1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1973
Night Sitting
[ Page 1343 ]
CONTENTS
Routine proceedings
Weather Modification Activity Act (Bill 118). Second reading.
Mr. Smith — 1343
Mr. Chabot — 1344
Hon. Mr. Williams — 1344
Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81). Committee stage.
Amendment to section 7.
Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345
Amendment to section 13.
Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345
Amendment to section 17.
Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345
Amendment to section 20.
Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345
On section 20 as amended
Mr. McClelland — 1345
Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345
Report stage — 1346
An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964 (Bill 82).
Committee stage.
Amendment to section 14.
Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1346
Report stage — 1346
An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill 105).
Committee, report and third reading — 1347
Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 100). Committee stage.
Mrs. Jordan — 1348
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1349
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1349
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1349
Hon. Mr. King — 1351.
Mrs. Jordan — 1352
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1353
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1354
Hon. Mr. King — 1354
Mr. D.A, Anderson — 1355
Amendment to section 6.
Hon. Mr. King — 1355
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1356
On section 8.
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1357
Amendment to section 9.
Hon. Mr. King — 1357
On section 9 as amended.
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1357
Hon. Mr. King — 1357
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1357
Mr. Richter — 1358
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1358
Hon. Mr. King — 1358
On section 15
Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1358
Amendment to section 16.
Mr. Gardom — 1358
Hon. Mr. King — 1359
Mr. Gardom — 1359
On section 16.
Mr. Gardom — 1359
Amendment to section 17.
Mrs. Jordan — 1360
Hon. Mr. King — 1361
Mrs. Jordan — 1361
Mr. Gardom — 1361
Hon. Mr. King — 1362
Mr. Gardom — 1362
Mrs. Jordan — 1362
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1363
Division on amendment to section 17 — 1363
Report stage — 1363
An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill 85).
Committee, report and third reading — 1363
An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill 89).
Committee, report and third reading — 1364
An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966 (Bill 106).
Committee, report and third reading — 1364
British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1973 (Bill 110).
Committee stage.
Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1371
Mr. Phillips — 1372
Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1374
Mr. Phillips — 1375
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1376
Report and third reading — 1376
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1973
The House met at 8:35 p.m.
Orders of the day.
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.
Motion approved.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 118, Mr. Speaker. This is not related to the bill earlier regarding a change under vital statistics, Mr. Speaker.
WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY ACT
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is fairly straightforward. The government is of the opinion that it should assert its sovereignty in these areas in which there may be some question. The question of water management in the province is closely related to the weather, needless to say, and artificial activities in relation to the weather are of some import with respect to water management in the province, power projects and the like.
I think the bill more or less speaks for itself. We're determined to see the government exerts its authority in the water basins of British Columbia, which are areas of our natural concern in this province. I did ask one of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, for a one-liner comment with respect to this bill. I'm not an expert in one-line comments myself, but the suggestion was that, "Everybody talks about it and nobody ever does anything about it; you now have a government that's going to do something about it." (Laughter.)
MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if they were practising on Sunday. It sounds to me like they over-reacted a little bit.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. I move second reading.
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I know the Minister has been aspiring to this position, and if this bill is going to help him, well, God bless him.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Who does he think he is, God?
MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): We've had the snowflake Minister introduce this bill tonight, (Laughter) but there's just one aspect of it that's slightly troubling and that's the definition section. Apart from that it's not a bad bill at all but it states that "weather modification activity," which I suppose will be called WMA, means any activity designed — and so forth and so on — which may increase fog or cloud.
Now of course this would take into effect many of the policies the government has been prescribing to us this session. In view of that I just wonder whether or not the government would plan itself to come within, the areas and regions of the definition.
Applying the definition in its literal sense it would of course, constitute an offence in the Province of British Columbia today for a person to burn one's leaves in one's back yard without acquiring the requisite permit, I suppose, from the Minister. I don't suppose that he intended that the bill would go that far, but it's unfortunate that the definition will give that capacity to the Minister.
It's a funny thing to have to talk about unlimited powers in something that is so unlimited as weather control, but we find it here coming under the Minister.
I don't know; as long as we've got faith in granny, Mr. Minister, it may work out all right.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's a fascinating bill by title, Weather Modification Activity Act, and it certainly does make one feel that somebody wants to be plugged in to God. I'm not necessarily quoting from any earlier administration, but one of the interesting phrases that….
Interjection.
MR. WALLACE: Not necessarily. But one of the phrases in the bill talks about dissipating fog. To be serious for a moment, this of course can become a very valid concern of the airports, and particularly the Vancouver airport. Certainly during the war fog dispersal was a very important factor in controlling the safe landing and taking off of aircraft.
I wonder if the Minister, in winding up second reading, would mention whether he has had any discussions with airport authorities or the federal Department of Transport as to the very practical implication of this bill in relation to the whole question of fog control. It isn't a matter for humour on that point; it's a very practical and serious aspect of civil aviation and transportation of passengers by recognized airlines. I wonder to what degree he has had discussions with airport or federal transport authorities on this particular aspect of the bill.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's an interesting bill and it leads one to think of many situations which may or may not be covered under the bill. I just wonder, Mr. Minister, in closing the debate, whether you would elaborate on the fact that
[ Page 1344 ]
this puts those people out of business who like to witch for water and find water wells, or if you are going to prohibit the Indian people from conducting a rain dance in the province or anywhere in any part of British Columbia. Is that part of the intention of this bill? When we look at this redistribution of precipitation, as is suggested in this bill, I wonder how the Minister is going to accomplish that.
MR. PHILLIPS: Talk about a snow job!
MR. SMITH: I realize that the Minister, on occasion, and his colleagues have been quite capable of snow jobs on the part of the public and in this House, but since this doesn't include snow, because the people in the lower mainland apparently are not afflicted with snow except on the odd occasion….
HON. MR. BARRETT: The hail you say!
MR. SMITH: Halley's Comet did you say? Well, the Hon. Premier wants to get into the act too tonight.
But seriously, it's a known fact that in certain circumstances it is possible to seed clouds and, by that particular action, precipitate rainfall. But if the Minister needs this type of a bill to become involved in that sort of a process, then I'd suggest to the Minister that perhaps he would look into the problem that the Peace River experiences now with fog in the late fall and winter months that we never experienced before.
It is a result of excess precipitation and humidity in the air as a result of Williston Lake — at least, this is what the weather officials tell us. Perhaps so that myself and other people who wish to fly during the late fall months and the winter could, as they did in the past, depend almost 100 per cent on air transportation in and out of the area, he would see if he could do something about the fog banks that flow into that area during the months of late October and November and into the month of December.
You're going to enact a bill which will help relieve the lack of precipitation in certain areas of the province. Certainly I would suggest that you look into another aspect, and that is the areas that have fog now where in previous years none existed.
MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt in my mind that this is hasty, last-minute legislation, because just a few days ago, the Premier indicated very clearly to this assembly, to Members of this House in the official opposition, that there was only going to be one more bill. This is about bill number 22. It's a hasty piece of retaliatory legislation, that's what it is, because it came in after the Seattle Light and Power, if that's the proper term of their corporation…Seattle Light, Heat and Power?
Anyway, after they had proposed a cloud-seeding proposal to increase the water behind the Ross Dam, because of the inability because of low water to generate the maximum generation of power, there is no doubt in my mind that that's what it is. It's hasty, retaliatory legislation prepared by the Minister. We've seen, from the type of attitude the Minister has projected in other areas as well, that he's not beyond this kind of action, as far as I'm concerned.
AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!
MR. CHABOT: But what shocks me most of all is the fact that Governor Evans was here not too long ago. There was this goodwill and meeting of opinions and so forth.
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): There still is.
MR. CHABOT: And there was supposed to be great cooperation between the State of Washington and the Province of British Columbia. I'm shocked, really, to see the retaliation being projected by the introduction of this bill.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised. Here is, once again, separation of the points of view in this Legislature. It's very clear what the view is now of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Are they in favour of foreign rainmakers in Canada? Is that what the Hon. Member is talking about?
AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!
MR. PHILLIPS: How about the fact of cooperation? What about the fact of cooperation with the State of Washington?
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is a 49th parallel in North America; there is an international border between our two countries. We can have cooperation between our two countries and we will have cooperation between that state and this province, I'm sure.
MR. CHABOT: Rubbish! Rubbish!
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But that is a border. We are two sovereign nations on either side. Now there is an opportunity for the Member to put it on the line — that 49th parallel. How does he feel about our regulating activities on this side of the line to our benefit?
MR. PHILLIPS: How about the water at Roberts Bank?
[ Page 1345 ]
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I move that the question now be put.
Interjections.
Motion approved unanimously on a division.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Motherhood!
Bill 188 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.
MEDICAL CENTRE
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 81; Mr. Dent in the chair.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 7.
Amendment approved.
Section 7 approved with amendment.
Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
Amendment approved.
Section 13 approved with amendment.
Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
Amendment approved.
Section 17 approved with amendment.
Sections 18 and 19 approved.
On section 20.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper — 20 (a).
Amendment approved.
On section 20 as amended.
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Well, Mr. Chairman, the official opposition feels that this is a slap in the face of the elected members of the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District who may appoint a person to attend the meetings but have no voting rights. We would like to suggest that perhaps those people would be allowed voting rights on the board. If not, they shouldn't be allowed even the opportunity to attend the meetings.
We just feel that this is once again an opportunity in which this government has taken away the rights of the elected members of either hospital districts or regional districts.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the GVRD has had a long practice of not wanting to be a voting member on any of the Vancouver boards, and it was their desire that we were following. If that Member over there has any other ideas or has any other evidence, I'd like him to stand up and say so. Because I met with the entire regional district when we were discussing this whole question of what their status would be.
They agreed with their status. As a matter of fact, they appointed their chairman, Dr. Purdy, to be their representative — non-voting, but their observer. It might be interesting too, to know that the meeting….
Interjection.
HON. MR. COCKE: You know, you've got all the time in the world after I'm finished, Mr. Member.
Mr. Chairman, there was no persuasion here at all; this was at their behest. It's significant in that they have dispatched their chairman to be the observer — and that's the position that he wants to hold.
Further to that, Mr. Chairman, they don't take this kind of liberty with any of the hospitals in the Vancouver area. That is having a voting delegate. It just happens to be the way they want to work and it works out fine with us.
The meetings, incidentally, are public.
Section 20 approved with amendment.
[ Page 1346 ]
Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the Minister I would clarify one point, and that is that under section 6 it was the amendment that was passed by the House. The amendment to section 6 which was passed deletes the section.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 81, Medical Centre of British Columbia Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MENTAL HEALTH ACT, 1964
The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Dent in the chair.
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): As the Hon. Minister is aware, our critic in this area is absent from the House on a matter of urgent public business, a special committee set up by this House. I would like to move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again on this bill.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been before the House for some time. In second reading this bill was given absolutely no opposition from any section of the House. I just can't imagine any reason why there should be any debate whatsoever in the committee stage.
MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is aware that there are shadow cabinets in the opposition. Our critic on this bill is absent from the House. If he does not wish to adjourn the debate until the Member is back, in view of the fact that he is absent from the House on a matter beyond his control, then that's the way the House will so rule.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's not a debatable motion. I would put the motion now.
Motion negatived.
Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.
On section 14.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to the bill by striking out the words "three months' and substituting the words "thirty days" in section 14.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which line?
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's in section 14, line 4 — striking out the words "three months" and substituting "thirty days".
Amendment approved.
Section 14 approved with amendment.
Sections 15 to 24 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 82, An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964 reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 105, Mr. Speaker.
AN ACT TO AMEND
THE HOSPITAL ACT
House in committee on Bill 105; Mr. Dent in the chair.
MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister is aware that the official critic from the opposition is unavoidably away from the House on a matter of urgent public business, serving on a committee established by this House. In all deference to the responsibilities of the opposition, this Member should be present when this bill is brought before the House. If it's the government's policy to ramrod legislation through, then we must accept this. But in all due respect to the democratic process…
[ Page 1347 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MRS. JORDAN: …and the British parliamentary system, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
HON. MR. BARRETT: You must be under the wrong impression. I always understood that the Whips had agreed that this was not a contentious bill. If that is the case — and your House Leader (Mr. Chabot) is nodding — there is a difference between your House Leader and you and I'm afraid we can't accept this motion. Someone must speak for your party and obviously it must be the House Leader; that's how the Whip arrangement works. Therefore we cannot accept the motion.
MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is there's no debate….
MRS. JORDAN: Are you aware the government Whip is away and we can….
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no debate on the motion….
MRS. JORDAN: If our critic is in the House, we were quite willing to accept the debating of the bill….
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The motion is that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 105, An Act to Amend the Hospital Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 109, Mr. Speaker.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE
REGISTERED NURSES ACT
The House in committee on Bill 109; Mr. Dent in the chair.
MRS. JORDAN: May I point out that while this Act may well be in keeping with the wishes of the registered nurses of British Columbia, our critic is out of the House on a matter of urgent public business. We would ask that due deference be given to the parliamentary process…
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MRS. JORDAN: …and the offices of parliament and the responsibilities of the elected Members of this Legislature. The government should not be in a position to be ramrodding legislation through this House while our critics are…
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MRS. JORDAN: …away at their demand. We move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this bill was accepted by their critic. He endorsed this bill. At the time this bill went to second reading there was absolutely no contention in the bill whatsoever. That Member over there is trying to make a show of this debate this evening.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no debate on a motion….
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept this motion. When the House leader is sitting next to that Member, nodding and agreeing with us…how do you expect us to run this House? Incredible!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The motion is that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
[ Page 1348 ]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 109, An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 100, Mr. Speaker.
HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
House in committee on Bill 100, Mr. Dent in the chair.
