[ Page 2691 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Point of Order Distribution of Hansard Blues. Mr. Chabot — 2691

Mr. Speaker — 2691

Routine proceedings Oral questions Legality of surcharge on drivers' insurance. Mr. Smith — 2693

Present situation on Skagit flooding. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2693

Measures to resolve electricians' strike. Mr. Wallace — 2694

Reimbursement of fees to paramedical students. Mrs. Jordan — 2694

Role of Peter McNelly in Ministers' northern tour. Mr. Chabot — 2694

Ministerial responsibility for Indian matters. Mr. McClelland — 2694

Filing of contract settlement documents in House. Mr. Gardom — 2695

Purchase of Hoodoos by provincial government. Mr. Curtis — 2695

Registry legislation for foreign land rush. Mr. Gibson — 2696

Discussion in Japan of Sukunka coal fields. Mr. Phillips — 2696

Meetings and proposals to B.C. Fruit Growers' Association.

Mrs. Jordan — 2696

Discussions with B.C. Teachers' Federation.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2696

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2696

Mr. Gardom — 2696

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2697

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2698

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Mr. Gardom — 2698

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Mr. McGeer — 2698

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Amendment to section 3.

Ron. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Amendment to section 4.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Report stage — 2698

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill 75).

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Mr. Gabelmann — 2699

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2699

Mr. Wallace — 2699

Mr. McClelland — 2699

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2700

Mr. Wallace — 2700

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2700

Mr. Gardom — 2702

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2702

Mr. Cummings — 2703

Mrs. Jordan — 2703

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2704

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2704

Mr. Smith — 2704

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2707

Mr. Phillips — 2707

Mr. Wallace — 2708

Mr. Gibson — 2709

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2709

Mr. Gabelmann — 2710

Mr. Gibson — 2710

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2710

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2710

Mr. Morrison — 2711

On section 3.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2712

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2712

Mr. Wallace — 2712

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2712

On section 5.

Mr. Gabelmann — 2713

On section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2713

Report stage — 2713

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 1t 5). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2713

British Columbia Day Act (Bill 6 1). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2713

Mr. Morrison — 2714

Mr. McClelland — 2714

Mr. Phillips — 2714

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2714

Mrs. Webster — 2714

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2714

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2715

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2715

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2715

British Columbia Tartan Act (Bill 62). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2715

Mr. Morrison — 2715

Mr. McGeer — 2715

Mr. Wallace — 2715

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2716

Mr. Curtis — 2716

Mr. Cummings — 2717

Mr. Chabot — 2717

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2717

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2717

Metric Conversion Act (Bill 80). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2718

Mr. Morrison — 2718

Mr. McGeer — 2719

Mr. Wallace — 2719

Mrs. Webster — 2720

Mr.L.A.Williams — 2720

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2720

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2721

Mr. Cummings — 2721

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2721

Lotteries Act (Bill 83). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2722

Mr. Bennett — 2723

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2724

Mr. McClelland — 2725

Mr. Wallace — 2726

Mr. Rolston — 2727

Mrs. Jordan — 2728

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2729

Division on second reading — 2730

Privilege Distribution of Hansard Blues. Mr. Chabot — 2730

Mr. Speaker — 2730

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2731

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2731

APPENDIX — 2732

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today in the gallery Mrs. McLaughlin and Mrs. Wilson, who are representatives of the provincial council. They are here to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Victoria Council of Women. I would ask the House to welcome them, please.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon is a former Member of the Legislature, Mr. Ernie LeCours, from Richmond. We'd like you to welcome him.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say that I wanted him to sit on the floor here, but he wouldn't associate with you all. (Laughter.)

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of students from the Princess Margaret Senior Secondary School in Surrey, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Everett and Ms. Cassidy. I hope the Members here would make them welcome.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today from the beautiful riding of Shuswap is the chairman of the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board, Mr. Rusty Freeze. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. SPEAKER: I have an announcement as a result of a message from the National Assembly of Quebec, indicating that the delegation of parliamentarians that was to visit us on May 5 to 9 in Victoria, and who were to meet with Members of this House, unfortunately are unable to come owing to the uncertainty of travel arrangements over the impending air controllers' strike. Consequently, meetings and other events scheduled for those days are cancelled.

The Quebec Members have been very much looking forward to meeting with our Members and hope that arrangements can be made for a visit tentatively around June 9 to 13. Possibly at the rate we're going that may be possible.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically draw to your attention. the inconsistency between the comments you've made in the letter of April 29 to members of the Vancouver Province bureau with respect to the use of Hansard and your lack of action with respect to a government motion which appeared on the order paper on February 22, 1974, with respect to remarks made by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) on February 20, 1974 — just two days later.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the motion appearing on the order paper on February 22 was produced from the so-called "unofficial" versions of Hansard and introduced into the House by the House Leader. This resolution appeared on the orders of the day for days afterwards until it was reluctantly withdrawn by the government.

Mr. Speaker, at no time did you challenge the government with respect to the misuse of the Hansard records for the purpose of what was a very serious motion of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I point out to the Hon. Member that draft transcripts of Hansard, as stated clearly on the cover and in accordance with the rules of this House, are issued in advance of the formal printed Hansard and it says so on the cover. It says: "Distribution is limited to Members of the Legislature." If a resolution is before the House — in this case one Member of the House put a resolution on the order paper — he's entitled to put a resolution on the order paper and in it quote from any source he wishes but he must take responsibility for his quotations if they are taken from this document, as I have many times indicated to Members of this House.

Also, since it is not authorized by the Speaker at that point, being an unofficial copy, it is not for publication to the public, and that is clearly set out in standing order 129. Any Member of the House who supplies it outside to, say, the press would be taking part in what is clearly set out to be a breach of privilege of the House unanimously adopted under standing order 129 and punishable by the usual punishments meted out for a breach of privilege.

If a committee dealt with the allegations contained in the Hansard transcript that you refer to — the blue copy — they could ascertain the accuracy or veracity of what was said in that hearing, or it can be raised in the debate when the resolution is dealt with in the House. Since that never happened, the question of the veracity or otherwise of the statements made or alleged to have been made in that unofficial copy never came before the House.

I do point out to the Hon. Members that it is my duty to draw to the attention of Members of the House, or of any persons who are regarded as strangers as well, where they are in breach and clear violation of a ruling of this House. This was a unanimous order of the House which made it a breach of privilege to reproduce this particular unofficial copy outside the realms of this building. Therefore I, in what I thought was a courteous way,

[ Page 2692 ]

drew it to the attention privately of two reporters who were concerned, and admittedly the publication in which it was printed had obtained and used this copy obviously from some source within this House. I thought as a courtesy, that I would not take the matter up in the House as a breach of privilege, thinking that these two members would appreciate the warning.

I found to my astonishment last night that the president of the press gallery took it upon himself to assume that it was for him to deal with this question. I point out to the Hon. Members that the president of the press gallery enjoys the confidence of the House, and in relationships between this House and the press gallery I always try to deal with him on an official basis so that he can take up matters of concern between this House and the press gallery.

But when the matter has not reached the stage of an official complaint, I would not want to burden anyone else with that private confidence between myself and the member of the press concerned, as a courtesy to him.

I found when I went to the Empress Hotel last night with some friends that I was accosted by the president of the press gallery, who said to me....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I was sitting at my table and he came up. (Laughter.) Knowing him as a friend for many years I was a little astonished and I was a bit set back when he said: "Wait until the legislation estimates come up." He later cleared up that matter that he meant no threat to the Speaker. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: The big bully!

MR. SPEAKER: So I want to point out to the Hon. Members that I took it on myself, as an aid to the Members of this House, to go beyond providing you with the pink copies of your statements in the House so you might correct any errors that occur.

May I point out as an example an error that occurred when the Hon. Attorney-General was accused in Hansard of wanting a pile of pillows? It turned out, of course, that he was talking about a panatella cigar in the debate on smoking. This sort of thing can happen.

Therefore, at this stage the blue copy is not for public use, because much work remains to be done by Hansard. It is not the same as in Ottawa where they have shorthand reporters transcribing right in the sight of the House and of the Members of the House and where you're protected by that additional safeguard.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I'm not taking up question period, but I'm explaining to the House a matter which I think is grave. It affects the use of this blue Hansard which I have made available on my own volition, without any authority actually of the House, and at great expense. Since my estimates are now in question and the expense involved, I must reconsider this sort of distribution in view of that complaint.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in your correspondence to the reporters involved, you've seriously castigated them for the use of the blue copies. You have suggested that they were not for publication and offer no comfort for accuracy or claim of privilege until examined by Members and properly corrected and approved for final printing. The Member who might have suggested that they were used in reproducing a news story heard for herself, or himself, the statements made by the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

MR. SPEAKER: That has no relevance to the deed itself.

MR. CHABOT: The tape, Mr. Speaker, was examined as well to ensure double accuracy.

MR. SPEAKER: By what authority? You were aware of all this?

MR. CHABOT: Well, this is the information that is public knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is that there really is no point of privilege unless you're complaining about the conduct of either the two members of the press who violated the rule, or you're complaining about the attack that may be construed from the statement made by the president of the press gallery. Now if you have no other point of privilege, there's no point of privilege involved.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not attacking the press; I'll leave that to you. What I'm attacking really is the double standard which you're establishing at this time. The double standard really is this: you suggested that they shouldn't be allowed to examine the Blues to reconfirm statements that they have heard in the House and are going to reproduce in the newspaper.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a way of doing that, Hon. Member, as you well know.

MR. CHABOT: You suggested it shouldn't be for distribution or for publication. The orders of the day go out of this chamber to all comers of this province,

[ Page 2693 ]

and in those orders of the day for several days appeared a motion condemning — censuring, in fact — the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), based on information secured from the Blues.

MR. SPEAKER: You're defending the exclusive nature of the Blues, and you're saying that I should refuse a motion on the order paper that involves the use of the Blues.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I am.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you. In the circumstances, the Blues will no longer be used.

MR. CHABOT: That's a double standard, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: I won't tolerate a double standard.

MR. CHABOT: ...that you allow the government to use the Blues to censure a Member of this House, and then you castigate the press. You've got to be consistent, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member did not draw that point to my attention. But since he has raised the point, I will not have a discrimination in the House and I would not tolerate that. If you see that occur, I hope you will draw it to my attention.

MR. CHABOT: We've tried. We've tried, Mr. Speaker, and all we want is one standard in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll try to adhere to it.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

LEGALITY OF SURCHARGE
ON DRIVERS' INSURANCE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. Has the Minister checked with counsel on the legality of surcharging drivers' licence insurance for former driver infractions on a retroactive basis?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): That's never been questioned.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question then, Mr. Speaker, through to the Minister. The Minister may not be aware of it but in recent days a judgment was handed down in the Province of Manitoba by Justice John Hart, who in his judgment ruled that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation cannot surcharge auto insurance premiums retroactively.

