[ Page 651 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Presentation of Bruce Robertson to the House — 651

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Tendering procedures on claim centres construction. Mr. Phillips — 651

Policy of government on Victoria area hospitals. Mr. Wallace — 652

Posthumous stock sales. Mr. Gardom — 652

Glenshiel Hotel. Mr. Chabot — 653

Beechcraft aircraft. Mr. McGeer — 654

Weed Control Act (Bill 71). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 655

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act (Bill 68). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 655

Department of Housing Act (Bill 49). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 655

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 656

Division on second reading — 663

Personal Information Reporting Act (Bill 63). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 663

Mr. Smith — 664

Mr. Gardom — 664

Mr. McGeer — 665

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 665

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 665

An Act to Amend the Distress Area Assistance Act (Bill 67). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 666

Mr. Williams — 666

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 666

Farm Income Assurance Act (Bill 9). Committee stage.

Mr. Williams — 667

Mr. Wallace — 667

Mr. Phillips — 668

Mr. McGeer — 669

Mr. Gardom — 671

Mr. Smith — 672

Mr. Phillips — 672

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 673

Mr. McGeer — 675

Point of privilege

Use of microphone cut-off switch. Mr. Gardom — 676

Routine proceedings Farm Income Assurance Act (Bill 9). Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 677

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 679

Mr. Chabot — 680

Mr. McGeer — 680

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 684

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, September 8, 1973, was a place and a time of great prominence for Canadians, for it was the first time since 1912, some 61 years ago, when at Stockholm…Canada won a gold medal then in international swimming competition. The 61-year-old drought was broken by an exceptional and dedicated athlete from B.C. We're very delighted to have with us today on the floor of the House Mr. Bruce Robertson and, in the gallery, his mother and father Mr. and Mrs. Sandy Robertson.

I would like to inform a few of the Hon. Members of some of the accomplishments of Bruce Robertson: he's 20; he's a student in his third year of commerce at UBC and he probably started his swimming career in much the same way as the Premier did, by making it once across the tub by himself. Then he received instruction as a summer swimmer at Crescent Beach Swimming Club; he received lessons there, first of all from his father and then under coach Bob Gair.

When he was only 16 he accepted an invitation from Mr. Don Dunfee, who is the assistant swimming coach of what now has become the world-renowned Dolphin Swimming Club, under Derek Snelling in Vancouver, to take up swimming seriously. In just four years he became Canada's world champion.

He has joined the ranks of people such as Percy Williams, Nancy Greene and Karen Magnussen. In his very first off-shore swimming competition, Mr. Speaker, in 1971, he became the British champion. His first international team experience was with the Canadian team in Sydney, Australia, in 1972 when he won a silver medal in his specialty, which is the very, very strenuous and exacting butterfly stroke.

As a member of Canada's Olympic team at Munich in Germany last year, Bruce won his silver medal in the 100-metre butterfly, and he was second only to the world-renowned seven-medallist Mark Spitz. In these Olympics he also won an Olympic bronze medal on Canada's record-setting 400-metre team relay. He was the only person, Mr. Speaker, in the entire Canadian Olympic team to take home two medals.

His accomplishments continued throughout this year: he became the Brazilian champion down in Rio; in April he took the American championship in the 100-yard butterfly at the AAU swimming championships in Cincinnati, and he was the first male swimmer, Mr. Speaker, from Canada to be tops in America since 1968.

As I said, at Belgrade in September of this year, we find Bruce Robertson winning the first world championship and becoming Canada's first world champion gold medallist.

I would like to bid him and his mother and father a great welcome to the Legislature. And I would like, on behalf of all British Columbians, to thank him very much and congratulate him for his outstanding accomplishments. We all, indeed, wish him every continuing success.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of the Members of the Legislature and the people of British Columbia, I have the real honour of presenting this small token of our appreciation and a memento to Bruce Robertson for his significant and magnificent win.

I must say that I'm surprised to see Bruce at the age he is, because I was a fan of his father at one time when his father played basketball — and then also professional baseball with the old Vancouver Capilanos. I always thought that his father was a very young man and that I was comparatively younger, but I guess we're all growing older. Bruce is a fine young man and a credit to both of his parents.

I think that it is more than interesting to find that it's a succession within the family. Sandy brought great recognition to British Columbia for his athletic ability — and now Bruce in his stead.

I give you this, Bruce, with the pledge I want to extract from you that Sandy's grandchildren come back here for the same type of award.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, students in the gallery today watching the proceedings are from Claremont Senior Secondary School in Saanich, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a man who contributed many years to this Legislature from the City of New Westminster and, from the electoral district of New Westminster — Ray Eddy. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in welcoming the chief elected councilor of the Sechelt band, Mr. Clarence Joe, and his family.

Oral questions.

TENDERING PROCEDURES ON
CLAIM CENTRES CONSTRUCTION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a question to the attention of the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Mr. Minister, after the general contractors award for services in the amount of $531,453 had

[ Page 652 ]

been awarded to Commonwealth Construction for supervising the building of 12 claim centres in the lower mainland, what tender procedure is being taken for the actual construction and bidding to build by independent contractors of these 12 claim centres?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'd have to check the exact details of that contract. But they were bidding on, I think, 11 claim centres. That's the basic price of each of the 11.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Minister, the contract that was given to Commonwealth Construction is a guidance fee for supervising the construction of these, not for the actual construction of them. Now what tender procedure are you going to have for the actual construction of these claim centres?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll check the details, but I'm quite sure that it is the normal tender procedure.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Minister, I understand that some of the basic foundations from these structures are being built immediately, even before the tenders go out. Now were these bid on?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll have to check on it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, would you do something about it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As soon as I get the information.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and inform the House tomorrow?

POLICY OF GOVERNMENT ON
VICTORIA AREA HOSPITALS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) a rather serious question, for the people of this area at least. Dr. Foulkes yesterday made a statement that one option in this area was to scrap the Jubilee and Victoria General Hospitals and start from scratch. I wonder if the Minister could tell the House if this kind of completely irresponsible statement in any way represents the policy of his department?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Foulkes is making a statement — I haven't even seen it, nor read it — but he's making a statement that's obviously his own. It's certainly not our department policy to scrap the Jubilee or the hospital that is now known as the Victoria General.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am very gratified to have the Minister's reassurance but would the Minister, in light of previous experience, consider issuing a cease and desist order for Dr. Foulkes making public statements when it is not policy?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, no. I have no intention of issuing a cease and desist order. He's not going to be gagged, as some have been in the past that we have known of.

We're very interested in the report that's coming out of that very large committee and I don't think: that the relevance of this kind of statement…. Don't forget that everything that he says, whether serious or in jest, is accepted with a great deal of seriousness.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. I would hate the Minister to take the privilege of leaving this House with the impression that that was made in jest. I have checked with witnesses who sat and listened to Dr. Foulkes and that is exactly what he said, in all seriousness.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a final question. The Minister says that we will all await the report and we will not gag Dr. Foulkes. Does the Minister not consider that these kinds of irresponsible statements will seriously damage the credibility of the said report?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, we get a question out of context. I don't know under what circumstances he made that kind of suggestion. I would doubt very much if it had anything to do with tearing down buildings and erecting new ones, or anything of that nature.

I suggest that he has found, as the Member across the way has found, that there have been problems with some of these major institutions within cities such as Victoria, such as Vancouver, where there has been a clash of personalities, which has reduced the health-care benefits to people. So probably he is trying to say, in a picturesque way, that somehow we have to do something about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

POSTHUMOUS STOCK SALES

MR. GARDOM: Three weeks ago now I asked the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) questions about the Vancouver Stock Exchange dealing with posthumous stock sales and investigations. I inquired about public protection and the Attorney General indicated that he was unaware of the problem and that he would take it as notice.

I would ask the Attorney General if it was true

[ Page 653 ]

that he signed the current investigation order and, if so, how is he unaware of it? I would also ask the Attorney General whether or not, since he indicated in this House that stocks would be de-listed, but the stock exchange does not agree with his position, is he planning to instruct the stock exchange to de-list the particular stocks and specifically prevent short-selling?

HON. A. B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): In answer to those five-and-a-half questions, I would say — and I have to be a little careful what I say because I don't want to affect the market value of penny stocks — that I did sign the order for the investigation, right, the investigation of which presumably that search warrant my hon. friend has received a copy of a confidential document possibly?

MR. GARDOM: No.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Or the reports. It is fairly well known in the investment community.

MR. GARDOM: It's all over the press, too.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It names some companies but the companies are not under investigation. It is brokers and salesmen.

Quite frankly, if I can speak generally — and I don't want to speak just of this investigation — there is a bit of a failure on the part of the members of the exchange, even, to control their employees, their salesmen, as firmly as they might do.

Now in terms of suspension of any company from trading, the particular investigation we are speaking about refers to events of some two years ago and, as I say, primarily covers the activities of salesmen and brokers, but not the companies concerned.

The de-listing procedure is whether the Vancouver Stock Exchange de-lists. If they don't in a proper case, the Securities Commission and my department can suspend trading.

MR. GARDOM: At any time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and it's not initially my decision, But I don't think, in reviewing these circumstances, that suspension of companies trading would be warranted for the events that may have transpired with respect to their employees, perhaps two years ago, to the detriment of present shareholders.

I'm not ruling out that cease-trading orders may take place as well. I am just saying that that will initially be a decision for the stock exchange; failing them, the Securities Commission. I know in respect to the second that they are watching the situation 65.3 very carefully.

MR. GARDOM: Can you give assurance to the members of the general public that the insiders won't be getting out by short-selling? That's the crunch of the whole problem, because there is nothing to prevent short-selling going on today. If a person is aware that a company is in a serious situation, the fact of short-selling could indeed become a very contemporary eventuality.

What are you planning to do to protect these people? Because we had that problem before with Commonwealth Trust. If its doors had been closed, we wouldn't have had the general public suffering losses. The doors were kept open and they, suffered but the insiders didn't. They got out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as I say, the events with respect to which the investigation is taking place are at least a year old. The company's shares are selling at a normal price on the market, which is a low price, but we will watch. Don't forget, we are investigating the salesmen, the brokers, in. terms of an alleged ring — and I am saying alleged only. On that basis you would be very careful about de-listing a company and injuring, perhaps, people who have since bought into it.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I was asked a question yesterday in the question period about a report to the effect that the Land Commission is seriously behind in dealing with its correspondence. I checked with the chairman of the commission and I am told that the turn-around time of the correspondence is about two to three days. While there are a few items on their plates which are taking a fair amount of research, the normal turn-around time is two to three days.

GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the government's philosophy of open government, I wonder if the Minister is prepared to table the papers as well as the correspondence on the Glenshiel Hotel deal?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): What do you mean table? We asked the ex-Minister of Labour if he would table his papers and he failed to do that. But our papers were tabled last session, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has failed to indicate…

Interjections.

[ Page 654 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order. No speeches, please.

MR.CHABOT: …what the government has paid, what the taxpayers have paid for this hotel? I don't know what he has to hide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Does the Minister intend, as previously stated, to phase out the Glenshiel Hotel from its present function?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to respond. If that's the best that Member can do….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Originally, when the Glenshiel was drawn to our attention, a firm that through the years had done business with the Department of Public Works had it appraised at…

MR. CHABOT: That's not what I am talking about, I'm talking about….

HON. MR. HARTLEY: …had it appraised at $640,000. I was new on the job and I could see that this was a dicey situation. So I called for an independent appraisal. This appraisal was brought to me and, because of this appraisal, we were able to acquire this property for $50,000 less than we would have done had we not had….

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is not rubbish. These are the facts of the case. We gave it to you in the spring session. You are asking for it again, so you are getting it again. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, a very brief question. I asked the Minister if he intends phasing out the Glenshiel Hotel from its present function.

MR. SPEAKER: There have already been statements made and answers on that point.

MR. CHABOT: You call that a reply? If I was out of order you would bring me to attention very quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: You are always out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Under p. 323 of May….

MR. CHABOT: I wish you would refrain from saying I am always out of order when you are absolutely wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Every time you have asked a question in this House….

MR. CHABOT: I'm always out of order. I'm always wrong and I'm always out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Every time this Member has asked a question he has prefaced it with a speech. Every time. And I have taken it time after time and asked the Member to desist. I ask him now to desist from making speeches in question time.

MR. CHABOT: You are out of order.

BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): May I ask a question, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Please ask the question.

MR. McGEER: This is to the Minister of Transport and Communications with respect to the two American Beechcraft Superking air model 200 turboprop aircraft. Before these were ordered, were specifications asked for…

AN HON. MEMBER: Speech, speech.

MR. McGEER: …by the Department of Transport?

AN HON. MEMBER: We want you to win, Jim.

MR. SPEAKER: When you ask for equity, you must do equity. The Member who is complaining has not done equity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be fair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I recollect the situation, no specifications were asked for by the Department of Transport and Communications. They were asked for by the Purchasing Commission. The Purchasing Commission handled the whole procedure. There were specifications asked for and submitted, prices, the whole thing, and a decision was made on that basis.

[ Page 655 ]

MR. McGEER: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? I would like to ask the Minister why it was that Canadian aircraft available at half the price, with greater range, higher payload, a greater ceiling, better take-off and landing characteristics, namely the Twin Otter, were turned down by the provincial government in favour of these American aircraft at twice the cost?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you are making a statement. In other words, you are making a technical judgment. I don't know whether you are an expert on aircraft, too. I don't profess to be an expert on aircraft. I leave that to the people, the technicians, the engineers, the Purchasing Commission, who have the knowledge and the background to make that kind of judgment. And I accept their recommendations.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question. Will the Minister of Transport table with this House the exact specifications that were asked for by the Purchasing Commission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have no objection to tabling that at all. Not at all.

Introduction of bills.