On section 1.
MRS. JORDAN: In view of the fact that our official critic in the Department of Labour, the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), is absent from this House on a specially constituted committee which is attending to a matter of urgent public business, and because we feel that it is the critic's right and responsibility to be in this House whenever legislation concerning their area is debated…
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MRS. JORDAN: …I would like to move that the committee rise.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Member may speak to the section or move a motion but may not preface her motion.
Interjections.
MRS. JORDAN: I would just like to make the point in speaking to section 1 of this Act that our critic, the Hon. Member for Columbia River, has a responsibility and a right to speak either in favour of or in contrast to the definitions of this Act and to be present in this House when these definitions are debated.
Due to the fact that he is, by order of this House, attending a specially constituted committee which is attending to a matter of urgent public business, and that he should have the right to be here, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again in order that the responsibilities of this Legislature may be carried out in their proper form.
Motion negatived.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to know why "age" only means between the age of 45 to 65. I would have assumed that it should have been completely open-ended at the top end. I wonder why, indeed, there is no objection to discrimination against a person because of youth. Could the Minister comment on this?
HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, the only age area the seems to have encountered problems in terms of discrimination in employment opportunity is that age group which is between 45 and 60. It is to that group that this protection is specifically extended.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, for starters, this bill goes a great deal further than strictly employment opportunity, and thank goodness it does. The fact is that I remember a case that came to my attention when I was an MP — I passed it on to the MLA for the area — of a person being given a particularly hard time because of his youthful appearance. He apparently was very sensitive on this subject and he got fed to the back teeth with people serving in liquor stores giving him a hard time on age, hassling him, insisting that he produce identity, when they knew full well that the fellow was over 21 because they had dealt with him before.
It is not a major point; it is a minor point. Perhaps you and I appear our age, unfortunately, and we are not too worried about it, but it was a major factor for this particular person. For me, perhaps, I couldn't understand it but, again, it was a psychological problem that he had. I wonder why we have to specify specifically only 45 to 65. That is only 20 years out of the three-score-and-ten the good Lord allots to us, and it doesn't appear to me to be a restriction that makes sense.
HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out, this is the usual age group, and the usual and most customary way of discriminating against age groups is in employment. There is a provision in the bill, as I think the Member knows, for the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of any reason unless they can show reasonable cause. So if discrimination on the basis of youthfulness in terms of access to public premises or anything of that nature were alleged, then the person perpetrating that discrimination would be obliged to show reasonable and just cause for that type of conduct.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, I can think of a job classification which is restricted to those 31 and under. Indeed I was startled to realize that because I was once employed under the age of 31 in this particular
[ Page 1349 ]
category. I can also think of a fair number of cases where, because of pension plan provisions in particular — the type of iniquitous pension plan provisions that lock you in for 30 or 40 years — 45 simply is not a relevant age; 40 or 35 might well be.
It is not a major point, perhaps, but I just don't see that we have to restrict this to people who are discriminated against only in that 20-year span.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This, Mr. Chairman, is apparently…not a contradiction, but I would like the explanation of the Minister. In section 2 (1) it says that, "No person shall publish or display before the public, or cause to be published or displayed before the public, any notice, sign, symbol…." which would discriminate against anybody — and quite rightly too.
Section 2 (2) goes on: "Notwithstanding subsection (1), any person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on any subject." As this wipes out the effect of subsection (1) I presume that if you write out your objection to a particular racial group or sexual group, or whatever it is that you particularly dislike, you can do so as long as you use a paint brush and use a large piece of paper. As long as you are writing, you can get away with it.
The two appear to be contradictory and 2 (9) seems a fairly large loophole to place in this particular section.
HON. MR. KING: I don't believe that interpretation is correct, Mr. Chairman. I believe the differentiation here is simply to indicate that the intent of restricting any writing or publication to the extent that it may not be discriminatory is, on the other hand, clearly not an attempt to inhibit or restrict the free expression of one's opinion and one's right to free speech. That is spelled out in subsection (2).
Certainly anyone who, by their speech, indulged in discrimination that had the effect of injuring a party, would, I suggest, be liable under this Act, as they would be liable if they indulged in their free speech with slanderous comment — which would make them liable under the common law for damages in that situation.
So I don't think it is an inconsistency. I think it is simply an indication that this does not inhibit free speech in any way, but that free speech is subject to the prohibitions of discrimination, as it is to slander.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In this bill we are reducing the right to free speech for a stated and useful and correct objective: to cut out discrimination. That is the objective: to cut out discrimination. That is the object of the bill: to cut down on the free expression of people when it comes to this certain area which we consider to be discriminatory. Let's face up to the fact that we are cutting down on free speech. It is not something I object to; I appreciate it under these circumstances. But we can not have it both ways, as the Minister has attempted to do.
We are cutting down on free speech. The question is whether or not the exception in 2 (2) is too wide. In my opinion, if you are going to throw in 2 (2) you perhaps have wiped out any placard on a wall, but you have not wiped out a guy who expresses his opinions by word of mouth, not wiped out anybody who expresses his opinions by writing them out. All you have done, perhaps, is the very limited area of putting up a sign on a wall or something of that nature. It appears to me that 2 (2) wipes out 2 (1).
AN HON. MEMBER: I agree with you.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Once again, this is a very important bill, Mr. Chairman. We have in section 3 (1): "No person shall" — deny or discriminate — "unless reasonable cause exists for such denial or discrimination." I wonder if the Minister would give us an indication of what would constitute reasonable cause.
HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, of course the Human Rights Commission will ultimately be available for adjudicating just cause. It seems to me, as I indicated in the debate on second reading of this bill, that it's quite impossible to spell out in legislative language all the various forms of subtle discrimination that can exist.
An illustration, I would suggest, would be in the case of advertising for rooms and so on in smaller family units. In that situation, obviously I don't think it would be wise to insist that a little old lady who might have a room to rent should be obliged to rent to any member of the public citizenry when perhaps the accommodation is such that it would call for the sharing of bathroom facilities and so on.
I don't think we should try to nail it down in such a stringent way that the legitimate rights and interests of landlords in situations like that are abrogated. This simply provides the "reasonable cause" formula as a criteria. I think that that's the only reasonable and flexible way that can be taken in it.
The Act clearly provides that no discrimination will take place in rental accommodations, in
[ Page 1350 ]
employment, on the basis of race, sex, racial origin, age, and so on. But there are other subtleties that can be discriminated against and that can't be completely covered in legislation. That is where the proposition of reasonable cause comes into play, and I think it is the only appropriate way for approaching the whole question.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister turned the page to 3 (2), he'd see what is specified there. We certainly do have race, religion, colour, ancestry, place of origin, sex, and no mention of age.
I realize the Human Rights Commission is going to deal with this Act, but the fact is that the Minister in introducing it should be able to give us a layman's understanding of what the situation is. Can this section be used by a couple who have three children, who want to rent accommodation, but find themselves unable to do so because the landlord says, "I don't like children, and as far as I'm concerned, that's reasonable cause."
Can it be used by somebody who wishes to rent accommodation and they say, "No, I'm sorry, I just dislike Black Labradors; you own one; we can't possibly have you here"?
Can it be used when somebody comes and they say, "Oh, your name is Radford; you're the Minister of Recreation and Conservation; you're a hunter; you carry guns around. I'm sorry, I won't have you in my building"? Apparently he's out shooting something at the moment.
Can it be used when you get the situation of, for instance, the number of people in the family unit or the age of the people concerned? "I'm sorry, kids just turn me off. Anybody under 25 is a no-good and I'm not renting to you."
That's not race, that's not religion, that's not colour, it's not ancestry, it's not place of origin, it's not sex, but it's discrimination. Under section 3 (1) (2) the way this is written, it would appear to me that the landlord would have a perfectly valid case and the would-be tenant would have a perfectly terrible case if they came before the Human Rights Commission. These are the type of things I'd like the Minister to comment upon.
HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to be patient with the Liberal leader. I think I have explained to him that the premise of reasonable cause goes beyond those usual factors of discrimination which are all outlined in the Act.
He made the point, Mr. Chairman, that he sees nothing about age in this section. Well, he just attempted to comment upon the age factor contained in the first section of the bill.
I don't know what else I can say to convince the hon. Gentlemen. I assumed, because he is a lawyer, he would have a better understanding of these provisions than he appears to display.
The hypothetical propositions he put forward could certainly be brought before the Human Rights Commission. If anyone was turned down, if anyone was denied access to public facilities or to rental accommodation on the basis that they had too many children or on the basis that they had a Black Labrador and they felt that it was a form of discrimination, then certainly they could bring a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. It would fall then to the commission to determine whether or not the landlord or the proprietor had reasonable cause to deny the access.
I can't answer in a definitive way what the decisions might be because they'd be subject to the peculiar circumstances of each individual case. I think that's clear enough, Mr. Chairman.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact is that we're refused any suggestion that age should be extended to anything from 45 to 65 years, anything other than those 20 years. Here it may well be possible to discriminate. The landlord will turn to subsection (2) (a) and he'll say, "Look, you've listed the areas where discrimination is forbidden; this is something outside it."
Therefore, I would like to amend this section, to add the word "age," between the words "race," and "religion," on page 2, section 3 (2) (a), line 1.
It's unfortunate that age is not more general; perhaps I should have amended the age section in the interpretation section.
But the fact is that there may well be a landlord who doesn't like senior citizens. He says, "Oh, if you're coming up to be a senior citizen, well, I'm sorry, you're through. We don't like senior citizens. They spend too long in their rooms; they turn the lights on too much; they keep the heat too high." All sorts of just picayune, stupid reasons for trying to keep a guy or a woman out of it. I would suggest that this amendment is well worthwhile.
HON. MR. KING: I'm quite satisfied Mr. Chairman, that the provisions of section 3 (~) are clear in that no person shall discriminate on the basis of "race, religion, colour, ancestry or place of origin of any person or class of persons shall not constitute reasonable cause; and the sex of any person shall not constitute reasonable cause unless it relates to the maintenance of public decency."
Now, reasonable cause is the key factor and I'm quite confident that any Human Rights Commission would not rule in favour of a complaint or an action that was based on the prohibition or the refusal to allow accommodation to someone simply because they represented a certain age category. So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the "reasonable cause" formula,
[ Page 1351 ]
which the civil liberties commission has embraced and recommended in this Act, is quite adequate to cover the fears the Hon. Liberal leader has put forward and expressed. Consequently, his amendment is redundant, Mr. Chairman, and I oppose it.
Amendment negatived.
MRS. JORDAN: I was not here for the main debate on this bill, and perhaps the Minister will clarify for me in relation to section 3. I think it also will relate to another section of the Act.
He himself has stated in this debate this evening that it's impossible to truly define what constitutes discrimination; there has to be a fairly large degree of latitude. This is a matter which I think can be accepted quite readily.
What concerns me is that if the commission is to have this latitude necessary, then it should be incumbent upon the commission to give a written recording, available upon request, for the reasons for their decisions as to whether or not this act constituted discrimination. My question to the Minister is: is this embodied in the Act? I can't find it; perhaps I'm overlooking it. But if it is not there, then, Mr. Minister, I suggest that this is an essential part of this Act.
You're expressing confidence in the commission, which we all would like to feel, but we must recognize the realities of life; not every commission set up is always worthy of that amount of confidence for any number of reasons. But it is just and right that anyone who is charged with discrimination should have a written reason from the commission for the reasons why they are charged.
If you relate that to section 17, where an appeal can lie from a decision of the board of inquiry in the realm of the supreme court, then surely the reasons for the decision given by the commission would be quite relevant to the inquiry held before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Would the Minister comment upon this please and clarify this?
HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, we're debating section 3 and the Member for North Okanagan is attempting to debate the enforcement section which is, I think, section 17 of the bill.
It is provided that appeals from the decisions can be made to the courts. Anyone who is charged under this Act is entitled to legal representation and they are entitled to present evidence at a hearing. So where the Act says "to the courts for appeal" I think the concerns that the Member is expressing are well provided for.
MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): With respect, I totally support the premise that was made by the Hon. lady Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) because there is not any built-in provision in this bill at all to furnish reasons of the board, or reasons of your board of inquiry, or of your director, or of you, Mr. Minister.
There is one right of appeal to you. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever within the statute saying that you should furnish reasons for an adjudication that somebody has been guilty of a discriminatory act. I think that the premise raised by the Member is indeed a valid one.
Secondly, it is rather amazing to me, in finding these extremely strong powers against someone who has contravened the Act, that we don't find any protections whatsoever for a person who is charged for contravening. That individual himself is equally entitled not to be discriminated against. That person is equally entitled to all of the provisions that flow from the concept of natural justice.
The Minister, when he was speaking, Mr. Chairman, raised the point. He said that there is an appeal to the court. Well, there is only an appeal to the court from a decision of the board of inquiry. There is no appeal to the court from a decision of the director, nor is there any appeal to any court from a decision of the Minister.
Just to carry on with some of the inconsistency of the Hon. Minister of Labour — it is a nice thing to hear from him tonight, that perhaps he has learned somewhat the error of his ways. We find within this statute that at least he gives people the opportunity to be represented by counsel — something that he took the greatest exception to when we were discussing Bill 11.
I would like to hear from the Hon. Minister as to his inconsistency in this point.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if the Member is that concerned about consistency, perhaps he would like to address himself to section 3 of the bill, which is what we are discussing at this present time. We are not dealing with enforcement. I would suggest that that will come under section 16.