I would ask the Minister if he will have the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia investigate the obvious implications of that decision with respect to our own auto insurance plan in the Province of British Columbia and, if necessary, see that a test case comes before the courts to prove the legality of what we are doing in this province or otherwise?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I'd point out to the Member that it is not a retroactive surcharge. It's a surcharge in exactly the same way as the private insurance companies in this province surcharged drivers with bad driving records throughout the years without a single complaint from you or anyone else.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question, Mr. Minister. I disagree with that explanation, because you did set up a retroactive provision that goes back three years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That sounds like a speech.

MR. SMITH: It's not a speech. I'm asking the Minister if he will check or have the ICBC check with their legal counsel to find out if this in fact is allowable under the provisions of the insurance corporation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, I would not have included it unless I'd had advice of counsel that it was legal. But I'll ask them again just to satisfy yourself and everything else. But let me tell you again: we're proceeding in exactly the same manner as the private insurance companies operated in this province for many years.

PRESENT SITUATION ON
SKAGIT FLOODING

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Attorney-General or to the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), who's been away for almost a week: May I ask the Premier or the Attorney-General whether a reply has been received by the government to the letter sent on April 3, 1974, by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to Professor Maxwell Cohen, the chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission, concerning B.C.'s request to reopen the IJC decision on flooding of the Skagit Valley?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take this as notice

[ Page 2694 ]

on behalf of the Hon. Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, when we can expect the Hon. Minister to return...

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that question would be proper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...so that these — well, it's certainly a proper question of the government House Leader — questions of this nature can be put directly?

MEASURES TO RESOLVE
ELECTRICIANS' STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in light of the serious shutdown in the construction industry due to the strike of the electricians, would the Minister of Labour give the House some statement of events to this moment, and what role his department is playing in trying to bring some resolution to this very serious provincial problem?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still underway and discussions are taking place. The Associate Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Kinnaird, is involved in close consultation with both parties. He is in the City of Vancouver and I understand that intensive negotiations are underway. While they are, while these discussions are taking place, I certainly hesitate to make any public comment on the progress or the implications of those discussions. So I think that that's all I'm prepared to say.

REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES
TO PARAMEDICAL STUDENTS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I believe my question should be addressed to the Hon. Minister of Education, but in case of doubt, perhaps the Hon. Minister of Labour would also listen. I would like to know from the correct Minister what steps will be taken to reimburse fees to students who have been involved in the close down of the Paramedical Interprovincial Training Corporation, in light of the fact that at the time this company was issued a licence to practise this training programme in British Columbia it was in fact in difficulty with the law in Albuquerque, New Mexico, other parts of the States and possibly in Hawaii.

HON. MR. KING: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister is taking it as notice, I also would like to present my further question so he might do the same regarding that. I'd like to know just what investigation took place into the company at the time the licence was granted — again in view of the fact that it has never been endorsed by the Medical Society or the Nursing Society in the United States, as I believe it claims — and what bond did they post? What criteria did the department use for granting them a licence?

ROLE OF PETER McNELLY
IN MINISTERS' NORTHERN TOUR

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could tell me what role is being played by his executive assistant on Finance, Mr. Peter McNelly, on the northern tour? What role, or what part of the tour, or what is the function of Peter McNelly on the tour of the Ministers in the north?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier and Minister of Finance): He's from my office.

MR. CHABOT: Is he there as a press liaison or is he there....

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's there....

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment, let me finish my question. Or is he there keeping an eye on the Ministers on your behalf? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Member wish to convert that into a facetious question?

MR. CHABOT: No, I want to make that a serious question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And I want to give him a serious answer. I don't understand what he is talking about.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
FOR INDIAN MATTERS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is to the Premier. In view of the statement by the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) on the weekend that Indian language teaching questions are now to be handled by the Department of Human Resources, and his statement that this represents an affront to the Indian people as they feel the questions should be handled by the Department of Education, would the Premier, as president of the council, spell out for the House at this time just exactly what Ministers of the cabinet are to be contacted by the Indian people in this province who have, first of all, educational

[ Page 2695 ]

questions, and, secondly, questions on land claims settlement?

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the question of Indian education, it comes under the Department of Education; on the question of Indian land claims, they come under the Department of the Attorney-General.

MR. McCLELLAND: Was that statement incorrect, then, that the education problem is being shifted to Human Resources?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am not familiar with the statement made by the Member; I'm telling you what government policy is. Government policy is that matters on Indian education are dealt with by the Minister of Education. That is functioning policy. Matters on the land question are being dealt with by the Attorney-General.

MR. McCLELLAND: I can assume, I guess, that there is not going to be a change in policy and that that problem won't be shifting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is the present policy and it won't be changed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would the Premier advise the House if he has assigned a specific Minister to discuss the whole range of questions affecting the Indian people of this province with the federal Ministers? Is there a specific Minister who will be discussing those questions with the federal people?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The policy of the government after meeting and receiving the BCANSI (British Columbia Association of Non Status Indians) brief where it was recommended that there not be a separate Minister dealing with all Indian affairs, is to relate the Indian matter as closely to the existing department that exists in the provincial government. That same policy will also influence which Minister meets with the federal counterpart in terms of federal Indian matters.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to get on to other questions if we may, please.

FILING OF CONTRACT
SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS IN HOUSE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): A question to either the Minister of Education or the Minister of Transport. When are they going to answer the questions they took as notice weeks and weeks ago concerning the filing of the Bremer or the Adams contract settlement documents?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): In due course....

MR. GARDOM: Well, perhaps we can hear from the Minister of Transport when he proposes to file the Adams contract settlement documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has asked the question a number of times and cannot expect an answer.

MR. GARDOM: Well, he's standing up and taking a crack at it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member wishes to answer.

MR. GARDOM: He was being vertical for a change. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm always....

PURCHASE OF HOODOOS
BY PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the Hoodoos — and that is not a reflection on the cabinet. (Laughter.)

Is the Department of Recreation and Conservation examining the possibility of acquisition of land which, according to press reports, may be in some danger? The land is adjacent to a provincial park reserve and is owned by one Mr. Roeck.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): We looked into that several months ago and gave recommendations to the Land Commission to look into the area.

MR. CURTIS: May I ask the Minister if he or his department received a recommendation from the East Kootenay Regional District; strongly urging the acquisition of this land in the right of the Crown provincial?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'm not aware of the department receiving anything on that. They may have.

MR. CURTIS: Has the owner or owners of the land in question offered it to the province?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I am not too sure, Mr. Member, whether they have offered it or not. I think the only offers that they have made firmly have been through the media.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister

[ Page 2696 ]

check the last two questions? Somewhere in his office there is a letter from the East Kootenay Regional District, I can assure you.

REGISTRY LEGISLATION
FOR FOREIGN LAND RUSH

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I would ask the Premier if he is aware of a land rush by foreign real-estate buyers which his recent remarks set off? Would he undertake, bearing in mind the constitutional difficulties, to introduce immediately at least registry legislation for foreign landowners?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no evidence of a land rush.

DISCUSSION IN JAPAN
OF SUKUNKA COAL FIELDS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct my question to the Premier and the Minister of Finance. I would like to ask the Premier and the Minister of Finance if he had any negotiations during his recent trip to Japan regarding the Sukunka coal fields.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The matter was raised.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister advise if the fact that the matter was raised brings the deadline for making a decision any closer than July 31?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MEETINGS AND PROPOSALS
TO B.C. FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

MRS. JORDAN: To the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that the B.C. Fruit Growers Association have announced that they will meet with the government this week regarding the income assurance programme, could the Minister tell us (a) whether this meeting has taken place, and, if it hasn't, what date it will be; and (b) whether he, as Minister, is prepared to bring forth a new and more reasonable proposal for their consideration?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the meeting started in my office about 35 minutes ago. We are presenting a new proposal. It is reasonable.

DISCUSSIONS WITH
B.C. TEACHERS FEDERATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, a question that I have asked before but I believe she has new information. What are the results of her discussions with the BCTF regarding the teachers who infringed the disciplinary provisions of the BCTF and who thereupon would be unable to practise teaching in the province despite the fact that the Department of Education has nothing against these particular individuals?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I informed the House that I was having a meeting; I had the meeting yesterday. The B.C. Teachers Federation asked for a delay in the discussion on that particular topic until they have their provincial executive meeting this month. So I have nothing to report.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, the amendment is not printed yet; it was amended. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Bill 49 was amended as well. There's also an amendment to come on Bill 33.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

The House in committee on Bill 66; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I move the amendment.(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 2 as amended.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, apropos of the points that were made yesterday, I would re-emphasize those. This is also applicable to section 2 but perhaps may slightly infringe upon section 1. I shall be very short. There is one concept also that the Attorney-General did not take into account. I think it was raised last night in the arguments made in this side of the House: not necessarily by the delay of the law we can find the defendant penalized by interest, as I indicated, by

[ Page 2697 ]

virtue of judges not handing down decisions as quickly or as efficiently as perhaps they can; but secondly, by virtue of the very congestion of the courts. At the present time it takes about a year to obtain a trial date in the Province of B.C. This would mean that the unsuccessful defendant could be penalized by virtue of a judgment for one whole year's interest, not as a result of any default on his part with the plaintiff but by virtue of the mere fact of the congestion of the courts and the fact that it takes a minimum of 12 to as many as 18 months, perhaps, to secure an effective trial date. I do not feel this is a penalty that an unsuccessful defendant should have to bear.

Secondly, under section 2, it deals with the precluding of interest. I feel that interest should be precluded under this mandatory section upon court costs. The way I am reading the statute, unless I am misreading it — which I do not believe I am — court costs certainly form... Do I have the ear of the Attorney-General or not? Court costs certainly do form a part of the judgment. The court will order costs against the unsuccessful litigant and those costs become part of the judgment. By virtue of them becoming part of the judgment, they similarly would face a mandatory order for interest. I think that again is most unfair. There are two scales of costs under the rules of the Law Society. First of all, there is what is known as the party-party costs, which essentially are the costs that can be recovered in a court of law by the successful litigant against the unsuccessful litigant. They were never, ever meant to be a complete indemnity. The cost philosophy, for example, is never followed in the United States of America. We don't find costs following the event in the United States; the successful litigant in the United States is not awarded essentially the cost of the lawsuit. But we find that in Canada.

The other scale of costs is a scale known as solicitor-client, which is the responsibility of the client to pay to his lawyer.

Notwithstanding the fact that the litigant-versus-litigant or party-party costs, which the court can order and can be taxed by district registrar, do not constitute necessarily complete indemnity to a successful litigant, they do constitute a fairly heavy penalty against an unsuccessful litigant. I think the total concept of the law of costs is sufficient without adding on to that penalty a 5 per cent onto the court costs.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't think it is included.

MR. GARDOM: You say you don't think it is included. I can't find an exclusion for it so I think the best thing to do, Mr. Attorney-General, is to....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We should both get a legal opinion on it.

MR. GARDOM: Well, no, no; you don't think it's included so obviously you think it should not be included. I agree with you. But for the sake of clarity I would suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, that we amend section 2 to add as (d) the words "upon costs." I would so move. Then you and I will both be speaking about the same thing and it will make it abundantly clear.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: With a view to clarifying the thing, I don't think the matter is too much in terms of substance but I think it's important that we are clear as to whether or not interest can be added to costs. I would agree to accept that amendment if my friend, with leave of the committee, will write it out.

