesmen in all of these small towns. I suggest that the Members from northern British Columbia, the Members from the Kootenays, should be giving a good deal of thought to the effect of this bill on the tradesmen, the workers in their own communities at home. Many of these local tradesmen are going to be out of work while the big firms which come in from Alberta, from Edmonton, from Calgary, from Vancouver with imported union crews are going to bid the jobs in those small towns around the province.

That is very clearly demonstrated already today in this morning's Vancouver Province, where the spokesmen for the construction industry in northern British Columbia and in the Kootenays and the southern interior are spelling this out piece by piece. I am sure many of the Members have read this story in this morning's Vancouver Province.

"Peter Sorensen, executive vice-president of the Northern B.C. Construction Association, said the lower mainland and cities such as Prince George are mostly unionized, but the government will have to use out-of-town labour in smaller communities with resulting higher costs."

You haven't got, in Burns Lake, Creston, Williams Lake and Salmo and all of those small towns sufficient unionized people.

Of course, when you bring in out-of-town labour your bill for board and room, for travelling, for all of these things is obviously going to be higher. As a result, the government will pay higher costs, B.C. Hydro will pay higher costs, the other Crown corporations will pay higher costs and the taxpayers of British Columbia will pay higher costs.

"Referring to Bill No. 153…extending the union-only policy to B.C. Hydro contracts" — as well as government contracts — "Sorensen said it will cause hardship in remote areas such as Fort St. John and Burns Lake.

"In Fort St. John, where a new provincial building will be constructed, only one small electrical sub-contractor is unionized, he said. Because most other construction companies cater to private dwellings and renovation work, it would not be competitive to unionize for the sake of occasional public projects, he said.

"Once they unionize they price themselves off the market."

[ Page 2955 ]

for the small repairs and local jobs of that sort.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, if the small town firm is unionized and priced out of the market, only the big firms can come in from outside.

The Minister mentioned last night and I think the Attorney General mentioned problems of firms coming in from Alberta to do these sorts of jobs. We are going to see a good deal more firms coming in from Alberta to do these jobs, because in the eastern and northern parts of the province there will not be sufficient firms able to handle the jobs.

It is very clear, Mr. Chairman — let's not be under any misapprehension. If you are a small electrical contractor, a sheet metal contractor or a small building contractor in Burns Lake or any of these other small towns around the province, you cannot justify unionizing your operation for the sake of an occasional government job or one B.C. Hydro job this year. Because you can't live as a union operation the rest of the year in competition — doing the little local jobs, the little repair jobs on the farms, in the small offices, in the homes and all that sort of thing. I'm sure the Members will recognize that from a very, very practical point of view.

Mr. Chairman, there have been abuses on the management side, as the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour mentioned last night. There have been such abuses. But I want to say also, Mr. Chairman, that there have been abuses on the side of labour in this regard in the past.

Under these circumstances, let's suppose that the union refuses to grant a collective agreement. What does the company do? He can't bid a government job or a B.C. Hydro job or a B.C. Railway job if the union refuses to grant a collective agreement. There have been many such cases. Some unions and some contractors in the construction industry, Mr. Chairman, have practised together a sort of collective bargaining birth control to restrict the number of workers and the number of companies that are in the industry. Every union organizer on the floor of this chamber knows that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amendment before the House.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm pointing out the problem of insisting on a collective bargaining unit as compared to the amendment moved by my colleague, which proposes that instead of collective bargaining we have the standard of a different kind of wages and conditions. I'm trying to show that there are problems with collective bargaining which are done away with by this amendment.

I'll give you an example of my last point, Mr. Chairman, About two or three years ago there was the very famous case of Stratford Electric The IBEW refused to grant a collective agreement to Stratford Electric. Instead, they gave them a letter of understanding. Eventually, under a clause in that letter, the IBEW pulled their men off the job. Finally, as a result of this, that company went broke.

Let me give you an example right now, Mr. Chairman, in the City of Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. There's an electrical contractor who wants to bid a B.C. government project right now. He's unable to do so because the IBEW has refused to grant him a collective agreement. Back in his previous experience, there had been some row with the IBEW. They don't like him and they're not about to let him be an electrical contractor under the terms of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, suppose that the union does give such an agreement. What if it does not accept the employees the man has working for him? The union may not accept those five or six men who are working for him — perhaps they're long-time employees — and they may say, "Go to the hiring hall and get your crew." What does the employer do in that situation? He's forced to sign a collective agreement. The union with which he's signed the agreement says, "I won't accept the men you've had working for you all of these years. Tell them to go to the hiring hall." What does the employer do with his long-standing employees in that situation?

So, clearly, Mr. Chairman, this section is very discriminatory. The amendment proposed makes sure that the people concerned are going to receive fair wages, fair working conditions. We would want to see the full fringe benefits and the full rights of working conditions applied. But just providing collective bargaining is no guarantee that the employer's rights are going to be respected.

I think that one of our great problems is to have a balance between the employer and the employee. By the actions of this bill, we're loading things entirely on the side of the union organization.

Mr. Chairman, there are other questions that I'd like to raise. I think we can raise them under further sections a little bit later. But I think that the Minister also has to clarify — as has not been done as yet — to whom he is going to apply this Act. There are many other…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not under this particular section.

MR. BROUSSON: O.K. Perhaps I can raise this a little later, Mr. Chairman.

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

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of points have been raised regarding this bill, both last night and this

[ Page 2956 ]

afternoon, which lead me to believe that perhaps there's some misunderstanding of the way this particular Act coincides with the Labour Relations Act.

For instance, the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) raised the question last night as to whether or not a family operation would be included in this Act and therefore required to organize before they could obtain any contract with the government. Under the Labour Relations Act an employee is defined. Employers such as would be the case in family operations are expressly exempted from those types of units which can properly become an appropriate unit for bargaining. So they're certainly exempt from this legislation.

Small family operations and small partnership operations would be exempt from this legislation and would be quite free to contract with any department of government, as in the past. So there is provision for that small enterprise which is inappropriate for certification to continue to obtain employment with government departments.

I think that should be clearly understood. What you simply have to look to are the definitions that exist under the Labour Relations Act.

With respect to some of the questions that the last speaker raised, he suggests that certain contractors are opposed to this legislation and concerned about it. It's interesting to note that the B.C. Roadbuilders' Association, one of those groups of employers who most heavily enjoy work contracts with the government mainly with the highways department of course are completely in support of this legislation.

MR. BROUSSON: There are lots of contractors who support it. We know that. Answer the specific question.

HON. MR. KING: They take the position that this is a fair step which puts the employers, the contractors, on an equal basis to compete for government contracts. In other words, it would seem unfair to have one firm paying a union wage scale, the fringe benefits and so on, in competition against another contractor who paid substandard wages.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I don't think this government wants to lend itself to substandard working conditions in this province by patronizing those employers who…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: Here we go again, Mr. Chairman. The group over there become pretty intemperate. They were very exercised and upset last night when the government Members interjected during the course of their speeches. I would suggest that you just remain silent for a moment and I'll try to explain to you.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that that's the employers' position. Not only the B.C. Roadbuilders' Association, but the Construction Labour Relations Association has indicated to me — and I read a portion of the submission that they made to me indicating that they are not opposed to the intent of this legislation. They wanted certain clarifications, which I gave to them.

One of them was with respect to the small entrepreneur who had a family operation or a small partnership. They felt it would be unfair to exclude him, and I agree. But as I said before, if you look at the interpretations under the Labour Relations Act, you will see that they are not precluded from bidding on government contracts under this legislation.

Similarly, the government quite often hires small contractors on a day-labour basis. They actually become employees of the government. So I suggest that there's adequate flexibility to do business with the small contractor in the isolated towns in British Columbia, whom I'm quite concerned about too. I come from one of those areas and certainly I don't want to see local people excluded completely and have to bring in large contractors from other parts of the province.

With respect to the point raised about Alberta contractors, I would suggest that this is a matter of government policy rather than legislation. Certainly I'm willing to assert now that this government will give preference to British Columbia contractors. I think this is as it should be. I might point out, though, that British Columbia has a far higher degree of trade union organization than does the Province of Alberta. Many of those companies coming in from the Province of Alberta in the past have, in fact, been non-union contractors. Certainly they would be precluded from bidding on government contracts.

So I would think that rather than posing a threat to the ability of our contractors to compete with Alberta's, certainly it enhances the British Columbia contractors' ability to compete because this guarantees that they will only be competing against those Alberta companies which are in fact organized This will bring direct benefits to the construction industry in British Columbia.

I made one erroneous statement yesterday which I'd like to correct. I certainly didn't want to mislead the House when I suggested that school boards, municipal councils and hospital boards are exempt from this Act. Now this certainly is the intent. Indeed, school boards and municipal councils are exempt. There is an amendment required to exempt hospitals, but at this point they are not. I didn't want to leave a false impression in that respect.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: This is the intent of the

[ Page 2957 ]

legislation. We're committed to do this.