There is a provision in section 16 that every person who allegedly breaches this Act will have the right to legal representation. He will have the right to cross-examine witnesses and be fully apprised of any charges and any evidence against him. That is not contained in section 3 and I would suggest that we continue with the debate on the section-by-section appraisal of the bill, Mr. Chairman.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am afraid the earlier sections will take a little longer than the latter ones because of the many points that come up. In section 3 (1) (a) it says, "deny to any person or class of persons any accommodation, service, or facility customarily available to the public."
It would appear to me that where you have such
[ Page 1352 ]
things as the Sons of Norway, or the Haggis Society of my friend on my left — the Caledonian Society, the Burns crowd — if you have Haggis McBagpipes turning up to try and get accommodation in a rental unit confined to Icelandic citizens, I presume this would not be a facility which is customarily available to the public. Would this be the case?
In other words, if somebody sets up their rental accommodation, their condominium, and they put in provisions which are discriminatory — basically discriminatory by nature — which, indeed, make it so that it is not customarily available to the public, but you have to pass before a selection committee before you can purchase a condominium, you can escape the provisions of sections 3 (1) and 3 (2).
HON. MR. KING: There is another section in the bill, later on, Mr. Chairman, which clearly allows and recognizes the legitimate interests of organizations such as the Caledonian Society, which the Liberal leader likes to refer to as the Haggis Society, where they are simply constituted to pursue their own cultural or linguistic interests but, indeed, do not discriminate in any way against other racial groups or the public. That is not contained in section 3. It is contained in a later section, Mr. Chairman.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask one sort of specific question on section 3 (1)? If the Ku Klux Klan established a chapter in Victoria, had housing facilities for its members, would they or would they not be covered by section 3 (1) and 3 (2)?
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we are going from the ridiculous to the sublime in this debate. I don't know whether the Hon. Liberal leader can be truly sincere about that kind of a question or not. I thought he was a member of the legal fraternity. If any organization, be it the Ku Klux Klan or be it the Liberal party or be it any other organization, indulged in discrimination, denied similar rights to the public that they reserved for their own membership, then those who were so discriminated against would have a claim — would be able to file a charge under this Act.
Interjections.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I gather then that section 3 (1) would not apply unless these facilities were totally open to the public — in other words, a restaurant, a hotel, a public facility of that nature.
MRS. JORDAN: I don't wish to join the debate on the Ku Klux Klan; they are not my favourite organization. But I do feel that the Minister didn't understand the point that we were trying to make and which was supported by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). That is that the wide latitude that is built into the Act with good reason, for defining what in fact is discrimination, must have reasons available to the public, because the decisions made by this commission are going to be precedent-setting certainly in the province of British Columbia, I think that when you take this into account and recognize that each area of society has its view on what in fact are their human rights, you must then consider that when their rights are infringed upon, in their view, there should be reason given publicly for this decision.
I would like to cite an example. I don't usually tend to bring in the constituency that I have the honour to represent. We had a case where a group of people, motivated by an older person, went into a small restaurant for a long period of time and created disturbance in terms of occupying booths without purchasing more than a cup of coffee, made it so that it was impossible for elderly citizens, who generally patronized this restaurant, to get into the restaurant and who then tend to move away from it, and, in fact, created a real disturbance to the proprietor of this small restaurant and his legitimate right to earn a living from the business which he had financed and was operating.
It was all entwined around the fact that these people had long hair. I think that had this case come before the commission that you are establishing here, it would have been argued on the basis of long hair which well might have brought in a decision that the proprietor was discriminating against the people with long hair when, in fact, what was at point was the issue of whether a small or big proprietor of a legitimate business has the right, within reason, to protect the opportunity to operate that business.
I am sure the Minister can see — and I am not arguing the merits of this particular case — that when the commission makes a decision on a case such as that, it is absolutely essential that that decision be available, in writing, so that other small or large business people have knowledge of what, in fact, this commission views their legitimate right in the world of business to be; also what, in fact, the public has a right to expect in terms of protection of their human rights and their right, perhaps, to go in and have a cup of coffee in a quiet atmosphere, and again, the fact that the decisions of this commission will be setting precedents in British Columbia.
These will be of vital concern to people in British Columbia as they relate to their own attitudes and their own actions in terms of human rights. I suggest that they will relate and will be very important to court decisions in this matter. The Minister should be prepared to state before this House that there is a right on the part of either of the parties involved in such an action to request and have the request
[ Page 1353 ]
granted of securing a written decision and the written reason for the decision of this commission.
Is the Minister prepared to understand this point of view and give his commitment to this Legislature that this right will be observed? Surely, this in itself, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is a human right.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you direct the Members on the opposite side of the House to stick to the section of the bill. section 3 is not an enforcement section and I don't think the Member for North Okanagan would suggest that the enforcement provision should be continued in section 3.
What section 3 does is simply maintain the criterion which was covered under the old Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, colour, nationality, ancestry and place of origin. Additional protection is now extended on the common law test of reasonable cause, and that is a common law test. So that would cover those situations like the Member outlined, and I agree with her. That's what I have attempted to show also — that there are so many unique situations that develop it is impossible in legislative terms to identify each of them, and hence the reasonable-cause formula which is common law.
If the cafe proprietor she refers to or the little old lady that I referred to earlier are deemed to have justifiable and reasonable interests for prohibiting loitering of young people in their establishment, or for excluding certain people from rental of their one room, then that would be recognized. So we don't want to, in a blanket way, set one standard for every situation. That just doesn't work. This is the intent of this section.
When the Member displays a concern about reasons for decisions, I appreciate that; but let's wait until we get to the appropriate enforcement sections.
MRS. JORDAN: The Minister and I are obviously on very common ground. Perhaps he would enlighten me as to just which section in the Act I might debate this point and receive his commitment that these decisions would be available in writing to directly concerned parties.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Get on the right section.
MRS. JORDAN: I beg your pardon?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Get on the right section.
MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking the Minister's guidance, through you, Mr. Chairman: in which section in this bill the Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act can I legitimately debate this question?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: 17.
MRS. JORDAN: You'll accept it then and give us…. Thank you.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 4 deals with housing and purchase of property, and once again may I put in a plea for those over 65 and those under 45? The over-65 are discriminated against in a large number of ways. I would think that if we are going to specify race, religion, colour, sex, ancestry or place or origin and marital status, we should also throw in the word "age," just as we — and I am at fault in this — should have amended that earlier section.
The other thing is that the government has talked quite eloquently about ghettos and things of that nature in other legislation in the last couple of days. I notice that on page 3 the words "political belief" come in. Yet for some reason there's no consistency in the number of things that are put in these sections and the number of things that are left out. "Sex" is left out in some of them, for example, quite wrongly. I notice the Minister is trying to patch it up with amendments. "Political persuasion" is in some and out of some.
Where is the logic and consistency in this particular section? Why is age excluded and why is political persuasion excluded?
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, section 4 is a new section in the Human Rights Act. Previously there was no protection whatsoever in the purchase of property. There was no statute or provision in the Human Rights Act which prohibited discrimination in the purchase of property, so this is new ground in terms of human rights legislation in this province. It simply seeks to prohibit discrimination in the purchase of property and land on the basis of race, religion, sex, colour, ancestry, place of origin or marital status.
Previously discrimination in this area was not covered at all. Now it's inconceivable to me that discrimination would be practised in the availability for purchase of property on the basis of age. I cannot conceive of that type of situation. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a rather picayune criticism. Certainly I can't imagine a situation not related to those grounds that are covered in this section 4 which would affect one's right to purchase a home or
[ Page 1354 ]
property.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the reasonable-cause formula does apply to any section of this Act if a person has a complaint that he has been discriminated against. He has the common law avenue to approach the question of discrimination if it is not specifically enumerated in the section.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to notice the difference between section 3, where there is talk of reasonable cause, and section 4, where there is not. The only reasons in section 4, which he admits is a new section — the only way to prevent discrimination is on the grounds specified.
It's not a general thing, and for want of further clarity they add in a few words. It's only on those specific headings that there can be a complaint. He wonders why I mentioned the word age; it's perfectly simple. You have a situation where there are a number of families — and I am thinking in terms of condominiums and I'm thinking in terms of housing which is fairly close together — and basically they don't want elderly people there, and I'll tell you why.
They find they complain a great deal more than others about the noise of children, and it just saves hassle to get them off somewhere else where they are in their little ghetto and keep these particular areas for the families who are young.
Of course, the reverse happens when you get into an area with mostly elderly people. They don't particularly want to have kids running around making noise. Therefore, there is a discrimination one way or another in terms of age in a number of the new-type housing situations — condominiums, apartments, things of that nature.
If it is not in the Act in section 4, there is no way the Minister can use the excuse that, "Well, reasonable grounds have to be proven." It just doesn't happen that way. He has made that point perfectly clear himself by saying that previously, until this section came in the Act, there was no way. Now with this section there is a way on the specified grounds only and he should know that. It's a question of looking at the Act.
Finally, just as an aside, will he quit referring to me as a lawyer? I'm not a lawyer.
I will move an amendment to add the word "age" between race and religion, in section 4, line 9, and the words "political persuasion" after the word. "sex" just where they should be in the next line. I so move.
Amendment negatived.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 5.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, how the Minister can put forward amendments to add the words "sex" and "marital status" in this section and deny "age" in others I find extremely curious. But putting forward this amendment he is accepting the arguments we have put forward up to now that unless the words specifically are there, protection is not granted. He is accepting that.
Well, he shakes his head. But let me tell him, as a person who is not a lawyer but who has a law degree, that he is wrong. The fact is that he has been told by his advisers, by the people who write these amendments for him and write the bills for him, that he should put this in. The reason he put it in is precisely the argument that I put forward earlier in terms of age. I am quite willing to accept his amendment, I might add.
The other point that I would like the Minister to comment on is that there is an escape hatch in this section.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you debate the amendment only?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We passed the amendment didn't we? He sat down. He moved it; he passed it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I recognized the Member on the amendment.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm sorry. I thought you said that all those in favour…. Go ahead.
Amendment approved.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the last line but one you have the joker provision. In fact, the whole of section 5 (2) indicates this. Subsection 1 does not apply where a person advertises or otherwise represents a space as available for occupancy by another person who is to share with them the use of any sleeping, bathroom or cooking facilities for the space. Take for example the Acadia camp at UBC, which I remember — large areas, all sharing a common cooking facility.
It is a curious thing but it would appear to me that these could be set up under this Act, because they share a common cooking facility, as restricted to people of one faith, one sex, one religion — you name it. It does not prevent discrimination in the university fraternities, perhaps, which might be an even better example on the basis of….
[ Page 1355 ]
MS. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): Try a private home. That's even a better example.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, private home as well, as the Minister…. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the debate. I'm sure she has some good information to advise. But as I am on the university campus at the moment with my example, let me stick with the fraternity house or sorority house.
A distinct discrimination can exist there under this Act on the basis of religion. Now maybe you argue that the Jewish people like to have certain cooking facilities, and that there is reason for discrimination and that's fair enough. But this joker clause here, I think, leaves a fairly large loophole to the Act and I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that.
I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment upon it, and I wonder whether the Hon. Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) would like to add her suggestions.
HON. MR. KING: I thank the Member for his incredibly patronizing lecture, Mr. Chairman, but I would point out that here again in section 5 the grounds which are prohibited as a basis for disallowing accommodations, and so on, have been expanded over the old Act.
Incidentally, on his assessment of those things which are specifically contained in the Act in each section, I disagree very strongly with him. We include in the sections, pertaining to each particular issue, the most probable and the usual and acknowledged basis upon which discrimination is exercised. In those kinds of situations, such as sorority houses, which the hon. leader of the Liberal Party seems to know so much about (Laughter), we rely on the proposition of reasonable cause to protect the interests of anyone from discrimination under this Act. We set up the concept of reasonable cause.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that proposition is embodied in the bill. If the specific section does not outline the particular ground upon which the person claims discrimination, then they still have the option of appealing to the board, or to the director, on the basis of discrimination which violates the common law as contained in the Act here.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think that the problems here are basically because of a misunderstanding of what the common laws insists upon. If where this Act is inadequate, one can get protection from the common law, obviously we don't need this Act.
We need this Act because discrimination has been practised in the Province of British Columbia in past years in a number of areas — not just sex, religion, or the other things that are put down here, but also in a lot of other headings as well. Sexual orientation; domestic arrangement; age if under 45 or over 65, I've mentioned; source of income; physical handicap — all these areas are where there is discrimination and where discrimination has been practised, let the Minister look at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association material on it. They can tell him about this.
These people cannot fall back upon the common law, because the common law provides no protection. If it did, we wouldn't need this Act!
HON. MR. KING: Now, Mr. Chairman, what I referred to as the common law was the formula contained in this Act. I'm not suggesting that there is provision in the common law to cover discrimination. What I have said is that the common law proposition of reasonable cause has been established in this Act.
What the Liberal leader doesn't seem to understand or appreciate is that there is such a thing as private rights also in this province, and what we are seeking to do here is to provide against discrimination in any area where there is public access.
Surely the leader of the Liberal Party would not suggest that every private organization should be forced to open up their doors and their full facilities to the public. It's only when they presume to be a public dwelling or a public convenience or a public enterprise that everyone has the right to participation without discrimination. But what the Liberal leader is suggesting is an assault upon the rights to privacy of some peoples in this province, and I'm rather surprised by it.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this is what this Act is all about, as I tried to tell him in the earlier section when we were dealing with the right of free speech. We are, in this Act, abridging certain freedoms — for example, in this section where we're talking about the tenancy, or, the section previous where we're talking about purchase of land.
The thing is that somebody may carve off half his property if he wishes to sell it, and yet he cannot discriminate now, because of this section — quite rightly — in terms of religion, race, colour et cetera, but he can discriminate if the person who comes to him has had a history of mental illness, for example. He can!