MR. GARDOM: It's written out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps by leave... It's handed in.

MR. GARDOM: You can accept it, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I accept it. It's a very good amendment. One of the best amendments we have had today. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: The night is short. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It becomes (e), Mr. Chairman, because we have a (d) that comes before (e).

MR. CHAIRMAN: 2 (e) then.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Attorney-General, you put an amendment in as 2 (d) so my amendment will read 2 (e). Correct.

Amendment to section 2 approved.

On section 2 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): I wonder if the Attorney-General, in view of his remarks last night when he refused the amendment which would have given a judge discretionary powers with interest, would be pleased to indicate whether or not section 2 as it is amended now, providing that interest does not apply if there is an agreement and providing there can be a waiver by a judgment creditor if it is the government's view that any agreement entered between any two individuals in the province may specifically waive the provisions of the Prejudgment Interest Act whenever the

[ Page 2698 ]

consequences may arise.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the judgment creditor doesn't press for interest, of course, it is not included, so the Act is out.

I don't want to renew the argument of last night except to say, with respect, that I disagree with my friends opposite here. You have to remember that you keep saying a defendant is penalized because the process takes a long time. Don't forget that during that period of time the defendant has the use of the money and the plaintiff does not, so this Act is bringing them up-to-date. The defendant has the use of it whether he's got it and is making interest on it in the bank or in some other way in the meantime. If he doesn't have it out for investment, at least he doesn't have to go to a finance company during that period. He's better off. We're doing the right thing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that I'm so inarticulate as to be unable to convey to the Hon. Attorney-General my concern in this respect. I appreciate that a judgment creditor may waive his right to interest. The amendment very specifically provides that.

What I'm asking the Attorney-General is whether or not any contract entered into in the Province of British Columbia may, as a part of that agreement, preclude at any time the functioning of the Prejudgment Interest Act. I am specifically concerned that, for instance, contracts of insurance may henceforth specifically provide that, in the event of a contest between the insurer and the insured, no interest shall be awarded. I would like to have the Attorney-General indicate whether or not it is his view and the government's view that such a provision in a contract would be void.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To take anything out of the Act, the parties would have to comply with the terms of section 2, either sections (a) to (e). If by contract they agree that they will apply under 2, I suppose that, in effect, the Act by contract has become null and void in that particular situation. But basically the exemption is just if a party brings himself within section 2.

MR. GARDOM: On that premise, then, I assume we would receive from the Attorney-General an undertaking that the insurance policies issued by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will not have included in it an exclusion of this particular statute. Yes or no. This is a very, very important point. A lot happens in the small type in insurance policies.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's the intention that ICBC would be bound by this Act. If somebody has a judgment against ICBC, the interest should follow the event as well as costs.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Attorney-General, will the drivers of British Columbia ever get an insurance policy from the ICBC?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's nothing to do with this bill, I don't think.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Members are receiving legal advice from me today that is worth exactly what they're paying for it. (Laughter.)

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, another amendment as to wording. I so move. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

[ Page 2699 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66. Prejudgment Interest Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES INTERIM
RENT STABILIZATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver-Seymour): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the legislation as proposed requires the amendment I have suggested which would make sure that rent increases, which will be limited to 8 per cent can't be imposed on tenants by some other means — through the back door, as it were — parking lot rates or extra charges for washing machine services, et cetera. I just want to be very brief and to read one letter I received among others which I think states the case quite well. It's from a tenant in my riding who writes:

"I am attaching for your attention a copy of a letter I received recently from our landlord. A few months ago he informed us by letter that our rent would go from $155 a month to $195 per month on April 1. Since this increase was 19 per cent and illegal because of new legislation, he took care of the matter thusly. I have lived at this address for over six years."

The letter to this tenant from the landlord reads as follows:

"Dear Mary:

"As your rent has been increased by more than the 8 per cent advocated by the government, please note that previously there was no charge for the carports. The difference between the 8 per cent increase and the $185, therefore, is the new charge for the carport."

Signed by the landlord.

That kind of problem exists. Quite a widespread problem, Mr. Chairman, and for that reason, I would urge that the House accept the amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would like to indicate that the government accepts the amendment. I think it's a very important thing that that loophole be closed. I appreciate the Hon. Member raising the matter and putting his amendment on the order paper.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Inasmuch as this party strongly opposed the principle of this bill for the reasons which were mentioned in the earlier debate, this amendment just proves the absolute fabric of our argument. Already we find that the thrust of the legislation is not coping with the problems it's meant to solve.

We've had this amendment brought in, and I've also had examples in my mail of other devices to which the landlord can resort to obtain more income from the tenant by various means such as the renting of appliances, charges for carports or what have you. So in one respect, if we have to have rent legislation or rent limitation, I can see the purpose behind the Member's amendment: he's trying to close loopholes.

But having lived through World War II in Britain, I know there is no end to the loopholes when a black market situation arises because of shortage of a commodity. It doesn't matter whether the commodity is sugar or butter or nylons or accommodation. The black market type of situation.

The tragedy is that the legislation is wrong in the first place. This is just another patchwork, Band-Aid attempt to improve what is in essence misguided legislation in the first place. And for that very fundamental reason, I oppose the amendment.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment for the same reasons established by the Member for Oak Bay, and for other reasons as well — the principal one of which is the sheer stupidity of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know who's going to prescribe these services or conveniences. How is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council going to decide whether or not a landlord may make a charge for a carport, for underground parking or for some other service which is given?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fixing a pipe.

MR. McCLELLAND: Sure, fixing a pipe in the place. Suppose that the tenant puts a hole in a wall. Who decides whether or not someone should pay for the repair of that hole in the wall? Are you going to bring it into cabinet? Is cabinet going to decide on and list each apartment house in British Columbia and say, "Well, we can charge this much for that carport, this much for that garage, this much for that laundry room"? It's a sheer, stupid amendment which will not work; the same as the rest of this stupid bill

[ Page 2700 ]

will not work either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to redebate the principle of the bill. I'd be out of order to do so. I just want to say that I entirely disagree with the two Members who have just taken their seats. In terms of this amendment, of course, we're not going to prescribe, as a convenience, this thing. It's just to avoid wholesale evasion of this rent restraint in a period of inflation. I just want to say that this little bill, this interim restraint on rent increases bill, has helped literally tens of thousands of people in the Province of British Columbia....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, all kinds of them. I think it's a necessary and worthwhile thing to do in the meantime.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just in case the Attorney-General is trying to make it a clean-cut, partisan political debate....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's exactly that. We're alone on this and we like to be alone on this.

MR. WALLACE: That's the extent of your confidence. Can I just quote from the newspaper today, today's Province? The National Council of Welfare, can I quote from that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the speaker that we're dealing with an amendment to section 1, not the principle of the bill.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. I'm dealing with how totally inadequate and useless this kind of amendment is. And the Attorney-General has the audacity to stand up in a self-righteous way as though this was just some left-versus-right partisan political thing when it's a matter of principle that's involved.

The principle of the amendment is wrong because the bill itself is not solving the problem that it set out to solve.

The National Council of Welfare warns in a special report released Tuesday that rent controls could backfire against the lower income groups. The council says that the controls could result in fewer low-cost houses and could also lead to lower quality housing for the poor.

This is the whole point this side of the House, not just this party but all three parties, have tried to make. When we stand up and repeat that conviction in terms of this amendment, the Attorney-General, I think, is less than fair in presenting it as just some kind of left-versus-right argument and that we're just trying to make partisan party political hay out of this.

We in this party honestly do believe this is an unfortunate piece of legislation which will make the situation worse, not better. On that basis, this attempt by this amendment just leaves me very puzzled as to the way in which...even if the amendment was well motivated, and I think it's well motivated, but I'm saying that it is totally impractical. There is not in my conviction...the feeling in our party is that this kind of amendment is just not enforceable. If it is to be attempted to enforce it, the ramifications and the bureaucracy and the arguments which are to be involved, we see as being something that just adds to the problem rather than in any way helps it.

A further point, which I didn't mention when I spoke earlier, was that if these kinds of what I consider rather half-baked ideas are to be the basis upon which the future rentals man has to make his decisions, then indeed we are getting into one super-duper bureaucracy in the whole area of the landlord-tenant affairs in this province.

I hope maybe the Minister will comment, when I sit down, as to whether or not the kind of amendment we have here is to be the kind of regulatory descriptions which the rentals man and his staff are going to have to function upon. Again, as I say, it seems to me it's so all-encompassing, so ill-defined that I would assume a landlord could charge somebody for the view across the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Is the Lieutenant-Governor going to include that in the regulations that have to be included in the rent?

We just feel that this kind of amendment is impractical. I really do put it on record that we feel the real problem is not being tackled. For that reason and the inadequacy of this amendment, we must oppose it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I thought it was "should his speech pass." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I took my place, having been recognized, shocked at the reaction of the Hon. Attorney-General to the call for the vote on the amendment. Quite obviously the Attorney-General is completely confused not only about the subject which is under debate, but also about his party's position with regard to residential premises.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When somebody is on their feet we have got to continue the debate on the

[ Page 2701 ]

amendment, and we have done that before.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound on the amendment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the alacrity which the....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! If the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) wishes to speak, you can take your turn after the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

Interjection

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If you keep quiet I will. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I want the Member for North Okanagan to withdraw that kind of a statement.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to speak and you're taking all my talking time. I would like to raise a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you withdraw your attack on the Chair? Then you can continue with your point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: An attack on the Chair? How did I attack the Chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: But, Mr. Chairman, you won't let me speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I've asked you to withdraw.

MRS. JORDAN: What do you wish me to withdraw, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yourself, preferably.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not here to make love to you! I'm here to represent the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what you would like me to withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nothing!

MR. CHAIRMAN: You wanted to make a point of order and instead of that you accused me of not allowing you to speak. Now I want you to recognize that you can't attack the Chair, and if you have a point of order to make, you should make it.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is you, as chairman, the Chair itself, called out for a vote on the amendment, and the amendment was quite obviously defeated in a negative manner by that vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MRS. JORDAN: Now, Mr. Chairman is allowing debate to continue. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, according to the rules of this House that, with all due respect, the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Will the Member take her seat?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'm trying to state my point of order. You are out of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You have made your point and it is not an acceptable point of order. There was a Member on his feet at the time the vote was called and the Member was recognized and the Member will continue.

I recognize the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MRS. JORDAN: A point of order. Are we to assume — and I'm asking this just for clarification — in light of the Chair's decision this afternoon that in future when an amendment has been either passed or defeated by a voice vote...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...that we will always be allowed to debate it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm asking the Member to take her seat.

[ Page 2702 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I'm merely asking you for your decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat?

MRS. JORDAN: Will you give me the decision?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When we call for a vote, if there's a Member on his feet, and some people nevertheless vote on it, the Member who is on his feet is recognized, and it has been every time I've been in the Chair.

I ask the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound to continue. You are on the amendment to section 1.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the last chance for you, Gerry.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I've known the Speaker to keep a disorderly House, but I didn't know anyone could keep a disorderly committee.