WEED CONTROL ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Weed Control Act.

Bill 71 introduced, 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.

FARM PRODUCTS 
INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT

HON. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farm Products Industry Improvement Act.

Bill 68 introduced, 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.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

(continued)

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Before continuing with the few brief remarks which I wanted to offer in this debate on the establishment of a housing department and a policy of housing for the province, I would just like on behalf of the House and, I think, all the people in the gallery, to thank the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for the entertaining performance he put on this afternoon. I am sure everyone enjoyed that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) intimated, I think, that the policy the new Minister of housing is attempting to develop to give accent and focus to the housing needs in this province is less than sincere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. KING: I just wanted to take this occasion, Mr. Speaker, to remind the people on that side of the House particularly….

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't say that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister be seated, please?

HON. MR. KING: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: You have a point of order?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Minister of Labour is saying the Member for Langley is less than sincere. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure, for the sake of fair play, you would like to have that statement withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Minister should not say that the Member is less than sincere.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) listen a little more intently. What I did say was that the Member for Langley inferred that the policy being put forward to the House by our now Minister of housing was less than sincere. I did not accuse the Member for Langley of being less than sincere, although perhaps I can understand the sensitivity on that side. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Then obviously there is no point of order.

HON. MR. KING: The point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, is that, for the first time in the Province

[ Page 656 ]

of British Columbia, a housing policy is being developed which recognizes the acute shortage that the people of this province are faced with. I just wanted to remind the Member for Langley particularly, since he is a new Member, of the track record of that previous administration. Not only did they fail, in their 20-year tenure in this House, to establish a meaningful housing policy or any programme for meaningful housing construction…

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): That's longer than you'll ever be in here.

HON. MR. KING: …but indeed, Mr. Speaker, they worked, I would suggest, to minimize the housing that was available in this province when, in the Arrow Lakes area and in the Columbia River valley, they contracted with our American friends to the south to flood vast tracts of this province, along with the housing facilities that were involved in those areas.

The villages of Deer Park in the Arrow Lakes, Renata, Edgewood, Needles, East Arrow Park, Beaton, and Arrowhead were completely inundated and there was no programme whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, to develop alternate facilities for the people who were dislocated and flooded out of the very homes and roofing that was over their heads.

I think it is a bit thick for that Member to come into this House now and question the motives of this government, when we are in fact recognizing the acute problem which faces the people of this province in terms of shelter needs, and suggest that our sincerity is not what it should be. Certainly we are faced with a crisis in housing, largely as a result of the inaction and the inactivity of that previous administration.

I would agree with the Member's observation to one extent, that it is not possible for the government, through public housing, to solve this entire problem. There is a need, I suggest, for a total programme involving the private sector in cooperation with the government's activities to relieve the acute shortage which exists now.

But getting back to the area where I come from, I would point out that the flooding which took place in that area, and the inundation of many of these rural communities, created a move to the larger urban areas of that constituency and placed additional pressure on the availability of housing in those areas.

It is about time, I think, that the government recognized the need to participate. This should have been recognized at the time the flooding took place. The government should, at that time, have come forward with a realistic programme for resettlement of those people who had been disrupted by the policies of the previous administration.

Not only was that type of programme absent in the situation, but indeed the settlements offered by the previous government were such that it deprived the dislocated people of an opportunity to re-establish any reasonable alternate housing facilities for their occupancy. There was no attention paid to the real value of the homes which they were disrupted from.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that here we have a positive programme that not only recognizes the need that develops through the natural increase in population, it is a programme that can be taken advantage of by those rural communities which were affected adversely by the policies of the Social Credit government. I think it does not behoove Members of that official opposition to question the motivation and the effectiveness of the policy that is being developed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): It has been an interesting debate. It has been a lengthy debate, Many of the Members have spoken and many good ideas have been expressed, some of which are new and worthy of consideration, others of which reinforce some of my own impressions, and some to which I might take exception during my remarks.

The Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) brought up a couple of points. He suggested that any funds that might accrue from development of the university endowment lands go to the university. Really, this is a way of fiddling around with little things here and there. This government will make sure that the universities are properly funded; they don't need to wait for action or lack of action on the university endowment lands that they have — the carrot always held out in front of them.

He also suggested removal of the 5 per cent sales tax and the 11 per cent federal tax. From one point of view, this could, in some measure, go towards helping the housing problem. We have to look at the total picture, however. The 5 per cent sales tax was created for a reason: to finance hospitals and the hospital programme. I don't think it's a matter of taking things out of one pocket and putting them into another.

Certainly the 11 per cent federal tax is prohibitive in its size. It was criticized from the very outset and the negative effect it would have on housing was pointed out, I think it's proven that effect and I feel it should be removed as well.

The Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) stressed the importance of quality in housing. She mentioned that there are 5,000 senior citizens' units needed in greater Vancouver. With the

[ Page 657 ]

limited legislation we have at our disposal, this is one area in which I said we could move and in which we intended to move. We sent out a circular urging governments to move now on senior citizens' housing so we could get that started while we were anticipating a Department of Housing Act and the other powers which we need to tackle the housing problem. We did have a response to that. We have 58 replies from municipalities for various kinds of housing, probably the majority or at least half of those come for senior citizens' housing.

It was with some dismay that I noted the attitudes in some areas towards senior citizens' housing. Very soon after receiving my appointment, I consulted with the Greater Vancouver Regional District and we discussed a choice of architects for a senior citizens' housing project in the Point Grey area at Fourth Avenue and Wallace. This project would create 200 very badly needed units. As the Hon. Member has stated, there is a waiting list of at least 5,000; it might be in excess of that because many senior citizens just don't hold out any hope of getting housing at a reasonable price, haven't applied and don't appear on the list.

The architects were chosen for their sensitive approach and their ability to have some social input. They chose a design which was only 35 feet high, lower in some respects than some three-storey buildings, but it did have on one level a fourth storey. In the Vancouver Sun a few weeks ago, there's an article that said, "Redesign housing project, GVRD orders architects,"

"About a dozen residents taking part in a meeting organized by the Dunbar West Point Grey area council, under chairman Bob Munn, told the Greater Vancouver Regional District's housing director, Bill Casson, they objected to even part of the project being four storeys high."

Now, I don't know if these people know the day-to-day anxiety that some of these senior citizens are facing. How do you feel when you're living on perhaps $209 a month, your rent is $140 and you're told that it's going up to $170? I'm sure these people are not getting a full night's sleep and I could state my feelings about this very strongly. But I think there's a great urgency today and it's necessary to move ahead with all possible speed.

This will not only provide housing for senior citizens, but it will also perhaps open up other units which the working younger people could better afford than the senior citizens. This will also open up under-utilized houses which are a great burden upon some senior citizens in terms of day-to-day maintenance.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) asked for a few things. What have I done? Well, I urged the Greater Vancouver Regional District to go ahead at all possible speed with this. It has run into this kind of opposition. I feel that there are more than a dozen senior citizens out there — there are 5,000 of them on waiting lists — and their voices should be heard.

We have a proposal in his riding of West Vancouver for 61 units. It's a high-rise structure and there were some comments about whether or not senior citizens should live in high-rises. I am not partial myself to bringing up my family in a high-rise, but I don't pretend to tell other people what they should live in. I think we do have to look at what they are living in presently.

Much to my surprise, in touring some of the high-rise units for senior citizens in New Westminster and Vancouver, I found a very high degree of acceptance, just as high as I found in garden apartments in Burnaby for senior citizens. In fact, senior citizens are like anyone else: some of them like to live in high-rises; some of them like to live in garden apartments; some of them like to live in maybe two and three-storey walk-ups, some of them like to live in their own home. I appreciate some of the Members suggesting that we help senior citizens to remain in their own homes. There are a lot of senior citizens in their 80s and even in their 90s who are quite capable of looking after things and keeping up their homes, and probably keeping up their gardens much better than I seem to manage to do. So we should not come up with one solution for senior citizens.

I do think that in terms of senior citizens' housing, one of the most important things is to have them where the action is. They must be close to shopping; they must be close to transportation; they should be close to community recreation facilities. I think that as general truisms these are reinforced time and time again.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) suggested, among other things, a system whereby we could encourage people with savings to place these savings into a mortgage and to allow the lender to try to negotiate, I suppose, with the federal government so they pay no tax on what they earn by way of interest. I do feel that we have to do something about first mortgages as well as providing second mortgages. I do agree with the concept of providing an opportunity perhaps by way of a mortgage bank in the Province of British Columbia and I've suggested that it's perhaps one of the three ways in which we might do something about providing a first-mortgage programme. I think that the people of British Columbia have demonstrated through the parity bonds that they're willing to accept a fair return, that it doesn't have to be an excessive return, that they're not trying to escape taxation.

A buck is a buck. If you make money one way or another, I think that most people in North America

[ Page 658 ]

today accept that we tax income and not the way in which it's made. If one person is making this by virtue of having $10,000 invested and someone else is making it by the sweat of his brow, income is income. I think the Carter Royal Commission dealt with that and it's too bad that we haven't followed a few more of its recommendations.

The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) did bring up a point — she made mention of the matter of high-rises — made many points and, I think, did refer to Maplecrest which is at Seventh and Maple in Vancouver — a fairly high-rise structure, certainly not a walk-up structure, being sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion, Shalom Branch.

I have made some inquiries and have been informed that the bachelor suites are 370 square feet in area; the one-bedroom apartments for couples are about 500 square feet in area. I have some appreciation for that size as I have brought up a family of four of us on a main floor area which is 756 square feet.

I do think that there has been some opposition to this project, but again we have to remember that this is 101 units. We do have to consider the need for senior citizens' housing and give it not just some intellectual consideration but we have to consider it emotionally; think of that person who has been given some sort of an impossible rent increase to deal with; the person who is perhaps a widow living in a large home and running into maintenance problems.

The Member did point out the need for creating satellite cities and for some decentralization. I must say I concur wholeheartedly with the remarks, The vacancy rate, which for the last couple of years in Vancouver has been below one per cent, is a symptom of a great problem. Part of the problem is due, I suppose, to implementation of the Carter Royal Commission to which I referred earlier.

The suggestion of a builders' co-op somewhat similar to that which is experienced in Jamaica: this has also been used in Nova Scotia, and I understand quite successfully. One might integrate this with a recent innovation in housing and that is a computer-assisted framing device which will take an ordinary keg of nails and take dimension lumber and automatically place and create framing of a conventional type. So perhaps some savings could be made in terms of framing. There could be shell housing. People could be finishing this off. This would have to take place in areas which were not necessarily to be developed in a dense, highly integrated sort of way. But this could have a great deal of potential, especially outside of the central metropolitan area.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talked of the lack of incentives, the deducting of mortgage interest from tax and talked of the cost of money. The high cost of money is something on which I have made statements before; I also made them during my speech. I feel that any programme of housing will have to include a programme for mortgages, first mortgages as well as second mortgages.

I might like to correct the statement too, that the Minister was quoted as "not intending to create a Crown corporation." Well, I said that I would not create the British Columbia Housing Corporation via this Act, that it would be created by a special Act of the Legislature, that the vehicle for creating Crown corporations was visualized more for meeting specific tasks and specific needs.

The Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) has demonstrated great interest in the housing field and has been in touch with me on many occasions regarding housing — particularly concerned about development of the Vancouver metropolitan area and the potential his own riding has for meeting some of this need, in fact a great deal of the need.

He mentioned the Blair range. We have had a meeting with the Hon. Ron Basford, myself and members of our staff. We met with the mayor and councillors of the District of North Vancouver. We discussed the Blair range and it was agreed that a rational approach for development would be to develop the bottom end of the range — it's some 600-odd acres I believe. But approximately the bottom 150 acres would be most suitable to immediate development as there are services down there or close by.

A rational plan for developing those areas would be also to develop the two adjoining sides which are owned by the District of North Vancouver so that a three-party agreement would be desirable. A committee was struck but as there was a study being done of the east end of the district at that time, the committee met without prejudice to the results of that study. But we are hopeful that some development can take place there. We are looking forward to the cooperation and we feel that we could do a great deal in that area. We propose to pay for the costs of servicing, and this is the policy of both the provincial government and Central Mortgage and Housing.

The Member for Dewdney also mentioned a subject very dear to my heart — the complaint of construction companies that intend to go broke.

I had an experience with one of my constituents before I was elected. They had an experience with Design Craft Homes Ltd. which left many people in my riding, and I suppose all over British Columbia, with empty promises. These were not naive people; they checked out references of Design Craft Homes with their bank manager, with a lawyer — I don't know about the advisability of that — but they did. Due in no small measure to the efforts of the opposition caucus at that time which came up to Nelson to hear local problems, they were able, due to

[ Page 659 ]

the fact that this company had, in writing, promised them a mortgage, to recover full costs. But others did not have that promise. Others were not so fortunate. It's just amazing how a company can fold up, close out, leave the country and leave people high and dry with down payments of $5,000 and $2,500, and such, strewn all over the province for pre-fabricated homes which never got off the ground — usually one was built as a design model home somewhere. I think we will have to really do something about that. I think…well, some measures were taken in the last session.

It was mentioned that a $50 renter's grant should go to the handicapped disabled persons. I agree with this wholeheartedly because there is a real comparison that can be made especially with people who are on Mincome, on pension, and people who are on Mincome as handicapped persons. We are considering amendments which will bring this in line. I'd like to thank the Member for bringing that up.

The Hon. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) talked of a rational development of the James Bay area. I know of his interest in the capital region and his concern and his ideas are very worthy of consideration.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams): I was looking forward to his comments, and I can't say that they disappointed me. At least I can't say that I didn't enjoy them; I felt kind of like I had arrived to hear the Member castigating me. But I was disappointed that, in addition to his disparaging remarks, he was not his usual constructive self and didn't make too many of the constructive comments that we've come to expect from him on most occasions.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I wasn't being disparaging; I was being very kind to you.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: All right. Now as far as plans are concerned, Hon. Member, we have acquired lands with capability of providing about 3,000 housing units, largely in the Greater Vancouver and Victoria Capital Regional District areas, although we have also acquired other lands.