Now I'm not saying that everything has to be put in this Act but I do wish the Minister would understand that where you have situations where the discrimination is not covered by specific wording in this Act, discrimination can be practised.
Section 5 approved with amendment.
On section 6.
HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing
[ Page 1356 ]
in my name on the order paper on section 6, Mr. Chairman.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The amendment states that we are striking out the words "equal work" and substituting the words "similar or substantially similar." I'd like to know the distinction.
HON. MR. KING: It's simply an amendment to use the same language in both sections so that there's not a difference in the language. We do not want to indicate by the use of the word "normally" instead of "reasonably" — we do not want to make that differentiation for fear of the danger that a different interpretation might be placed upon it. It's simply to bring consistency to the wording.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask if this section would prevent the Queen's Printer from continuing to discriminate against women, in terms of: first of all, their salaries; secondly, in terms of job classification; and thirdly, in terms of a union agreement which is not even binding upon the government?
HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is binding on the government. The human rights section is not binding on the government, did the Member say?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I want to know whether that discrimination that I brought to your attention 10 days ago will be wiped out?
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this Act is binding for the first time on the Crown.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well can I take the Minister's assurance that, on the passage of this legislation and its signing and coming into force, discrimination which I brought to his attention on the basis of sex, where women are discriminated against in the Queen's Printer, will be wiped out and we won't see further advertisements of the type that I mentioned to him?
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this Act wipe out discrimination that has existed in the civil service in the Province of British Columbia for many, many years. The Crown is bound by the provisions of this Act for the first time. I don't know how I can express it in any clearer manner so that the leader of the Liberal Party might understand that.
I would suggest that this is the first government in the Province of British Columbia which has been willing to live by the provisions of the human rights Act and the labour code that we do enforce on the private sector.
AN HON. MEMBER: We'll discriminate against you.
HON. MR. KING: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I haven't found a Liberal government in Canada yet which has been prepared to live by the terms that it imposes on the private sector. So I find the Liberal leader's concern about discrimination very welcome and I assure him that this government is dedicated to the elimination of discrimination.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The specific question I asked the Minister I will repeat: that is….
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister is not required to answer a specific question. He answers it in his own way.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And I'm not required to ask anything less than 67 questions until he takes it under advisement. The specific question is whether or not the agreement between Her Majesty, in right of the Province of British Columbia, and the Civil Service Commission, and the typographical union, which led to the discriminatory provisions which now exist in the Queen's Printer, which discriminate against women in terms of pay and in terms of jobs, will be wiped out with the passage of this Act and with this Act coming into force. It's a specific example which I brought to the Minister's attention 10 days ago!
Amendment approved.
Section 6 approved with amendment.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
On section 9.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria on the amendment.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On section 8.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We've passed 8.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We haven't passed it. I stood up to speak on section 8. Don't play games.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! Don't be testy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask leave of the House to return to section 8.
Leave granted.
[ Page 1357 ]
On section 8.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, it may be amusing to the government, but human rights is a pretty serious question, and I'd ask the Premier to take it seriously.
Here we have the words "political belief" for the first time and I repeat the question I put earlier. Why does it occur here, where it goes in discrimination in respect to employment, and not elsewhere? Why is there not consistency, such as the Minister pointed out when he brought in the amendment to section 6, which should be necessary and should be throughout this whole bill?
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
Amendment approved.
On section 9 as amended.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have here "discrimination by trade-unions and employers and occupational association." The question I'd like to pose to the Minister is: how far is this going to go to wipe out the type of union hall hiring which the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) brought to the attention of this Legislature some years ago and which still exists in many industries?
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the section places a requirement in trade unions not to negotiate contracts which embody discriminatory rates against females. It provides that they will not practise discrimination on any of the common grounds with respect to their membership.
This is something that is again a new section. There is much broader coverage in terms of access to the privileges of trade union membership than has ever been contained in legislation in this province before. With respect to hiring hall practices, I am not aware of discrimination in that respect and I invite the Liberal leader, if he knows or can document any case of discrimination in hiring hall practices, to come forward with that evidence. I would be very happy to receive it.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The reference I was making, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, was to the cases brought forward by the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) some time ago whereby people in the north consider, rightly or wrongly, that they are discriminated against because of the practices of unions to hire from Vancouver. People have been flown up to the north; local people are unable to take advantage of job opportunities because of this practice. I wonder if that is going to be affected by this section.
The second question I have on this section is intended membership in the trade union — in other words, line 3 of this section 9 (1). Does this mean that an individual, by announcing his intention to join a trade union and his desire to join a trade union, is on the same footing in terms of equality of opportunity to get a job as the person who is presently a member?
HON. MR. KING: It says that members should respect anyone who might be entering an apprenticeship programme as a carpenter or as a pipe fitter with the intended eventual goal of entering that craft. In order to enter that craft he has to be a member of a trade union. So that is the reference to "intended."
With further respect to the Member's charge of discrimination in hiring hall practices, I am not aware of the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) documenting any case in the House. That could well be. I don't know when it was, but I would again invite the leader of the Liberal party, if he can document and produce evidence that discrimination is going on, to bring it forward, by all means, and we will certainly investigate it.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are not here investigating individual cases. We are asking whether this section will apply under certain circumstances. I take it, from the Minister's reply, that if the practice of central hiring continues and works to the detriment of people in northern or remote areas of the province, this section can be used by a person so affected to get an equal crack at the work involved.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal leader implies a certain bias here. He displays, I think, a certain prejudice himself by innuendo, suggesting that people may be discriminated against. Now either you come forward with a case or not.
It is clear that under this legislation we have bound trade unions by the same requirements that are imposed upon companies, that are imposed upon employers and tenants. In addition to this type of protection, for the first time we have an ombudsman under the Labour Code of British Columbia Act who has the authority to investigate and inquire into any charge or any complaint by a trade union member that he has been unfairly dealt with by his trade union.
I think it is just a little bit shallow to hear the concern expressed by the Hon. Liberal leader when
[ Page 1358 ]
this government has moved further to the protection of individual rights in this province than, indeed, any Liberal government ever has, or the federal government has attempted to do. I find the grounds and the complaints that the Member is bringing up somewhat picayune and shallow, Mr. Chairman.
MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): I wonder if the Minister would give assurance to the House on what I presume to be probably typographical errors. I mention particularly section (9) (1) (b). It doesn't seem to read right. Can we be assured that a correction will be made there, or will the Minister explain the wording if a correction, in the Minister's mind, is not required?
It is the second word in (9) (b): "negotiate, or behalf of that person, an agreement that would discriminate against him contrary to this Act." I believe there are several other minor amendments or sort of discrepancies of that nature. Could the Minister explain this?
HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) is quite right. That correction has already been filed with the Law Clerk and it will be corrected.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In (9) (2) (b) we have here: "The conviction of criminal or summary convictions charges shall not constitute reasonable cause unless such charges relate…." What I would like to know is, if a person has been charged, convicted, sentenced, served his sentence, and is once more out, whether or not his previous conviction could, under this section, still be held against him if it relates to the occupation, employment or membership.
There are some provisions, for example, whereby people with criminal records, so-called, cannot be on the directorship of companies. There is a case in Vancouver dealing with the sports club at the present time. I was wondering what would happen if a person has served his time — whether this could still apply to bar him from any continued employment or continued membership in an organization.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this would depend on the nature of the man's employment with a company. If he had access to the treasury and he had been convicted of theft or absconding with funds or something of that nature, then obviously he would be a threat to the company's legitimate security interests. They would have reasonable cause, under those circumstances, to fire him.
But where a situation arises that a man may be convicted of a violation of the Liquor Control Board Act, and he is fined $50, then certainly no employer should have the right to set himself up as higher authority than the courts of the land and to assess additional economic penalties upon that person.
This clearly differentiates between a situation where an employer has a legitimate interest, a legitimate concern, a matter of trust with that employee, and a different situation where he can use a conviction as justification for dismissing an otherwise very reliable employee.
Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved with amendment.
On section 15.
HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't let this clause go by without expressing my deep satisfaction to the Minister for placing this particular clause in here. For a number of years, as a Member of the opposition, I presented a private Member's bill on this very section and saw it go down year after year without being received by the former government.
MR. GARDOM: You haven't had as much experience in that as I have.
HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, Mr. Member, it was very frustrating. Why I am particularly delighted to see this is I think that this particular section is going to do much for many of our people out there — many of the citizens, particularly women — who unfortunately found it most difficult to enter a complaint themselves, particularly if they were working in a large institution and they were afraid of recrimination.
Now, of course, through this section anyone, male or female, can now have a complaint entered on their behalf by someone else. I think this should certainly speed up and certainly bring before the Human Rights Commission many cases of discrimination which, because of the former government's lack of interest in seeing that this clause went through, never came to the attention of the Human Rights Commission. So, I am very pleased and I certainly am very glad to endorse it.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to section 16 (1) in the third line thereof by deleting the word "may" and substituting the word "shall," thereby making it mandatory that "where a director is unable to settle an allegation, or where he is of the opinion that an allegation will not be settled by him, the director shall make a report to the Minister of Labour who shall refer the allegation
[ Page 1359 ]
to a board of inquiry" with the following matters still continuing as they are in existing section 16.
What I am complaining about in the section, as now written, is that it is another discretionary power unto the Minister and it is apparently another socialistic concept of appeal procedures. At the one extreme there is no appeal procedure and at the other extreme there is a most limited form of appeal.
I think we've got to make up our mind whether we are going to have a proper appeal or not. The Minister made a great deal of the fact in earlier discourse this evening that right of appeal lay from a decision of a board of inquiry to the supreme court under certain circumstances. But the only right of appeal to the supreme court, Mr. Chairman, is the right of appeal from a decision of that board.
Under section 16, where we find that a director is unable to settle an allegation or reaches the conclusion that he can't handle the matter, then he has to make a report to the Minister. But at that point the Minister may, if he chooses, permit the matter to remain dormant. There is not any specific need, on his part, to refer the matter to the board of inquiry where, in my view and in view of the Civil Liberties Association of this province, it should go. I would make that amendment.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, section 16 follows the trend of the Act that attempts to take a conciliatory approach to human rights. I think that basically the prevention of discrimination and recognition of human rights is a process of education.
Certainly it is preferable, in my view, that if the director can resolve allegations of discrimination by consultation with the parties — by the power of persuasion — then that should be the route to go. But under this section we have placed an obligation on the director that in those cases where he or she cannot resolve and settle the complaint or allegation by this conciliatory approach, then she must refer a report to the Minister of Labour.
Now, she has no latitude there even though she may be dealing with a complaint that is based on pretty frivolous circumstances. Surely there is a requirement at some point that the merit of the allegation should be looked at. If it is indeed frivolous, then there should be a point at which it can be stopped without going the whole route of setting up a panel to deal with it.
That is the intent of using the words "may refer the allegation to a board of inquiry" rather than making it mandatory, as it is mandatory for the director to bring it to the attention of the Minister. I think this is a reasonable proposition because surely, as the Member well knows, there are bound to be a number of cases which will be of a completely frivolous nature. It would be unduly expensive and time-consuming to have to process every one of them through the whole grinder. So that is the intent.
MR. GARDOM: Does the director have the right to take that case herself?
HON. MR. KING: No. It's incumbent upon the director. She "shall" refer it, so that the adjudication of frivolity…. Mind you, her recommendation would be taken under consideration when she made her report as to whether it was a valid complaint or not. If she recommended that it was based on firm grounds and on solid evidence, then in all probability it would proceed. But if it came with her suggestion that it was frivolous and the evidence bore that proposition out, then there is no reason why it should go through an inquiry board.
MR. GARDOM: But it is still upon the director, I would assume that it is the duty of the director to make the adjudication of frivolity in the first instance. I think you would agree with me on that.
HON. MR. KING: Yes, but she must refer it.
MR. GARDOM: You do agree with me on that?
HON. MR. KING: Yes.
MR. GARDOM: Then I appreciate the referral. However, I'll stay by the amendment. It's apparent that it's riot going to pass, so let's put the question.
Amendment negatived.
MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make another observation, if I may. I did so earlier and the Minister said he would prefer it to come a little later in this discussion of the particular sections of this bill.
We had quite a bit of discourse between the two of us during the discussion of Bill 11, the labour code, particularly under section 21 where I proposed the amendment at that time Mr. Chairman, that parties to proceedings would be entitled to present evidence with or without counsel.
I am very happy to see under section 16 (4) that before a board of inquiry the Minister now deems fit to see that people do have the right to be represented by counsel. That right is stipulated and built into the statute. The only question I have to the Minister is why he happens to take one course of action under the labour code and why he happens to take another course of action under this Act.
Interjection.
MR. GARDOM: Through the Wrigley gum over there he is doing his very best to convey a message to
[ Page 1360 ]
me, and I missed what he was saying.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the people have been giving a message to that party for some time and he hasn't caught on to that yet, so I think it's too late for me.
MR. GARDOM: Oh, now, now, now! That's late humour. It's not the early show. We appreciate that. You are not entirely keeping the galleries full yourself either, Mr. Minister, I think it would be appropriate if we have your reason now. You must have some reasons for doing these things. They just don't come out of the air and surely you just don't rubber-stamp the suggestions of legislative counsel.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. GARDOM: What are the reasons for putting this into this bill and taking it out of the other one?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are debating the human rights Act now, not the labour code. Perhaps the Member has thought of some things he would have liked to have said in the debate on the labour code. I would ask him to restrict his remarks to this bill.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I was going to make the same point myself.
MR. GARDOM: Those remarks were made during the debate on the labour code. He suggested that….
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member has no right to ask a question concerning another bill. We are discussing section….