MR. BROUSSON: How about universities?

HON. MR. KING: Well universities are…

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Why have you made the Act if there are so many exemptions?

HON. MR. KING: Where the major contracts are let are certainly through public works, highways department and so on. A project like Mica Creek, where there's an extremely large work force for quite a number of years, this type of thing is very important there.

It's interesting to note, when we're talking about projects like Mica Creek, that the concern of the Social Credit Party seems to be new-found. Had they been genuinely concerned about the right of local people to gain a degree or a percentage of employment on local projects, when they negotiated that 10-year no-strike pact with all the allied council of unions in Mica Creek, surely they could have negotiated a percentage of local labour, on work permits with the union if necessary, to guarantee the right of local people to a piece of the action. They failed to do so.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Tell the whole story.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, in this respect I am pleased to say that I have already met with union representatives from the construction industry and indicated the government's intention of negotiating this type of arrangement in large government contracts where we guarantee the right of a certain percentage of local people to get into those unions and benefit from the work in the local areas. I think this is reasonable. Certainly, the trade union people were very receptive to this proposition. It's a matter of some government initiative and recognition of the problem which was never demonstrated before. So I just make that point. I don't see too much problem in that regard. That is a matter of government policy rather than a matter of legislation.

Now the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) made the point about unions withholding collective agreements. Again, he doesn't seem to understand the legislation as it stands, The Labour Relations Act not only requires that negotiations take place, it requires that the collective agreement be executed. So a union cannot, under the law as it presently stands, withhold a collective agreement. So that proposition is without basis.

All in all, I think that we may disagree on the intent of this legislation; I grant you that. But every effort has been made — and I suggest that the provisions are clear — to protect the interests of those small companies and business enterprises which it just does not make sense to organize. Certainly it is my understanding that their interests are well protected in this legislation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Members who may speak to this amendment that the main point of the discussion should centre around how the amendment improves section 2(2)(b).

I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak precisely to this point.

I think the Minister has skirted around a number of issues that are central to the amendment put forward by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). I want to deal with two of these.

One of them concerns the matter of a firm which may be unionized, as far as the tradesmen and so on are concerned, but not as far as the office staff is concerned. It's a specific, definite point that is not dealt with in this legislation and could see legitimate union firms excluded because of some aspect of their operation — the office staff is the obvious one, but there might be others.

HON. MR. KING: It's in the definition of the public works Act. It's clearly there.

MR. McGEER: It's the employer and the division of his employees. The Minister laughs, but his intent and his wording is not quite the same thing.

Now the other aspect is really more important and fundamental, and it touches on remarks made by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) and remarks made some years ago by the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) with regard to the problems that Indians face in British Columbia in belonging to unions and getting a fair shake at works of all kinds.

To make my point, I'd like to describe to the Minister what I consider to be the most asinine thing I have ever seen involving union regulations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member speaking about something relevant to this amendment?

MR. McGEER: Very, very relevant, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you this story because I know you're going to be fascinated by it. I am happy to say that it did not involve the Province of British Columbia, but it's a situation which I'm sure you will see could

[ Page 2958 ]

easily happen, perhaps in a riding such as your own. This concerned the port of Resolute Bay in the Arctic, where I spent a couple of summers, Mr. Chairman, chasing whales. I was in at Resolute Bay on the occasion when one of their supply boats arrived, Resolute Bay has a few hundred Eskimos who find it obviously difficult to get work and make a living. Now, Mr. Chairman, because of rules that were rigid and established to suit other circumstances, the Eskimos were not allowed to unload this particular boat.

In order to unload this boat it became necessary to charter a plane with longshoremen from Montreal — 3,200 miles away — because the regulations did not permit the Eskimos who were standing right next to the boat, needing the work and the money, to undertake it.

There's a very limited time in which these boats can move through the open channels in the Arctic Ocean. Time was running out for this particular craft so it could get back before the channel closed in. And yet that boat had to sit there day after day after day because the chartered airliner containing the longshoremen, who by established union agreement had to unload this boat, were held up in the fog.

The expense of that asininity for that particular operation was astronomical. There was the chartering of the plane, the payment of the longshoremen by the hour while they sat held up by the fog — at I believe Cambridge Bay; they'd been on the payroll for several days before they ever got to the site to start work — all to unload one boat when there were Eskimos standing by desperately wanting the work.

Now, the point of my telling this story: the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder), when he was the Minister without Portfolio, got into a great deal of difficulty with the friends of the Provincial Secretary in the B.C. Federation of Labour because he stood up and criticized hiring practices of certain unions required by these rigid agreements that made it impossible for people who lived near the site of the works to be conducted onto that site because the hiring was done from the Labour Temple in Vancouver and people were sent up to the site.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) pointed out how efficient and desirable it is, either with the provincial government itself or with any of its Crown corporations, to undertake what public works need to be undertaken for the government, to have that undertaken by local contractors, and to meet whatever are the appropriate local conditions. At times it might be very desirable to have Indians living on a reserve undertaking the work. Or it might be very desirable to have some small contractor who has to survive however he can with the special circumstances of his community undertaking the work.

Unless the amendment of the Second Member for Victoria, the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), is accepted, this kind of flexibility will be completely removed by this legislation. It's bad economics, it's bad social practice, and it's bad government policy.

And once more, Mr. Chairman, we ask the Minister to reconsider his position and accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Second Member for Victoria pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6

NAYS — 45

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, on the second section of this Act; if the Act were named from the second section it would be called the "Unfair Unemployment Act" because that's exactly what it is. It's unfair to the small contractor and it will create unemployment for many people who now — or could before — bid on these government contracts. And it's certainly unfair to the workers.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour stands on the floor of this Legislature with his glib tongue in cheek, trying to support this legislation. But he knows that all it is is a big bludgeon that he's got out to force people in this province to join a union.

There is one thing, Mr. Chairman, that I must say about this section, and I want to say it unequivocally, Mr. Chairman. It is special-interest legislation for the NDP government and nothing more and nothing less.

[ Page 2959 ]

Special-interest legislation. They have a very, very special interest in seeing the workers of this province become unionized so that part of their wages can go to support the political campaigns of the NDP.

We talk about the unions. As far as I am concerned, this party is for the little man and not for the labour bosses. And I know that the Minister of Labour is working in coercion with the labour bosses of this province. That's what this bill is all about, Mr. Chairman, exactly what it is all about.

Coercion, collusion, whatever you want to call it, Coercion and collusion, both. That's what it is, Mr. Chairman.

Many small companies in this province are presently not unionized and many of them are too small to be unionized. I said during the second reading of this bill that they had this legislation in the States and they threw it out because it was not workable.

You get the union chiefs, the union bosses telling small companies who can bid on what. That's what happens when you get this type of legislation in this province, Mr. Speaker. They will be telling the contractors who can and who can't bid on what jobs.

The Minister has made his stand, Mr. Chairman, perfectly clear to everyone in this province because he says he intends to encourage greater organization of the workers in the province to join unions.

Mr. King is a union organizer. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is going to ruin the small contractors in the northern part of this province, in the eastern part of the province, in the southern part of the province, and in the western part of the province.

Mr. Chairman, there is no way that all of the small electrical contractors, plumbing contractors, heating contractors, sheet metal contractors, drywall contractors and cement contractors can become unionized. But they will be forced to become unionized, forced with the big bludgeon that the Minister's got out; forced to become unionized to deal with this government.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that there are many, many workers in this province who don't wish to come under the umbrella and the protection of the union. They don't wish to sell their souls to some of the union leaders in this province, Mr. Chairman. That's why they don't want to become unionized.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Your amendment was no good. Why repair a pair of socks you're going to throw out anyway?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this bill and this particular section of this bill is just another case of this government using their far-too-large majority in this House to crush all opposition to their far-out ideas and to force big socialism in this province. They use that big majority they have. It's far too big. It's not only going to be reduced in the next election, the majority is going to be taken away completely.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) says he doesn't want to perpetuate the free enterprise jungle. That's what he said last night, Mr. Chairman. I would like the Minister of Highways to go into the labour jungle of some of the hiring halls in this province and see what a free enterprise system that is, see how much protection the men who want the opportunity to work have got.

Talk about your rip-offs. What about the Hoffas? What about Hal Banks? Everything is not that clean Mr. Chairman, in the labour union movement. This government is doing nothing to clean it up. They're getting into bed with the union bosses and they're not really concerned about the working man, the common ordinary union man in this province. No, Mr. Chairman, this is just one more piece of socialist subjection to take away the rights of individuals in this province.

I'm going to vote against it and I'm going to fight against it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a few observations.

I became a little provoked with our friends in the Liberal Party over there last evening. But I must say that I'm not similarly provoked by the comments which the Member for South Peace River has just made. He made some nasty inferences — collusion, coercion. I think that I could well have risen in my place and suggested that he withdraw for imputing motives that were not very savoury.