If we look at the history of the previous government, there are about 5,000 public housing units provided, about half of which were for families and the other half of which were for senior citizens. In addition to that, of course, there were about 11,000 housing units created under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act. So if we look at the number of units for families, there have been about 2,500 provided since about 1953.

With one of these property acquisitions, there is a potential for 1,200 units of housing — and that's just one. So I think that in terms of what we're looking at, we are considering different approaches for developing this. We're looking to make an announcement fairly soon on which way we'll be going. This property is in Burnaby, below the loop of Gaglardi Way. This was not taken from Simon Fraser; this was purchased land. And I don't think any of the other land has been taken from Simon Fraser either. I thought he died a long time ago.

So if you want to make comparisons and ask what has been done, you know, you do have to realize that it takes more than five months to crank up a development company, if you like. But we will be making an announcement fairly shortly.

In addition to this there has been quite a proliferation of cooperative housing and interest in cooperative housing. We've signed a lease agreement with Burquitlam Housing Co-op, about 60 units; I've already mentioned the Victoria Pioneer Co-op. There are about six other co-ops in the works at the moment and, with perhaps a little bit of seed money, the United Housing Foundation will be able to expand its operations in that area. So this will go a long way towards providing public housing.

We have, as I say, some 50-some-odd requests for various kinds of housing. We've also moved up in some places like Port McNeill. Where the municipality really wants housing, they have delivered.

The first trip I made upon becoming Minister Without Portfolio was a trip to the north Island. We heard the council from Port McNeill and their need for land outside of their boundaries — the need to expand. We've already responded to that. We're very close to responding to the needs of Port Hardy. We've announced some — I don't know how many — acres of land up in Prince Rupert in conjunction with Central Mortgage and Housing — Prince George, Williams Lake, and so on.

In addition to that there are many areas in Vancouver and Burnaby in which we're ready to move. We have acquired a partly-finished apartment block because, with the need today, we felt that we just couldn't leave something partly finished. It did have, as you can imagine that a partly-finished apartment block might have, a few little legal entanglements.

We had to very carefully go into that; we had to make very careful assessments of the value of the project and how much it would cost to complete. But I made a decision to go in there because we just can't afford to leave anything undone in the situation as we found it upon taking office.

The Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) has a great experience in municipal matters. He pointed out that the municipality of Delta had absorbed 21 per cent of the growth from 1966 to 1971, but I think we can look at this in many ways. I know there is a resistance to further vast growth in Delta, and yet I believe that this is one of the areas which is going to

[ Page 660 ]

have to create the large lion's share of the housing if we are going to solve the problem, because Delta does have lands outside of the agricultural reserve that are well-suited to housing. I'm looking forward to meeting with the municipality in Delta and I haven't had that pleasure yet.

That's sort of looking at things on a macro-scale. If you look on a micro-scale, you could look to the south-eastern corner of Vancouver and look at the rate at which development has gone on there in Champlain Heights. I suppose it has maybe caused some growth problems out there as well. It's very ironic that Vancouver is responding — although it has very little land left — quite well to the demands for creating housing when you consider the crowding that exists there today.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) did mention troubles in Prince George and, of course, I know he's also been interested in Williams Lake. We have responded to the need in Williams Lake and we've given the go-ahead for creating more service lots in that area. He did ask a question about the policy. The policy in Prince George and the policy in Williams Lake will be the same: it will be 60-year lease.

We're looking to recover the cost of servicing. In other words we say that the land…although it costs money, the cost of land should not be a factor; we're looking to recover the cost of servicing and not to make a profit. We've been able to keep down the land cost in Prince George over the years and we intend to continue doing so, but we will be leasing lands in those areas. There are private lands we hope to influence — the price of private lands — to keep down the price of fee simple lands by a land-lease policy.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) mentioned a trip which we gave. He always very modestly gives credit to Alderman Edith Gunning for the fine work which has been done in the municipality of Saanich in the provision of public housing, nice small projects of public housing which are an asset to the community.

A rather interesting side-light is that public housing was created in some parts of Saanich, and then fairly expensive, rather nice housing came in after the public housing and surrounded it. I think it's a tribute to Saanich and, perhaps, one of the brighter spots that I have seen in terms of public housing in this province — and all respect to the council and the mayor and Alderman Edith Gunning of Saanich.

The Member also stressed the need for long-term land banking and I would say that most of the property acquisitions which have been made to date have been of a short-term nature.

The need is so great we must find lands on which we can develop where the need is. But I am certainly keeping my eye on long-term acquisitions. We are in some discussions in some areas concerning areas which are out beyond the development fringe and which will be needed, perhaps, five or 10 years from now. I think that is something we can never lose sight of.

He also stressed this strange hang-up we have for the sanctity of a front yard, and I couldn't agree with him more on that point. If one travels to other countries, I haven't had the fortune of travelling too widely, but in Mexico I know there are many areas where the entrance is right on the sidewalk, but you go into the back yard and it is a completely different world and it's beautiful. I think this is something we should consider here in this part of North America. Also back in Quebec one finds this type of housing.

He and other Members referred to sweeping powers. I was a little taken aback, and still am, by the remarks of the second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). I felt he was quoting out of context and I still do. He quoted more or less something to the effect that for any purpose relating to housing the Minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor, sign agreements with something or any person, and so on and so forth. What was said in that section 1 is: "the Minister may," with "the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" or in lieu of any other action, he may on "behalf of the Crown…enter into an agreement…with the Government of Canada or with any municipality, or with any person or agency on behalf of such government or municipality."

In other words, it is in front of people that you sign agreements and affix signatures. And somebody who has been designated or given authority to sign agreements, perhaps in lieu of the mayor, can do so. Okay.

The Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) talked of the reassembly of certain VLA lands. I know that in some cases here on Vancouver Island VLA lands were originally subdivided with the intention or the possibility of a further subdivision being kept in mind so that these small acreages would have services and would have the houses and such located on them so that they could be further subdivided at some later date. In other areas there has been no consideration given to this and the problem of reassembly and redesigning VLA properties is a great problem. So I would say that the Member has made a very good suggestion in that case.

He talked of the need for transit corridors and for working and living in the same neighbourhood. He suggested taxing absentee owners on speculative land. The Member might be quite surprised to know that some of these development people who he often mentions in his speeches have made the same suggestion.

I think some of these development people…. There is a difference; there are developers, and, there are developers. Some of them are interested in speculative land holdings; others are interested in

[ Page 661 ]

building and creating housing. They are more builders than they are speculators. Some of them have to keep a land bank to provide continuity in their operations. These people who are interested in building have recommended the taxing of land that is being held speculatively. Perhaps this is not in my department, but I take the advice with great interest, as I did when it came to me from a land developer.

He has mentioned the activity of Block Brothers in the District of North Vancouver. I have discussed the whole problem of North Vancouver — and I shouldn't leave the impression that I am singling out the District of North Vancouver. There are other areas — I see where the City of New Westminster was auctioning off land. I suppose that under present practices they certainly would be due for criticism if they were to give the land away at less than market values. But as I suggested, if we could work out some system of controls and incentives to people to lease land, with some controls on speculative profits and windfalls, we might be able to form another alternative and meet the huge sector of the housing market which is being unfulfilled today.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) said that the government has not placed one lot up for sale or lease. I don't think that this is true because the government has been selling and leasing lots through municipalities. It did it under the previous administration and it is still doing it under this administration.

We've opened up a federal-provincial public housing project which was started under the previous administration. We've had ground-breaking ceremonies recently for other projects. To say where one thing leaves off and another begins — I suppose there will come the day when I will take part in both a ground-breaking ceremony and a ribbon cutting, perhaps, on the same site. But there has been some continuity and we will be looking to a real acceleration of activity so that within one year we will be providing more housing than the previous government did in 20 years.

The Member did suggest we should go out and purchase land in Burnaby and Delta. Okay, I agree. He said sell the land outright. I disagree.

I think the most modern thoughts, the economists and such that are coming together…. There has been a real proliferation of discussions on the rationale for land banking. There has been much call for government land banking, which the Member suggests. There is also call for government retaining the ownership of land, going against the notion of land as property, because it is almost like a drug.

We can go on and on accelerating the cost of land and putting it out of the reach of not just the low-income people but the average person. And where it will end is very hard to say. But should a person in one part of the province have a greater right to make speculative gains than a member in another part of the province? Should a person who lives in Trail, where there has only been two housing starts and no real shortage of housing — there are empty suites and such in Trail — be denied this form of income that the Member suggests is so much a part of our North American values?

I feel that what we should do is get the cost of housing down so that people can invest their money in other more enterprising forms of creating profit, if that is what they wish to do, Or else they can use that extra revenue for better enjoyment of life, Really, the whole concept of land as property is becoming quite in disrepute. It is taking time for the idea to sink down.

The real rationale, though, is this: if government really wants to do something to lower the price of housing, government has to put this property out at a low value which people can afford. It wouldn't do to put it out at a low value which people could afford only to have them turn around and realize a windfall profit. The logical alternative to that is simply to put it on leasehold.

The Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) talked of some of the difficulties in the unorganized areas, and the problem of company land contiguous to settlements being held and not allowing the proper orderly expansion of those settlements, villages and towns. I have run into this difficulty in some areas. We have had cooperation with certain companies. We've cleared up misunderstandings with other companies. I trust that companies will realize that this is in their best interests. One of the greatest causes of job turnover in these areas where we have small company towns is the lack of adequate housing.

They spent a lot of money providing housing in some of these towns. I think they should be only too willing and eager to let the provincial government and the municipality and the federal government take over this responsibility, and let the people, let the council, let the municipal officials, the village council, town council or the city council make the decisions about how the area should be developed.

The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has talked about the effect on the investment field. Well, I have been meeting with people in the investment field. I've had offers of substantial amounts of mortgage money, offers of cooperation. I've met with various organizations, real estate boards and some of the major developers, as well as meeting with HUDAC. They share our concern; they're eager to cooperate; they're eager to help. I don't see them being frightened out of the field. Their concern is for serviced property, for streamlining the system of getting approvals through municipalities. Just one phase of getting approval for a land-use contract can take about 90 days, and that's just one little step in the development process.

[ Page 662 ]

I hope to put a great deal of effort and consultation with municipalities and developers, bring them together and see what can be done to rectify the various time delays. Not all the time delays are with the municipalities; some of them are with the developers. The municipality gives the go-ahead and then the developer waits for an engineering report or something. There has to be something done to get some really critical path-flow to the solving of these problems and getting them through.

I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) rebutted any comments that were made concerning whatever effects Bill 42 might have had. I can only add that in the Province of Ontario they have a need for 300,000 to 400,000 housing units. They have the same inflated costs for property and they don't have Bill 42. I don't think we can cause and effect. If one studies the discipline of any sort of formal logic, it's rather difficult to demonstrate between any two events.

The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) has brought up the fact that building in the north has a very short season. I would hope that in cooperation with the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), we can work on bringing in sectional homes, pre-fabricated homes and such. I know that the Minister is also studying several different forms of innovative housing. He's had the B.C. Research Council assigned to some of these tasks and we're looking very closely, both of us, at some of these, one of which I mentioned'earlier.

I must say that the First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) brought up a very good point, especially about the condition of what he called "flop houses." I did mention in opening debate that I had been present at a ceremony marking the beginning of the renovation of hotels like the Central Hotel. The Hon. Member was present at that and spent a great deal of time going through the various old hotels which were being renovated by the United Housing Foundation.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): He also did a pub crawl.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Hear, hear.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) said we should encourage people to own their own homes, I do feel that part of our leasing programme does. While there's no panacea for the housing programme, certainly we visualize people having an ownership of the home on that leased land and not being subject to the annual haggles with a landlord, the decisions of whether to paint or not to paint, who's going to pay for it or who should repair a cracked toilet, whether or not they're housekeeping properly and should be evicted or shouldn't be evicted. We are looking for encouragement of people being able to make their own decisions about the home in which they live. The lease of the land would not in any way affect that type of security which people could have. We're looking to bring a mortgage in that type of situation down to a level where people of almost all incomes in this province could enjoy this kind of security.

The problem of what happens at the end of a lease was brought up by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland); The problem is one of which I am well aware. There has been an experience in England and other places where these long-term leases are drawing to a close. There has to be some consideration given to values and measures taken to ensure the upkeep of those areas at that time.

I think the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) brought up a very good point in terms of the policies of the past government when he referred to the Arrow Lakes. It's an area to which I am quite close and I've met many of these dispossessed people who were forced out of their homes. It must be a tremendous culture shock to go and find that your community no longer exists, that it's under water.

I might also say that the action taken towards rehabilitating Natal-Michel would not be taken by this government. If the Premier of that day wished to have a more attractive entrance to the Province of British Columbia on the southern trans-provincial highway, I think he should have moved the highway and not the town.

Mr. Speaker, this government is looking forward to the tremendous challenge which has been posed by many different factors. We find that there is the need for creating a department of housing. I'm personally looking forward to this challenge; there's much interest in it.

There are many young and experienced people coming to us, expressing their willingness to even come at a cut in pay to take part in the creation of a provincial government intervention into the field of housing. I think on the federal scene we have the example of Bill Terron, who was a developer; one might say he was a rip-off artist. Bill Terron has seized the challenge in public housing, or in social housing. There are many, many people like him who are willing to give up the old ways of the free enterpriser to accept this challenge, to break new ground in housing which has to be broken if we're going to make the kind of progress that has to be made to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I'm drawing to the end of my remarks, you might be relieved to hear, and I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 663 ]

YEAS — 47

NAYS — 4

Bill 49 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

PERSONAL INFORMATION
REPORTING ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill, may I say that we've passed the days of a rural society when everyone knew everyone else, their background, their character and their credit predictability, and we've entered an electronic age of surveillance and banking and retrieval of information of all kinds about individuals.