Mr. Chairman, the alacrity with which the Attorney-General accepted the amendment from the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) is only further proof that this particular legislation was conceived in haste and without proper consideration of the consequences which it will have upon those parties who are directly involved in the problems of landlord and tenant, namely the landlords and the tenants.

The fact of the matter is that if this legislation were to be improved to resolve some of the difficulties, the loopholes that the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour has mentioned, the proper amendment would be to amend the definition of residential premises, rather than to again place in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, the right to make regulations as to what may or may not be a service or a convenience properly to be included in the determination of rent.

It startles me that the Attorney-General, in haste, would have accepted this amendment, recognizing, as he must, that the opportunity that the cabinet will have to review such matters and to make any worthwhile order, which will have consequence in the circumstances, is next to nothing.

The Hon. Attorney-General speaks about covering up a loophole. The problem is that the consequences of this legislation are going to leave for the poor and those on low incomes only the possibility of having to live in loopholes. That's what will exist for them.

To find themselves accommodation they are going to have to seek out ways of avoiding the consequences of this unfortunate piece of legislation.

To bring this legislation forward, and to accept this amendment, when we have before the House other legislation dealing with the problem, when we have had the Attorney-General already announce the appointment of a rentals man, is to ensure that when we embark upon the proper solution to this problem, we will confront both landlords and tenants with difficulties which are the direct result of this government's in competency in bringing forward Bill 75.

MR. GARDOM: There is no question of a doubt that this is even another excursion of this government into meddling with the economy. It certainly will again tend to curtail construction of rental accommodation. Now we find rent to be defined, be it big or small, or regular or irregular, or consistent or inconsistent, just as the whim of cabinet shall decide. Rent no longer, in the Province of British Columbia, is to be a contract between landlord and tenant but just as this socialistic cabinet shall determine. Rent no longer in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, is to be an agreement or an understanding between a tenant and a landlord, between B.C. citizens, but just as the super-duper biggest brother of all shall determine.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are having 1984 ten years early in B.C. This will not only work against the landlords but against the tenants as well. Any kind of law to be effective has to be clear; it has to be concise; it has to be certain. This fails in every one of those tests.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, on this amendment, if I ever had any doubts before why the once proud Conservative and Liberal parties have shrunk to their present representation in this House, I am sure of it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The last two speakers have indicated an obvious, total, complete lack of understanding of the need for this legislation and this amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't care.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: They cannot seem to realize that there was quick legislation needed — call it hasty if you want. The amendment, of course, was required. It is plugging a loophole that was overlooked. But these parties absolutely and totally

[ Page 2703 ]

fail to understand that out there was a tremendous amount of unconscionable rent gouging going on since the first of this year. There had to be action taken. If we had followed the route....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! order! I would like to remind the Member that this is on the amendment.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we have the finest example given by the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) in the letter that he read from a tenant in his constituency, if an example is what's required. But there were others, and I'm sure that many of us have received letters on it.

If we had followed the usual route, if we had followed the type of route that would be taken by the government in Ottawa, and no doubt by the Liberal Party in this province, we would have waited six to eight months ohing and ahing over whether it is a serious problem and something must be done. Then they would have taken the same course as has been the usual course for Conservative parties in the past. They would have set up a royal commission, giving it one year to make a report, taken another year to take any action, and by that time the suffering would be to such a extent that they would be forced into doing something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Member....

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: This amendment is necessary. It does plug a loophole. It is quick legislation. Quick action was needed and we have it here.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): I've been listening with interest to the two Members who are trained in the legal profession. You notice how they seized on the word "law." Law has loopholes.

The first thing an unscrupulous landlord is going to do is procure himself a lawyer and find a loophole. Lawyers are used to argue law. They don't seem to concern themselves with justice, and the justice of the people was crying out to stop this gouging.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the Member that he should be dealing with the amendment, not with the bill in principle.

HON. MR. LAUK: And never with lawyers.

MR. WALLACE: You need a female lawyer, Roy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you deal with the amendment?

MR. CUMMINGS: This man made a very sexist remark. I would like the press gallery to notice it. It's on the legal female lawyers — the Member for Oak Bay.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): You can sure dish it out but you can't take it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with the amendment to section 1.

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Chairman, I'm being heckled unmercifully by this Hon. Member for Oak Bay, and I don't think it's fair. Sex, sex, sex — you should be up and I'm afraid I have to sit down.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to discuss sex today — I wish to discuss this amendment. In relation to the fact that the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) had his letter and his loophole, and he is endeavouring to plug the loophole and deal with the cow as I suggested in the previous debate, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, in accord with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, that where there is a loophole or black marketing of services, where there's a law against a reasonable service, there will be black marketing.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you and the Attorney-General and that Hon. Member are aware that in going after the fly they are killing the elephant in this province. Many of us, and I'm sure you yourself, have letter upon letter of problems that are being created by this legislation. One relates to this problem of loopholes. What is happening in the broad sense is that some landlords, for example, in mobile-home parks where they've been charging low low rents — and I'll go into one in detail in a later section — have had their taxes increased, have had their labour increased in terms of repairs and are running at an operating loss. They cannot sustain their mobile-home parks under the 8 per cent increase, and therefore they are closing them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're dealing with the amendment to section 1.

MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman. Just give me a moment, please.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is happening is that tenants are going to have to literally move their mobile homes in this particular instance onto the highways, because there's nowhere else for them to go. In light of the fact that in some of these instances they agree that the rent is agreeable, and that the landlord is not gouging them but working in areas of

[ Page 2704 ]

$45 a month, which leads to a silent agreement between the landlords and the tenants which they're happy with and the landlord is happy with, they are now led to believe — and I'd like the Attorney-General to clarify this — that Mr. Yorke and some of his association, if he so wishes, if they hear about this, can in fact take this matter to court and charge both the landlords and the tenants with illegal action.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind you that you're not on the amendment that's before you right now; you're discussing the principle of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking the Attorney-General if he has thought of this type of protection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You're supposed to be discussing the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the amendment is covering the loopholes, Mr. Chairman, and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment deals with something specific and you should be dealing with that amendment. You're dealing with the principle of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't wish to upset you at all, but my understanding of the wording of the amendment is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can, within its discretion, prescribe what amounts to, in fact, the rent. The Member's amendment brings into discussion the subject of whether a carport is part of the rent or not, and this leaves tremendous discretion in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I'm asking the Attorney-General: when there is a mutually silent agreement between a landlord and his tenants on a matter, is it the intention of the Attorney-General to interfere in this nature and prescribe this as an illegal act? Is the Attorney-General willing to stand by and allow an association that might live 300 miles away from the incident to take action on behalf of those tenants, even though those tenants may not wish to have this action taking place? As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this is a very grave danger and it applies directly to the discretion that is given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as mentioned by this Hon. Member's amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps if I'm very briefly out of order in answer, we are dealing with the amendment. The answer is that the 8 per cent would be a restraint subject to the exemptions in the Act and it would be illegal for either party to charge beyond that. The amendment, of course, simply says don't evade it by upping the garage charges, the TV charge, the garbage collection charge — just an obvious case of evasion is what's immediately before the House. On your question, I would expect people would observe the law and the 8 per cent restraint, and I'm sure that already, even before it's passed, in countless cases it's being observed right now.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 2 which is merely for clarification and I so move. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 2 as amended.

MR. SMITH: section 2 deals basically with the matter of rental increases and the limiting of those increases to 8 per cent. It reads specifically that:

"no landlord shall, on or after the first day of January, 1974, charge, in respect of a rental period, an amount of rent for residential premises that is eight per cent greater than the amount of rent charged, in respect to the last rental period during 1973, for the same residential premises."

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that 8 per cent figure is a very hypothetical figure, that it must have been pulled right out of the air without anything to substantiate the amount or the percentage rate and that somebody, in some department, somewhere, decided that 8 per cent was a reasonable average between high and low, and that is what they were going to use.

The figure, if it was to be fair and equitable both to the tenants and to the landlords, would have taken into consideration such things as: the inflation factor, which this year is more than 10 points and will probably continue at that rate unless the government does something to curb that; the tax rate which irrespective of any reassessment which will take place in this province during this year for the last number of years has been an average of 15 per cent increase; that wages alone in the last year have increased 14 per cent so that the costs of all buildings and new projects will certainly increase...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That doesn't mean the rents have to go up 8 per cent to pay that.

MR. SMITH: ...and that people who are

[ Page 2705 ]

employed in maintaining rental premises will receive the benefits of salary increases, the same as other employed people in the Province of British Columbia.

It seems to disregard the fact that heating costs will increase and that there is a very good possibility from a statement made by the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in the north that the rate for the use of electricity will increase in the province before very long. Perhaps he was letting a few secrets out, but this statement was made in the north that there's a good possibility that the rate for domestic consumption of electricity would increase in the province. These are the sort of things that the bill did not even contemplate, let along find a solution to.

It was suggested that this bill was required as an interim measure, and yet at the same time that we're debating this bill on the floor of this House you have another bill, the Landlord and Tenant Act, which could easily have been debated in the place of this, I would suggest to you. At least that spells out in more definitive terms what your actions will be in the future.

We've heard this afternoon the reports of rental gouging, but they seem to all hinge on the matter of one letter received by one MLA who proposed a new amendment to section 1. The question that we must ask is: how prevalent is the matter of rent gouging?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, very prevalent.

MR. SMITH: Well, this is what the Attorney-General says. I've heard the Attorney-General make similar remarks in debate many times before, but he's never produced any proof that there was rent gouging going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I want to draw to the Member's attention that the bill has already been passed in principle and you should be dealing with the section.

MR. SMITH: I am trying to stick to the section, Mr. Chairman, which deals with the rate of increase that will be allowed under this particular bill, limiting it to 8 per cent. I'm trying to point out to the Attorney-General some of the reasons why a figure that obviously was pulled right out of the air does not take into consideration many of the factors that people who own rental accommodation will be faced with, not only this year but in ensuing years.

What you have done with this bill is to make the situation, which is urgent and severe, even more critical for those people in low-income brackets and people who must depend upon rental accommodation. You don't solve their problem in one instance with this bill; as a matter of fact you complicate their problem. The effect of this bill will be to suppress new accommodations from coming into the market and being available for those who would like to avail themselves of new accommodation.

I suggest that you have taken one specific industry in the province, isolated them — as if they could be isolated from all the costs and the problems they must face with inflation, interest rates and all of these things — and said that they must be controlled, so that they do not increase their rents more than 8 per cent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. Member, I'd like to bring to your attention that you are discussing the principle of the bill. If you feel that the figure of 8 per cent is wrong, you should be amending that either upwardly or downwardly, but the principle of the bill has been accepted.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to provide reasons why I feel that the figure of 8 per cent is not a fair figure. In my opinion, that is what I have been debating since I rose in my place in this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've been arguing against the bill, and the principle of the bill has been dealt with. You should be developing your argument as to whether or not the percentage is right and whether it should be upwardly or downwardly revised.

MR. SMITH: I would say to the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that a figure, if it were to be fair not only to the tenant but to the renter as well, should take into consideration the factors that I have just enumerated, and allow for the cost-of-living index and some figure that you or I cannot accurately predict at this moment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's your figure?