But I understand. I have some sympathy for that Member, I think it would be a futile exercise to ask him to be responsible in this situation.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's a little bit unfortunate. Certainly we can discuss this bill and you're quite entitled to disagree. But that kind of inflammatory speech just shouldn't be made.

Everyone knows and everyone can see that we have had in British Columbia a very, very unfortunate industrial relations climate. I suggest that when Members on any side of the House start making emotional political hay and charges out of a bill like this, it contributes nothing to stability and peace in the industrial relations…

[ Page 2960 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Minister of Labour charging me with making political hay by supporting the contractors in my area? Is he charging the Member for South Peace with making political hay, Mr. Chairman? I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the point of order is partly well taken. In this respect, I would ask both sides of the House to please refrain from personal remarks or the suggestion of collusion or any of that kind of thing. Could we just have a debate on this section 2 of the bill?

HON. MR. KING: I accept that, Mr. Chairman. I certainly wouldn't want to infer that anyone acted politically in this chamber. (Laughter). However, I'm just suggesting that we might well confine our remarks to an analysis of the bill, rather than the sweeping generalizations and the rather odious charges which that Member inferred towards my motives.

I tried to indicate earlier how this bill provides for the protection of the small contractor. I indicated that I was prepared to ensure that local workers have a role in contracts that are awarded through negotiating with the union and with the employer; that a percentage of the work force have an opportunity, on the basis of either a work permit or full membership in the union, to obtain some employment opportunity. I just reject the remarks that were made previously, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions I wanted to ask the Minister in relation to this section. He's mentioned previously in the debate on the amendment the matter of the application of the Act to various organizations — the school boards, hospitals, regional districts, municipalities, universities, Crown corporations.

It's all very well to say, as the Minister is saying, that "My interpretation is that it does or does not apply to these various bodies," It would seem to me that it would be so much more effective and so much better understood by the people of the province and by the companies if he would spell out in the legislation specifically to whom it does apply or does not apply. I think there's a great deal of confusion about this today and there is conflicting legal advice being given to the various members of industry, very definitely. I've talked to people in the industry…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: It's all very well to laugh about it. You think you're so smart and know all about it. But I think you should spell it out so the people of British Columbia understand it.

Further, Mr. Chairman, what about — and to my knowledge, this matter has not been questioned at all so far in the debate — what about the clerical staff who work on the job site? Of course there are clerical staff back at the office. It's my understanding clearly that we're talking about job-site personnel in this bill. What about the clerical staff who work on a job site? What about estimators who go to a job site and work for periods of time, and many other problems of this sort? Will the Minister spell this out?

Would it not be advisable either to put this into the bill or to specifically state these definitions by regulation so that there is no misunderstanding? In many cases there will be small firms and small contractors in many remote parts of the province trying to understand how this applies to them. I want to be sure that they understand this properly,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with the major contractors of the province on all these questions. Again, under the previous Act, the Public Works Fair Wages and Conditions of Employment Act, the provisions remained the same. This is not a new procedure. The Labour Relations Act applies to the Public Works Fair Employment Act as it applied to the predecessor bill.

Professional engineers, timekeepers, consultants are specifically excluded from the Act because they are not engaged in the public work as defined in the introductory part of the bill. So they are excluded and I can confirm that without equivocation. In the same way I want to confirm that there is no misunderstanding or lack of conviction with respect to the exemptions provided for the public school areas and so on, none whatsoever.

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

MR. CHABOT: Just a few brief comments, Mr. Chairman. This section says that if workers are unwilling to join a union and that if their employer wants to seek a contract with the government, they'll have to be fired. If an employer wants a contract, he'll have to have a collective agreement. If the present workers don't want to be a party to a union, well, they'll be fired and they'll be looking for a job somewhere else.

I would rather take the approach that was taken by the most outstanding labour negotiator in the

[ Page 2961 ]

This is the kind of approach I would rather see to ensure that there is no discrimination in work place relative to wages for the working people.

One other question comes to mind. What about the contractor whose employees do gain certification through the Labour Relations Board — and they might be a small body of men that's a new union but is not recognized as a company union because company unions are not certified by the Labour Relations Board? They have to be employee sponsored to gain certification. What do you do in the case of a small union that does gain certification and does bid on a multi-contract government project of any description, be it a Crown corporation or the Department of Public Works?

What do you do if the building trades council or its affiliates decide they don't want this little union on the project? What do you do to ensure that this fellow who has bid on a government contract, who is duly-certified and whose men do belong to a trade union which is under the conditions spelled out in the Labour Relations Act — they've gone through the procedure and they're recognized as a bargaining body in the province — can get onto the job site and be able to fulfil the role as subcontractors or contractors on government projects?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: With respect to employees who might be allegedly fired because their employer lacked certification, it should be pointed out that the majority of contractors who bid for government contracts of any appreciable size do not have a constant work force.

In the City of Revelstoke, which is a rather small place, many of the local contractors don't have a constant relationship with the carpenters in the area. The carpenters are all organized and they may go to work for a variety of employers, but certainly not on a constant basis. This is the situation in the heavy construction industry to a much higher degree. So I don't think there's a great problem in that respect.

The other question raised by the Hon, Member for Columbia River, Mr. Chairman, with respect to jurisdictional disputes — how that could well arise. But that type of jurisdictional dispute is not peculiar to this situation. They do occur and have occurred over the years.

MR. CHABOT: You couldn't want it to happen on a government project, would you?

HON. MR. KING: One of the benefits of this bill will be to prevent secondary picketing through attempts to gain certification with a non-union subcontractor on the job. We know now that all those employers on the job are certainly going to have a collective agreement in effect. There is not going to be a picket line set up by some small unit that's trying to organize, which could well halt the entire project and interfere with those major contractors where there is a current collective agreement.

So I think it offers a real benefit in that sense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 16

PAIRED

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

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

[ Page 2962 ]

MR. BROUSSON: Section 4 spells out a number of powers to the Minister allowing him to investigate and get reports — and I think rightly so — with regard to the names, rates of wages, daily hours of work, amounts of wages paid, due and unpaid and so on, conditions of employment. All of these things are matters under the principle of this bill. That's section 4(1)(a). Paragraph (b) also refers to matters made under clause (a). Rightly so, Mr. Chairman.

Then we come to paragraph (c) of section 4(1). If I may, I'll shorten it up slightly to spell out precisely what this paragraph means. It says: The Minister may require any book, record or writing respecting the profit and loss and the production and operating costs of the business carried on by that person. That's all it says, Mr. Chairman.

In effect, this section would enable the Minister, with the later powers that he has to enter into any land, premises, place of business or otherwise, to ask a firm or person to give any material he has with reference to the profit and loss and production and operating costs of his business — with no reference whatsoever to the wages or conditions of work or anything of that sort.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a fantastic amount of power to give this Minister. He certainly should, under this section, be able to inquire as to the working conditions, rates of wages, et cetera, and rightfully so. But I find no reason why he should require to know the profit and loss and production and operating costs of the business carried on by the person with whom we're concerned. I think this is an unparalleled, unnecessary, dictatorial, arrogant invasion of privacy.

Reference has been made to the previous Act, which is still on the statute books and which has some similar clauses in it — Payment of Wages Act, Ch. 45. But the one line that that section 12 of this previous Act has, Mr. Chairman, is the words "and are considered necessary for the purposes of this Act." In other words, if it were necessary for the purposes of this Act, this previous Act would then allow these things to be looked at by the Minister.

Unfortunately in this new bill that we're bringing in now the Minister has left out that phrase, "that are necessary for the purposes of this Act," and it gives him complete power to go to any business, corporation or person doing business with the Province of British Columbia or any Crown corporation and require them to produce records showing their profit and loss and their production and operating costs. I think this is absolutely unprincipled invasion of privacy by a government that has lost all sense of the principles of good government.

Mr. Chairman, I would move that paragraph (c) of section 4(1) be deleted in its entirety.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now speaking to the amendment. I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson).

This section of the bill is simply one which empowers the Minister or his authorities to make such investigations and examinations of documents as should be made necessary to investigate claims of nonpayment of wages and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't say that.

HON. MR. KING: Certainly they relate to complaints that are received in this regard. They're not there to provide for some exercise in arbitrary powers. They relate again to other legislation requirements that the Minister of Labour has under other statutes to ensure that fair labour standards are carried out.

The reference to the Public Inquiries Act contained in the following section is an indication that these powers refer to many, many other statutes on the books at this time. I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I also notice that there is no requirement anywhere, as far as I can see, in this Act which requires secrecy after that information is arrived at. Here we are talking about a company which must be unionized in order to do business with the government; on the other hand the government or its agent has the right to look at the profit and loss statement — you can guess that if there's no requirement for secrecy what that information will be.