Now it is important that business be able to predict with some accuracy the likelihood of obligations being met, and in no way does this bill block the flow of essential and legitimate credit information. But it is, nevertheless, a little blow struck for human dignity and privacy, because the abuses that unquestionably prevail today in terms of credit agencies and investigative agencies, both of which are covered by this Act, are something that ought to be curbed.

Who steals my purse steals gold. Who damages my reputation steals my passport to a job, to insurance, to a credit card or even to rental accommodation. Therefore, in this bill, respecting as we can the needs of commerce and the rights of privacy, we propose that there shall be a registrar of both the credit bureaus and the investigative agencies, and that only those people who are fit and prepared to meet proper legal and ethical standards be registered; that there be power to suspend the registration of those who do not meet those standards; that there be an appeal — and I say this in deference to the Liberal Party — to the B.C. Securities Commission and even to the B.C. Court of Appeal against refusal of a registration or suspension of a registration.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you want an appeal in the labour bill too to bring the courts into that process?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. The bill provides that the files of individuals must be stored in Canada and that there should be access to those files available during regular business hours to the individual on whom a report has been compiled. The Act provides a bundle of rights so far as the individual is concerned.

To begin with, it says that a reporting agency can only make a report to a person who has a legitimate business need for that report. The trafficking in reports and the trafficking in health reports that have gone into insurance companies is something that would be forbidden under this bill, because there will be one source and one source only for such information; that will be a duly registered agency under this bill.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The bill restricts in another section the kinds of information that may not be obtained and recorded with respect to individuals. section 12 of the bill ensures to the individual that he either has notice that a report is to be prepared upon him when he, say, applies for credit, or he consents to the preparation of such a report. It's not a difficult matter administratively because in applying for credit the notice can be spelled out in big block letters on the application for credit — "a credit report is being ordered upon you in support of your application from such and such agency."

There is provision that if a benefit is denied to an individual as a result of a report, credit or investigative, that individual must be advised that he has been rejected by reason of the contents of that report. There is provision that the individual will be able to examine his file — in other words, the right to know. There is provision that the individual will be able to insert corrections on his file up to a limit of 100 words per item, something that will prove exceedingly difficult for Members of this Legislature

[ Page 664 ]

to accomplish in so few words as that.

So there's the right to know, the right to correct and the right that if a correction is entered upon a person's file, that correction should go out to whatever agency has requested the report if it relates to an event within the past 12 months.

Finally, there are the enforcement provisions of the Act and they are three-pronged. There is the right to cancel registrations, there is the right to obtain a supreme court injunction and there are fines and penalties built into the Act. And in conclusion, may I say that we are keeping up with the country of Sweden, one of the heartlands of democracy — social, that is. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): There's only one kind.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is in this year introducing similar legislation as I see by this note which said, "Sweden regulates those snooping data banks." Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'll be very brief in my remarks concerning this bill. We have read the bill and we have checked with reporting services in the Province of British Columbia. They agree that this is the type of legislation they would like to see on the books and they also point out that in many cases the bill is placing in a legislative form a service that they have, themselves, initiated in many cases.

Those that have initiated it feel that it is worthwhile, and they would like to see everyone that is involved in the same line of business required to report and have their books open on the same basis.

We think that it is a type of legislation that will be well-accepted generally by the public and by those people who operate the reporting services. Therefore, we will support the bill.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What is being suggested this afternoon by the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), Mr. Speaker, is just as very little ray of light into the darkness in the field of individual rights in this province. Yet we heard from the New Democratic Party, and particularly from the Attorney General when he was in opposition, these marvelous speeches over the years about great beams of sunshine that were going to come into the laws of British Columbia and, specifically, which were going to be found in the field of government business. Now the only thing he can do is sit in the chamber and point to the illumination overhead, because he certainly hasn't done anything over and apart from that.

In the throne speech, the very first throne speech of this government, they enunciated that their No. 1 priority was to have a human rights Act in the Province of British Columbia. Since that enunciation we have run into complete silence. I would ask: where are the laws, Mr. Speaker, establishing the right of the citizen to go to the courts of this land for redress against his government? Absolutely none.

Where is the right of a citizen to the services of an independent ombudsman for governmental abuses? Absolutely none. Where are the laws of fair compensation? Absolutely none, notwithstanding that we had a very thorough examination by the Law Reform Commission and also by a committee of this House over a session ago. Where is the universal legal aid or "judicare" in the Province of British Columbia?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the principle of the bill rather than discussing the shortcomings of the government.

MR. GARDOM: In speaking to the principle of the bill, we can only run into the many unprincipled shortcomings of the government, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not wish to transgress the rules of debate, but I cannot help these things tumbling forth, as I'm sure every Member in the House would definitely agree with.

I would also ask where, Mr. Speaker, by analogy, do we find the right of a citizen to see that the government — the business of this government — is done in public, is heard in public and is published in public?

The Attorney General makes a great point of this particular bill in saying what great protections he's provided for the individual. He has provided protection for the individual in the private sector only. Then he goes ahead and makes a great deal of the fact that we are keeping up with Sweden. Well, I'd say we're falling back to the year 1066 in England insofar as individual rights are concerned in this province. We are bringing in legislation that is continuing to only nibble at the pillars of protections against abuses as opposed to coming ahead and facing the matter full square.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Attorney General is making light of the point but, if he would remember a little bit of his history of law, 1066 started it. It was followed by Henry II and it came into the law of British Columbia at that time to accept the common law of England. And in accepting the common law of England, it accepted one thing very, very clearly: it accepted the protection of individual rights.

Individual rights in this province today are not being protected; they are being eroded every day by the legislation that you are bringing in.

[ Page 665 ]

We agree with the principle of this thing. It's fine and dandy, but I find it very difficult to sit here and have rather sanctimonious talk coming from that side of the House about what a great thing this is for individual rights. It is just a piffle insofar as individual rights are concerned, It is about high time the government brought a little bit of action, did a few things and, if nothing else, if nothing else, kept up with their campaign promises and their platform promises which are still on the books of their party. They are being criticized within their own party for not complying with those things.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we welcome this Act and we realize the embarrassment it must bring to the Attorney General to impose a double standard on the people of British Columbia — one standard for the people whom he controls and another standard for himself and his friends. But, still and all, the general public, who have been mistreated by credit information agencies over many years, will welcome this particular Act.

I think it ought to be called the "Barrie Clark Act" because it was the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour who introduced this legislation year after year after year. A fine Member he was, Mr. Speaker, a fine Member he was.

Long before the Attorney General was thinking of this kind of protection, the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour was drafting appropriate legislation and introducing it into the House. It's been my responsibility, if you like, to carry on the tradition and keep advancing a bill along these particular lines. I am so happy that I will be able to ask leave of the House to withdraw the bill that I was going to introduce on this particular subject.

There have been other bills parallel to this one which require the provincial government itself to do the same kinds of things that the Attorney General in this bill requires the credit-reporting agencies to do. So what we have is an open-file system for the credit-reporting agencies and a closed-file system for the government.

I remember the former First Member for Vancouver-Burrard speaking as a Member when he was a backbencher and again when he was, briefly, Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. Berger); his proudest achievement, had he been heading a government, and in putting forward his programme to the people, was that of an open file where a citizen could see the information held against him, whether it was by a credit-reporting agency or whether it was by the government itself.

The citizen isn't to have that privilege. Oh, if it is a credit-reporting agency, he can go before that judge now and get redress in the private sector. But the files of the government remain closed. The double standard exists in British Columbia: one for the private sector — the non-socialist sector — and the other for the government sector — the socialist sector. That is the closed-file sector, that one.

That is where the information is held secret. This is where the individual doesn't have rights. Those things controlled by the socialists: that's where he doesn't have rights. For the other part, those rights are beginning to appear and we welcome that part. We only hope that the day will not be too long delayed when the citizens of this province will have the full range of human rights.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I sat with interest. I was particularly interested in finding that the retail credit companies and companies of that order are interested in this kind of legislation in that they will all come into the fold and so therefore won't have to worry about the competition, I would like to suggest, however, that there's not very much competition in that field. I'd like to also suggest that many of them are not, as they sound, companies out to gain credit information; they're out to gain information as to one's character, as to one's suspected character, and that type of thing.

I had a great deal of experience with these organizations over a great number of years, so all I can suggest, Mr. Speaker, despite that kind of discussion we had from the Liberal Party, is that we welcome this legislation. It's much needed, long overdue, and isn't in any way comparable to the government situation and they know it, And if they know it, and if they know it to this extent, then open up those Liberal files, you bunch of name-callers. What are you talking about over there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. COCKE: Absolutely. All that discussion was totally and completely irrelevant. I'm embarrassed for them making those kinds of assertions in this House, Mr. Speaker, terrible assertions, talking about the socialist files and so on. What ridiculousness! How about the Conservative files and how about the Liberal files over the years that have never been opened, and, as long as those parties are in power, never will be opened? Such an abysmal display of foolishness. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In closing the debate, may I say there are no double standards in this bill, which is what the Legislature is discussing, although it would seem to be otherwise. If there is a Crown corporation, for example, doing business in the Province of British Columbia, and there is and there

[ Page 666 ]

will be, it will have to abide by the terms of this Act if it orders a credit report in the course of its business. So there is no double standard.

In relation to the other things that are suggested that should be done in this province by the Hon. Liberal Members, may I say this is only October and we don't want to rifle the Hon. Member's legislative programme too quickly. What would he run on? What would be his next legislative programme? There should be patience as one by one in this province we enact the full NDP programme. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 63 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of Bill 67.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
DISTRESS AREA ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, this legislation was amended in the spring session to make provision for the provincial government to enter into agreement with the federal government to share equally in loans that were made under the federal Farm Improvement Loans Act. When it referred to banks, we also provided for the inclusion of credit unions.

The amendments we're bringing in now are to clarify the legislation. It has been rather loosely interpreted in the past for purposes other than re-seeding, although in reading the legislation literally, one would get the impression that it is only in cases of re-seeding that the legislation may be used. The amendments before us now would clarify the allowance for discounts on principal and interest so that they may be used for purposes other than re-seeding.

In addition to that, within designated areas, providing for distressed area assistance, advisory boards may be named to assist the Minister in determining when the provisions of this legislation should be made available to individuals to relieve apparent hardship cases. Of course, before that happens, it would have to be declared as a distressed area by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. With that, it would then be possible to name an advisory board in that locality who would give advice as to the application of the Act. I move second reading.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this amendment. I only have one question to pose to the Minister in discussing the principle of this legislation.

Why, when we're providing for subsidization of losses, do we restrict them to abnormal drought, flood or frost conditions? I'm not sure what an abnormal flood is. Maybe the Minister has a definition. It would seem to me that any drought, flood or frost conditions in an area causing any loss to the agricultural community should be subject for assistance.

I'd like the Minister also, Mr. Speaker, to indicate why the word "fire" hasn't been included in drought, flood and frost conditions. An area in this province today is one to which some distress is being caused to the farming community as a result of fire. I don't raise any question as to how that fire occurred, but in the Province of British Columbia it should now be realized that the possibility of fire can create very serious distress to the farming community. I think that the inclusion of that might be considered.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay, with his great perception, has also pointed out that "tempest" is a problem that we sometimes face. So why don't we cover all of the natural conditions: fire, flood and wind. Let us provide distressed-area assistance for any of those reasons.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, when is a drought a drought? In the Kamloops area, the normal rainfall is 12 inches. Certainly if we had 12 inches of rain in this area, that would be a drought for this area, but in Kamloops it's normal. When they get something like 6 inches, then it's abnormal for Kamloops and we would then call it a distress area, as we have this year for fodder production. It's the lowest in 20 years, I'm told, which is an example of something that is abnormal, You will recall from what I said and from what you know of this legislation, it does call for federal participation. When we're dealing with abnormal situations like the lowest in 20 years, then we can hope for federal participation. When we're dealing with normal drought situations — and I say 12 inches in Kamloops would be a drought here but it's a normal situation up there — we couldn't expect federal participation under the Distress Area Assistance Act. We are hoping for federal participation under the Farm Income Assurance Act, and I'm confident we will receive the support of all Members when we come to that.

In case of fire, again, this is something that is covered. The specific situations you're alluding to are to be covered under the Provincial Major Disaster Fund; payments come out of that. But again, they are not applicable to the purpose of the Distress Area Assistance Act. I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 667 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 67 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

(continued)

House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, section 4 is the appropriation section and places the power in the hands of the cabinet to provide for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), in turn to provide for the purposes of this Act, amounts of money without limit. It is in part because of this overwhelming power that I have expressed opposition to this bill.

We have in previous legislation, in previous sessions, maintained the position that the spending responsibility, while vesting with the cabinet, should not be used o destroy the authorization responsibility, which is that of this Legislature as representatives of the people of this province.

It is traditional with British parliaments that the raising of money by taxation and the allocation of money to the executive council are the specific responsibility of the Legislature. Yet here again we find, in this bill, important as the object of the bill may be, further indication on the part of this government that it proposes to nullify, in fact destroy, the fundamental purpose for the legislators of this province to be here.

I have said before, and I think it must be repeated again, that the whole reason for our being in this chamber traditionally is to approve legislation for the benefit of the people of British Columbia; and having received those rights from the Crown, then in exchange to give the Crown the right to raise moneys by taxation and to spend those moneys. And here we are doing just the opposite.

Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to section 4, by deleting the section in its entirety and substituting the following:

"All moneys required to be expended for the purpose of establishing, carrying out and administering a farm income plan shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund with moneys authorized by an Act of the Legislature and, for the fiscal year 1973-74, shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Account of that fund in such amount as the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may, in that fiscal year, authorize."

HON. MR. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On a point of order. I wonder if I can ask for your ruling as to the propriety of that amendment in the hands of a private Member? It is the first occasion we have had during this current session of the Legislature to get a ruling. I think it is about time we did get this ruling nailed down once and for all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule this amendment out of order under standing order…

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, how could it be out of order in committee for us to move a change which returns to this Legislature the decision as to how much money is to be given to the Minister of Finance? If that is the case then we can't even debate the supply bill. Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if you will reconsider that decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the case of the Committee of Supply, this is a different matter and as provided for, this is the normal place to debate such expenditures. However, as an amendment to a bill, such amendment must be brought in by a Member of the Crown and is out of order in the hands of a private Member. Section 66.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, if the amendment is out of order, I'd like to speak on section 4 in committee to say that we in this party are completely in accord with the point of view just expressed by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams).

The whole question of finances and the method by which governments raise and spend money has to be, if not the most important responsibility, certainly one of the most important responsibilities to be assumed by any legislator in this House. The free and easy way in which this bill allows cabinet to spend money, which in effect the legislators have not had an accurate description of, makes a mockery of our responsibility to the people who elected us.

This section 4 typifies much of the legislation since this government came to power where all it ever expresses is an intention to help a farmer, or someone finding a house, or someone to have a better standard in a particular business.

It has been stated by more than one previous speaker, but particularly eloquently by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, that it is not

[ Page 668 ]

reasonable of the government in our opinion to put this general description of the way money will be expended, with no definite limitations or descriptions in the bill, and expect us simply to approve this very general, vague, limitless expenditure of taxpayers' money.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm delighted with today's bill. It's obvious that the Minister of Agriculture is getting better all the time, because some of the content — and I'll pass over it-very lightly — of the legislation introduced today, shows that we are at least getting a little in the way of some kind of limitation or specific definition of figures. But in section 4 of this bill, there are absolutely no guidelines whatever as to the sums of money which could be involved in what might turn out to be some disastrous programme where guarantees or moneys are made available to the farming community. And until this House sits again, the legislators would be powerless in any way to influence what we might consider irresponsible or inefficient spending.

Or it may be inadequate. I'm emphasizing too much the opportunity that they have to spend too much money. It may well be that we might criticize because they're not providing enough money. But the fact is that there should be some guidelines, some specific figures which we, the opposition, have an opportunity to debate intelligently and to say whether or not, within the need of the farming community, the figures provided in section 4 would or would not be adequate.

In the light of that point, which I don't think the Members of all opposition parties can recite too often, there's an air of optimism in our party today that the bill does seem to show that the Minister recognizes our criticism and has introduced some ballpark figures into today's bill. But as far as section 4 is concerned, we strenuously oppose section 4.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): We certainly are going to oppose this section. The reason we are going to oppose it is, as I said when I brought in the amendment to section 1 in second reading, that we are doing away with the authority vested in this Legislature to vote on the people's money.

I don't know why the Minister of Agriculture seems to be so het up about having legislation passed which gives him a complete blank cheque. This is just more of the completely high-handed, dictatorial attitude of this government that has far too large a majority in this House for its own good. It should be cut down to size. I'm sure that the people of this province will, at the first opportunity, cut it down to size.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please confine his remarks to section 4?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about section 4, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about spending money, the people's money, the taxpayers' money.

Section 4 is a blank cheque. Why call the Legislature? If you passed section 4 and all the bills in this House, you wouldn't even have to call the Legislature together; you wouldn't need a budget and you wouldn't need the legislators. That's what section 4 is all about — the dictatorial, high-handed attitude of this overpowering government.

The reason there are no figures, not even ballpark figures in this section, Mr. Chairman….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You're after the leadership.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm maybe not after the leadership, Mr. Minister of Transport, but I'm after protecting the ratepayers of this province. You don't seem to care. Your high-handed, dictatorial, overpowering, crushing attitude towards legislation you're bringing in in this section….

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: One of the reasons there are no figures in this particular section is that the Minister of Agriculture has no idea how much this Act is going to cost the taxpayers of B.C. No idea whatsoever.

And the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who is supposed to look after the finances of this province, allows him to bring in this legislation. The Minister of Finance doesn't have any idea of how much money this is going to cost, but the Minister of Finance says, and I've heard him say it before: "We'll take another dip in the well. There's lots of money in British Columbia. So what if it costs another four, five or $10 million? The Socreds left us a well that's filled, and we don't have to be financial experts in this province. All we have to do is dig, and until it gets close to the bottom we don't have to worry."

That's how you run this government, Mr. Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and you know it. You don't have to worry about finances. If you had to run a business like a business should be run, you wouldn't be able to do it. But as long as you've got unlimited resources, you just keep on passing legislation. "We'll just take another slice off the cake, another cup out of the well. It's never going to be missed because there's so much there. And the taxpayers won't really care, they won't know. Their taxes aren't going to go up."

I'll tell you in a few years, Mr. Chairman, they'll know. When their taxes start going up they'll know, This government is running by the seat of its pants.

Interjections.

[ Page 669 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member keep his remarks strictly relevant to section 4? And I would ask the other Hon. Members not to interrupt him, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, section 4 is in this bill because the Minister of Agriculture is panicking. He has put agriculture in such a state in this province by Bill 42 that he has to bring in blank-cheque legislation to try to get himself out of the position he's in. Agriculture in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, is on the decline. Figures for investment in farm equipment in all the other provinces in Canada for the first seven months this year are up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, we are in committee. I would ask the Hon. Member to observe standing order 61(2), speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. Would the Hon. Member not discuss the bill in principle, but rather confine his remarks to section 4?

MR. PHILLIPS: Might I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that when a cabinet Minister brings in such broad, sweeping generalities of legislation, we should certainly be allowed a little leeway in our debate on such a blank cheque. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) asks us in the Legislature to give him a signed, blank cheque to spend on this bill any amount of money that he wants, and you were trying to tell us that we can't debate around it. It's so broad and all-encompassing, this section of the Act, that we should be able to debate any section of agriculture. Blank-cheque legislation, brought in by a government that doesn't know how to run their affairs, doesn't know how much the legislation is going to cost the people of British Columbia, doesn't know where they are going. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has no idea how much it's going to cost and asks the Legislature just to sign a blank cheque. Mr. Chairman, do you think that's fair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point that you're making, Hon. Member, is one which properly belongs in debate on second reading. It involves the principle of the bill. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to section 4.

MR. PHILLIPS: The principle of this section, Mr. Chairman, the principle of section 4 of the Farm Income Assurance Act, the principle involved is that the government doesn't know how to run the affairs of this province. That's the principle involved in section 4. The principle involved in section 4 is that the government wants us to continually give them a blank cheque to do anything they want to do. That's what's involved in section 4. That's the principle involved in section 4, Mr. Chairman. You know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't propose to instruct the Hon. Member on the proper method of debate, but I would point out that in committee we debate the specifics of section 4 rather than the principle which is embodied in it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The principle, Mr. Chairman — and I'm not going to belabour the point (laughter) — the principle involved in section 4 is blank-cheque legislation from a government which is too powerful, which disregards the Legislature, which wants us just to give them the power to go ahead and do anything. We're certainly going to vote against this section.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I found the remarks of the previous Member very interesting — tedious but interesting, He takes a point and he traipses it back and forth across the floor, tramples it to death and rolls it in the dust. But he does make the point. (Laughter.)

I want to associate myself, too, with the remarks of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) because, like the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), he makes a very valid argument against blank-cheque legislation. He points out the dangers of section 4.

I'm not going to take the time of the House to read the section because I think you, Mr. Chairman, and the other Members of the House understand what this section says. But I will give the government credit for consistency. They always thought this sort of thing was okay, even when they were in opposition. And, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Oak Bay and the Member for South Peace River found it very convenient to support the former government when they invented the concept of blank-cheque legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member, if he has a new point to raise in this particular section, that he bring it up. The Hon. Member is straying from the subject.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure it is very wearisome for some of these Members to be reminded of their past when they twist around and find it convenient to follow one policy one year and another policy the next.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to section 4?

MR. McGEER: I'm trying to get to this point, Mr. Chairman, as rapidly as I can. I think that if you give me just a few seconds you'll see what I'm leading up to.

[ Page 670 ]

I realize that you weren't here at the time this whole concept of giving to the Minister of Finance, or other Ministers of the Crown, blank cheques to prey upon consolidated revenue was introduced. But what's happened, and why it's necessary for the responsible Members of the opposition now to begin to dig in their heels at every single section of this kind that begins to appear in the legislation and to vote against the legislation itself whenever it appears, is that it has become a widespread disease. There are now so many blank cheques loose in the hands of Crown agencies and various Ministers of the Crown that we are laying against ourselves a very heavy debt for the future.

This year, Mr. Chairman, it's fine, because we are going to have over $2 billion in revenue. That's what the people of British Columbia are going to divvy up to this government and there will be the surpluses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member did tell us that he would raise a new point under this section and so far he has not done so. I would ask the Hon. Member if he has some new point to raise relevant to this section….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): He can raise anything he likes. He doesn't have to raise a new one.

MR. McGEER: It's the drip, drip, drip of water on the hard, hard stone. We've got to make this point about blank-cheque legislation or one day, as the Member for South Peace River said, that well is going to be dry. It's all very well in this year when there's a bountiful harvest of money coming in because of all the taxes the good citizens of British Columbia are paying to this socialist government. But if we have Crown agency after Crown agency with these kinds of sections in them, what we have given out is a basketful of blank cheques. Mr. Chairman, do you see the danger of that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern, but we are in committee. I would ask him if he has no new point to raise under section 4 that he take his seat; otherwise that he raise a new point

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's ridiculous!

MR. McGEER: Do you think it's wise to pass a section like this when there are so many others of a similar kind? How many blank cheques do you think it's appropriate to give in one year?

AN HON. MEMBER: In one session? In one week?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Members of this House have got to sit and consider things like this.

Because if there are blank cheques….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have asked the Hon. Member to raise a new point or else take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: There's no requirement in this House that we pass onto a new point until we've made the previous one. Unless I can see some glimmer of understanding in the eyes of those cabinet Members over there as to what the path is in this province, if we continue to have no restraints at all over the spending of government revenues, if this Legislature is to debate a budget which is a mockery, to pass legislation after legislation giving any amount of money to any farm income plan or to the Minister of Finance to buy any corporation….

Mr. Chairman, these Ministers are on a shopping spree with the taxpayers' money. As the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) pointed out, the Minister of Agriculture wants to buy his way out of trouble. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) wishes to buy any number of businesses. He got a taste of it when he was managing condominiums.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member to section 43, the section on debate, which states that the Member is out of order if he persists in irrelevance or in tedious repetition, either of his own argument or of tedious arguments used by other Members in the debate. Now the point I've made is that the Hon. Member is….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: …on what's tedious and what's brilliant because….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's important that we make the vital points in this House.

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

MR. McGEER: Now just a minute, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Chairman is making a ruling. You have to sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated, please?

There are two points I'd like to make. The first is that the debate is to be strictly relevant to this

[ Page 671 ]

particular section and is not to debate again the principle of the bill. This point was debated during the consideration of the second reading.

The second point is that he should not repeat repetitiously the arguments that have already been presented. On both grounds I am ruling that he is out of order and I would ask the Hon. Member to raise a new point.

Point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The problem is this, that we cannot pass over a certain point and then you rule all other discussion of it out of order and at the same time fulfill our responsibilities to our constituents. Now, as you know, you're a minister of the church, Mr. Chairman, not yet a Minister of the Crown. And the way you're going, you may not make it. But you're a minister of the church. I'd like to refer you to St. Luke, 15, and if you like I'll read it to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will you state your point of order, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it's this, that even the good Lord himself had to repeat three times the story of the lost coin, the lost….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now, what are we to do? We have an excellent precedent and it's Luke, 15. Would you like me to quote it to you?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Even the good Lord rejects the Liberal Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Hon. Member has made his point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, no, no, Mr. Chairman. There's the lost son. You know the story of the lost son?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Second Member for Victoria be seated, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What I'm suggesting to you is this, that sometimes, when you're dealing with dense people, it is necessary to repeat a story a number of times in different guises so that they finally come around.

AN HON. MEMBER: We keep on telling the Liberals.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We here are quite willing to spend our time….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Second Member for Victoria be seated? Now the point I have made again is that an Hon. Member, during debate, may not repeat repetitiously the arguments of others, and also that the discussion must be strict.; relevant to the point under debate. I ruled that the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was out of order on both counts. I will allow the Hon. Member to proceed if he can raise a new point.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you know, during committee we're entitled to speak on a particular section as often as we desire to speak and the section does not pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that the Hon. Member is correct, providing that you are not repetitious.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I haven't had nearly enough opportunity to make this point 67 times and I've not used tedious and repetitious language. What I've tried to do is to develop different illustrations centering around the general theme.

Now Mr. Chairman, the problem is that there is only one point in section 4, that point being that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has free reign on the Treasury. And in order to make that point you have to use these vivid illustrations of the various things that he can do. You see, Mr. Chairman, it's like asking for the keys to the Treasury and being handed a shovel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In that case I would ask the Hon. Member to take his seat.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think that I'm beginning to make my point now. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to take his seat.

MR. McGEER: I'm not going to try the Chair, but I would ask that we vote against this particular section. (Laughter.)