MR. SMITH: Certainly it's more than 8 per cent by anybody's guess now. But perhaps the most important key of all, Mr. Attorney-General, is that the figure....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've got a 50 per cent....

MR. SMITH: ...spelled out in this statute is the incorrect way to approach the problem. What you are doing is facing those potential providers of accommodation with a fixed position they cannot live with. As a result you'll not help the people you say you wish to help most — those who cannot find a rental accommodation or are paying too much, in their opinion, for rents.

It's a bad, patchwork type of solution to a problem that we agree is critical in the Province of

[ Page 2706 ]

British Columbia. I regret that we have this type of a bill and this section before the House because I submit that it will not help with the problem. In the long run it will complicate it far more than it is right now.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go over the arguments of my predecessor....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The previous speaker, Mr. Chairman — I stand corrected. And I certainly don't wish to go back over the very valid arguments that I proposed to this Legislature during the debate on the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill was accepted by the government side of the House, but not by this side of the House — let's put it that way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you would be out of order if you started discussing the principle of the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I certainly wouldn't... No, Mr. Chairman. No, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind you once again that you should be dealing with section 2 as amended.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. I want to speak just briefly, Mr. Chairman, to two points.

I want to bring up the 8 per cent. I would like the Attorney-General to explain to us where the 8 per cent came from, because in 1970-71-72 in the Province of British Columbia there were practically no — get that, Mr. Chairman — no rent increases whatsoever, and in 1973 there was a rent increase of approximately 5 per cent. That means that those people who are in the rental accommodation field have been lagging far behind in keeping up even with inflation.

Wage increases throughout the province are anywhere in the area of from 10 to 15 per cent. Indeed, this province has known, and probably will know again in the very near future, of strikes on behalf of the labouring force in this province to get written into their contracts a tenet which will keep them up with the increase in inflation and the increase in the cost of living.

All I'm asking the Attorney-General is whether he feels that 8 per cent — well, it would be a total of 13 per cent since 1970 in four years — is going to look after the increased costs incurred by owners of apartment buildings. Where does this 8 per cent...? Do you really feel that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I do.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you're a worse businessman than I thought you were, Mr. Attorney-General — and I don't mean that as a personal attack.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm not a businessman.

MR. PHILLIPS: The ironic thing about this is not only the 8 per cent which is some figure...I don't know whether the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) who proposed this piece of legislation to the Attorney-General came up with the 8 per cent or not.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: It was grabbed out of the air, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) says.

The other portion that I'd like to just briefly comment upon is the retroactive portion of this section.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's very important, and I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. I don't really know how in the name of heaven the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to look after the complaints and problems that this section of the Act is going to create. There could emanate from this much legality.

There again, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Attorney-General to explain to me where he came up with this date of January 1. Why didn't you come up with January 31, or February 1, or March, or the day that this legislative measure is proclaimed? Where did you come up with the date?

It would appear to me that in this section of the Act both the date on which it comes into effect and the percentage of increase allowed under this section were pulled out of the air. I feel that when the Attorney-General was being forced to draw up this legislative measure, due to pressures from inside his caucus he had to come up with something to put some salve on some of the Members that aren't here today.

This section of the Act — the 8 per cent and the retroactive portion — will do more harm to the very people that he is trying to protect than can be imagined. As I said during the debate on the principle of the bill, it will take 20 years to get this housing situation back on stream and create a surplus of apartment buildings on the market, which is the only way to control the price in the marketplace.

I'm saddened in my heart, because I'm able to see the long-range, damaging effects of this section.

Did the Attorney-General sit down and have discussions with the people involved in the rental

[ Page 2707 ]

industry, or was it just an arbitrary figure that he pulled out of the air. I'd like the Attorney-General to explain that 8 per cent to me, and I'd like him to explain to me why January 1 was chosen.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the 8 per cent and the speech of the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) — and your own remarks, Hon. Member — it must be borne in mind that the fact that your taxes go up by even 30 per cent does not justify a rent increase to all of the tenants of 30 per cent. It depends, obviously, on the percentage of your gross revenue that those taxes represented. So you can't just take that cost-of -living factor.

Actually, if anything, we've been generous with the 8 per cent. I previous years the overall increase in costs was around 4 per cent. It's a little higher this year because our information is that the fires of inflation were burning a little brighter. They have been for the past few months and that's part of the reason for this bill.

The 8 per cent is a reasonable figure to more than take care of reasonable increases in costs. I think it does that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe the Attorney-General would tell me what percentage of rent goes against principal and what goes against expenses?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it varies, of course, depending on the size of the building and the kind of financing you have.

MR. PHILLIPS: There must be an average. What's the average?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The average increase in cost....

MR. PHILLIPS: No. What is the average in costs and repayment of principal on the apartment block? There's an average.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're talking about mortgage costs now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about all the costs.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I just said operating costs had been running about 4 per cent per year — the inflation factor. That's all I'm prepared to say there.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not answering my question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order, please?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You asked about January 1? Clearly the people have to be protected during this inflationary period. The simple thing, to make it simply understood and easily enforced and carried out both by landlords and tenants, is to have it for the year. It will be as interim as we can make it because of the new legislation that has been referred to.

MR. PHILLIPS: The information I have — it varies again. Approximately 60 per cent of the rent received by the renter is expenses. It includes interest, taxes, cost of upkeep, depreciation on the building, et cetera.

I can understand you saying the portion of rent received doesn't have to keep up with inflation, providing you don't have to replace the building. But if you have 60 per cent of the revenue coming in, and if you take all other costs into consideration, and if you also take into consideration that there were no rent increases in 1970, 1971, 1972 and only a 5 per cent increase in 1973, and take the 60 per cent factor of costs and put it into your computer, Mr. Attorney-General, you come up with 15 per cent that you would allow. That's what you would allow.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would you allow that?

M R. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'd allow 15 per cent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I wanted it on the record.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's on the record, Mr. Attorney-General.

Even then, Mr. Attorney-General, you should also allow for certain adjustments. In some cases, where apartments have been rented on a long-term basis, there have been no increases over a past number of years. Also, as you full well know, any large apartment blocks occupied during the last two or three years, when you're drlling on a market where there was a vacancy...Mr. Attorney-General, are you listening to me? When you're selling on a vacancy, you sometimes rent those out at lower than your cost to get them filled up — if you understand the market.

But I'm very serious. I would also like you to explain if you feel people are going to provide the accommodation needed after you bring this Act into effect. That is the crux of the whole situation. Your indiscretion in bringing in retroactive legislation and your arbitrary figure of 8 per cent is going to do damage to the very people you want to help. I don't want to have to stand in this Legislature five years from now and tell you that I told you so, when all of

[ Page 2708 ]

these people are clamoring for accommodation and there is none and the price is under the table in the black market. It's happened in other areas and it will happen here.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief because there's a great tendency to touch on the principle of this bill rather than the specific data in this section. But this 8 per cent as quoted in the section should not be dismissed as easily as the Attorney-General suggests.

I hesitate to go into this letter-quoting business because one swallow doesn't make a summer. Each side can make a point from this letter or that letter. But I think the general consensus in this House, if we're objective, would be that there had been people gouging, but there have also been a large number of owners of rental accommodation who have treated the renter very fairly. That wasn't from any altruistic point of view either. Let's be fair. There were tax shelters involved over recent years where the owner of the property was receiving a federal tax benefit and was, in effect, subsidizing the tenant. In those cases I'm quoting, the tenant was actually getting a lower-than-market rent because the owner of the property had a federal tax benefit. We're not going to talk about the morals or the motivations or anything. That was a fact of life.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier wants it reinstated.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. I was delighted to hear the Premier say yesterday that he's all in favour of this kind of incentive — and so are we in this party. But the reason we have to oppose this section and the 8 per cent is that, even if it is a temporary situation, it is not, in our opinion, an accurate or reasonable figure even on this temporary basis.

Now, why do I say that? I admit, as the Attorney-General has said, the general consumer index figures cannot be taken as the general figure to be applied in a blanket fashion to rental accommodation. I accept that. Although in passing, the latest figures quoted the other day in the national consumer price index is 10.4 per cent. That's the worst it has been in Canada, I think, for the last several years, according to John Turner.

One other reason in passing that I oppose the 8 per cent as not being high enough is the fact that the Minister himself has said this measure was taken to try and give people some protection against inflation. But what about the owner of the property? He's being hammered by inflation day in and day out. The same John Turner stated the other day that the worst of inflation is still to come. The Economic Council of Canada made a statement to the effect that, if anything, inflation can only get worse.

So you're protecting the tenant with an 8 per cent ceiling in this section, at a time when — as the Minister himself said — the fires of inflation are burning more brightly. I think it's like Dante's Inferno, if you want my opinion. "Burning a little more brightly" is rather a euphemism, I think. The inflation situation is not even levelling off.

It's all very well, in this section of this bill, to put in an 8 per cent ceiling for the benefit of the tenant. But what about the owner of the property who is trying to cope with this ever-increasing rate of inflation? The answer is very simple: there will be the ever-increasing trend to convert to condominiums; there will be less rental accommodation built; and, as I said earlier this afternoon, the situation for the actual person looking for rental accommodation will be worse, not better.

I just got a clipping from the newspaper I was referring to yesterday. I'm quoting from the Vancouver Province, April 30, just yesterday:

"The, worst of inflation is yet to come, the Finance department warned Monday in its annual economic review.

"A general round of price increases in basic commodities has created the basis for sharp consumer price increases during 1974."

I have to correct a statement I made a minute ago, Mr. Chairman.

"Finance Minister John Turner tabled it without comment."

It was my impression when I spoke from memory a moment ago that John Turner had recognized and said that inflation could only get worse.

The Minister has pointed out that general figures shouldn't be taken as guidelines as to the cost of operating an apartment. But what about some of these figures, Mr. Attorney-General?

The cost of heating oil. How much has the cost of heating oil gone up? Figures I have are in the region of 26 per cent for the cost of heating and furnace oil.

The payment for the caretaker of the building, who, quite rightly, under legislation is to receive the minimum wage, will go up to $2.50 on July 1. The figure I've been given is something of the order of a 20 per cent increase in caretaker's pay in the last 18 months.

We've got the tax on utilized capital, another piece of legislation introduced recently, which again varies depending on the size of the suite and the amount of money involved, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 to $20 a year per suite.

We have municipal taxes, which on the average even on residential accommodation are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent. We can't measure that accurately, but it is certainly 8 per cent at the very least and likely more.

Building insurance. No owner can possibly go into

[ Page 2709 ]

the rental system without insuring the building. This has gone up, in some cases, 60 per cent in the last two years. Maybe with ICBC moving into general insurance all that interest the government got the other day from the prepayment of its premiums is going to go help pay for insurance on buildings. I doubt it.

There are a variety of other things included in the cost of the building. We've got the cablevision situation which relates back in part to the amendment from the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). But cablevision rates have gone up considerably.

When we have plumbers turning down an increase of $2.90 an hour, Mr. Chairman, in the present bargaining, I think we can understand the cost of maintaining service in an apartment, which is already a very substantial item — paying for repairs by plumbers, electricians and appliance men.