Frankly, I'm not opposed to unions. I've had a union in my particular business for over 20 years. But I think normally when people have access to your balance sheets, and particularly your profit and loss, there is some requirement for secrecy. I don't find that in this Act either.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's under the Labour Relations Act.

MR. MORRISON: It doesn't say so.

[ Page 2963 ]

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Madam Chairman, this is just a repetition of a point we have made on several bills. My feeling is that this is an undue exercise of power to be given to the Minister.

Again we are assured that it will be used with discretion and that it's necessary for the proper functioning of the legislation. But I say again, as I said in one of the former debates: Why not try it without this much power and then come back to the House if you find that you can't function without this much power?

This party stands in this House for the idea that the function of debate is at all times to be extremely vigilant about the amount of power which government takes unto itself in any sphere of public matters, whether it's the unions or private industry or health education or transportation — any aspect of human endeavour where the individual or groups of individuals are liable to be clubbed or to have their property invaded by power granted to the state in legislation which really isn't necessary.

It certainly comes up time and time again this session that when we complain about the lack of justification for this kind of power, the only answer we get is: "Well, it exists in other Acts," or "It's hardly ever used," or "It will be very rare that we need this power."

I simply have to repeat, Madam Chairman, that if that is the case, why can't the government show its good faith and say that they can delete this kind of power and study the situation in light of experience? If by the fall or next year or the next year they come back to this House and they say: "We listened to the opposition and we felt that it was a valid concern that they were expressing on behalf of individuals in society, but the opposition was wrong — we do need this power" — then I think this would be a reasonable argument.

The Minister is quite right. He said that we are entitled to our different points of view and we obviously do differ on this kind of issue.

HON. MR. KING: But you have one complaint of abuse.

MR. WALLACE: If there is one complaint it must be related to the time interval in which you have one complaint.

HON. MR. KING: But I haven't heard of a complaint.

MR. WALLACE: Or regarding the legislation. But I am not arguing the specifics. I am saying that in general principles time and time again we present this point of view from the opposition — I think all three parties, not just the party of which I am a member, feel that this is an unreasonable amount of power and an invasion of privacy.

I would certainly support the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) who has just made the point that the very least the Member should consider, if he will not accept the amendment, is to add an amendment to the effect that we have the guarantee and promise of government, guaranteed by the legislation, that the information disclosed by virtue of this section will not be disclosed to curious parties or people who for their own business benefit could make substantial benefit themselves by getting this kind of information from a competitor.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Madam Chairman. This same point was raised last fall when we were discussing amendments of this party and others as well under the mediation commission Act.

The problem is granting excess of power. This, I think, was very well stated by the speaker who spoke immediately before me, as well as by the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison).

We have here a section which just allows the Minister or someone authorized by him to enter in and not restrict himself just to the contracting question. He can go in and get information on profit and loss, productivity of the whole industry, the whole of the business, the whole of the trade or occupation carried on by that person — not just the one contract.

In other words, by passing this particular section what happens is that you are granted the power, if a contractor enters into a contract with the provincial government, to go in, ask questions and gain information on every other aspect of that man's business. Now, he may have things to hide; he may have nothing to hide. The point of fact is that it's an invasion by this section of his privacy and it's an

[ Page 2964 ]

invasion of his rights.

Now, there is shaking of heads over there.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The choice is his.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The choice is his? There's no choice in the section, Mr. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what they say — they don't want it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come off it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know, being a grandfather, Mr. Minister, has definitely affected your judgment. That's the most charitable thing I can say. That's absurd. That really is an absurd proposal.

As far as the Minister of Labour goes — who at least had a little more relevance to reality than the Minister of Highways — he has stated that this is not for some exercise of arbitrary power. Well, thank heaven he has stated that! In actual fact it may not be designed for that but that is what it permits. This is why we are arguing so often, in particular in legislation of this Minister, this question of granting too much power.

We fully appreciate that you wish to act responsibly and that your motivation is good, Mr. Minister. Nobody here is questioning your motivation, your honesty or your integrity. But what we are saying is that we're granting powers here that could be used by a subordinate of yours in a way which would be quite contrary to the principles of fair play and justice in this province.

You've gone on to say that it's only for insisting upon fair labour practices being carried out. That's the note I have of your speech, Mr. Minister. That may be your objective, but the legislation as written goes a great deal further than that.

I think perhaps the major problem we have had in this debate, as well as other debates on the same point…and heaven knows the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has pointed out that time after time we in this party and he in his, and the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) in the other opposition party have all talked about the question of excess power and granting excess power.

What I am asking you to do at this point, Mr. Minister, in considering this amendment, is to divorce your own good faith. O.K.? Don't consider how you would use this power. Consider what the power is in this section which is being granted to some successor of yours. Now if you bear that in mind I think you can realize the importance of this amendment.

If we delete this section, we are deleting something which is really reprehensible in terms of privacy and the rights of individuals to control their own operations and their own lives, without undue "snoopocracy" from any civil servant whom you might appoint who might misuse his power.

We are not suggesting that you should not have the right, which comes up in the earlier sections, to consider whether or not a contract is fair, or whether or not the person is paying his employees. All throughout this debate we have never suggested anything but that people who contract with the government should be paid well and treated properly, and that indeed was the purpose of our earlier amendment.

But the fact of the matter is, do you need to have powers which will undoubtedly restrict the number of people capable of dealing with the government? Because, as the Minister of Highways says, they won't even bother to contract. Do you need powers that extend far beyond the actual situation that you have envisaged in your speech a few moments ago, which was an area where perhaps they are not treating their employees well?

Sure, we want you to have the power to insist that employees be treated well. Nothing we have said in this debate on this bill has ever contradicted that, I don't think, from any of the opposition parties. But when it comes to exceeding that restricted and necessary power, we think that you should accept this amendment and strike it down, because if it is not needed, if it goes too far, well, for heaven's sake let's err on the side of fair play for the citizens of British Columbia and not on the other side.

As the Hon. Member for Oak Bay said, it's a point that we argued during the fall session frequently. I remember doing it myself on two occasions. Try it; you may like it. Try cutting it out; you may find it works. And if you do accept this amendment, I think you will certainly have our goodwill and support. In this instance you can, I think, try it with no risk. If you come back in another session, and say, "Look, we tried it and it didn't work," — well, you have my words on record as indicating that we will very, very sympathetically consider any future request.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the Second Member for Victoria's sincerity, and I accept that that group is genuinely concerned about an excess of powers and abuse of powers. But as I indicated earlier, the same degree of power has existed under the previous Act for many, many years, and I have yet to hear of any complaint of such an abuse of power as the Members on that side have indicated their apprehension about.

So I would suggest to the Members over there, Madam Chairman, that we might put this proposition conversely. If you can come back in a year's time and say to me, "Here's an indication where there was an

[ Page 2965 ]

unwarranted abuse of any of the powers contained in this bill," then certainly I'd be quite receptive to amending it, and restricting it in some way.

I have consulted very closely with the people in my department who are responsible for going out in the field and investigating complaints that are made under the various labour standards legislation. Unless they are empowered upon complaint, and unless they have the power of entry and search of records and documents pertaining to the whole relationship, then they are restricted in their ability to do the job.

Now as far as profit and loss is concerned, it certainly relates to this Act when the government is seeking to set fair standards of wages and working conditions. Then certainly that reflects on the profit and the economic health of that particular industry doing business with the government. That's the whole intent of the bill. But as I say, if there's any untoward abuse of the powers contained in this or any other legislation, certainly I'd be very willing to look at them. But I haven't heard in history, as far as I'm concerned, of any Department of Labour person abusing any of those powers which were vested in them to process a complaint of unfair labour practices, non-payment of wages, or whatever.

I think, that being the case, we can appreciate and accept that the intent of the legislation is being prosecuted very well and in a responsible manner.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon, Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Minister is speaking in circles. Last night he told us that the reason for bringing in this legislation was that he wanted the workers to be unionized, and to have collective bargaining take place with their employers in order to establish their wages and working conditions — that he did not want to be in the position of imposing standards. That's right. Well, if that's the case, you don't need to care whether the company makes or loses money. The only question you have to ask is, "Is there a collective agreement?"

HON. MR. KING: What about the schools? Do you want to exempt them?

MR. WILLIAMS: That's number one: is there a collective agreement in force insofar as the person is concerned? If you get a complaint that the wages aren't paid, you've got the right to withhold the moneys and to utilize those moneys in the payment of wages. You don't have to be concerned whether the company is making or losing money, because you aren't going to set the standards. A collective agreement is all you want to see before entering into the contract.