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Under this very precise section, Mr. Chairman, the government is really, inch by inch and hour by hour, emasculating the due concepts of the parliamentary process. And what the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) valiantly attempted to do with his amendment was return to

[ Page 672 ]

British Columbia the proper function of this Legislature. Under this section, Mr. Chairman, what the government is doing essentially is designating — which is their favorite word — the duties and the functions and the responsibilities of the elected representatives unto cabinet. We may as well, if this process is going to continue in other sections, such as under this one, just have one holus bolus, omnipotent and omnibus bill giving all power unto the government's cabinet to raise money, to spend money for what, when, how, if, as and when cabinet and only cabinet considers necessary. You don't find under this section….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you put that in writing?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, the Premier thinks that he'd like to have that, He'd like to have an omnibus bill and we'd have one day a year of session. This is the type of regulated economy that the socialists wish to bring in to the Province of British Columbia. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is nodding his head. He's definitely in accord. So that we've certainly got two; we've got one Waffle and one pancake agreeing with my premise. Apart from that the others are sort of riding a little bit of the rail over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I do not wish to be unkind to the Hon. Member, but I would also have to rule him out of order on the same grounds as the previous speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Under this section, Mr. Chairman, I defy you to inform me where there's any degree of government accountability. Surely to goodness it's in order to draw that fact to the attention of the people of this province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If I have made the point that this point has been well made by previous members, then it should not be tediously and repetitiously repeated.

MR. GARDOM: Well, if its been well made, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to see that. Because at long last we're perhaps getting the message across to at least one Member of the government side that the point has been well made. But it doesn't seem to have been well made by the remainder of the government Members. If we're going to continue on with sections such as section 4, we may as well just close this place up, forget about accountability, have one session a year and go to the public only at the time of election and say, "Okay. Now you've got your opportunity to approve of what government has done. If you like us vote us back in; and if you do not like us, vote us back out." Because what we have here is the destruction of the parliamentary process.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the Hon. Member will vote against the section.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): So far, I hope I'm in order. (Laughter.)

I do think in listening to the debate that you have been a little over-zealous in exercising your duty in your capacity as Chairman of committee, because it is hard to debate section 4 without referring to the preoccupation of the government with supplying blank cheques for different departments. Now the purpose of this particular section of the bill is to provide the appropriation to the Minister of Agriculture to administer a farm income plan. It spells out nothing in detail except that revenue will be appropriated. It gives no ballpark figures or any sum of money. I think it's right in this particular section for us to question, not only the amount of funds that the Minister will require, but it's also right for us to question what we really are talking about when we say a farm income plan.

A farm income plan, according to the interpretation of the Act says, "a plan howsoever described and provided in any way for paying of money." Now if that isn't the broadest of terms, I don't know what is. I don't think it is possible, Mr. Chairman, for anyone to describe in any broader terms than that, the power that is included in this Act. Unfortunately, it's not the only Act by far that we have experienced coming before this Legislature.

That is why we're concerned about this kind of legislation. That is why, while the plan of income assurance is good, we will not support section 4. It is blank-cheque legislation to a Minister who obviously is trying to bail himself out of a hole that he placed himself in with Bill 42.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in this section 1 want to point out in all sincerity to the government that you could be dealing with a vast amount of money. Nobody knows how much money. The world of finance is very foreign to the socialist hordes over there. They're not aware that there must be checks and balances in the spending of public funds. There must be checks and balances in politics.

What they are doing here, they're asking for the blank cheque, but they're taking out all the checks against how much money is going to be written in where it says to pay that amount of money to the order of, So there is no balance. They are asking for a blank cheque. The check should be here in the

[ Page 673 ]

Legislature on how much that cheque is going to be for so that we can check the balance. But the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who is foreign to his new job — I think he's alienated from it….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've listened very patiently to you. So far, you have not yet raised a new point under this section. If there is not a new point to raise, I'd ask you to….

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Minister of Finance is getting my point, Mr. Chairman. He knows that under this particular section we could in essence have the cheapest apples in the world, because the Minister of Finance is given a complete blank cheque to go out and finance apple growers by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

He doesn't ask us how much he's going to subsidize the apple growers, how much the apples are going to sell for. It could be the same with beef; it could be the same with any product that is grown here or produced in British Columbia that has to do with agriculture. And this Legislature is going to have no say whatsoever. So we might end up with the cheapest food in British Columbia. Then people would come here from all over Canada to buy our food. Because this is exactly what this section allows the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to do. There is no check or balance in this section, Mr. Chairman. You know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is debating the principle of the bill. The point you're making could be….

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not debating the principle of the bill. I'm debating….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point that you're making should properly be considered under debate on second reading on the principle of the bill. Now if you have no new comments to make under section 4, as properly provided for in committee, I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just allow me to say that I'm hurt that you would cut off my microphone.

MR. McGEER: I noticed that button, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's very cruel!

MR. PHILLIPS: My microphone is turned off when I'm trying to save the taxpayers of British Columbia their money, I'm trying to keep this Legislature going, I'm trying to keep the checks and balances in this Legislature and my microphone is turned off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Praise the mike.

MR. PHILLIPS: How can I do my duty to the people of this great province when they cut off my microphone?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: How are they going to hear me with my microphone cut off?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members be seated please, on both sides of the House? Order, please! Would the Hon. Members be seated?

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn him on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm distressed that you would not accept my references to Luke, 15, also found in Mark and Matthew as well about the lost coin, lost son and of course the lost sheep. I think you could, Mr. Chairman, as a minister of the Anglican Church, perhaps go home this evening and study the Bible a little closer.

Now, Mr. Chairman, having quoted the Bible, I will quote Mr. Chief Justice McRuer of Ontario who noted that "excessive and/or unnecessary power conferred on public authorities corrupts and destroys democratic institutions and gives life to all forms of tyranny, some petty and some extreme." And that's the type of excessive power that we're talking about today.

Now I'd like to quote something not quoted before from a report by 28 of the 31 full-time members of the UBC law faculty of last year. They were referring to another piece of legislation, but their quote is appropriate to us today. What they said was:

"Our system of public administration has evolved along lines which recognize the need for administrative decision-making to take place in an environment of articulated principles and standards. Administrative decisions are subject to review if the decision-makers disregard those principles or standards or if the decision-maker allows factors to affect his judgment which are irrelevant to the principles and standards that he is directed to apply."

Now, it continues:

"Legislation which fails to include standards or principles but confers an absolute discretion on the decision-maker, constitutes a frontal attack on the system of public administration and represents a major threat to the rule of law and

[ Page 674 ]

to any idea of decency in public affairs."

That was the statement of 28 of 31 full-time faculty members of the UBC Law School.

It was quoted to this Legislature on March 21, 1972. It was quoted to this Legislature in reference to another piece of legislation which was granting essentially the same type of dictatorial powers to Ministers of the Crown, namely An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act of that session. And the person who quoted it to this Legislature was none other than the Hon. Premier, whose views in the last 18 months have done a complete about-face on the issue of administrative powers being granted Ministers of the Crown.

I would just like to refresh your mind, Mr. Chairman; both you and I were not Members of the assembly at that time. I'd like to say a few words about the bill at that time as far as it applies to the present bill that we're discussing, specifically of course to section 4. And I'm delighted to find that you have finally not cut off a Member of the opposition from speaking, Mr. Chairman. It makes me feel that the one lost sheep is perhaps straying back to the fold.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I was anticipating that the Hon. Member is going to introduce a new point, so we were waiting with great interest. However, I would draw to his attention the fact that as of 1967 I am not gazetted as an Anglican minister. I was ordained as an Anglican minister but I'm not presently one. I just want to set the record straight on that matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's no point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm not too sure, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you'll clarify: have you been defrocked or not? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ask the Bishop of Cariboo.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was in jest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the Hon. Member to return to his new point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we'll leave that interesting possibility to another time. (Laughter.)

We were talking at that time in this Legislature about welfare recipients and, how they became entirely dependent upon one man, namely the former Minister involved, Phil Gaglardi. Member after Member of the NDP got up. I have here in front of me all the quotes. They're all underlined and I'll read them all into the record for you.

HON. MR. HALL: You're out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not out of order, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). It's not out of order. We're discussing the same points now as we were discussing them. You, by your facetious comments….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair? And would the other Hon. Members not interrupt the speaker, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Provincial Secretary has shown by his facetious remark exactly the difference that's come over the government in the last 18 months — 18 months ago, defenders of the principle of having legislation spell out duties of Ministers; 18 months ago, no blank-cheque legislation. But, boy! These people have learned one thing, Mr. Chairman. They've learned a tremendous amount from the previous government. Indeed, the pupil has far exceeded the master in this respect.

The pupil has now become the absolute expert on the question of putting forward legislation granting wide powers, unlimited powers in the financial field, unlimited control over the agricultural community, which in effect makes them much more subservient to a Minister than in the previous legislation where the welfare recipient was subservient to that Minister. Under this legislation they're far worse off. They literally have to come on bended knee for what they can get from the Minister for their income. Here we have this report on the assembly of last year, which the previous government was kind enough to institute, the Hansard. We have this report of what was said, and we have the statements by the Hon. Premier.

Let me just look for a moment, Mr. Chairman, for the Hon. Provincial Secretary. He had some things to say, I believe, and if you give me a moment, I'll find them.

Perhaps the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) should go first. He's saying how terrible it was that they're not entitled now to even consideration unless the Minister feels they're in line in his judgment. No standards, he says, and yet what are we passing today? What's in section 4? This same type of no-standard legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is continuing an argument which has already been canvassed thoroughly in this House. I would draw to his attention standing order 43:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or of the committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition,

[ Page 675 ]

either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in the debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech."

And it goes on. Now I would prefer the Member either to introduce a new point….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I don't remember this House hearing a….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The arguments which have been put forward are supporting an argument that has already been thoroughly canvassed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I don't remember hearing the quote from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) where he said: "It's a straight kind of megalomania drive that has been consistent with this Minister. It's a kind of attempt to be a man like the Premier; it's megalomania; he wants to bring more and more power to himself — to the Ministry."

Has that been quoted before in relation to the change of attitude of that Minister 18 months ago and today? I don't think so. Now perhaps it has. Am I wrong? I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, that you are quite right to avoid, I believe it is called, tedious repetition. But I am, I think, putting new material on the floor of the House, reminding the House — Hon. Members who were here before me as well as new Members who weren't — reminding the House of what this government said and how inconsistent they are.

It is a night-and-day situation. They swung from what I trust was not lip-service support for the principles that we talked about, to the exact opposite — to being the real defenders of Ministerial discretion and Crown prerogatives.

I said the other day that the Hon. Premier was getting more and more like Henry VIII. He is getting all this power to him. He is undoing 300 years of….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe I have made my point clear and that is that the Hon. Member has been warned. Therefore, I would ask him to discontinue his speech.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have made a request to the Hon. Member and I would expect it to be obeyed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am only doing it because Shirley asked me to. She's worried about her neck.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, if you wish, but I am going to come back up again. This is ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.

MR. McGEER: I wonder if we could place a question to the Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no questions are permitted.

MR. McGEER: I'm sure the Minister would want to answer this one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Member may pose a question. However, if the Minister answers it, then he is closing the debate and that ends the discussion.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: We may want to ask him another one. We may want to ask him quite a few.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue with his remarks, please, but do not expect the Minister to answer your question.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to find out from the Minister if there is anything in this particular section that we have missed that would prevent him from entering into some kind of programme that committed him and the government to continued long-term support of a particular programme that might start this year with an obligation of $10 million or $20 million, but for that same programme next year — $30 million, $40 million or $50 million.

We spend weeks and weeks in the spring…you sit in that chair and we debate the Minister's estimates and we talk about whether or not the amount of money for the Grasshopper-control Act is right — for mosquitoes, weed control — and we look very carefully at these small amounts of money. We debate whether it is too much or whether it is enough and we ask questions about how all of that money is going to be spent.

What it is a little like is to have a family sitting upstairs going cheerfully over every penny that is laid out on the table, all the small change, while they leave the safe open downstairs — wide open and with the back door open — that has their lifetime savings in it. While they are debating the nickels and dimes upstairs, someone might steal in in the night and take away all the money that is in the safe.

Really, this is what we are talking about with this particular section. What on earth is the point of our

[ Page 676 ]

spending weeks and weeks and weeks in the spring scrutinizing all of the spending in the Minister of Agriculture's budget when, carelessly, without thought, without adequate debate, without even an opportunity to make the point thoroughly, we pass by one little section in one Act that completely undoes everything that we have been struggling to accomplish in weeks of debate every spring?

The estimates are the time when the total spending is supposed to be scrutinized. But, as the Hon. Members are beginning to learn, the budget which is presented before this House is a sham. The spending estimates we debate…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: …are ridiculous because here's where the estimates are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Here's where the estimates are; they're in these little snippets of legislation. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask that man a question. How much of his….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member…. I order you to sit down. Order, please. I repeat again: would the Hon. Member be seated? Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When I say order, I wish to make a point of order. I asked the Member to be seated so I can make that point; I expect the order to be obeyed.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of privilege under standing order 26, which I understand is to be taken into consideration immediately. It is on the privilege of the Member who last spoke, and, I would say, of every Member in the House but yourself — certainly the Member for Peace River earlier today — and certainly one dealing with the principles of parliamentary democracy.

It is this, Mr. Chairman: there is nothing within these rules or in the history of parliament which gives the Speaker really any more right to restrain a Member from speaking except under the provisions of the rules. I would refer you, Mr. Chairman, to three orders giving you those powers: namely, order 43, order 19 and order 20.

Under order 43, Mr. Chairman, you do have the power, under our rules, to direct a Member to discontinue a speech or to name him. Maintaining order, Mr. Chairman, is one thing, but electronic gagging and electronic censoring is another. I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, who gave you or the Speaker of this House the right to subjectively elect as to who will or who will not be reported in Hansard or who will or who will not be heard by all of the Hon. Members of this House?