In mentioning this, Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to intrude into the labour dispute that exists; I'm just quoting the fact that the kind of costs which are being negotiated are of the order of a $2.90 an hour increase. That would mean that a plumber would be earning in the neighbourhood of $11 an hour.

I think it's very realistic that apartment owners, reading the newspapers these days and listening to this kind of information, must be very distressed to realize that while the cost of repairs and servicemen to apartment buildings has been going up in recent years — it's somewhat in keeping with this headline that we had from the federal finance department just yesterday — if we think inflation is bad right now, it's only going to get worse.

This kind of local situation in British Columbia dealing with the wage increases in the construction industry will have an enormous impact on the cost of providing this kind of service to apartment owners and the owners of rental accommodation. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the 8 per cent figure, even looking at it as some kind of temporary measure — which the Minister has repeatedly said this is.... From that I imply that future legislation will be implemented on the basis of a much more careful and documented appraised study of all these items I've mentioned and have been mentioned repeatedly by other Members of the opposition.

But in this particular case it does indeed appear as though the Minister has sort of stuck a pin in the donkey and come up with 8 per cent. Although it might be very difficult to find a really precise figure which would be fair, both to the consumer — in this case the renter — and to the owner, I just feel that the 8 per cent figure is too low.

We haven't had adequate justification from the Minister or explanation as to why he came up with the 8 per cent. Since we feel that the section, in placing a ceiling of this kind at the present time will — as I said earlier this afternoon — make the situation worse and not better, for the simple reason that fewer people will be investing in apartments for the numerous reasons I've stated, I just feel that we have no option but to oppose this section.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): It seems to me that the important question here is not so much the precise figure of 8 per cent or 4 per cent or 12 per cent. As long as the figure is but an interim one, 8 per cent will be too high in some cases — but it will be an effective floor because high rents will go up 8 per cent with this legislation — and it will be too low in others. But the Attorney-General's argument I would think, in specifying any number at all is to rely on the idea that this legislation is indeed temporary.

I wonder if, as he saw events develop over the last few weeks, he would give this House some specific idea as to when he believes the replacement legislation will be in place and functioning so that this Act will be superseded?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what's said by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). There's one factor you must remember, too, and that's the inflation of land values which is of real benefit — in the long run it may be, or maybe in the short run — to the owner of rental units, because the value of the building and the land in the last year has almost doubled in many cases.

I'm talking about around Vancouver and....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, they are selling it, some of them, and I don't suppose those land values will ever sink back. That's a credit to the owner.

In terms of how long it will take, I'm kind of stepping on thin ice by pushing the thing before the legislation is approved — Bill 105. I've already got work started on the thing in terms of setting up the office, simplifying it as much as we can, talking to businessmen in the construction field — very fruitful talks at the present time.

I'm not going to go into details about the construction of new rental units in British Columbia with suitable incentives for such construction. Things like that are now going ahead even though Bill 105 hasn't reached the floor of the Legislature. Maybe I'm in contempt of the Legislature in assuming it's going to be passed, but I feel I'm doing that preparation work just as quickly as I can.

So as for my previous feeling that it would be six to eight months, we may be able to abridge that. I hope so.

[ Page 2710 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think it's clear that all Members in the House realize the difficulty of fixing a percentage, whether it be 8 per cent or any other percentage. There was a very clear indication in my constituency — and I know this is true in a number of others — that something had to be done and some figure had to be produced. It was an emergency situation and I think that the 8 per cent choice was as good as any. Though, when I examine what that 8 per cent does in many instances, I still think that the apartment owners are getting too good a deal from the proposed legislation.

One of the things that is happening that makes it difficult to determine a percentage in this case is that owners are now beginning to include increased mortgage charges as part of their operating costs.

Say, for example, they had a mortgage that was 8 per cent over the years. Because of the land value increases and the property value increases, with the increased value they are now going and re-mortgaging their property — perhaps at a 10 per cent rate, which is a 25 per cent increase in mortgage charges. There's no doubt of that.

They are then arguing that because the mortgages charges are up 25 per cent they must pass that mortgage charge along to the tenant. I object quite strongly to that. I don't believe that the tenants should have to bear the additional cost of the new mortgage, because the owner is attempting to use that money he gets on a new mortgage for other speculative purposes.

It seems to me that what we have there is a direct situation where the tenant is subsidizing, is paying for, speculation that the landowner is carrying out. For that reason I don't believe the landlord should be allowed to include the increase in mortgage charges as a direct charge to their tenants when they are re-mortgaging in order to carry out further speculation.

If they were re-mortgaging to build new apartment accommodation, then there might be some argument. But they are not re-mortgaging to gain cash to build new apartment accommodation; they're investing in other areas. I find that absolutely wrong, and I don't agree with them that they should include that in their calculation of their 8 per cent, or whatever percentage it should be.

So we all agree that other charges, heating and maintenance and other charges, have increased by more than 8 per cent. But when you figure the thing out, an accurate figure probably would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 per cent to 5 per cent on the average.

I know a company that argues that 3 to 5 per cent — if the re-mortgaging game isn't carried out — is sufficient over the long term, even in today's inflationary market. So I just wanted to say that the figure of 8 per cent is difficult to choose. The best thing about the figure is that it's interim, that it's not going to last.

The best thing about it is that we are developing in other legislation better procedures, because we can't have a figure that applies right across the board. We can't have a figure that applies in Vancouver and applies equally in Fort St. John, because the situations are different. That's why it's important that we get on with Bill 105.

In the interim I see the 8 per cent as being a very fair figure to the landlords and one that the tenants can live with in this day and age.

MR. GIBSON: What the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour just said is the exact reason why it's so difficult for this Legislature to be asked to approve a specific cost figure — a specific price escalation figure, rather — without having any specific cost data placed before it. The only salvation is the fact that it is of an interim nature. I welcome the Attorney-General's reassurance that in a matter of from six to eight months other arrangements should be in place, assuming, of course, passage by this House.

I have a question about the amendment that he moved — I believe it's been moved; "This section does not apply to residential premises that were not rented as residential premises after the first day of January, 1973." I'm a little confused as to the exact interpretation of that amendment, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: "...that it will not apply where there was no recent base." Eight per cent on last year is one thing but 8 per cent when the thing hadn't been rented for a long period of time might be 8 per cent on what was 1968. In the meantime, it was used for family purposes — something of that kind.

So in other words such premises could come back on the rental market in an uncontrolled state. There would be no base; they would not be controlled.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, very briefly what the Attorney-General has just said I think supports some of the arguments that have been presented from this side of the House.

You should recognize that the rent as of January 1, 1974, was a rent which was probably established in September, 1972, because the landlord having determined what his rent should be in September, 1972, would then be obliged to give notice, and that rent would have applied for 12 calendar months.

So what we have with this 8 per cent limitation is an authority on the part of the government to permit an increase by 8 per cent of a rent predicated upon costs and conditions applied perhaps in September, 1972. For the Attorney-General to suggest that the

[ Page 2711 ]

amendment that he put in was to assure that there was no base upon which the 8 per cent should apply and that then there should be an exemption, is I think a tacit admission of the inadequacy of applying 8 per cent to a rent which would have been determined, in fact, about 15 months before the beginning of this year.

The other consequence of section 2, Mr. Chairman, is that if a landlord been paying attention to his business and if he had given proper valid increases in any period prior to January 1, 1973, or, indeed, for any 12-month period ending early in 1974 — if you give the increase, you see, prior to January, 1973, it went for a whole year — this legislation permits and, indeed, encourages such a landlord to apply a further 8 per cent increase in this year.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, because if the rent was established in January, 1973, it would run for the 12-month period beginning January, 1974, and that landlord is now entitled to another 8 per cent on top of that, whether he requires it or not. He's encouraged by this legislation to take advantage of this 8 per cent limitation.

Those landlords who had concern for their tenants or who may have acted in response to the government's plea for restraint over the previous 12-month period, and didn't increase their rent, have been penalized. It's therefore an indiscriminate penalty embodied in this legislation which discriminates against those landlords who have acted responsibly, and discriminates in favour of those landlords who have at every possible opportunity taken advantage of increasing the rents.

The reason that I oppose this legislation was just that. By establishing an arbitrary percentage increase allowable, you encourage landlords to take advantage and you do so without concern to the harm that a limited increase may have for other people who have acted in a manner that this government would consider to be appropriate.

What this government should have done was to have moved with its Landlord and Tenant Act, postponing this legislation, and to have ensured that the authority given to a rentals man or some other body to increase rents would have permitted a review of any rental increases from January 1, 1974, and proper adjustments by way of recompense to tenants for what would be an unacceptable rental increase. But this legislation does not make this provision. Unfortunately we have to debate this legislation knowing that in the wings there is other legislation which may have a beneficial effect and provide a lasting solution to this particular problem.

I just want to deal with one other matter with respect to section 2. It deals with the comments that I made when we were considering the amendment to section 1 presented by the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). The limitation of 8 per cent applies to an amount of rent for the same residential premises. To give to the cabinet the right to determine what is or is not included in rent is of no consequence under section 2 if the residential premises change. Therefore for a tenant who rented an apartment without parking and is now renting an apartment with parking the residential premises are different, and that landlord under those circumstances completely escapes the consequences of section 2, even with the amendment. The Member for Victoria points out that if the premises are furnished as opposed to unfurnished he escapes, merely because the amendment deals with rent rather than the definition of residential premises.

What you have, therefore, is a further compounding of the problem because the government is able to determine what is or is not to be included in rent, but your limiting percentage is an amount of rent greater than 8 per cent in respect of the last period for the same residential premises. If the same residential premises are rented now rather than were rented before you escape entirely the 8 per cent limitation.

It only creates the possibility of further indiscriminate penalties; it only opens more loopholes for the landlord who would wish to act other than in a manner which this government, and I trust this assembly, would consider to be responsible.

I would trust that before we pass third reading of this bill the Attorney-General would concern himself with the consequences of this legislation and consider whether or not we shouldn't proceed with consideration of the Landlord and Tenant Act amendments and never bring this Act into law.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I concur completely with the statements of the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). This amendment certainly isn't going to encourage anyone to become a landlord. And it certainly is unfortunate for those landlords who are not in this as a business, but for one reason or another have become owners of property which is now rented or who have acquired apartment buildings as widows, for example.

I think of one in particular who has been a landlord for a number of years. Completely unaware of the type of legislation that is being proposed, she has been an exceptionally good landlord — kept the rent very low, done everything that she could to encourage the older tenants who had been in that particular apartment block for years to stay there, was unwilling to move them out even though her costs were rising, was unaware of the fact that they were rising because her books were done by an

[ Page 2712 ]

accountant and at the end of the year that was the first time she was aware of whether she was making or losing money, realized early this year the rents should be raised and is now frozen into a position where she really is losing money and can do nothing about it.

I agree completely that the Act should be changed and a new one brought on right away so that someone like that would not suffer. She does not intend in any way to be a gouge, wants her tenants to be happy, and yet wants to survive and live herself.

The statement around many of the coffee shops today by people who are landlords is that they are not charitable institutions by choice. It just happened that way.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to subsection (2), could the Hon. Attorney-General indicate why the regional district is being exempted from the opportunity of determining whether or not this shall apply to residential premises situated in that area?