HON. MR. KING: Madam Chairman, the Member across the way I think legitimately asked whether or not this legislation would be applicable to public schools, municipal councils, hospitals and so on. The answer was no. So under the provisions of those Acts the Minister of Labour is still empowered as he was previously to set their working standards, and their conditions of work and their wages when a complaint is received. So in that area, the legislation as previously written still applies. So there is that relationship which perhaps you didn't appreciate.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon, Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: To follow up that same point here, the Minister stated that he had these powers previously and there had been no complaints, he says. However, what I want to point out again, as I said when I first moved this amendment, Madam Chairman, is that the previous bill, and that which still remains on the statute books under payment of wages in section 12, has exactly the same wording as this clause, with the other proviso, "considered necessary for the purposes of this Act." And those are the words that have not been left out. Those are limiting words that say that if it is necessary for the purposes of this Act, then we can call for books that show the operating costs, productions costs and so on.

But unfortunately we've left these words out now and the Minister has this new power, under this new bill, to call for those records that show any profit and loss, any production and operating costs for any purpose whatsoever. There are no limitations at all that I can find in this bill. It doesn't say so anywhere. If the Minister would explain to me where those limitations are, I would be pleased.

HON. MR. KING: Read the Municipal Act and the school Act, the Public Schools Act.

MR. BROUSSON: But we are dealing with this Act, nothing else.

HON. MR. KING: The amendments are in the Public Schools Act and the Municipal Act.

AN HON, MEMBER: What have they got to do with B.C. Hydro or Crown corporation contracts or whatever?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. First Member for Victoria, who was on his feet first.

MR. MORRISON: Madam Chairman, the Minister

[ Page 2966 ]

also has not yet made any comment on our requirement for secrecy with that information.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's another question.

MR. MORRISON: That's covered under the Labour Relations Act too. This legislation, as pretty well all the departmental legislation, dovetails with central authority granted under the Labour Relations Act.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, the point raised by my friend from North Vancouver is important. We have here the different section, not, Mr. Minister, as you have stated, the same section with the same powers. We have a change.

HON. MR. KING: A change in the wording, that's all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The change is in the wording, which is critical. That's all we do around here, is change wording in bills. We don't do anything else. Perhaps you are unaware of that. But the additional words are "…are considered necessary for the purposes of this Act." It has been left out; it must have been left out for a specific purpose.

I am not very impressed by a statement that there is no change when these words are left out, because all the arguments that I put forward about using this Act for other purposes naturally fall to the ground if this section is limited, as was the previous section.

There must be some reason for leaving these words out, otherwise he'd have copied the previous section exactly. Now what is it, if it is not, as we suggested, to broaden your powers?

This is important, Madam Chairman, this is an important question and I think the Minister should comment upon it. If he has made alterations, he cannot quote the previous section as his defence, if we can use the legalistic term here.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If we put an amendment forward, will he put the words back in? What it would do would be to limit this section to this specific Act. That is basically what we have been talking about. He has suggested that the powers won't be used outside this Act. So if the Minister would be kind enough, we could perhaps hold this section for a moment while we write out an amendment and add those words.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The proposed amendment to Bill No. 153, submitted by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson), is at section 4, line 12, to delete section 4(1)(c).

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 33

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On the title.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, in the light of the Sections in this Act, we would like the title amended by deleting the word "Fair" and I have an amendment to that effect. It would now read, instead of Public Works Fair Employment Act, simply, Public Works Employment Act.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The proposed amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Second Member for Victoria is that the word "Fair" be deleted from the title.

The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): On speaking to the amendment, the Hon. Member is just playing games in this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it is just a little

[ Page 2967 ]

bit of politics around this bill that seeks to protect working conditions of people, and it shows up the kind of opposition we have had to this bill. This is again political gimmickry that Member is engaging in.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Certainly it is. So let's have a vote on this amendment because, really, is there substance to this? Is there wisdom to it? Of course not. It is just a little bit of political gamesmanship. A bill like this deserves better treatment in this House than that.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, I didn't expect to have to discuss this amendment because we have had lengthy discussion on the sections of the bill. But presumably the Attorney General has not been in the room and has not read the bill, as apparently is his custom in quite a number of them. The fact is, here we have a bill which restricts work with the Province of British Columbia to a special category of taxpayers only — not to the citizens at large.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "Order" is why I am speaking on this; because of the points made by a Minister of your government. The section that deals with the need to go in and take information, acquire it on all other aspects of the man's business, is not fair. The section dealing…

HON. MR. BARRETT: The title is the title, Now the rules are obvious; you debate that during the sections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why, Mr. Premier, didn't you make that statement to the Attorney General when he was discussing…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm only talking about your amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He was talking about your amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Madam Chairman, I am referring to whether the bill is properly described by the word "Fair," and it is not properly described by the word "Fair." It apparently is the intention of the Premier and the Attorney General to ignore this point. This is why we want the word "Fair" struck out. It is a simple amendment. There is nothing wrong with the bill being called the Public Works Employment Act. But for it to be so misdescribed as a result of the debate we have had today, which has pointed out the weaknesses of it, and the debate last night, is just absurd. This world should be struck and I move that it be struck.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Madam Chairman, I think the Attorney General was guilty of grossly misrepresenting the motives of the Second Member for Victoria.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a very serious amendment,

MR. McGEER: Well, of course. In the first place…

HON. MR. BARRETT: He can grossly represent himself.

MR. McGEER: …it is an accurate amendment and in the second place, it is a fair amendment. The Attorney General, Madam Chairman, might have been in order if the amendment had read the "unfair" Act. Then perhaps he could have accused the Second Member for Victoria of being mischievous. But in this case, Madam Chairman, I would submit the government itself has been mischievous because the title of the Act is misleading.

It happens to be government policy and it is the government's privilege to impose its policy. But as the Members on this side of the House have pointed out, it does discriminate against 58 per cent of the working people of British Columbia. It's discriminatory against Indians, who are not union Members in most cases, and to attribute it as a fair Act is most wrong. And for the Attorney General to make the kind of remarks that he did to the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is just puerile and banal, Madam Chairman.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is to delete the word "fair" from the title. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

[ Page 2968 ]

NAYS — 33

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in chair.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports divisions on section 2 and the title, and asks leave that it be recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

Bill No. 153, Public Works Fair Employment Act, referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 37, which was recommitted to committee because of an amendment.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE INFANTS ACT.

House in committee on Bill No. 37; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper. In so moving, Mr. Chairman, may I explain to the committee that when moving the previous amendment the last time this bill was in committee, the words, which were subsection 3, "Nothing in the section shall be construed as making ineffective any consent which would have been effective if this section had not been enacted" were removed.

Now, subsequent to April 12, it has appeared that the removal of those words takes away the pre-existing legal protection that was afforded the medical profession in the case when services were performed on an emergency basis to infants.

The purpose of the amendment, which is before the committee now, is to restore the protection so that we have the situation where if an infant over the age of 16 finds himself in an emergency situation, the medical attendant can proceed with treatment under the common law protection. In the case of a non-emergency medical service, then the medical practitioner must either make reasonable effort to obtain the consent of the parent of the infant or alternatively, obtain the written confirmation from another medical practitioner. I move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment's been considered by myself and my department and I think it's a matter of general agreement that this should be carried. It's a technical point, but an important point and I hope that we can pass this quickly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we recognized the intent of the original amendment and supported it and we now recognize the need for this amendment and certainly concur.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that the bill be considered as reported now.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2969 ]

Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Infants Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 103, Mr. Speaker.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION
INCORPORATION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 103; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved with amendments.

On section 7.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley on the amendments.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a few comments about this section. We don't feel that this kind of make-up gives the Pacific National Exhibition the kind of representation from the other parts of British Columbia that it should have.

We recognize that there will be seven persons appointed from a number of different areas within the community ranging from business to agriculture. However, we do not think that the Minister is giving nearly enough emphasis to the agricultural community. The Pacific National Exhibition has been an agricultural fair since its inception in 1908, and it always has been and always will be if it's to be a success.

I'd just like to say that while we're putting five persons from the City of Vancouver — actually nine persons from the City of Vancouver — on this 16-man board under the terms of this section, if the City of Vancouver had taken any interest in the Pacific National Exhibition in the past, it might have been more of a community-oriented fair. However, they took no interest in the past and without the agricultural community, the Pacific National Exhibition would have been down the drain. I think even the Minister would admit that.

Nevertheless, I would think that the Minister should consider changing the make-up of this bill to give it less representation from Vancouver, more representation from the various regions around the province — from those regional districts outside of the actual lower mainland area — and to include not just one or two members of the agricultural community, not just an advisory committee which would advise the board on agricultural matters, but to actively include at least three or four or maybe even five people from the various segments of the agricultural community, along with those people that I have suggested from other parts of the province.

Without the input from those people, the Pacific National Exhibition will not be the vibrant and exciting fair that it's come to be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments to section 7 pass?

Amendments approved.

Section 7 approved with amendments.