MR. GARDOM: I just asked you a simple question about legislative tradition. Is it asking too much that we have a consistent approach in legislation?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have only the bill before us.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
MRS. JORDAN: You will recall earlier, Mr. Chairman, that I and other colleagues drew the Minister into debate on section 3. In so doing, he made very clear, in relating this to section 17, the need for flexibility in determining what, in fact, does or does not constitute discrimination as it applies to this Act and the penalties under this Act.
When we get to section 17, I must again bring up the point that we recognize the need for this flexibility, but in so doing we also recognize the urgent need for this commission to be required to make available, on reasonable request — I don't mean frivolously — a written statement for their reasons of why they will accept or not accept a charge of discrimination.
Section 17 (1) says: "Where a board of inquiry is of the opinion that an allegation is not justified, the board may dismiss the allegation." This is a reasonable part of the Act, but surely it is then reasonable to suggest that the board must make available the reason for dismissing the allegation.
It goes on in subsection 2 to say that "the board of inquiry shall order any person who contravened this Act to cease such contravention, and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention." Again the point must be raised, Mr. Chairman, thinking in terms of this Act and the decisions that are going to be made by the board, that in time, as these decisions are made, they will automatically be developing a definition of what constitutes discrimination in British Columbia under this Act.
Surely in setting those types of precedents, it is mandatory that there be written reason for these decisions and precedents so that if one does not agree or a new human rights commissioner does not agree with a previous decision of the Human Rights Commission, then there is something upon which they can constructively criticize the previous decision and give sound reason for their current decision.
Also, Mr. Chairman, if you read section 17, the commission has the right to levy a penalty up to $5,000 for contravention of this Act. Now, that ain't peanuts, in my book, Mr. Chairman. I think it isn't in many books. That's a very hefty fine and well may be justified. But surely if an individual is to be fined up to $5,000, then there should be sound reason in writing for the levying of that fine — not just an arbitrary decision that you are fined because you contravened this Act.
Also, under subsection 3 "A board of inquiry may make such order…as it considers appropriate." So again we see great latitude in the power of this board, which we don't disagree with at this time, but we say that with such latitude there must be written reasons for the latitude that they are taking.
With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose an amendment to this bill — Bill 100, the Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act. In section 171 would like to suggest that we renumber subsections (3) and (4) as subsections (4) and (5) and add a subsection (3): "The board shall make all of its decisions against a person who has contravened this section available in writing for such person."
My learned advisor tells me that this is in no way
[ Page 1361 ]
contrary to the position that the Minister has taken. And if we look up the labour code, Bill 11, we'll find that this exact wording is used in that Act. While this amendment may have been worded a different way from my own choice, it has been worded in this way in order that it wouldn't offend the Minister. By using his own words we hope that he will accept the fact that there is need and the right to a written decision of this commission and that he will accept this amendment on these grounds.
HON. MR. KING: What is the amendment?
M R. CHAIRMAN: I think she read the amendment. It adds a subsection (3), and renumbers (3) to (4) to (5). Subsection (3) would read: "The board shall make all of its decisions against a person who has contravened this Act available in writing for such person."
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, my concern here is that if the board is to publish all its decisions the confidentiality of evidence that might be submitted by parties appearing before the board could be compromised. We certainly don't want to discourage anyone from bringing complaints before the board.
The Act now provides that not only that person who is discriminated against, but anyone else who knows of discrimination, may make a complaint before the board also. Certainly, if their evidence before the board were to be revealed in decisions, then we would reduce the chance of anyone filing such a complaint, it would seem to me.
I would mention also that the courts do not give reasons for all their judgments unless they are appealed. There is a basis for appeal here, and I think that that's satisfactory at this point.
I'll certainly think about the Member's suggestion. But I don't want to accept it as an amendment at this time. I'll give it consideration, though, and if there are no legal complications in it I would consider bringing that amendment in next session.
MRS. JORDAN: One more point. I appreciate the Minister's comment and the fact that he's taking this amendment under advisement. I would just like to say in thanking him for his open-minded attitude that his own argument, with respect, helps solidify my argument.
The one thing I think we're all concerned about and that has been a concern before is that when people are allowed to register a complaint on behalf of someone else, there is a great danger of frivolous action. I would suggest, in addition to my previous arguments, that the idea that this decision and the reasons for the decision could be made public would serve as a built-in deterrent against any such frivolous action. I appreciate him bringing it up, because I think he's helped support our argument very strongly.
MR. GARDOM: I'm very much in support of the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the comments of the Minister that he's prepared to look at it, but he's had an opportunity to look at it before. It's not a new proposal at all; it's one of the primary concepts of the fundamental philosophy of the principle of natural justice, and it's one of the ones that he gave thought to himself when he came in with the labour code, which we're not entitled to talk about tonight. We're not entitled to talk about the Labour Minister's consistency in one case and inconsistency in another, and this is one of his classic examples of being inconsistent.
We've got a lot more here than just looking at situations. Between now and when the Hon. Minister may reach a conclusion that it would be a good thing to have in here, we could have the liberty of a subject involved, since in this particular section we find that it is possible for the board to make an order against a person who has contravened the Act to pay up to $5,000 compensation.
We also find within the provisions of this section, Mr. Chairman, the right to have that order of the board made an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, or the County Court of British Columbia, and that order will have the same force and effect and all proceedings may be taken on it as if it were a judgment of the appropriate court. And if it is a judgment of the appropriate court, and becomes a judgment to the extent that there is a $5,000 claim against somebody, and somebody chooses not to pay that, that person can face civil imprisonment. He can do that on the basis of not having reasons given against him for that.
That's an absolute denial of the liberty of the subject! You don't find this in the Criminal Code of Canada.
To suggest that this should be a provision in here…this is not one that should be just looked at, Mr. Minister, and I would respectfully suggest to the Minister tonight that if he's troubled about this particular section he should adjourn this particular section, carry on with the rest of the bill, and come in tomorrow with an amendment. If the terminology of the lady Member (Mrs. Jordan) doesn't suit him, let him come tomorrow morning with terminology that does suit him.
There is no way that the principle of this amendment tonight should be forgotten or disposed of. This should be carried tonight. We should not have Star Chamber tactics, which this could become by virtue of abuse existing in the Province of B.C.
Interjections.
MR. GARDOM: Oh, it can. You can shake your head all you want to, Mr. Premier. And if you'd like
[ Page 1362 ]
to go ahead and enter the debate in this thing, or the Minister of — whatever he is back there — Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), we'd be delighted to hear from him, too.
But the Minister's own arguments were the most valid premises for the support of the lady Member's amendment. It's a thing that should be done now. This should not be hoisted. If you want to hoist it for a little while to look at it, fine and dandy. It shouldn't take too long — the legislative counsel is in the corner over there and you can have a short chat with them, and have it attended to before 11 o'clock without any difficulty, let alone tomorrow. But I think without any question of a doubt this amendment, or a government amendment, if the Minister would prefer…. And we know how sensitive this Minister is about amendments, because 77 were proposed in the labour code and there was only one that he would give any thought to at all.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether that shows my insensitivity or whether it shows the ineptitude of the opposition in terms of providing reasonable amendments. But we'll all have to be our own judge of that situation.
I don't share the rather surprising concern of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I would point out that in section 16 (6) "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by order, establish rules governing the procedure of a board of inquiry."
MR. GARDOM: "May!"
HON. MR. KING: There's authority there to establish the rules, and to require reasons to be given, or the precise manner in which the board will function. I think that's quite an adequate safeguard in terms of ensuring that those appearing before the board will receive adequate advice of their rights, and adequate evidence on which decisions which affect them are based.
I oppose the amendment.
MR. GARDOM: The Minister refers to 16 (6), and 16 (6) is just to the effect that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council "may" by order establish rules governing the procedure of a board of inquiry. Well, it may, but the Minister is not in the position to give any undertaking to this House or to anyone else that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall enact the provision that the lady Member (Mrs. Jordan) has proposed. There's no way that he can give that commitment or undertaking to anybody because he couldn't follow it through — we know that.
No, you can't. You might not be the Minister — who knows? You might trade with Highways, or something or other. You don't have the capacity to give that as a commitment. And, strangely enough, you haven't even volunteered to give it as a commitment tonight. You have acquiesced with the premise, you agree with the principle, but you say that you want to look at it, even though you have brought in an exactly parallel situation in your labour code.
What we're talking about in this bill is human rights. That's what the bill's all about! It's human rights. And one of the basic human rights in the concept of natural justice is that reasons for judgment shall be provided against people who are adjudicated against. It is a denial of natural justice not to provide that, and that's why the lady Member moved the amendment.
MRS. JORDAN: I don't intend to prolong the debate, but after listening to the Minister and his reception originally to the suggestion of the amendment, I didn't like to hear him really castigate his own legislation.
You said, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment was inept, and that's why you couldn't accept it. It was lifted directly from your own legislation section 23 of Bill 11. Surely the Minister's not suggesting to this House at this time that Bill 11 is inept legislation, or even has inept sections.
So surely, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, there's absolutely no reason, for the matter stated by the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), for other reasons given, and for the very drafting of this amendment, for you not to accept it in terms of human rights and fair play and the other reasons to avoid the possibility or help safeguard against the possibility of frivolous complaints.
I again would ask the Minister to accept the amendment now, showing faith not only in his desire to make a truly human rights bill, as much as possible, but also to not insult his own legislation, and to consider his own legislation with confidence. And if he accepts this then certainly we can accept the fact that he does consider his legislation confident. And that this amendment, as I said before, is virtually lifted from section 23 of Bill 11.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan doesn't hear too well. I suggested when the Member complained not many of the Liberal amendments were accepted, I said perhaps it has something to do with the ineptitude of their contents. I wasn't referring to the section of this bill.
Now, I have indicated that under section 6 of section 16 the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may establish the rules governing boards of enquiry.
I have suggested to the Member for North
[ Page 1363 ]
Okanagan that her suggestion has some merit and it will be studied. I suggest further that if a decision is made that it's advisable and contributes anything to the bill, that change can be made under the existing Act without further legislative action or amendment. So, I simply offer that to the Member.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, Bill 100 is the human rights code. And if there's any legislation which should within it contain such a provision it's this bill. We have put it into other legislation; we have put it into the labour code. And the lady Member's proposal is a very simple one: that in this bill, which is the human rights code — "rights code," not human rights by order-in-council code, but a rights bill — we should have it incorporated into the wording so that when we pass this bill, if it is passed — I assume it will be — we can then be sure that it's right there in the legislation and a change in the Minister won't affect things, a change in the government won't affect things; it's enshrined in the legislation.
Now, I appreciate what the Minister said about 16 (6), but 16 (6) is not anything but a statement which says that the Lieutenant-Governor may, by order, establish rules. Well, that's precisely the type of situation that a human rights bill should get away from. We should be dealing with rights of citizens, not making these people dependent upon the cabinet, upon the Minister, upon others who may in their discretion allow them to have certain rights. These are rights which they should have by virtue of being citizens of this province. If there's anything which I think displays the attitude of the government or could display the attitude of the government it would be refusing an amendment of this nature.
We in this party believe that rights exist because of the fact that people are free and independent citizens of this province and of this country. It's not a question of rights being granted grudgingly by a paternalistic government by way of order-in-council. It's not that; it's something else. Individuals mean something; individuals are important in this respect.
The Member's amendment is very, very clear — indeed she claims it's lifted from Bill 11, section 23. And under the circumstances I fail to see why it cannot be put into this piece of legislation.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 15
| Chabot | Richter | Jordan |
| Smith | Fraser | Phillips |
| McClelland | Morrison | Schroeder |
| Bennett | Anderson, D.A. | Williams, L.A. |
| Gardom | Curtis | Wallace |
NAYS — 34
| Hall | Macdonald | Barrett |
| Dailly | Strachan | Nimsick |
| Stupich | Hartley | Calder |
| Nunweiler | Brown | Sanford |
| D'Arcy | Levi | Lorimer |
| Williams, R.A. | Cocke | King |
| Lea | Young | Radford |
| Lauk | Nicolson | Skelly |
| Gabelmann | Lockstead | Gorst |
| Rolston | Anderson, G.H. | Steves |
| Kelly | Webster | Lewis |
| Liden |
MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that when the committee reports the division to the House that they ask that it be recorded in the Journals of the House.
Sections 17 to 28 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the bill complete with amendments and further reports that divisions took place in committee on sections of the bill and asks leave to have these recorded in the Journals of the House.
Leave granted.
Bill 100, the Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 85, Mr. Speaker.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE
SUPREME COURT ACT
The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Dent in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
Title approved.
[ Page 1364 ]
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 85, An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE
COUNTY COURTS ACT
The House in committee on Bill 89; Mr. Dent in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 89, An Act to Amend the County Courts Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 106, Mr. Speaker.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE
REVISED STATUTES ACT, 1966
The House in committee on Bill 106; Mr. Dent in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 106, An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 110, Mr. Speaker.
BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY
GRANT ACT, 1973
The House in committee on Bill 110; Mr. Dent in the chair.
On section 1.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, last night a question was asked about the commitments of the former administration for this $25 million. I am told that the BCR budget is being prepared, but not finalized. The capital commitments are related to new locomotives, rolling stock, which I understand does not include the $15 million expenditure announced by the present administration for the 1,000 new boxcars which will be purchased on a lease-to-purchase plan. Ballast and tie programmes, a bridge programme and new buildings, the question of relocating the headquarters from downtown Vancouver to North Vancouver — those were the commitments for the $25 million.
Interjection.
HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, the specific breakdowns of the budget are not finalized, but I'll remember the Member's question and try to get the information to you.
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): During the second reading of this short bill last night, we witnessed by the president of the railway (Hon. Mr. Barrett) quite an act on the floor of the Legislature. He spent quite some time talking against the railway and against what has been done on the railway in the past few years.