It seems to me that this subsection gives the municipality the right to take unto itself certain...to make a determination as to whether in their particular circumstances this should apply. Yet for those areas outside of a municipality but nonetheless within a regional district no such right is given. This is a further example of where people who live in unorganized territories are enjoying something like second-class citizenship in this province. Why doesn't it apply there as well as in municipalities?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the reason why it is municipalities and not regional districts is because of the wide variation in conditions in different parts of the regional district in many cases, so there might be a particular problem in one that didn't apply regionally. As for the unorganized territories, their complaints can be heard under section 1 of this section.

MR. WALLACE: On section 3, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Attorney-General could give the House some kind of guidance Or his reaction as to how on earth the cabinet is going to cope with section 3. It seems to me that the statement is rather obtuse in that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet, in discretion may order that the section does not apply, subject to such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant-Governor may specify. Then subsections (2) and (3) spell out the way in which the council of a municipality or the council of a regional district can make an appeal.

Now the Minister has touched already this afternoon, with your forbearance, Mr. Chairman, on other legislation before the House where he's getting certain things underway. I just wonder if the Attorney-General really feels that if there is any kind of sizeable number of applications, does he really believe that he has the staff and the organization and the concepts to look into these council applications in any kind of realistic and detailed way and be able to decide whether the councils concerned really have a legitimate request or not.

If council applies for a variety of properties... Or is the Minister contemplating that there will be a very small number of appeals? Will the appeals for exemption be handled by the Minister himself, or by which segment of which branch of his department? — and so on.

It just seems to me that this exemption section provides on the surface some kind of mechanism of appeal. Yet one wonders if the bodies — perhaps that's not such a good way to put it — one wonders if the staff and the machinery really exist to give this section of the bill any real validity.

Maybe the Attorney-General could give us some idea of the guidelines that will be used, not only as to what conditions will be considered as reasonable in seeking exemption, and what will actually be the line of authority and the person or the persons before whom the council might appeal if it was seeking an exemption.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The appeal would be to this department. Preferably it should be a class appeal to show, say, that all the mobile homes in this municipality do not need this kind of control — as a special problem, as a class. We do not rule out in this section an individual appeal. But, quite frankly, in a very interim period like this, particularly bearing in mind that under Bill 105 if an increase is applied for by a person who suffered an injustice here the fact of that injustice can be taken into account under 105 and some equity can be done at that time under that bill.

Bearing all that in mind, I would hope that it would be sort of class exemptions with a strong case made out. That would be the kind of thing that should be considered.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. GABELMANN: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, rather than an amendment to section 4, there seems to be a new section. Could we deal with section 4 first? Then you can propose your new section 5 as renumbered.

[ Page 2713 ]

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not sure now which section I'm moving, but I would like to move the new section 5, which is numbered 4 in the papers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the proposed amendment, new number 5, pass? Is there any debate on the amendment?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 5 has been renumbered. Old section 5, new section 6.

On section 6.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Act is made retroactive for purposes stated in the legislation, but how long is the interim period going to be? It does not make any provision for the day when this legislation will become ineffective. If it is to be interim I think there should be some clear indication that when Bill 105 becomes law, if it becomes law — particularly the rentals man provisions — we could have some assurances that this particular legislation will then cease to have an effect.

Therefore, I would move, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of section 6 the words be added: "and shall expire not later than December 31, 1974."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would have to declare this motion out of order as it tends to dictate government policy.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Tends to dictate government policy? What do you suppose this Legislature is? Are we completely governed by government policy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is, without consent of the Crown, Mr. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's not within your power — refusing an amendment, that is, something that is put forward which is against government policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Without consent of the Crown I can't accept the amendment.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 75, Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I've just got a point of order. By leave of the House I would like the House to welcome a distinguished visitor to the House this afternoon who has been enjoying the debate for this past hour or so. It is Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Winter from Newfoundland.

Mr. Winter is the Lieutenant-Governor designate for the Province of Newfoundland. I hope the House will welcome him on his holiday to British Columbia before he takes up his duties in that far eastern province in June. He is sitting in the Members' gallery on my right.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 115.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply enabling the federal appointments, the ones in question when it comes to making judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia... The necessities, as they have been presented to me, are that the number eligible to be filled should be increased from 23 to 25. That's the principle of the bill. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 11S, Supreme Court Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

BRITISH COLUMBIA DAY ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, moving second reading of Bill 61, British Columbia Day Act, it gives me special pleasure, as we are visited here today by people from other parts of Canada, to point out to them by way of information to the House that the purpose and the principle of this bill is evident.

[ Page 2714 ]

August 1, or the closest working day to it, is a statutory holiday in every other province in Canada. By coincidence, an Act to provide for the Government of British Columbia, which changed us from the Colony of British Columbia, was passed by the parliament in the United Kingdom on August 2, 1858. That was before Social Credit, I think, but only just.

We feel that British Columbia, like every other province, could benefit and should have a holiday around August 1. We feel that the holiday should be dedicated to the pioneers who built the colony of British Columbia into the great province it is today. With a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition agrees that August would be a good date for another official holiday. We think they have chosen an exceptionally good means to recognize the pioneers of this province. I only hope that when this date rolls around, this Legislature will be allowed to have that day off also. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't intend to oppose this bill, but I want to recognize that the drafters of the bill have correctly included a tribute to James Douglas who, on the 19th day of November, in Fort Langley, British Columbia, proclaimed the Act setting up the Government of British Columbia.

I want again to get in an annual plea that the cabinet continue its regular cabinet meeting in Fort Langley on the 19th day of December. Perhaps, while it's in a holiday mood, it might think about extending the celebration of Douglas Day to the rest of the province instead of isolating it at Fort Langley, recognize that famous day for what it is as well, and recognize, of course, that Fort Langley was the first capital of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly support this bill, but it doesn't go quite far enough. There should be another section 1n this bill which, on this day, would give all British Columbians the freedom they had before the socialists moved in in September of 1972.

They should have the right, Mr. Speaker, to buy their car insurance where they desire to do so. They should have the right to own land. Industry should have the right to develop this great province of ours. So, Mr. Speaker, the bill is a good one, but on this day, this holiday known as British Columbia Day, all British Columbians should be allowed to have the freedom they had under a free-enterprise government.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This isn't Hallowe'en.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Get to your point, Bill.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's right. What is the point?

MR. WALLACE: "What is British Columbia Day?"

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I think it's very, very appropriate that the new government brought in a new holiday. It's still coming up with new ideas — and that's more than they can say for the Conservatives.

MR. PHILLIPS: New taxes.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, my friend for South Peace River, a royalty is not a tax.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have a holiday from the irrelevancy, please?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's very appropriate that we have a holiday. I recently made a tour of my district and I find that this holiday is being very popularly received. The teachers would rather have had it other than the first Monday in August, as would the students, but I think that shows we are trying to do the right thing by all people. We're trying to give them a holiday when the weather is the best. I think this is actually the purpose: so we can get together and celebrate the origin and the history of our province on a good day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, not until the next election.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I, too, am very much in favour of having a holiday on August 1. I was brought up in Manitoba, and there we used to have a civic holiday on August 1. When I went to Ontario, they had a civic holiday there on August 1. I came to British Columbia and I felt I was deprived.

I really look towards this as a wonderful experience. I think we need more special holidays so that people can celebrate together and enjoy things. I think we get to be a very serious people and we have to be able to get out and enjoy our holidays. Also, it gives us an opportunity in this way to remember the great people who have helped in making this country what it is. Thank you.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, just a question. When the Provincial

[ Page 2715 ]

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is winding up second reading, perhaps he could tell us whether or not this holiday will apply to the Members of the Legislative Assembly.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this extra leisure time. At least I used to appreciate it before I came into the Legislature. Now we get very little leisure time and we're always trying to make more leisure for other people. Maybe the day will come when we'll be able to enjoy it along with all the rest.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can retire any time.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Back years ago, one of the objectives was that we wouldn't be satisfied until we had every day a holiday and every holiday a pay day.

HON. MR. LAUK: I just have one question of the Hon. the Provincial Secretary: will the pubs be open on this day?

MR. SPEAKER: I must warn you, the Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: The support is overwhelming in support of a holiday. I hope some of the other bills I have later on will achieve the same support — indeed, the resolutions I have on the order paper.

Answering some of the questions. A matter of celebrating the holiday in a liquid form should be directed at the Attorney-General.

Whether or not we'll be on holiday will depend on the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). (Laughter.) I'm beginning to wonder whether, indeed, his contributions will enable us to proclaim B.C. Day this year. We might have to get the Lieutenant-Governor in for a special trip.

I think it's a pleasure for us all to realize that we're catching up with our other provinces and that, as Minister in another portfolio to do with recreation and leisure, I think we all realize the granting of holidays is just a start. We also have to provide leisure services in a way that many of you have written to me about. I think all Members of the House for their reaction those that have informed me of their reaction to the Broom Report on recreation and leisure which is part and parcel of this situation.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 61, British Columbia Day Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 62.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TARTAN ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to garner all the support I can throughout the province by introducing holidays and also appealing to the Celtic vote, I take pleasure in moving for second reading of Bill 62.

The purpose and principle of the bill is evident. During the 1966-67 centennial celebrations, which marked the creation of British Columbia as one colony and marked our centenary, the provincial centennial committee adopted a tartan known as the British Columbia centennial tartan. This tartan was so well received that it is recorded in the appropriate registers and, indeed, was recorded with the Court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh on January 8, 1969, and also was registered as a trademark under the auspices of the Trade Marks Act. That happened on November 9, 1971.

As a Sassenach, Mr. Speaker, I'm having some difficulty in appreciating the full import and solemnity of this registration that the Minister of Transport is applauding. However, the government now proposes this centennial tartan be adopted as the official British Columbia tartan. I have a sample of it here, if any Members are interested in observing the patterns. I've had many inquiries from the textile industry that I've been associated with for many years to get into massive production of this tartan. I have the honour to move second reading of this bill.

MR. MORRISON: We are also happy to see a tartan recognized officially for the Province of British Columbia. I am a little disappointed that the Minister did not wear a proper kilt today, with the tartan. It appears to me that there are far too many red threads, which is another disappointment. But I believe this province will wear this tartan with honour for many years.

MR. McGEER: As one of Irish ancestry, I nevertheless want to support this bill as well, just to express mild disappointment that the Provincial Secretary didn't do a Highland fling out on the lawn complete with bagpipes and flanked by the Minister of Transport and the Member for Oak Bay. It could have been a sensational introduction and I still hope the Provincial Secretary will see fit to wear the very first B.C. tartan kilt in public so that the people can decide for themselves how desirable it will be to spread this through the land.

MR. WALLACE: It's always a great pleasure for a Scotsman to talk about tartans, regardless of the

[ Page 2716 ]

number of black, red, white or green threads. If I have any criticism of the bill it is the rather inhuman way the tartan is described. I think we should have some motif or some kind of warm rich description of the flowing colours or whatever they happen to be. It looks like a real hotch-potch, looking at section 1. I'm sorry that the Provincial Secretary didn't have a larger piece of fabric to give us some idea what the colour composition is.