Sections 8 to 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd just like to ask the Minister if he would comment on this section which concerns the dissolution or winding up of the exhibition. It pays off all of the assets that will be paid off to the City of Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, does the Minister recognize that there has been other financial input into that exhibition — physical buildings, input from the provincial government, input from the federal government, input by those private commercial organizations which the Minister has downgraded quite severely. Nevertheless, the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame, the Jockey Club and several others have put actual physical contributions into that fair. Will they be given any consideration in the case that this wind-up should occur? I doubt that it ever will but nevertheless you've made arrangements for this in the bill. Shouldn't they at least be recognized for their contribution?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we certainly don't anticipate the exhibition winding up, certainly in the foreseeable future at all, The point made by the Hon. Member is reasonable. I'm sure that the board would consider that and make some recommendations in that regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 14 pass?

Section 14 approved.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2970 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 103, Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 164, Mr. Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 164; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Section 2 creates the corporation to be known as the Ocean Falls Corporation. It's the first of the Crown corporations and new business enterprises to be created by the new government of this province. From all the legislation that's come before us and from all indications, it's certainly not the last. We've had another one which we'll be dealing with shortly.

It's a step into the private sector of enterprise providing for a Crown corporation to finance a proposition which even private enterprise itself has found very uneconomic over a long period of time. We question the wisdom on the part of the government for forming such a corporation. We feel that the taxpayers of the province will be continuously pouring capital into this white elephant in order to keep it afloat and viable.

In that respect, it's an albatross around the neck of every person in the Province of British Columbia and we do not support it.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the question I'd like to put to the Minister deals with section 4. It's the question of right to sue and be sued. This sets it up as a company under the Companies Act. But there is doubt on this. No doubt the Minister has received representations from the Canadian Bar Association's legislative committee on this.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder whether the Hon. Member is aware of the amendment on p. 15 on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I'm sorry, I haven't checked that amendment. Does that take care of it, Mr. Minister? Thanks very much.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved with amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The effect of the amendment would be to add a new section, No. 10. Then 10 and 11 would be renumbered 11 and 12.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Once again, I'm looking at the criticisms of the legislation from the Canadian Bar Association. They talk of a potential conflict between section 9 — I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I got a little behind — and section 1 of Bill 165 in terms of financing. Again, if the Minister has received that submission, no doubt he's taken care of it. I wonder whether he would like to comment on the potential conflict as it affects the right to obtain more than $1 million in total, notwithstanding Bill 165.

I think that the two sections in the two bills should be consistent with one another. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have to discuss both bills at this stage. I'm quite sure that the Minister is aware of this potential problem and can put my mind at rest on it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding. I haven't had direct communication with the Bar Association, although I was aware of their concern with respect to the right to sue and be sued.

I understand that the Bar Association actually is confused with respect to this other question; that they considered the material that was in the other statute in relation to this. I gather there is some confusion on their part but I am afraid I can't be of much help beyond that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 11 — old No. 10 — pass?

Section 11 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 12 — old No. 11 — pass?

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the

[ Page 2971 ]

committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 164 Ocean Falls Corporation Act reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 165, Mr. Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION
APPROPRIATION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 165; Mr. Dent in the Chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 165, Ocean Falls Corporation Appropriation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 40

NAYS — 10

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not possible for us to stack up the bills which come forward from committee? Must they be reported individually at each time when we finish them in committee?

MR. SPEAKER: Under our procedure it's usual, although I notice in Ottawa and in England they do, as you say, stack them up. But under this procedure it has always been each in turn. Why, I don't know. Nobody has ever offered the other alternative.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if it struck you as being a desirable objective you would probably get unanimous consent for an alteration in this respect.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we're faced with a variation of bills, some of which can only be taken up now with leave and some which as of right are entitled to third reading now. In view of that circumstance it's impossible to speed up the process.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 174, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PARK ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 174; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 174 An Act to Amend the Park Act reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 179, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
CELLULOSE COMPANY ACT

House in Committee on Bill No. 179: Mr. Dent in the chair.

[ Page 2972 ]

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 179, British Columbia Cellulose Company Act reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 35

NAYS — 15

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 180; Mr. Dent in the chair.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 180; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, p. 15. The amendment is to reduce the number of people who can be appointed to the cabinet from 23, as it now stands in section 3, to 19.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for making this amendment is that it would be absurd for a province the size of British Columbia to create a cabinet comparable in size to the whole country. We've got 29 cabinet Ministers in Canada: to have 23 in British Columbia would be just a fantastic absurdity. It may soon be, Mr. Chairman, that the smallest group in the House will be not the Liberal Party, or even the Conservative Party…

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be mean.

MR. McGEER: …but the number of backbenchers in the New Democratic Party who haven't been elevated.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, when I noticed the broad smiles and thumping of the desk on the part of the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I didn't know whether the wild applause was in hopes that there would be 37 cabinet posts created so that he would be certain of getting in there, or whether he wanted to be among the two or three who aren't elevated to some post.

Mr. Chairman, the Second Member for Vancouver Centre reminds me a little of the acrobat who was on the fortieth storey of a building. He fell off the top of the building and, as he was hurtling to the ground, one of his friends leaned out at the twentieth storey and said, "You're still doing fine, Gary, " as he went by. (Laughter.)

This particular amendment has nothing to do, Mr. Chairman, with the Second Member for Vancouver Centre, in truth. What it intends to do is to limit the size of the cabinet to some reasonable number so that we can arrest this galloping case of Parkinson's disease that the NDP has.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here anymore!

MR. McGEER: I'm not referring to the shaking palsy: I'm referring to the kind where you have infinite expansion of the bureaucracy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There you are, one doctor attacking another.

MR. McGEER: It seems to me that an increase to 19 is a generous one; it allows more than enough for the available talent in the backbench Therefore, I consider it a most reasonable and constrained amendment and I hope the cabinet will accept it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

[ Page 2973 ]

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I understand why Members in the House are confused as to this section and its import and what it attempts to do. However, I want to assure the House that there is no intention of 23 persons, that is individual persons, being considered in this amendment.

However, during the transitional stage in which we are working on departmental Acts, I'm assured by the legal advisers that we need this kind of flexibility because of the dual portfolios. There are more than 19 Ministries, and if you check on the Constitution Act that we seek to amend by this amendment, you'll see that the figures were hitherto, as they say, 17 and 14. That takes care of this duality of portfolio.

I can assure the Hon. Members that as soon as the government gets an opportunity to revise the various departmental Acts, the singular number that the learned Member for Point Grey seeks to have in this section will be done. Therefore we don't accept the amendment at this stage.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are we to understand, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Provincial Secretary, that there may be appointments to the Executive Council and once those appointments have been made and the departments are reorganized, that Members of the Executive Council will lose those appointments? Obviously, that's clearly the indication.

HON. MR. HALL: That's covered, Mr. Member, in the transitional section, section 21, so you have to read the transitional section in connection with this amendment to get the whole picture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to section 3 pass?

Amendment negatived.

Sections 3 to 13 inclusive approved with amendment.

On section 14.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria on section 14.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There are two points here that I'd like to raise, Mr. Chairman. I feel that it's wrong in principle for Members of the assembly not to have the amount of money spelled out. In this section we're going to have a number of people of this chamber who will be paid by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in addition to their fixed amounts. I think this is really wrong. I think that in this type of legislation where we're amending the Constitution Act, we should spell out precisely what the amount of money is that anybody receives. I think that's only fair from the point of view of the public because I think it's wrong that we ourselves — at least a group of us — will boost the pay of others of us at will, which is what the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can do in this section.

I think that we should be in a situation in this Act where the public has full knowledge of all amounts of money that we receive from the public purse simply by checking the Act and not having to find out how much extra we receive by way of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, That's point one.

Point two. I have yet to see evidence of any need on the part of the committee chairmen. They are like other Members of the backbench of the government party, working hard, no question about that. But for them to receive a salary in addition to their regular one strikes me as curious because there is no demonstrated need in this instance. The government has certainly made no case to pay these people more. True, they have to chair meetings, but this is not an onerous task.

I might add that I've served as a committee chairman of the federal House myself for two years. We were not paid extra and it never occurred to us to ask for more. It just doesn't seem necessary. So I wonder whether the government could on the one hand indicate what the need might be, and, secondly, why they have departed from the principle of laying out in black and white in an Act passed by this House the amounts that will be paid to Members of this assembly.

The public, after all, has a right to know whether we voted on our own salaries. They have a right to know who voted which way and why, or they can ask why. But where we're in a situation where it's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council raising the salaries of other Members of this House or a certain group of them we're into an area where the whole principle of openness when dealing with public moneys that we receive as pay for work as MLAs is in doubt. I would like some comments from the Provincial Secretary on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, I think this section should be looked upon as enabling legislation in a new government, in a new way, entering a new sphere of activity. The flexibility that is required to meet the demands of that new approach is set out in this section. I think that that's fairly said in that it should be by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council at this moment.