One of the statements he made, Mr. Chairman, and I quote from Hansard, was to give me an explanation why the extension to Fort Nelson was rushed through so quickly.
We witnessed, Mr. Chairman, since this government came to power, that everything has to be surveyed and sent to committee. All I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that we could have surveyed this railway extension into eternity, but had it not been for decisive action on the part of the previous administration, there would probably not be any railway extension into Fort Nelson today.
I couldn't help but think, Mr. Chairman, when the president of the railway was talking, that I want to
[ Page 1365 ]
thank God for our forefathers who had the vision and the foresight and the courage to build that great railway which united this Canada of ours. Maybe it could be said, Mr. Chairman, that they rushed through the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I want to thank God, Mr. Chairman, for the vision and the courage and the foresight and the business ability of the previous administration when they pushed the railway — which was the laughing-stock of the Province of British Columbia some years ago — when they pushed it through into the Peace River country and had the vision to push it through to Fort Nelson, an extension that will be used by the present administration in the development of the north.
The Premier wanted to know why we were having so many problems with that particular extension, and in his own words, "which may cost of millions and millions of dollars to correct." Mr. Chairman, it has to be written into the record — and it has to be known by the taxpayers of British Columbia, who own this railway, and who, I might add, by and large are very proud of this railway — that had this extension not been built in the year that it was built, it would have not only cost twice as much, it probably would have cost us three to four times as much as it will ever cost to correct some of the minor engineering problems that may be existing on the railway at the present time.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Minor engineering!
MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, with the way this socialist government has added to the spiral of inflation, that I'm being very conservative when I say it would have cost three to four times as much to build the railway today as it would have had it not been built in that time.
It probably would have cost 10 times as much, as the present Minister of Finance will find out when he starts building further extensions in the north.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): You'll eat those words.
MR. PHILLIPS: I'll eat those words? You'll eat those words! You who are the Minister of the resources of this province who needs that railway to carry through some of your vast visions and ideas — had it not been for the visions of the previous administration, had it not been for the courage of the previous administration, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, you wouldn't have that great empire that you've got today to play with.
It's time you realized and paid tribute to the vision of the previous administration and quit knocking it around. When you're knocking it around, Mr. Chairman — when they're knocking it around they're not really knocking around the previous administration. What they're knocking around is the administration of that great railway — the people who put in time and hours and courage, overtime, to see that that railway was the success that it is today.
Now, it's all very well and good for the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to come in and knock everything that was done and to tear down….
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance realize that he is no longer in opposition, that he take on the stature of being the president of that great railway, that he look at it in an objective way and try to build it up, instead of tear it down.
If that present president of the railway had any idea of the problems of construction in the north, knew anything about the terrain that that railway was constructed through, knew anything of the problems of drainage, knew anything about the clay soil that exists in that area, he wouldn't condemn the engineers who designed that extension to Fort Nelson. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that we could say the same thing about the Alaska Highway. It was rushed through in a time of war. A lot of time and energy went into it. And what's happening today? Many sections of the highway are falling away; the bridge over the Peace River fell down.
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: That's all right, it wasn't that many years later.
When you take the time to drive that highway and go over that railway, then you can start condemning it. You sit in your cushy big offices down here and you really don't know what's going on in the north.
I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, there are many problems that engineers who have not had the experience of working in the north are finding out, and they have to find out many….
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: Will you quit yakking? If you want to stand up and make a speech, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and condominiums and everything else that goes with it (Hon. Mr. Williams), you can do it when I am done.
MRS. JORDAN: Ask him why he was fired from Kelowna.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member please confine his remarks to the amendment?
[ Page 1366 ]
MR. PHILLIPS: I am confining my remarks as close as possible to those made by the president of the railway last night, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you that no matter how many engineers you put on a particular route for a railway, or no matter how many engineers you put on a particular route for a road, I don't think that you will ever find that they will completely agree with one another.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, well, there's "Oh, oh, oh!" — the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the know-all engineer for everywhere.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the section. We are in committee.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about $25 million that's going to the British Columbia Railway, and I am talking about $25 million that may go into design and engineering for extensions of the route. This is what we are talking about.
What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I think that no matter how many specialists you have design a particular route, you are going to have disagreements. It is very easy to have hindsight and say when something fails that it was poorly designed. But the engineers in British Columbia and, indeed, many of the engineers in Canada who haven't actually been in the north, who haven't built roads in the north, who have not had experience in it, are going to have problems.
That's why millions and millions and millions of dollars today are being poured into a pipeline — a short pipeline — just to find out some of the problems of construction in the north. Maybe we should have done the same thing with the railway. I don't know. I think it's not proper that the president of the railway stand up and condemn those engineers.
If it had been for the policies of the present administration, if it had been government, I don't think there would have been any extensions into the Peace River area.
It's all very well and good for the Premier to order studies. I am not saying that when those studies come in that I have too much faith in those studies. If he were to appoint unpolitical people to the studies and bring in studies that were unbiased, maybe I would have a lot more faith in the studies, But some of the studies, Mr. Chairman, that have been brought into this House have been studies designed specifically on a political bias.
The Premier went into quite some length last night to give credit to the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey about his financial ability in criticizing the railway. Well, Mr. Chairman, this sort of leaves me almost sick in the pit of my stomach, because I realize that had it been for the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the railway would have remained as the laughing stock of British Columbia.
The Premier says that the former administration bungled the whole engineering process of that particular extension. You would think that the previous administration had gone out and actually done the engineering design on that railway. I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that we don't have to stand in this House in a few years — and I wouldn't want to be condemned or guilty of it — and try to fault the present administration on a deal they had made with the CNR and CPR, because I hope that deal turns out to be for the benefit of not only all of the people of British Columbia, but for the benefit of all the people of this great Canada of ours.
Our Premier took the time to condemn the engineers who built this railway before the report that he has ordered has even come down, Mr. Chairman. Now, you tell me that that's not going to bias this report. Yet he wants us to give him the authority to put an additional $25 million into this railway. How can those engineers, who, by the way, are biased to begin with because they are from the CPR and they are from the CNR, possibly bring down an unbiased report?
However, there was one thing about the performance last night. What the Premier lacked in business ability he certainly made up in having the entertaining ability of a clown.
I think that I would have been much more impressed if the Premier had taken an objective view about the problems that we are having on that particular extension instead of coming out and blatantly condemning the engineers of the British Columbia Railway. I don't know what he was trying to accomplish except to try and bring about in the people who work for the railway, who think of it as their railway and who are loyal to the railway, a sort of attitude of complete discouragement. Why worry? Why even try, when the President of the railway is against us? Engineers and architects have always differed. Things that have been designed will never always be perfect.
He took a great deal of time in his remarks last night to talk about the great surplus and the great budget such that he was able to spend this $25 million without it even phasing on the economy of British Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you, and I want to tell this Legislature and I want to tell all those wonderful people who work for this railway and I want to tell all the taxpayers in the Province of British Columbia…
HON. MR. COCKE: Say it louder then.
[ Page 1367 ]
MR. PHILLIPS: …that if it were not for the extensions of this great British Columbia Railway into the Peace River area, if it were not for the proposed extensions in behind the Alaskan panhandle, and if it were not for the extension into Fort Nelson, this government wouldn't have the money in its coffers that it's got today! They wouldn't have this $25 million to play around with! The economy of this province wouldn't be as buoyant as it is today if it were not for the pioneering and the engineering and the opening up of the hinterland that this great railway has done for this province!
It's time that we started getting down to the basics and facts of what the development of the hinterland and what the development of the north country has done for the economy of this province. That's why our Minister of Finance can stand in this House today and in front of the press and in front of the radio and on all the open-line shows and say that we're not ruining the economy and that the money is rolling in faster than it did before.
I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. It is because of the pioneering and the development of the opening of the north that this pioneer British Columbia Railway has done. That's why the economy of this province is buoyant today. It's time that all of us in this House were conscious of the fact.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that before the engineers and the specialists from the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway come out to do studies on a railway that is very well run, very well engineered, they take a look at the national railways, both the CNR and CPR. They are costing the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada multi-million dollars a year in subsidies. I would suggest before these specialists come to British Columbia that they take a look at their own backyard.
I would suggest to you that the people of British Columbia who are subsidizing the Canadian Pacific Railway, who are subsidizing the Canadian National Railway, and who are not receiving any help from the federal government — maybe we wouldn't need to be voting this $25 million if the federal government were paying their fair share of the operation of this great railway here in British Columbia instead of the taxpayers of British Columbia having to pay the whole shot.
They put an extension in Alberta. Who has to subsidize it?
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about money! I am talking about $25 million, Mr. Minister of Finance, that you want the taxpayers of British Columbia to put into this railway!
I would suggest that you go to some other province, Mr. Minister of Finance. Find out how much the federal government puts into the extension of railways in Alberta, in Ontario and in Quebec. How much money from the federal coffers come into the extensions of the British Columbia Railway. Not one cent!
Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's all very well and good. The Minister of Finance has condemned the railway that has done more than any other single thing to get the economy of British Columbia rolling, to open up the north country and to bring all those tax dollars into the coffers which they're having such a great time playing with.
No, Mr. Chairman, it's time that the Minister of Finance and president of the railway realized how much time, energy, devotion, courage, guts and good sound business reasoning has gone into the development of this great railway.
Mr. Chairman, due to the time, I'd like to make a motion that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion not approved.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what we've heard in bombast does not in any way impinge upon the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown, who is charged with expenditure of public funds, to be as sure as humanly possible about the validity of the expenditure of those funds.
If political statements are made and then must be backed up with dollars, and we find that the dollars have been inadequately spent, then it is not a blame of the engineers for the concept to the railroad, but is a responsibility of the politicians.
This is not a Social Credit railroad; this is a railroad belonging to all of the people of British Columbia. And you must understand that if there are to be any attachments of surfaces or clouds to this railroad, you must recall the history of the cutting of the trees at Summit Lake and the commitment by the former administration that the railroad would never stop until it reached the Alaska border. Those commitments being given just before an election campaign.
We are responsible to the taxpayers to provide the funds in this wealthy province. There are no gifts in this province. Any wealth that we have is a reflection of very hard work of all the people of this province. If I'm to carry out my duties as Minister of Finance and my responsibilities as the president of the railroad then I want to know as much as humanly possible about what I'm voting on before I say yes or no, or cast my vote at a board meeting.
With those conditions, it is my responsibility when a Member of this House raises a question about engineering — engineering decisions being made by
[ Page 1368 ]
politicians saying, "Go ahead with this or that project." The ultimate responsibility is not the engineer's. The ultimate responsibility is on the politician, who is a board member, to say yes or no.
When a municipality builds a bridge, they are given the technical report by the engineers. But the ultimate responsibility as to the safety of that bridge, and its capacity to handle it, is certainly the responsibility of the politicians. Either they have listened and double checked the engineering or they haven't.
So it's not a question of blaming the engineers. To say that an engineer is biased because of who he's hired by — as suggested by the Member that the CPR and the CNR engineers are biased because they are employed by those companies — is to say that a doctor is biased by the company he's employed by and his diagnosis is influenced entirely by his employer, And that's an attack on the engineering profession that I don't need to defend. But certainly the engineers should understand who that attack was made by — and the expression of that attack. I consider it to be completely unfounded to suggest that any engineer would jeopardize his professional standing to prepare a biased report because of his employer.
Now to overcome this particular matter, because I thought that there might be somebody in the House who would suggest such a thing, I made sure that not only was there an engineer from the CPR and the CNR, but the chief engineer from the B.C. Railway itself. And if we accept the Member's argument that there is bias then who would he suggest the chief engineer of the B.C. Rail would be biased for? But I don't accept that argument. I don't accept that argument; he only has one vote.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it's very important that we understand that the political commitments were made on this railroad preceding the former administration. Railroads have been a matter of political extravagance in this province since its very history. The real highlight of it came at the end of the Bowser Administration, and the Brewster group inherited Bowser's commitments which McBride initiated.
There has been almost an unbelievable historical revolution in terms of the same issues going over and over in the history of this province. I think it was Santayana who said that those who are not prepared to learn from history are condemned to relive it. The railroads themselves, through you, Mr. Chairman, are an example of reliving that history.
The complaints made by a Member of this House, which I consider to be valid, were authorized to be checked into by myself as president. I could do nothing less. Now, on receiving those complaints at the board meeting we initiated studies. On November 5, this letter was written, which I received today:
"Dear Mr. Premier:
"I have been in touch with Mr. John Fox, Assistant Chief Engineer of the CPR, who in company with Mr. Ray Fisk, Assistant Chief Engineer of the CNR, is conducting a survey of the entire railway facility. The terms of reference being to submit a report to you as Chairman of the Board, which will outline exactly the condition of our railway…"
And it is our railway; it's not a Social Credit railway.
"…at this time and what betterments are required to bring the line up to the required standards.
"The following report has been prepared as a preliminary summary of the complete report which is to be submitted by the end of November. And this preliminary report has been prepared jointly by Mr. M.S. Wakely, Chief Engineer of B.C. Railway Co. Ltd., and myself after a four-party telephone conference discussion with Mr. Fox and Mr. Fisk in Montreal.
1. The cariboo Division: North Vancouver to Prince George, 460 miles.
(a) banks to be widened to provide with sub grades in both cuts and fills up to the required standards."
MR. GARDOM: What is that, required railway standards?
HON. MR. BARRETT: These are required national railway standards, Mr. Member. And I cannot accept the argument that our railway be anything less than national standards. If I'm to be faulted for that then I won't accept that. Politically I just won't accept it, and technically it can't be accepted.