Your powers are under the three rules that I have mentioned. I have referred to order 43. Under order 19 you have your powers of enforcement; where a Member persistently and willfully obstructs the business of the House you can suspend and name him. Under order 20 you have the power to order a Member to withdraw and the Sergeant-at-Arms can act on that order.

But I would ask the Chairman, who put that switch on your desk and by what authority? There is none that I know of.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter of privilege which the Hon. Member has raised is one which would properly be taken up with the Speaker of the House or with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley).

MR. PHILLIPS: Public Works?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of the House has nothing whatever to do with the technical aids in the House. The point of using a technical aid….

MR. PHILLIPS: You used them. You cut me off.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A very important point of privilege has been raised by the Member, which I agree with. I think that since the matter has happened while the Chairman was in the chair, without previous instruction or the matter having been raised before, I would ask that you report this matter at the rising of committee and ask Mr. Speaker to give us a ruling so that the House can conduct itself on the Speaker's ruling without any reflection on the Member or the Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: I'm not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, for one minute, reflections on anyone. But what I am suggesting is reflections upon the abuses of the rules of this House, because there is absolutely nothing in the rules of this House that permits the process that has been carried on in this Legislature since this government has come to power.

It is my understanding that it was not within the control of the former government. I also would, for the record, state that at no time has this Legislature approved the practice. Yet it is one that has been imposed on us.

I subscribe to the Premier's sentiment and indeed wish that it would be considered by the Speaker. But notwithstanding whatever consideration the Speaker may give, I can assure you that this party — and it

[ Page 677 ]

would appear to be indicative of the other parties in the opposition — will not permit this practice to continue. It is against the rules of parliamentary democracy and against the rules of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would request that the Hon. Member raise this as a matter of privilege with the Speaker when the Speaker returns to the chair inasmuch as it's not a matter which I can give any authority.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking that you report this matter to the Speaker. It is a matter of deep concern. I recall the practice for some time, even when I was in opposition. As a matter of fact, I was a victim of that particular cut-off, and, because I wasn't heard, I had to repeat a question on one particular night a large number of times. Because of that experience, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that when the committee rises, we report this very valid matter raised by the Member and ask the Speaker for his ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that this matter be reported to the Speaker when the committee rises? So ordered.

I would ask the cooperation of the House in obeying the Chairman since I will not use the button until the Speaker has ruled on the matter of privilege.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was speaking earlier about the switch that has come over the Members who are now in the government and previously Members of the opposition. I mentioned the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). Page 901 of the 1972 spring session Hansard: He said, "What the bill does seek to do, however, is to take us back to the 1850's, take us back to the days of the poor law administration, the absolute discretion of the work master." And what have we got here if we haven't got precisely the same type of power being put in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), not this time the Minister of social welfare but the Minister of Agriculture.

The other people who spoke in this debate at that time spoke eloquently, and one who comes to mind very swiftly is, of course, the Hon. Mr. Dowding, whose name is in front of me here. I'm quoting the actual text.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I did warn the Hon. Member previously not to continue to repeat this particular argument inasmuch as it has already been thoroughly canvassed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The arguments he is putting forward are to support the same point which has been thoroughly canvassed. I have ruled and continue to rule that….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …in a circular direction, Mr. Chairman. I am quite willing to have the committee rise, you report to the Speaker, and then perhaps the debate could be continued again tomorrow. But because we have a decision of yours and the Speaker's in abeyance, it appears that the previous rulings will apply.

I would like to point out that the Hon. Member, now the Speaker, talked at that time about how bad it was for a Minister being able to act as he pleased, like any feudal lord. What is the power that we are granting the Hon. Minister of Agriculture it's not the power to act in the same way? A very appropriate parallel was raised by the Hon. Speaker.

In the old days, of course, the structure of society, being feudal, was agricultural, and the feudal lord did have total power over the tenants. Now we're going to get the new Minister of Agriculture in the 1970s equipped with essentially the same feudal power as was granted to the lords of the manor in days gone by: The total power over his tenancy, the power to decide what they will receive in the way of remuneration for their work.

Mr. Chairman, maybe you feel this has been thoroughly canvassed, but we cannot feel that this point has been thoroughly canvassed until there is far more of an indication of understanding on the part of the government benches as to what we're actually doing by passing this section. I appreciate the fact that you have permitted me to quote their own words to them so that they in their turn can understand that they, perhaps because they're now in power, perhaps because they have the trappings of office, executive assistants, $50,000 offices, eight-foot-long desks, $48,000 a year….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm being extremely lenient with the Hon. Member and I would ask…. .

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps they have failed to understand that it looks very different when you examine a bill like this in opposition, as we are doing now and as they have done in the past.

Mr. Chairman, if this section is to fail as it should fail, we're going to have to persuade those people there. It's not necessary to persuade people on this side of the House, excepting, of course, the rump section over on my left, but we have to persuade the government benches. How best can I do it but to quote their own words to them when they, only 18 months ago, were waxing eloquent. I could hardly quote a more eloquent person than the present Speaker when I quote what he said about that bit of

[ Page 678 ]

legislation, where he talked about it being the powers of a feudal lord.

It just strikes me that if we are to argue as we are meant to argue in this House, attempting to bring logic and reason to the debates, attempting to persuade others over there that maybe there are some failings in this particular section and in their approach to legislation, I am going to have to, I'm afraid, make certain quotations.

Again, the Hon. Speaker talked about: "That's empowering legislation. What we're dealing with here is absolute power." That's precisely the point we're trying to make with a large range of bills, including this one and especially in section 4. I quote him because he has expressed himself extremely well. The principle is the same, the type of section is very similar, and that is why I feel that perhaps, Mr. Chairman, appealing to the impartial Speaker of this assembly, I can perhaps persuade some of the government Ministers to remember their previous words and to remind some of the new Members of the NDP on what basis they were elected. They were elected on the basis of statements made by themselves, of course, but basically the previous Members. They were elected on the basis of statements such as this about absolute power.

I think that they themselves must be considering very carefully — and I am sure they are; this is their duty to do — the rightness or wrongness, the correctness or otherwise of passing legislation granting total powers to Ministers. Because they were elected on a totally different basis. The public who elected them, and elected us and other Members who were not supporters of the previous government, had an understanding of what they thought the new government would do when the NDP took power. I warn them that with this type of legislation they are departing, not only from the previous views of their own, but departing radically from the views that they had and people expected them to continue to have at the time of election.

I know it's a difficult problem; I, myself, at times vote against my own party: But I'm appealing to them to understand what this debate is all about on section 4. We're discussing granting virtually unlimited and absolute powers to a Minister. We are withdrawing in this and many other bills — in particular, this bill under section 4 — the power of the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia to check on the actions of the cabinet, except, as my hon. friend for Vancouver–Point Grey mentioned, under the very difficult area of examining the budget once a year.

We are handing back all but the power of supply to the government. We are turning back the clock, the evolution of parliamentary democracy, back to where it was when the Crown had absolute power. section after section such as section 4, bill after bill such as

Bill 9, do this. We hand back powers which we ourselves should be here discussing.

The Minister should have brought in an Act, in this section and others, dealing with specific proposals so we could discuss the guts of it instead of the present situation where all Members, NDP as well as the other parties, have brought forward ideas which they trust the Minister will somehow take notice of and then bring in under the enabling legislation. That's ridiculous.

The NDP Members as well as opposition Members should be discussing the guts of the legislation itself. But because we pass a section such as section 4, because we pass sections which grant total power over supply, total power over farm income, total power to be discriminatory in the application of these laws, to Ministers, and they in turn delegate it, we have a system of orders-in-council in this province which is absolutely atrocious and deplorable. Nothing has been done to correct it, I might add, in the last year. Because of that, we are creating a very, very different democracy in British Columbia, even than we have known up to last year.

I must say that I was a genuine believer at the time, that with the new government we'd have a different approach, that with the new government this type of thing would not occur again, that with the new government sections such as section 4 would be a memory, just a memory in this House.

Instead we have something totally different. We have a government bent on achieving total control over farm income, as well as many other things, bent on taking over and giving to themselves power so that this Legislature becomes of less and less realistic importance.

Mr. Chairman, I've spoken at length of this section. Others may appreciate your patience in listening to me, but I remind you in all seriousness of the reference I made before to St. Luke, 15. I mention it to you, Mr. Chairman, because it is important that we have the opportunity to consider mistaken views, to consider bad legislation, and for the backbench of the NDP, as well as the opposition, to rectify these mistakes so that at least their integrity is intact if not their legislation.

Mr. Chairman, in St. Luke, 15(7) it says, "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." In this Legislature we have more than one who needs to repent.

I appeal strongly to the NDP backbench, who have understood on the basis on which they were elected and who realize that people have an expectation of them in terms of a decent approach to parliamentary democracy, in terms of a decent approach to ministerial power and in terms of a decent approach to unlimited blank cheque legislation. I urge them to

[ Page 679 ]

join with us in defeating this section.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): It's strange, indeed, and unfortunate as well that the Minister has remained so silent on the discussion of this section 4.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I haven't had a chance.

MR. CHABOT: You can rise at any time you want to. You're not closing any debate. You apparently don't know parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Chairman, I'm giving my place to the Minister. The Minister of Agriculture wants to stand and speak.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the last person to speak in the debate, the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), said nothing.

MR. CHABOT: I gave you my place.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Did he say anything? He said nothing. Okay.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to persuade the Members opposite and inform them on how informed I am on what's happened so far.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) repeated the remarks that he made earlier this afternoon. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) raised a point of privilege. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) asked if there was anything in this section that might commit the government to any long-term programme, a very large programme. That part of the legislation, Mr. Chairman, was dealt with when the Members opposite, unanimously apparently, approved section 2(a) specifically. Section 4 simply says….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member continue.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That part of the legislation was covered when we passed section 2(a) this afternoon, section 4 simply tells us where the government is going to get the money that the Legislature approved in committee when it approved section 2.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said that any legislation which grants too much power — and I couldn't get the wording; he was speaking rather quickly and I wasn't able to get it all down…and of course there's a definition of just what is too much power.

Now in the first place, the actual instructions that are in this legislation are in section 2. They're not in section 4 at all. As I say, section 4 really tells us where the money is coming from and pretty well the whole of the debate that went on this afternoon — such as was debate on this particular bill — should have been around section 2(a) rather than section 4. However, it's a question of opinion, I suppose, as to whether this particular bill does indeed give the government too much power.

MR. CHABOT: You haven't said too much so far.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, in the opinion of the government, section 4 and Bill 9 do not give the government too much power. It does give the government a great deal of responsibility, but not too much power.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) spoke, but this was his second time of speaking this afternoon and he didn't really say anything the second time other than to repeat what he said the first time.

The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) said that the purpose of section 4 is to provide the required money and, in so saying, he's saying what I said that in this we're saying where the money is coming from, the money that the Legislature approved in committee when we dealt with section 2(a). The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) repeated what the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) said immediately prior.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey repeated what the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said just moments before, contributed absolutely nothing to the debate this afternoon, and now we come, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Member for South Peace River when he first spoke.

He said that the Minister may spend any amount he likes. Well, the bill makes it perfectly clear that the Minister does not have that authority. It's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that has that authority. He says that the Minister of Finance has no idea how much it will be, but the bill does say that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will instruct the Minister of Finance what he may do.

So it's quite clearly in there that the Minister has no such authority. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has no such authority. The authority is in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The Member also said that he will oppose it, and

[ Page 680 ]

that's his choice. If the official opposition would like to join the ranks of the other opposition parties in opposing this section, well, that's their choice. But in doing so, they know that they are, in effect, opposing Bill 9. They had chosen earlier to support this legislation. They have now, for some reason or other, chosen to oppose it. Of course, that's their choice.

But he also said that he's quite prepared to oppose this and I invite him to invite me to a meeting of farmers in his constituency, and he can tell the farmers why he's opposing it and I'll tell them why we're supporting it and we'll leave it to the farmers to decide which way it should go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the Hon. Minister to keep his remarks strictly relevant to this section, please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) compared it with a bill that was introduced today. I can only say this: it was appropriate in the bill that was introduced today that the details that are in there should be in there.

In this particular instance — and I'm not going to repeat this; I did say it earlier in the discussion of Bill 9 — but in this particular instance, in the case of Bill 9, the point I tried to make before was that if we put a specific amount of money in there that looked too small, then the commodity groups would be concerned that there was not enough in there to cover the programme. Secondly, they might feel that they would have to rush in with their proposals without proper preparation to take advantage of a fund that might run out of money before there was opportunity to get more voted.

So we wouldn't want it to be too small. On the other hand, we wouldn't want to put a figure in there that looked too large and give the impression to the community totally that we were going too far with this programme. At this point in time we don't know how this programme is going to be accepted by the commodity groups in the farming community. We're going to take time to work this out. I've indicated, I've told you previously, that there will be a full report on this when the Legislature is in session, and that it is my hope that in subsequent sessions we will be able to put more details into this particular legislation and into programmes like this.

But at this time, in our opinion, the best way of handling this situation is to present section 4 as is.

MR. CHABOT: It appears that the Minister feels that we're still dealing in the principle of the bill because he's been all over the bill from section to section and not confining his remarks to section 4. He attempts to be winding up the debate. Apparently he's not familiar with the procedure in committee stage that he can rise at any time and as frequently as he likes to answer any of the points that have been raised.

I think the Member is fully familiar with what they've had to say and I don't think it's necessary, in committee stage at least, for the Minister to be repetitious by throwing back the words we've given, as a smoke-screen to cover up the failure on his part to elaborate on what he proposes to do specifically with section 4 of this legislation.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Watch your back!