[ Page 2974 ]

However, once we've gone through one complete cycle of committees, full session, committees meeting in between sessions and we have some experience, I certainly tend to agree with the Member for Victoria. These figures should be seen. However, it is not as though we'll be doing it in secret. There will be orders-in-council prepared with the usual openness from that point of view.

But I want the House, if it would, to look upon this as enabling legislation to take us through this transitional period, through to the next session after we get the departmental Acts and all the rest and the Constitution Act generally cleared up with the total knowledge of one year's full events.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Provincial Secretary to explain why it is that the chairman of a committee should receive a particular stipend for that job. You know, the committee work is really an accepted part of the legislative process and it just seems as though this is one more unnecessary impost on the public Treasury.

Personally, Mr. Chairman, I can't see what activity or what particular work the chairman of a committee would have more than a secretary or any individual member of a committee that would justify an increase in pay, particularly when that isn't spelled out in legislation. It just strikes me as one more example of the elected people digging unfairly into the public purse.

HON. MR. HALL: I reject that last statement. We've heard so often from that Member every single time there's ever been an amendment to the Constitution Act. However, it's our opinion that the committees are going to play a more fulsome role in this House from here on in. We're expecting the chairman of the committees, all eight of them — and there may be more when we reorganize ourselves, as I say — to be the leaders in terms of assembling information and of getting committees going. A special responsibility will be theirs. That special responsibility, I suggest to the House, is met by section 14 of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been the philosophy of our party that Members who are elected to the Legislature do so not only for remuneration, but for the purpose of serving their province as well as their own constituencies. It has not been our philosophy that every move we make should be paid for. We would hate to see this philosophy introduced in British Columbia.

Now the Provincial Secretary has indicated to this House that he wants a year of flexibility. It is a new government; they do want to institute new programmes. This is their right and we mustn't deny that right.

But we do say to the Provincial Secretary that we cannot be part of any system in British Columbia which suggests that every Member of this Legislature must be paid for every move they make. We are not an organized, unionized association, and one of the liberties we enjoy is a degree of flexibility in our work that is not enjoyed by those who belong to an organized association or a union. For that benefit we have to be prepared to extend ourselves beyond usual working hours, beyond usual demands. We, Mr. Chairman, don't want to see this changed.

The government has made provision for 23 cabinet Ministers at most handsome salaries, and they are now making provision for…

HON. MR. HALL: Nineteen on salary.

MRS. JORDAN: Nineteen full-time. Nonetheless, this is quite a number. But the Minister has explained this and he's got a year to bring before this Legislature what his purpose is. In this instance, we would hate to feel that every Member of the government side of the House was getting any form of extra inducement. We feel that they are as dedicated to their work as we are. We also feel that the taxpayers of British Columbia have the right to expect good value for their money.

In all due respect, Mr. Chairman — and we do say it was a new year — but some chairmen of the committees this year have not excelled themselves as leaders. Nor have they excelled in their ability to see that those appearing before the committees received the attention and consideration they should have.

So I would sum up by saying that we are accepting the Minister's explanation that he wants a year of flexibility. But, we do say to him: Mr. Minister, don't bring in a system in British Columbia for pay-as-you-go out of the taxpayer's pocket. MLAs, do keep within this Legislature the dedication motive that all of us are prepared to go well beyond usual hours, usual demands in our willingness to serve, and for the privilege of having a certain degree of flexibility that other jurisdictions don't have. Should the Minister not be able to fulfil his commitment next year, I'm sure we'll have a good deal to say about it then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: That's fair enough, Madam Member. I will, however, add one thing. We've made a specific point this year of making sure the official

[ Page 2975 ]

opposition fill the chairmanship of one of the most important committees. Frankly, we are expecting that committee to be a very real one, as evidenced by the Premier's statement at 2 o'clock today. That may indeed, Mr. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), be a most arduous job. So, I think that kind of flexibility is required. Thank you most kindly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain…

MRS. JORDAN: Could I just ask one question in relation to the subject? Would the Provincial Secretary…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: It is just supplementary to my statement.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If it is just a quick question, we'll allow the question before we press on.

MRS. JORDAN: Just a quick question. Would the Minister be prepared to lead this government into absolutely new ground by appointing Members of the opposition to the cabinet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I was on a committee last winter that was chaired by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). I must say that it took a great deal of his time and energy and ingenuity to chair that committee. For one thing, we spent a month holding various meetings with various experts; he had to get all of us together at the same time in the same place, and it was very difficult to do. In addition, he had to obtain information from various jurisdictions literally all over the world for us to examine so that we would have some idea of what to look for when we started our trip.

We worked together to define the terms of reference. He had to make travel arrangements for the group. He had to arrange appointments in various jurisdictions, and this took a great deal of time. In fact, we jokingly told him he had a telephone growing out of his ear because he was constantly on the phone arranging for us to meet with one or another technician or professional, or to see a particular operation in a particular city.

At the end of our travels he arranged for a transcription of all of the material we had recorded, and gave a report to all of us. Now, I happen to know that the Hon. Member was also employed in a private job, and that this took a great deal of his spare time. For that reason, I think that he should have been compensated for all the work he did — and he was not.

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

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): In view of the standing orders, would it be possible to excuse the chairmen of the various committees from having to vote on this because of their pecuniary interest? We do know who the chairmen are at the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the same procedure would follow as was used in the estimates, and therefore I would call the vote on the section. Shall section 14 pass?

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

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

MR. CHABOT: Section 15, which amends section 65 of the Constitution Act, deals with Members being at the parliament buildings or the place where the session is being held, or not being more than 10 miles away. In the event of sickness — if you are sick — if you are within 10 miles as the crow flies from this building, then you are deemed to be present at the building.

Now, there has been an enlargement of this distance — as the crow flies. The crow is now flying a little further. The crow is flying from 10 miles to 50 miles, so the crow now takes in all the lower mainland. So, the Members in the lower mainland can now be sick in their constituencies, in their homes, in their hospitals, in their hostels wherever they may be — and still be deemed present at a session of the Legislature without being deducted the new fee of $100 a day.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No. That is possible, but I don't think that's created that problem. But the thing is this: I don't think we should have legislation that gives urban favouritism. There is no reason why this doesn't apply to me or any Member from the rural part of the province being sick in his constituency. Really, in my opinion, it's legislation that gives favouritism to Members who come from the lower mainland, and it doesn't apply to the Members from the rural part of the province.

[ Page 2976 ]

Now this is an expansion — the original intent and purpose was 10 miles, so that if someone lived within the 10-mile radius of the parliament buildings and was sick, he was deemed to be present. Now we are expanding it so that people can be in their constituency and be sick — or deemed to be sick — and still be considered present. I think that's poor legislation. It's legislation that gives favouritism to Members for the lower mainland and discriminates against Members from the rural part of the province,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: I want to assure the Members that nothing was further from the government's mind than any suggestion that we were going to exclude or discriminate against the rural Members.

MR. CHABOT: But it does.

HON. MR. HALL: The extension of the boundaries are to include the places where one can get the finest treatment in terms of medical attention and so on, in the event of some tragedy happening. That was the motivation, but it may not have achieved warmth in the heart of the Member for Columbia River. That was the motivation. That's what it is, and I stand here to tell you that. It may not have achieved that, but there you are.

However, we've had, in the very short space of time I've been here, a number of unfortunate incidents, and we don't need to go into that. But I will say this, that I am not happy with section 65 even as amended. In view of the fact that we have a new parliament, we have duties, we have cabinet meetings; there are federal-provincial arrangements that we are going to. And I don't like, for instance, the "five days." I want to pay particular attention to the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), who drew this to our attention not very long ago.

It well may be that section 65 should be looked at. I would welcome opinions from all parties on section 65 in view of the newness and all the speeches I've made about a new government.

But I do want to answer specifically the Member for Columbia River's remarks. Mr. Member, we may be guilty of a number of things, but this we must not accept in terms of any discrimination.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a couple of observations. I quite accept the Provincial Secretary's remarks on the good intent of the government. However, I think the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) has made a point. If someone is sick, if he's sick — the Member might be in an accident or taken ill while visiting in his own constituency. So, one way that section 65 could be amended is just by striking out all the words in the last line, so that when a person is ill, he is deemed to be in the Legislature. I think that is the fairest way of dealing with it.

But the other problem is the way the Act is worded with regard to attendance at the Legislature. It says that beyond five days, a person is going to be deducted. The Attorney General was at a conference in Ottawa, the Premier was in Washington and the Provincial Secretary was down there preparing for his appearance — all of these absences, the way section 65 is worded now, qualify a person to reach that five-day figure where he can be deducted $100 a day. It seems to be most unfair that a cabinet Minister who is away on government business, and might have to attend a conference, should be deducted $100 a day for his absence from the House. There are various ways that it could be corrected. It could be deemed that if a person is travelling on government business — public or government business — this is not deemed to be an absence.