"The railway is satisfactory now in this section from North Vancouver to Prince George at 100- and 115-pound steel. Excessive curvatures to eliminated, commensurate with economics, particularly in the Cheakamus Canyon, Anderson and Seaton Lakes."
We've had problems with derailment; we've had a history of derailments on that railroad, with no major changes in terms of the infusion of money to avoid those derailments. It's my responsibility as president to cut down the number of derailments. I'm not air engineer. I ask the engineers to tell me how.
"(d) High timber trestles at Australian and Alexandria now only E50 Cooper-rating to be reviewed with the purpose of replacing the steel to E72 rating.
"(e) Ballast programmes continued in order to upgrade the track to proper standards.
"The Chetwynd Subdivision: Prince George to Chetwynd, 200 miles — to be widened on cuts and refills to provide proper width to mainline standards."
Again not up to mainline standards. You will recall, I think it was on this section, that the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was almost involved in an
[ Page 1369 ]
accident with a derailing after he'd been up to open the new extension.
Interjection.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, he flew home. Fortunately for him he flew home; he wasn't involved in the derailing, which was most embarrassing. And at that time the opposition made very little hay out of that embarrassment. Just clucked its tongue.
"(b) Ties to be renewed and replaced in conjunction with a ballast programme for the year 1974."
This programme happens to be on the capital budget of '74 of which funds we're discussing tonight.
"Rail on this subdivision is satisfactory after other work completed, and sags and humps and track profile to be corrected.
" Fort St. John Subdivision: Chetwynd to Fort St. John, 78 miles. The sub grade to be widened to mainline standards."
Again, all this way up, and it was still not wide enough for mainline standards.
"Tie renewals to be continued in 1974. A number of unstable fills to be stabilized, subdivision to be re-established.
"Fort Nelson Extension: Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, 250 miles. Extensive grade revision and reconstruction is necessary to stabilize this line commensurate with the projected traffic offering."
That means if we're going to have the traffic that the Member talks about to generate the revenue, we'd better upgrade the railway. It wasn't done properly in the first place. Areas in muskeg and unstable ground require special consideration. We're going to have to move the railway out of muskeg.
Now, I'm not an engineer. I never even had little toys to play with when I was a child; I never had trains to play with as a child, nor did I want them. But had I, I certainly would not have built a railroad through muskeg. There are alternative routes that cost a great deal more, but unless they're built on the proper foundations and the proper routes in the first place, all the money you spend in corrections will be wasted, and that's taxpayers' money.
"Several culvert failures have occurred; these require substantial expenditures to rebuild. The Fontas River bridge requires repairs."
We also had a special report on the other bridge that collapsed after only two years of being built. If you're not alarmed by that, well, I am because we're responsible. If I didn't ask for these engineering studies, the responsibility would fall on this government and there's no way we'll accept that responsibility when we inherited this mess from the former administration.
The Fort Nelson extension, it's present rail is 85 pounds salvaged relay quality. Certain replacements are required and a major programme of rail anchors is imminent. I have a message from my office that the figure given by Mr. Wakely, the B.C. Rail chief engineer, not CN or CP, that it will cost us close to $15 million additional just to put the line up to mainline standards.
MR. GARDOM: That's part of your 25.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it may be more money, Mr. Member; I think it will be more money. I think you must consider this $15 million warning as more money.
"The Dawson Creek subdivision: Chetwynd to Dawson Creek, 61 miles, subgrade in both cuts, and fills required to be widened to branch line standards. B. Ballasting programme on a continuing basis to be put into effect 1974.
"Dawson Creek subdivision: all defective ties to be renewed. Rail B, rail changes 73 now in satisfactory condition. Takla Lake subdivision: O'Dell to Fort St. James, 72 miles, subgrades in both cuts and fills to be widened to mainline standards."
Anything to get the road through. Now, I don't buy that philosophy, and if that separates you, from your speech, and me, from my position, fair enough.
"Extensive tie renewals required by 1974. Major ballast programme required by 1974.
"D. Rail generally poor. Rail to be completely renewed with 100 pound section by 1975.
"7. Takla Lake subextension: Fort St. James to end of steel, 142 miles. New track, good construction to proper mainline standards maintained with respect to sub grade width and type of construction. One out of seven. Rail used is relay quality and is in fair condition in 85 and 100 pound section which will require renewal when density of traffic dictates, at which time all untreated ties will be required to be replaced. The joint report is to cover track and roadbed facilities only; it does not touch upon shops, freight sheds and other building facilities. It can be expected that substantial sums will be required to be expended starting immediately and continuing over the next four years, and the programme of betterment will be required to be appropriate with traffic increase over the entire system.
"Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Swanson Director."
And who is Robert E. Swanson who this government put on the board? He was the chief railway inspector who worked for years for the former administration. He came right out of the civil service; we put him on the board because of his
[ Page 1370 ]
experience.
Now, Mr. Member, if you want to make that kind of speech, you're certainly welcome to. But I'll tell you, as long as I'm a politician and responsible as president, before I allow a dollar to be spent, I want to know what the money is being spent on. If that's an unfair question, then, Mr. Member, you can accuse me of being unfair. But if I can't have the best technical advice at my hand before the political decision has to be made — that's what politicians are all about — then I'm not doing my job properly.
To attack the messenger in an attempt to ignore the message is failing the people of this province. The message is that that railroad has not been properly maintained, not been properly constructed and it's going to cost literally millions and millions of dollars to correct the situation inherited.
Do we have to do it? Mr. Member, as long as I am in office and this kind of report comes to my desk, the answer is it must be done. I will not take the responsibility of having this information in front of me and not acting on it. If one person dies or if the economy is disrupted simply because this work wasn't done, then I'd fail in my job. So the answer to "do I have to do it?" Absolutely yes!
Now, I want to make another point.
MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Do you know what mainline standards mean?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I am told that mainline standards are required. I don't know how to perform an appendectomy, but if a doctor comes in and says that one of my children needs an appendectomy I'm not going to lay hands on the child and hope for the best or go to a faith healer or whatever choice someone else may have. I'm going to respect the surgeon and his professional advice.
Interjection.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, that's where it stands. This is the advice I have from these people.
Interjection.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, don't be silly; it's not 66-foot right-of-way, Mr. Member. I'm told that this must be brought up to these standards. Look, that's on your head. If you're trying to say these standards aren't desirable, perhaps you know more about it than I do. But the advice I have is that these standards are required. If I'm the president of the railroad and I don't do what is required by law, then the first thing that would happen is that you would come in and say, "Why aren't you doing it?", and you'd be quite right in criticizing.
We never had these facts before when we were in opposition. We have them now, and quite frankly — a weak argument? — I would be a fool if I didn't order this kind of inquiry.
Now that I have this evidence in front of me, I want to say to all the people of British Columbia who are taxpayers and responsible that I will not permit this type of construction to go on as long as I'm responsible in government. I have absolutely no apology to make for that, absolutely no apology to make for that.
If you want to go to faith healers or you want to have the kind of speech of beating the drum about the great northern empire, then I have to bring you back to the reality that at one time Social Credit held the north. It held the north because of the vision that was held out to those people. The vision turned sour and five of those seven, safe, Socred seats went socialist. Why did they do that? Because the people in the north had serious questions themselves.
You tell me, Mr. Member, that we haven't been up to the north. When I became Leader of the Opposition, I travelled back and forth through the north. I found out about Houston, and I came to this House and spoke about that. How right I was. Just a dumb little social worker, but I was right. We spoke about the railroad, a dumb little social worker. Right again.
Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, I don't give a fig what the Member says in terms of rhetoric, bombast or anything else. This government will not tolerate unsafe conditions or standards below those that are required. We will tell people very honestly that we're not expanding shares, which is a gimmick, we are making an outright grant to the railroad. People will know that if there's more money needed, more money will go into the railroad. But there will be no games, no political wizardry, none of the comment that demands a financial genius. Let's just deal with the truth and the facts.
The truth is that the railway is in less than required condition. The truth is that engineering reports, which I will table tonight — this preliminary letter — indicate that the railroad requires a great deal of upgrading. The truth is that this $25 million will be an outright grant to the railroad. The truth is that if the railroad needs more money to bring it up to standard, that money will be available again on a direct grant on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
The estimate that I have is $15 million. That's a balloon figure — deflated or inflated. This is Mr. Wakely's quote this morning over the telephone. I called him and said, "Give me a ballpark figure." It's $15 million.
MR. GARDOM: What is your $25 million for?
[ Page 1371 ]
HON. MR. BARRETT: The $25 million are commitments that we had from the former administration in terms of new locomotives, rolling stock, ballast-and-tie programmes, bridge programmes and new buildings. This $15 million is above this. This $15 million is a direct result of my initiating this study.
So there will have to be additional capital grants given to this railroad.
Now there's no way, Mr. Member, that I intend to hide these facts or apologize for the facts or anything else. I am just giving you the facts as they are. The question of the rolling stock itself and why we are short is that there was a prediction that there would be a shortage of cars. When we came to office, I asked immediately for a report on the feasibility of building our own railway cars.
Now when you talk about imagination and initiative, I found that such a suggestion had been verbally kicked around by the railroad but not acted on by the former administration. It wasn't a brand new idea of Barrett's. But nobody acted on it. I asked for the report and I was given the report and we acted immediately and everybody applauded that action.
So, Mr. Member, you have no monopoly on vision or drive or energy. The simple fact is that before I made the announcement on the railroad car factory, I made darn sure we had proper feasibility studies done. When they were done, the signals were "Go."
Interjection.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you can yell, you can holler, you can disagree but you can't dispute the fact. You sit next to other businessmen there. If you want to make business decisions based purely on faith, on matters involving the taxpayers' dollars, millions of dollars, you go ahead. I won't operate that way. I never have. I never will.
I'm asking for support of this bill because we need the railway and it is going to cost a lot of money. The railway costs a lot of money, and we are losing money on it. It is necessary for the economy of this province. Therefore, I support the bill completely. But let's deal in facts. These are the facts as I presented them to the House.
MR. GARDOM: I would just like to make one observation, Mr. Chairman. The report that the Premier laid before the House, to a non-engineering lay person, is a pretty scaring report. I think it would be a good thing if he would at least indicate to the people in British Columbia, and certainly those who have to use the railroad and are employed upon it — is it safe?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Can I answer that now or do you have more comments?
MR. GARDOM: I have more comments but if you would like to answer it, go ahead.
HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll make a note of the rest of your comments.
MR. GARDOM: The second point is that I very much agree with your statement. You said, "I want to know what the money is being spent on." This is the very point that I raised last night. It may be an academic point but it is a very serious point, because we are asking in this bill for $25 million. It has nothing to do with the $15 million that you got in the report from your engineer which you stated you have just received.
When we are talking about public accountability and you are asking for $25 million, to me it would be a far better presentation — and I say that with a great deal of respect — it would be a far better degree of presentation on your part if you would inform us what the $25 million is required for.
Now you say it is required not for capital costs for new programmes; it is required to take care of prior commitments. Okay. Why is it now needed for prior commitments? Were there shortages in the estimates in the prior commitments?
HON. MR. BARRETT: The initial commitment was $50 million. They got $25 million and then….
MR. GARDOM: Well, maybe you could explain it because this aspect has not been explained. This is why I took the greatest exception to the bill last night. This is the very reason I voted against the bill last night, because you did not furnish to the House, in the manner you have furnished tonight, particulars of the $25 million as you have given most adequate explanations of the eventual need for the $15 million.
We experienced, in the years that I have been in this Legislature, I think, really and truly a great derogation of the legislative process by Members just nodding their heads on the government side and in opposition side when they get tired. Somebody says, "We need $10 million," and everybody goes "cluck, cluck, cluck," and there is not a single solitary reason advanced for it.
With all respect, the reasons were not advanced last night, and so far we have not received a degree of particularity — which is not too much from you this evening — for the $25 million. I am sure you must have that, and I would like to hear from you.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, last night I pointed out that there was an original commitment by order-in-council of September, 1971, to the company of a $50 million authorization of shares. The railway committed itself to $50 million at the time the order-in-council was passed. They budgeted
[ Page 1372 ]
on the additional $25 million, and in the intervening time there was an election.
The report I have is that what is left to purchase are new locomotives. I'm sorry I don't have the exact prices. I will get you that information. Rolling stock? Some of them have to go out for bid yet, Mr. Member. There is a line waiting at the end of production line — rolling stock, the ballast-and-tie programmes, the bridge programmes and the new buildings. The BCR budget is being prepared but not finalized. I will give you the exact figures as soon as they are available.
I tell you that this is the information I have. It was commitment by the original $50 million. As I said last night, we were locked in and we must make the $25 million. I was part of that kind of faceless thing that we went through — "Yes, we will vote for the railroad."
You know, Mr. Member, even at times I am tempted and do get involved in simplistic politics that we have been used to. I can recall the kind of debates we had where the matter was reduced, as I frequently do reduce it, to "Vote for this or you are 'agin' the railroad." That's exactly the position we are placed in time and time again. I did myself.
I think quite honestly, and I am being very candid here — I don't care if you smile about it or not but I think you will appreciate it more because of your own experience in the House — I think it will take at least another election to cleanse that whole approach out of all of us that are left.
Interjection.
HON. MR. BARRETT: You can make all the facetious remarks you want, Mr. Member, but for those of us who went through years of this, it wasn't very funny. I think the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey would agree completely. It wasn't a very funny experience, but the threats were there. Most of us at the time of that pressure would nod because we knew what kind of rhetoric would abound around those decisions. So the particular matter is that when we inherited that responsibility, faced with the commitments, I have come to the House and said very honestly, "Yes, they will get the money, but not the old way."