MR. CHABOT: It's been said many, many times that this is blank cheque legislation. The Minister is not prepared to tell the people of British Columbia just what kind of dollars he's talking about. He fails to tell us as well what kind of programme he's considering. Does the Minister have any programmes at all? Does he have any ideas where he's going to spend the taxpayers' dollars that are going to be allocated blindly under section 4 of this legislation.

The Minister says very feebly that the commodity groups might not think that we've voted sufficiently — that we might run out of money. The Minister fails to realize that this Legislative Assembly will be meeting again in the not-too-distant future and that he can, if he specifically under this section — or an additional section if necessary — vote the specific amount of money, and that this could be changed after the Minister has justified the previous allocation that has been granted to him under this legislation.

No, Mr. Minister, I think that before you get approval of this section of the Act, you're going to have to come clean and tell the people of British Columbia what kind of programmes you have for agriculture. Do you have any ideas? Do you have an approximate amount that you want to spend for agricultural support? Certainly you must have some idea. If you have, why don't you level with the representatives of the people on the floor of this assembly?

Do you have any programmes? Do you have any plans? Or are you waiting for the National Farmers' Union or some other organization to tell you how you should vote this money which you're asking us to support blindly and like a bunch of sheep.

I want to assure you, Mr. Minister, that we're not going to support this section 4 until such time as you tell the people of this province what kind of dollars you're talking about and what kind of programmes you're going to institute to help the farmers of this province.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the Minister of Agriculture got up and gave us some information. If we were worried before, we're terrified now. (Laughter.) The Minister has made it

[ Page 681 ]

quite clear that he doesn't yet know what he's going to do. He hasn't any idea of how much it's going to cost except that he doesn't want it to be too little and he doesn't want it to be too much. We have no idea what the intent of the Minister or the government, financially or otherwise, might be under this particular bill.

Mr. Chairman, when we debate legislation in this House to increase the financial powers of a Crown corporation like the B.C. Hydro or the PGE, we authorize them to have moneys out of consolidated revenue up to a certain definite and absolute limit. And when you do that you know what the bounds of a particular programme might be. Nothing should come forward in this House in a financial way that does not set an upper outside limit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: This is what this particular section totally fails to do, And it isn't the only section and the only piece of legislation that's this way. Our legislative books are peppered with this kind of irresponsible nonsense.

Now Mr. Chairman, the Minister stated that really it wasn't he who was in absolute control, it was the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. We are supposed to have a great deal of confidence in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: "Sure," says the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), yawning. And the thousands of orders-in-council that are passed, usually about 3,000 or more a year…. I haven't attended any cabinet meetings, obviously (laughter), but I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman: the first one I attend will be the last one that carries out the kind of order-in-council government that we've had in this province for years and years.

How many Members who aren't in the cabinet, and how many members of the press for that matter, Mr. Chairman, and yourself, have gone through the orders-in-council that are passed in a typical cabinet meeting?

AN HON. MEMBER: Every one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on! Come on!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Nonsense. You drag them out so they can't be found.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, very often in the length of time of a cabinet meeting you couldn't even read the titles of the orders-in-council that are passed, much less read and study in detail the kind of regulations that get slipped by.

AN HON. MEMBER: False charges.

MR. McGEER: "False charges," says…. Oh, I understand all that.

I can remember when something like five pages of hospital regulations, having a profound effect on the operation of the health system in this province, were slipped by, along with dozens of other orders-in-council in one little two-hour cabinet meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. CHABOT: Were you there?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I just don't have any confidence at all in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council system. I think it's totally wrong. And when we pass these omnibus sections in the Legislature, allowing the Minister to establish regulations, and particularly when they come as this one does with no financial restraints at all, I can tell you that the abuses that could be slipped under the eyes of some of the Members of that council could be almost limitless. You know, one day a Minister is on his jet travelling up-country, another Minister is cutting a ribbon somewhere. Who knows who turns up to a cabinet meeting?

HON. MR. HALL: It's on every order-in-council.

MR. McGEER: Certainly. And, Mr. Member, I've looked at how many people are at some of those cabinet meetings when these orders-in-council are passed. The Ministers don't draft them. Sometimes I think the Ministers don't even read them.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Oh, come on!

MR. McGEER: Well, the Attorney General says "Oh, come on!" He doesn't even know the other day — in fact it was today, Mr. Speaker — he didn't even know that he'd signed the order for an investigation of certain stocks and stockbrokers in the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: He had to be told by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). So don't tell me the Ministers know what they are doing when they're in that cabinet room.

[ Page 682 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member was doing very well. I'd ask him to return to the section again, please.

MR. McGEER: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I allowed the Attorney General to divert me on that small point. (Laughter.)

We are dealing with the very large point in this particular section. You see, it's not only that a whole plan or plans might be slipped by the' Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, spending far more money than any of us might realize here, extending beyond our wildest estimates. We don't know, and certainly the Minister hasn't told us, what kind of plans he really has in mind. He's terribly anxious that the commodity groups accept them, but what's acceptance? Increasing the farmers' income in return for loyalty to the socialist party?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!

MR. McGEER: "Oh, shame," says the Member. But is there anything to prevent that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you, the opposition.

MR. McGEER: That's why I'm up here talking. I want to see this sort of thing spelled out in black and white.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. McGEER: I don't want to have to stand up in this House and have protestations and denials from Members back there who don't have anything to do with it. It's this man over here who has something to do with it. He hasn't stood up and given us any description of a plan that would rule out such an approach.

Believe me, I don't care how upstanding a Minister may be the day he takes office. Power corrupts. And it isn't very long, sometimes, before a Minister has been in office and he is desperately trying to change his policies, to win the political favour of people that he's antagonized.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: Now I wouldn't, Mr. Chairman, suggest that the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is in that situation, because he hasn't been in office very long. But think of the problems he's going to have after he's been in for two or three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: With all this money.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you think he'll be here that long?

MR. McGEER: I hope not, but you never know.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope he doesn't go to finance.

MR. McGEER: And I won't say that he's got off to a shaky start, but usually it's easiest at the beginning. It gets more difficult as time goes by.

AN HON. MEMBER' How do you know?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Minister, you'll find out. (Laughter.) I think that Minister only opens his mouth to change feet, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got athlete's foot at that.

MR. McGEER: We're not raising these points to be frivolous, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: The Minister, Mr. Chairman, has a blank cheque. He has an opportunity to take a long and complicated scheme before a cabinet meeting and have it slithered through with the other 150 orders-in-council that get passed that particular morning.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Come off it!

MR. McGEER: "Come off it," says the Minister. That's precisely what happens, precisely what happened in the health services field with all the regulations about the doctors and the diagnostic aides. And Mr. Chairman, what MLA who's now a Member of the government took advantage of that situation? That very Minister who complains now. Exactly that thing happened, and you Mr. Member, capitalized on it.

Now it may be that such a scheme would be slipped by a sleepy cabinet one morning. But you know the other government was in power for quite a little while and sometimes the sins have to accumulate for a few years before the public gets angry enough to take action. But along the way, while a government's getting everybody mad at them, a lot of people can get hurt. This is why every plan, every scheme for spending money, should be thoroughly thought through before it's introduced into this House in the form of legislation.

[ Page 683 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: They sure need it in Ottawa.

MR. McGEER: I think they do. I think they need it badly. And I think they've done a lot of very, very foolish things, Mr. Member, because they haven't thought the programmes through before they brought them down on the floor of the House. So let's take a lesson from Ottawa. Let's not make the kind of mistakes those foolish Liberals have made in Ottawa. Let's not do that with our legislation. Let's prove we're smarter here than they are down there in Ottawa. How about that for a challenge? But not with this kind of legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Could you come up with something harder?

MR. McGEER: No. I'm not sure that a section like this would get by with less than a couple of weeks' debate in the federal House. Whatever they may do in the way of presenting foolish legislation and having hot-headed policies, you know, they've got a far better system of scrutinizing the expenditure of funds.

Did you know, Mr. Chairman, that they've got an Auditor-General down there in Ottawa? I don't know whether that Auditor-General is doing his job, whether he's worth the amount of money that's spent on his office, but I've always been glad he's there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What happened to Max?

MR. McGEER: You know, Mr. Chairman, you know what I think ought to happen to Max? I think we ought to prove how wrong those guys in Ottawa are and hire Max here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's put him in the Senate.

MR. McGEER: No, let's make him Auditor-General. I think we've got enough Senators.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to return to the point.

MR. McGEER: I'd like to see the abolition of the Senate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please return to this section?

MR. McGEER: I'm trying to stay to the point, but, Mr. Chairman, it's really very difficult when the Members on the other side try and divert me from the point. (Laughter.)

HON. A.b. MACDONALD (Attorney General):

It's too small a point….

MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman, it isn't that at all. It's too big a point for the Attorney General. He doesn't want to see it dealt with appropriately in this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No wonder you aren't leader any more.

MR. McGEER: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, there's going to be room for leaders of the government before very long if this crowd here keeps acting as irresponsibly as they are in a financial way. The Premier, Mr. Chairman, the first week he took office, said he was going to give up the Finance portfolio; he said he was going to be honest with the books; he said he was going to present fair budgets. All of those dreams and hopes disappeared the second week when he was in office. He kind of liked sitting on top of this pile….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request the Hon. Member to return to the point that we are debating: section 4, Bill 9. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: I have it right in front of me, right in front of me, Mr. Chairman.

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may from time to time authorize the Minister of Finance to set aside, out of Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Account of the Consolidated Revenue Fund,"

or partly from this or partly from that,

"such amount as the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council considers necessary for the purposes of establishing, carrying out, and administering a farm income plan."

No limit, you see. Not like the provisions for supplying a Crown corporation up to X many dollars; no definition of what a farm income plan would be like; no assurances either in written legislation or a word from the Minister that these moneys will not be used in a political way. And what opportunities there are for that. What opportunities: any amount of consolidated revenue, any programme, any farmer any amount of money. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to turn this into any amount to those with the right sympathy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're not Liberals.

MR. McGEER: Well, why don't you write it in the legislation? This is one example of far too many. We've got to begin taking a stand on this kind of thing, Mr. Chairman; this is just the commencement. We want accountability, complete accountability

[ Page 684 ]

from the government. Because you have 38 Members and you can pass legislation at will as long as the backbench remains obedient, then you do have opportunities to abuse your power and to abuse your trust with the taxpayers of the province. In effect, that's what you do with this particular section.

Mr. Chairman, we're opposed to the section just as we are opposed to the bill. No amount of political standing-forth and saying that this Member is against the farmers or he'd give us a blank cheque to do all these things in the long run is going to wash, because this kind of phraseology appears in Act after Act after Act.

What it amounts to is a grasp for total power on the part of a cabinet that's still wet behind the ears. While this may be a bountiful year as far as revenues are concerned — and as the Premier himself admits, no particular credit to the NDP government — we aren't always going to have years in the future that are this fortunate for British Columbia.

We're here to protect the interest of the taxpayers, not the political interests of the NDP. We're here to see open government; we're here to see responsibility in the spending of money. We're not here to give blank-cheque legislation to the Minister of Agriculture or any other Minister of the Crown; we're here to see that you follow the trust that has been developed through hundreds of years of British parliamentary democracy, not to throw it out the window in one abusive year of power, and not to sit in this Legislature and allow this kind of abuse to accumulate. One day there's going to be financial reckoning in this province, and the sloppy spending that can commence under these plans can be the undoing of what really is a sound financial structure here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, every penny that will be spent under this section will be subject to the close scrutiny and full accounting of this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: After it's spent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the Hon. Members heard the difficulties and that's why they supported this bill of laying out ahead of time a programme of this kind in detail.

But what government was it that put a Member of the opposition as head of the Public Accounts committee to ensure that in this kind of a programme there will be no political favouritism and no patronage? It was this little government.

What government brought in a registry for the publication of orders-in-council to ensure they're fully reported to the public under this Legislature?

Every penny spent under this section will be subject to the scrutiny of this Legislature. This is the kind of a programme that has to go forward in partnership with the Legislature, subject to scrutiny, subject to publicity, subject to full reporting.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report good progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has a point?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Yes, Mr. Speaker. In committee this afternoon, I raised in committee the fact that my microphone had been cut off and I was electronically gagged, so to speak, from performing my duties.

MR. SPEAKER: I find that hard to credit.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to ask the Speaker, in all fairness, that my remarks in the Legislature this afternoon, which were gagged, be recorded so that the people of British Columbia can know how I was speaking out on their behalf to protect their interests.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that you're also stating something that I know nothing of since it was in committee and the House knows nothing of this since it was in committee. At the time that you were speaking, you were properly speaking in your place with the right to speak accorded to you by the Chairman?

MR. PHILLIPS: What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I rose on the point of being gagged while I was actually being gagged, so that the House has no knowledge of me being gagged or saying that I was gagged and disputing the fact that I was gagged.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Now would the Hon. Member be seated without any feeling that he is being gagged? And I will look into the question of the use of microphones, I might say that I have already examined into this question in various jurisdictions, so it should be easy for me to report to the House what the practice is in the parliaments of the world. I will be glad to report to you what the use of microphones should be in the House and ask for your opinion on the question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Warm up the jets.

[ Page 685 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I assure you that I won't ask to leave the House to do that. (Laughter.) I have the pictures here.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Am I on the air now? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: You have been recognized.

MR. GARDOM: With all respect to the Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that he reported to you with a paucity of information. The question that was raised by myself on a point of privilege was by what authority the Chair, and the Speaker, has this electronic device on their desks at the present time. There does not appear to be any within the rules and I do not ever recollect it ever being approved by this Legislature. That was the specific question — not merely looking into it. I'd like an answer to that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I'll certainly include that in my inquiry to report back to the House for any proposal the House may have to deal with the question. Thank you for raising it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.