For that matter section 65, in my opinion, could be eliminated altogether. I think that the business of getting an excuse from somebody if a person isn't present in the Legislature is more for high schools than it is for a Legislative Assembly. So I just can't see any reason for retaining section 65.

But if it is to be retained, I think that protection should be given for cabinet Ministers and others of the House who have legitimate government business and who must be away. It's plainly ridiculous to dock them their indemnity when they're serving the people in some capacity other than sitting right here in this room.

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

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Provincial Secretary has asked for comment on this section. I feel I must be very careful in my comments because I live very near to the buildings. In this particular session I have missed only one evening sitting out of all the weeks that we have been here. But this is much easier for me than for a lot of other people, so I don't want my remarks to be considered unduly critical.

I do hear comments from constituents — and there are comments in the media — about Members being absent. I think this is a crucial section and it should be brought into line as far as possible with the changing concept which this government has. If we are to have much longer sessions and two sessions a year, I think it only stands to reason that on a basis of simple arithmetic more of the Members will, for one reason or another, have to be away during sessions for different meetings or for different responsibilities which they cannot avoid over a 12- or

[ Page 2977 ]

13-week period.

On the other hand — again I say this with some thought — if a person is sick I really can't see that it matters whether he's 10, 20, 100 or 1,000 miles away. If he's sick, he's sick.

Again, this brings us into the realm that because politicians aren't the most trusted of individuals — and let's face it, the public don't consider us the most trusted individuals in society — the question of a person being absent and deemed to be sick apparently raises the suspicion in some people's minds that there has to be some qualifying factor, whether it be distance or residence in a hospital or some such other clearly defined feature.

I am delighted to hear the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) say that he's not satisfied with this and that he would like suggestions from the opposition. Certainly my suggestion would be that distance be deleted as a factor in this section and that a person who is sick, as is the case in an industry or business, after a certain stated number of days provides a doctor's certificate just to verify the fact that he is indeed sick and unable to attend in the House.

As to attendance generally, I think this is something we should all try to remain objective about. In this changing style of government which we are having in the province with longer sessions, two sessions and, of course, committee work between sessions, together with the fact that as each of us becomes more deeply involved for a larger part of the year in the political process, I think our responsibilities outside this House will grow and will tend to encourage this need for Members to be absent for several days out of the session to a greater degree than heretofore.

These would be my comments on behalf of our party.

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

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The case has been made for the necessity of specialized treatment. We're not talking about strictly specialized treatment or chronic or death-bed situations; we're really talking about consistency on the part of all Members of the Legislative Assembly and the fact that everybody should be treated equally. They should have the same right to be sick in their constituency as they happen to go.

We changed the standing orders of the House to encourage Members to go to their constituencies. We adjourned on Friday afternoon at 1p.m. There's a greater opportunity now for Members really to get to even some of the more remote ridings.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, will you move an amendment?

MR. CHABOT: Yes. I'll move an amendment now. I move that for the sake of consistency — the Minister might want to amend it at the next session of the Legislature again, but this would be an amendment so that everyone would be treated equally. I move an amendment to section 15, line 3, by deleting all the words after "one hundred" and by further amending section 65 by striking out all words after "Act" in the tenth line. I so move.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I'll read you what I've deleted: "And the Member shall for the purposes aforesaid be held to be at the place where the session is held whenever he is within 10 miles of that place." That's the portion that I've deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the only thing we should do at this time, apart from substituting the words "one hundred" for the word "twelve", is to delete all the words after "held" in the last line of the section, so that it reads: "the Member shall for the purposes aforesaid be held to be at the place where the session is held." If he's sick, he's sick; and he's therefore deemed to be here in Victoria.

That was the amendment that the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) wanted. I think that we should say section 65 is amended by striking out the word "twelve" in the first line and substituting the words "one hundred" and by striking out all the words after "held" in the last line. I think that achieves the consensus.

Now whether or not we go around the mulberry bush again on "five days" and all the rest of it, let's do that later on when we've evaluated where we are. Certainly for the time being let's do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Member for Columbia River pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan on section 15.

MRS. JORDAN: Just speaking of attendance generally and relating to some of the comments that have been made by the various Members on this, I would hate to see the purpose of this Legislature defeated by making it easier for Members to be away.

The Minister has said that there is a necessity for Ministers to be away at times during the session and this is true. There is sometimes a necessity for

[ Page 2978 ]

Members themselves to be away. This mustn't be denied.

Nonetheless, I think we could fall into the danger of extending our sessions beyond what is really practical for any number of reasons. We are talking about longer sessions; we are talking about two sessions a year; we are having longer sittings during the session, and if Members are not really basically required to be on the floor of this House, which is our prime responsibility when the House is sitting, it could become almost a merry-go-round of activity.

It is important, in our view, that Ministers be in this House when the session is on. Oral question periods are just one example. Questions that arise are questions that need to be asked that day and need to be answered that day. That is the Minister's responsibility.

When it comes to attendance in the House, I have stated before and I would like to state again that the needs of the rural Member are frequently quite different from the needs of the metropolitan Member. Many rural Members find they must answer questions and meet requests and the needs of their constituents on nearly every vote that takes place in committee of supply in this House. It is difficult enough, as I am sure many of the new Members will mention and certainly the older rural Members will mention, to be in a position where you can serve your constituents as rapidly as possible and almost instantaneously by answering their questions.

It certainly took me, if I might be personal for a moment, a little while to realize, after being in government, just how much one does absorb on the floor of this House. Even though you may be here day after day and be actively involved in part of the debate or perhaps even doing some minor work at your desk, you are part of the continuity of this House and you are absorbing many things that you don't realize that you have absorbed until somebody questions you from another part of the province. I think that if we ever moved into a system whereby Ministers or Members didn't have as their first priority or weren't required to have as their first priority their attendance in this House, it would be defeating the prime purpose of the House.

The second thing is that I think that, in essence, it would be defeating the ability of the MLAs to serve the public of British Columbia as the public has the right to expect to be served.

I would speak about one more point, in relation to the question of whether as a metropolitan Member you can be at home, or whether as a rural Member you can't be at home. I think it must be recognized that if the sessions continue to get longer, and the sittings get longer, it really doesn't matter whether a Member from Omineca or the Okanagan or the Kootenays has a legitimate time to be home between 1 o'clock on Friday and 10 o'clock on Monday morning. That Member is fulfilling his commitment during the week, sometimes under necessarily exhausting circumstances. Just the physical matter of meeting plane connections or driving, getting to their constituencies is very tiring. The public know they have this time off, they expect them to be in their constituencies and, frankly, there emerges a severe conflict between their interest in their families and their interest in their constituencies.

I think this should be taken into consideration. If you live in a commuting area people see their families every weekend, and the requirement to be with the family is not as great. They do see their constituents every weekend, and so the demand each weekend is not as great. Whereas if it is a piecemeal arrangement or a twice-a-month arrangement, the demand on that Member, particularly from the far north, is going to be even greater.

I suggest that if this isn't recognized, there will come a time when people who would like to run for public office at the provincial level, and who may well serve well at the provincial level, would be excluded from serving just on that basis. This is not a personal matter with me, but I would suggest that a young woman in her late twenties, who had a young family, whose husband was established in a business, because of the insecurity of tenure in this business would be excluded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member please relate her remarks to the section as amended?

MRS. JORDAN: It is related, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to prolong the debate, but I feel most seriously that these are factors that must be taken into consideration when we are trying to change the rules of the House, and that we must not lose sight of the right for people to serve at the provincial level, and that the prime purpose of service in this House must not be lost in the changes of these rules.

Sections 15 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the question of retroactivity, I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) would like to say a word or two about that. It may be that both the provisions of section 15 as well as other provisions, being retroactive, place a burden upon Members of this assembly which they were unaware of previously.

HON. MR. HALL: So far as I am aware, nothing has been changed since I last informed you in your office with the advance copy of this legislation.

[ Page 2979 ]

Section 22 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 180, An Act to Amend the Constitution Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill No. 180, An Act to Amend the Constitution Act read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Barrett and Hon. Mrs. Dailly file answers to questions.

Filing reports.

Hon. Mr. Williams files the annual report of the Lands Branch of the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we're right near the last sitting of the House in this session, and in view of the rather devastating information released earlier this afternoon by the Premier with regard to the British Columbia Railway Company, I wonder if he would be prepared to table the report submitted by the Comptroller General regarding the B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no devastation in the B.C., Hydro report. I announced today that when I have the opportunity to speak to the other Board of Directors members I will make that report available.

The order of business tonight would be to complete committee stage and committee of bills of the Minister of Highways. If the House wishes to get together with the Whips, perhaps the time of His Honour's arrival could be agreed on tomorrow morning, or tomorrow afternoon would be fine. Whichever the Whips agree to will be fine.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.