Now the question of safety. I have made it very clear to Mr. Swanson that I do not want the railroad running in unsafe conditions under any circumstances, and that the message must go down to the railway management that if there is any question of safety at all, they are not to run. We will not risk a passenger or any crew person's life on a questionable safe practice. That is an absolute commitment.
Now I am trying to candidly bring a new dimension of understanding into this House. It may be bad politics but I'll tell you there is no way that I will continue the practice of what I inherited. I can stand here and say honestly what the information is that I've had, and I will have to come back and ask you for more money to bring the railroad up to snuff. It's as simple as that.
MR. PHILLIPS: Finally, maybe the president of the railway settled down to some logical debate on this instead of going through the antics that he went through last night that brought out this headline in The Vancouver Sun this morning: "Barrett Cites Socred Bungle on British Columbia Extension in the North." That's not the case at all.
HON. MR. BARRETT: I did it last night and I'll do it again tonight and I'll do it again the next night.
MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier told me, he said: "I'm not a doctor; I can't do an appendectomy; I have to rely on the medical profession," while stating not more than five minutes before that if the engineers brought in a report to build a bridge, he wouldn't accept their report because he was responsible for the safety.
Now if that isn't the biggest double-talk flip-flop that I ever heard in my life! One minute he's going to go up….
HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! What is the point of order?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member is either deliberately or unintentionally misquoting me. I said that I would double-check before I gave authorization. Now let's be correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The correction is made.
MR. PHILLIPS: He said he would double-check. But he said specifically that if the engineers are going to bring in a report on how to build a railway, how to build a bridge, he's not going to accept their word. He's going to go out and do a soil test himself. That's the impression he gave me. Yet if he is going to have his appendix out, he is going to have to rely on the doctors. Now you can't have it both ways.
All I'm trying to do is read some truth into this debate as to who's responsible and where it's at. It's unfortunate that politics have to get involved, but the Premier brought it in and I intend to set the record straight on a few things.
HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You're backtracking.
[ Page 1373 ]
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the "Minister of Letting Out Contracts without Bids," the "Minister of No Bids."
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member continue with his remarks about the….
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, tell the Hon. Minister of Public Works to keep in his place and be quiet until I finish my remarks here. I want to get this debate over with, but I just want to read some facts.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's backtracking.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member….
MR. PHILLIPS: There's the jet pilot from Lillooet!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. PHILLIPS: The jet blue set — rags to riches!
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members please not interrupt the speaker?
MR. PHILLIPS: In the Premier's report, Mr. Chairman, he not only brought in a report from the railway from Lillooet to Prince George, the extension into the Peace River area, into Dawson Creek, Chetwynd to Fort St. John and Fort St. John…. He went over the whole deal. Last night all he was talking about was the bungle on the Fort Nelson extension. That's all he could talk about, the bungle.
I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I hope that before there are any extensions on the British Columbia Railway in the north the Premier goes out and does his own soil tests, because that's what he was talking about last night.
You know, Mr. Chairman, the ultimate responsibility is with the politicians. I do hope that our Premier never has to stand behind some of the statements that he's made since he came into power, because it's going to be a sad and sorry day when some of the mistakes that he makes on the reliability of information given to him by others come back to haunt him.
That's what this is all about. That's why I'm drawn into this debate.
You know, Mr. Chairman, he keeps bringing back about why we're spending the $25 million. That really wasn't what he was talking about last night in this Legislature at all. We said we agreed with the bill. We realize that there has to be $25 million spent. Check the debate. We voted for it in second reading.
Mr. Chairman, I want very clearly to note in the record that the Premier said that he would never build a railway to Fort Nelson in muskeg. Well I don't know where the Premier is going to build that railway, because if it had not been built on muskeg it wouldn't have cost him an additional $15 million, and the railway probably never would have been built.
Seventy per cent of the Alaska Highway from Dawson Creek to Fort Nelson — which is a 300-mile extension on the railway — is built on bog. I don't know where you're going to go in that north country and I don't know who you've been talking to who knows so much about that north country. If you're going to build a railway in that north country that isn't on bog, and if you're going to stick to the high land, it's going to cost you not an additional $15 million, not the original $68 million it cost to build the extension — you're going to be looking at close to a quarter of a billion dollars. Now that's business sense.
Maybe there are some problems with the Fort St. John to Fort Nelson extension.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Maybe!
HON. MR. KING: That's the understatement of the year.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you why there are some problems with that extension. In the fall of 1972 there was more moisture in that north country before the freeze-up than there had ever been in the previous 12 years. That's why sections of the Alaska Highway are sliding; that's why portions of the railway are sliding.
Let's set the record straight! In that north country where you build on a clay base and you get excess moisture before the frost sets in, I don't care who designs it, who engineers it, you're going to have problems. And let's not blame it on the previous administration and let's not blame it on the engineers. Let's keep the record straight.
Now let's talk about another extension that was built in the Province of Alberta — partly paid for by the federal government.
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: The northern resources railroad, built into the great city of Grande Prairie. Built why? To carry the products of Procter and Gamble. And Procter and Gamble built a pulp mill at….
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: Who subsidized the railway? The federal government. Who subsidized the pulp mill on
[ Page 1374 ]
a DREE project? The company that really needed it, Procter and Gamble. Millions of our taxpayers' dollars!
Oh, I want to tell you, I hope that the people finally realize what's gone on in British Columbia, how much work, how much effort, how much financial ability has gone into this railway without any help from Ottawa. And then the man from Point Grey who's left the House now — the little Liberal group who are never in here anyway — stands up and criticizes what's gone on. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, it makes me sick to my stomach to listen to the pious attitude of the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.
That little Liberal group has never done anything for the Province of British Columbia! I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if those Liberals would stand up in Ottawa and fight for the province that they represent we'd have millions and millions of dollars more and this railroad would be an asset for all of Canada instead of just being paid for by the people of British Columbia.
Interjections.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well I'll tell you, you'll hear. What did you do when you were in Ottawa? Did you work for the Province of British Columbia? No, you played politics!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member…?
MR. PHILLIPS: That's why we're voting on this $25 million.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. PHILLIPS: If Ottawa had played their part in this railroad, Mr. Chairman, we wouldn't be voting on this $25 million tonight. It would be already in there. It would be paid by the federal government.
I'll tell you, it's time we knew where it was at here in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. Talk about playing politics and condemning the previous administration. I'll tell you…!
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: When the railway was being extended, when everything was going on in the north, who voted against it? The NDP and the Liberals! Let's get things straightened out in this Legislature.
That's all I'm going to say in this debate tonight because, Mr. Chairman, I think I've read into the record….
But I want to tell you that before the next election I'll have lots more to say. I'll have lots more to say.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I make no claim to be an engineer but I'm a fairly competent social worker. I've had some experience in the psychiatric field and I offer my assistance to the Member as quickly as he avails himself of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. PHILLIPS: I guess, Mr. Chairman, the social worker is going to build the road.
HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd go to an engineer.
MR. PHILLIPS: He's going to build a road and he's going to build it four or six lanes in a day. There might not be that much traffic over it, Mr. Chairman, but he's going to build it the full width, the full number of inches of pavement, the whole thing, today. It might not be needed for 20 years.
When we start talking about railway standards, what standards are you talking about? Are you talking about a fast passenger train? Are you talking about multi-ton loads? What weight are you talking about?
Anybody can sit down in this House and have an argument about standards of railways. But the Premier wants to bring it into the realm of politics.
Certainly the railway should be upgraded. What he's talking about now in part of that report is for upgrading to haul coal over it, heavy loads, fast trains. Let's keep the record straight and let's be logistical. And if the Premier starts, I'll try to follow along. But I want to tell you, when he gets up and brings in all these fuzzy-wuzzy things to try to play politics with this great railway which is owned by the people of British Columbia, I'm going to stand up and I'm going to fight him every inch of the way to read into the record what is right, what is true and what has gone on.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm quoting from a report from Mr. John Fox, the assistant chief engineer of the CPR, Mr. Ray Fisk, assistant chief engineer of the CPR, and Mr. M.S. Wakely, the chief engineer of the B.C. Rail. If the Member is suggesting that these people are fuzzy-wuzzy, that's on his head. The report is signed by Mr. Swanson who had, prior to his retirement, many years of public service to the former administration. He is also an engineer and now on the board of B.C. Rail.
If the Member is suggesting that we do only half an appendix operation and then go back in later and take the other half out, that is perhaps his approach. The job must be done, it must be done properly.
Quite frankly, I have nothing to say in terms of
[ Page 1375 ]
your defence of the former administration. I will not be responsible for the conditions that we inherited in this railroad. We intend to spend the money necessary to bring it up to standard. If we didn't do that we'd be a failure.
All your yelling, all your hollering and all your screaming will not wash away the fact that proper decisions were not made based on engineering facts by the former administration, which has lead us to this situation.
MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier has written into the record most of the things that he has said that will come back to haunt him. I'm not condemning the engineers. All I am saying is that there are different standards of railway beds, the same as there are different standards for roads.
HON. MR. KING: No way.
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there are so! Now don't give me that. There are different weights of steel. Now listen, Mr. gandy-dancer, I'm not a railway man and you are.
HON. MR. BARRETT: He is.
MR. PHILLIPS: But there are different standards of roadbeds on the CPR and the CNR. Now do you mean to tell me that the road from Prince Rupert to Prince George is of the same standard that it is all across Canada? You'd better read some reports.
There's a lot of difference between a resource railway and the railway that has high-speed passenger trains between Montreal and Toronto. Don't give me that. I'm not entirely stupid. (Laughter.)
Certainly there are different standards for railways, there are different standards for roads, there are different standards for bridges. Do you mean to tell me that the bridge across some little creek on a farm has to be the same standard as a four-lane highway bridge? Don't give me that! It depends on what it's being used for. You know that and I know that. That's maybe why on the extension to Fort Nelson the steel was ripped up from the Quesnel and from the lower portion of some of the areas where it wasn't as high grade and was taken on that line because there wasn't going to be as much traffic on that line. Now, is there anything wrong with that — trying to save the taxpayers' dollars? Not a bit!
We talk about an additional $15 million to bring that extension up to standard. If you took the inflation on the original $68 million that it cost to build that in the first place and built it up to the standards you want to build it up to now, you wouldn't have had to put $15 million into it — you probably would have had to put an additional $30 million into it. And if you just take the rate of inflation…. So let's keep the record straight, eh?
That's unfortunately what happens when you have Crown corporations and you get aspiring young politicians like our Premier involved in them who can't open his mouth but when he talks politics — you'd still think he was in the opposition. It's time he became responsible for this House, like he did once or twice tonight — just once or twice — and started telling like it's at. Then the opposition would be able to carry on a proper debate. But when the Premier gets up and spurts off like he did last night, puts on a midnight late show, do you think that we're going to sit here and let him get away with that and mislead the people of British Columbia? When you see a headline like that, that's misleading to the people of British Columbia, and it's not factual and I'm not going to stand here and let it go on.
HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't like it, eh?
MR. PHILLIPS: Don't like it? It's not factual. You know it's not factual, Mr. Premier.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
AN HON. MEMBER: The truth hurts.
HON. MR. BARRETT: The truth certainly does hurt — that's what's bothering you.
MR. PHILLIPS: Waugh…! You table the information.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly I'll table it.
MR. PHILLIPS: I heard you read portions of it…
HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly.
MR. PHILLIPS: …and certain parts of it I agree with. I'd love to have a look at it.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, I'll table it.
MR. PHILLIPS: But that's a lot different than the show you put on here last night, Mr. Premier.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Not so.
MR. PHILLIPS: That's a lot different than the show you put on here last night. You did get a little bit factual tonight.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. PHILLIPS: What bothers me is that the people of British Columbia love this railway. It's their railway and it's doing great things for the economy of
[ Page 1376 ]
the Province of British Columbia. Everybody who worked for that railway before you took over was proud of that railway, and I'm not too sure what the morale of the railway is right now.
MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I worked for that railway — I wasn't proud of it. (Laughter.)
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the Member for Shuswap. The Member for Shuswap is not too proud of many things because of his philosophy, but I can't help the Member for Shuswap.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please address the Chair and confine his remarks to the section before us?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The bill itself is just in one section — the real problem we have is, of course, that we haven't yet got details of the breakdown on the finances. I think that if the time wasted last night and tonight — and I believe it has been wasted because we were not discussing this particular bill at either time — is to be avoided in the future I think perhaps we might learn the lesson that we simply must have details of expenditures.
There is no way that we can be asked to vote moneys in the blue. We've been asked to do it time after time in this session. It's quite true that we've been placed with it in previous years in this Legislature, but past mistakes are no excuse for present continuation of the practice.
If this is simply to honour previous commitments made by a previous government, you'd think there would be some previous record of what this is for and what the prices are of the bits of equipment that the Premier talked about. How much is to be put aside for bridges, how much is to be put aside for other improvements.
Last night I found it necessary to vote against this bill. We found ourselves criticized in simplistic terms for opposing the B.C. Railroad, but we'll continue to vote against legislation like this on second reading or committee or third reading unless we get the information. We cannot, of course, here in the Legislature judge the standard of the railroad without reports. But when we are dealing with a financial bill — and that's all this is, a financial bill to transfer $25 million into the hands of the Minister of Finance so that he can in turn transfer it to his other hand which is that of the president of B.C. Railway — we'd like to have some details.
If there is anything that this Legislature should be doing, it should be making decisions based upon information. If the Premier cannot produce it, even though it was for a commitment made more than a year ago, I think we should delay consideration until he does.
Section 1 approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 110, British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1973, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. Mr. Hartley files answers to questions 17, 21, 68, 83, 109, 116 and 150.
Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:06 a.m.