I was a little concerned that the Provincial Secretary in introducing the bill said that he had even had it registered in the books of the court of the Lord Lyon, King of Arms of Scotland. Not that I'm any expert on this part of Scottish history, but I know that much — that there's no way that a tartan's worth any kind of threads in any colour until it's registered with the Lord Lyon, King of Arms, in Edinburgh.

I'm sure that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) certainly has the figure for a kilt. I can just imagine the tremendous sway of the kilt which the Provincial Secretary could carry out as he swaggers down the halls of this very fine building.

I think this is just another very delightful form of identity with many of the people who have come to Canada and to British Columbia of Scottish heritage. I just hope it doesn't tend, however, to signify that there aren't many, many other people from many, many other countries who are very much a part of the fabric of the life of British Columbia. My only reservation about this bill is that, if anything it is racist. It brings into the foreground one particular segment of our people when, in point of fact, there are many other citizens and Canadians who come to British Columbia and give a great deal to the province from countries other than Scotland. With that very minimal reservation, I look forward to this tartan becoming well recognized and identified with British Columbia.

I hope that there will be some official baptism of the tartan in one way, shape or form with Haig and Haig, preferably, since that's the....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I said Haig, not haggis, but we could probably combine the two, Mr. Speaker, and have some kind of celebration here in the buildings with the Provincial Secretary wearing the new British Columbia tartan kilt and a liberal supply of Scotland's national beverage.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce) Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), myself, and many others who are not of Scottish or British origin in this great and wonderful province, we support this bill, I'm sure, because we have a spirit of good will towards all of our brothers and sisters, and just to appease the Scottish, because I have trouble enough with my colleagues in the cabinet who are Scottish, let alone the man from Oak Bay. But I understand that the bagpipes were invented by the Polish (Laughter), and that when they first heard the sound, they sent them rapidly to Scotland where they've remained ever since.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll give you a French joke — he's right there from Columbia River. (Laughter.)

But really in good spirit, it's a fine bill to see a tartan, and one of these days we'll have something that's a little more representative of the minority ethnic groups.

AN HON. MEMBER: Something a little more homogeneous.

HON. MR. LAUK: A little more homogeneous — thank you, Mr. Member.

MR. CURTIS: I don't want to in any way detract from the good humour which has been evident in the last few minutes. Certainly I will go along with my colleague from Oak Bay. I can claim very distant Scottish ancestry, so I won't bore the Members with any repetition of that.

I too worry, however, from time to time when for one reason or another we seem to be bent upon identifying our provincialism. I hope that others will agree that we are Canadians first and British Columbians second. While I have no resistance to a British Columbia tartan, a British Columbia flower — I'm not prepared to say a British Columbia flag for somehow I don't care for the British Columbia flag, but that is another matter entirely — I do wish that as members of the Confederation of Canada we could perhaps find similar symbols which would further demonstrate our Canadianism rather than our British Columbianism, which is pretty well defined by the Rocky Mountains and other means as well. This is well beyond the jurisdiction of this House, I realize, but it would be excellent to see yet another symbol of Canada introduced in the federal parliament which could be worn or displayed or flown with pride by all Canadians from the eastern coast to the west.

As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and it will be fine for individuals and groups who leave British Columbia to travel elsewhere in the world to identify their home province. But perhaps as we pass

[ Page 2717 ]

through second reading and into the committee stage we could also think that Canada is our homeland, and that is to me, frankly, a little more important than being able to say that British Columbia is my home or native province.

MR. CUMMINGS: I rise to support this bill because I'm a proud bearer of one of the names of one of the oldest clans in Scotland. I hope the Provincial Secretary has better colour judgment than my ancestors. My plaid is actually a very, very awful looking colour. But there's a little bit of history that I should like to bring out to go with my clan. My clan, not only being one of the oldest, were the rulers of Scotland. But there was a member of the Wallace clan, believe it or not, that shoved a knife in him in a church. I still suffer from the same ailment today.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's a dirk.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the Act we're debating now, the British Columbia Tartan Act, even though I have no ancestry of Scottish descent whatsoever. There's strictly French in my blood; however, there's a lot of Canadian in my blood. I think it's a good piece of legislation, establishing an official tartan for British Columbia.

One thing that really leaves me in awe is the fact that there hasn't been recognized in this province the fact that Canada is a bilingual nation and that Canada has two cultures — the French and the English cultures. The national government has seen fit to expend millions of dollars in establishing the B and B commission to travel the width, and the breadth of this province to promote biculturalism and bilingualism. It's really unfortunate that there hasn't been any recognition of the French in Canada in the tartan. You have to admit nous sommes un pays bilingue and that there should be some recognition of that fact. All I ask of the Minister when he has the thing officially manufactured — the various kilts, skirts, neckties and plaids — is that somewhere hidden in that piece of clothing there be a little fleur de lis, just a little fleur de lis. If you do that, you have my full blessing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I cannot let this go thorough without saying something. No, I couldn't do that!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member speak English? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The man just said it was a bilingual country. I want to remind the Member for Columbia River that the French were the old allies of Scotland and that we fought many battles together, on the same side. I wish he'd remember that in this House sometime — that we were the old allies.

MR. WALLACE: Nay, not every one of them!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't look on the naming of a British Columbia tartan as a separatist thing or specific recognition of the fact that many people did come to this province from Scotland. We have names like the Fraser River and the Thompson River and so on as a part of our history.

I have in my office, as many of you know, a large poster which depicts the scenes from the life of Burns and his poetry. I have that there for a specific reason: to remind me of the heritage which I brought with me when I came to this country. When I have people in my office of every ethnic group, especially the schoolchildren, I point to them and tell them why I have that in my office. I tell them to never be ashamed of where you came from, never be ashamed of your heritage.

I may disagree with the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) when he says there are two cultures in this country. There are many cultures in this country. What we have is a mosaic, and every ethnic group has brought with them a contribution to what is Canada. I certainly agree with the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) that we have to recognize our Canadianism, which is why one of the first things I did as Minister of Highways was put up the Trans-Canada signs once again. We do recognize that we're part of Canada and we are part of the whole culture of Canada.

Part of the history of the tartans, of course, again is a reminder. We're bringing in this bill a freedom to wear a tartan that every British Columbian can wear proudly because it represents British Columbia. There was a time in the history of Scotland when it was forbidden to wear the tartan. It took a good many years to get that freedom restored. I think this will help bind British Columbia; it's something to be recognized with British Columbia. It's their tartan, irrespective of where they come from. I've attended a Burns' night where the chief soloist was a Chinese girl from Nanaimo. She sang Burns' songs beautifully. We recognize all this in this tartan.

I think it's a good bill. I thank the Provincial Secretary for bringing it in, and I can assure you I will support it. And I'll wear the tartan proudly too.

MR. SPEAKER: Le Secretaire Provincial termine le débate.

HON. MR. HALL: Oui! Mr. Speaker, I should

[ Page 2718 ]

thank all Members for their support. I like their imagination; if they can see me wearing a kilt, so be it. You may have to wait. It will take a lot of cloth.

If you would bear with me, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the rather mechanical description in the bill lacks a little reek of the heather, I agree. That, however, is copied from the Lord Lyon.

I bent my mind to it — if I can tell an untruth — and I would like to describe it that the tartan tells the story of the early Scottish explorers. The colours are the blue of the Pacific Ocean and the green of B.C.'s great forests; the red is the maple leaf; the dogwood white of the provincial floral emblem; the sun gold of the Crown, the colour of the sun that we see in British Columbia. If you like that as section 1, you can write your own words. But apparently, in order to protect those dim and dusty archives we find in Edinburgh and other places, the other side of the wall...

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: ...the Sassenachs built. That's why that droll and mechanical explanation. That's a textile formula, of course.

I thank the Members for their support. I hope to be able to introduce later on — perhaps the next bill — something that might assuage the feelings of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 62, British Columbia Tartan Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

METRIC CONVERSION ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Moving right along, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: That's right. The purpose of this bill is to permit people to use metric measure where, under an Act or regulation, they are required or permitted to use Imperial or Canadian measure. It's part of the processing in of the metric system into this country.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada has committed itself to that conversion to the metric system. Ottawa, through the Federal Metric Commission and also the Canadian Standards Association, hopes the investigation stage will extend from late 1974 to 1976, and the implementation of metricalization will extend from 1975 to 1978.

The basis for British Columbia's conversion will be the revision of the statutes of the province, which I believe is intended to be completed in 1976 or 1977. To assist in the education of the people of the province, we felt it wise to permit people to convert slowly but surely in their own time before that revision is completed.

I should, by way of information to you, also report there is an active committee of British Columbians, and we are well represented on the federal committee. There have been many, many meetings and a great deal of progress has already been made. The Minister of Education is directly involved, as indeed are all the cabinet Ministers, but particularly the Ministers like the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and, of course, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). Because of the advanced state of health care in this country, they are already a long way along the line towards metricalization of that particular art.

I can answer questions, I think, if any do come up, about where we are and what the task force is doing. I don't want anybody to feel this is being suddenly impinged on the public. It's a gradual system; we are keeping close watch on it. We hope that by this gradual implementation and familiarization of the public with the metric system, the transition will be smooth and won't be accompanied by some of the distrust, dislocation and anger we see in decimalization of the monetary system in other countries' experience.

Those Members who have a more than passing knowledge of the system and have used it in their work — some of the professional people in the House — will, I'm sure, support what we're trying to do. I hope that any people who have a really positive and constructive criticism to make to the government will not hesitate for one second to make those feelings known to us. Frankly, in this particular system, I think it's fair to say we need all the help we can get to make sure that it's done properly and completely and with a minimum of fuss.

I therefore move second reading of this enabling piece of legislation.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, this side of the

[ Page 2719 ]

House agrees that the necessity to change to the metric system is required. It should, as the Minster says, be slow. It will be expensive; it will take a great deal of re-educating of the people.

I'm sure that much of the humour that's gone on in other countries will appear in our magazines before long as this bill is passed and people begin to try to change the formulas they're familiar with and the figures they're accustomed to recognize instantaneously without having to have anything drawn to their attention.

There's a rather interesting article which I read recently that refers to the familiar figures of Miss America. I'd like to put those on the record, if I may, at this moment. We must soon become accustomed to using the figures 91-60-91. Now, all those men who can get away without worrying about women's lib and want to use those figures, should put those on their memories because they'll signify the figure you've been accustomed to over the years that Miss America has generally met when she became the reigning queen, Also, one of the other metric conversions which I guess most school children are accustomed to is 28 grams of prevention are worth 0.45 kilograms of cure.

But there are many, many other common, everyday figures that we're accustomed to using. Many of our household appliances will be changed. Most of our tools will be changed for mechanical use and automobiles. Many of the wrenches that are now in standard workshops will, over the next ten years, disappear. The need is important, I'm sure, but this change will create many opportunities for free enterprise people to benefit by. We encourage it and see the need for it.

MR. McGEER: I wish quickly, Mr. Speaker, to tell the Provincial Secretary how pleased we are to see this bill come forward. As one who has worked with the metric system in a laboratory, I can tell you that it is so vastly superior to working with the other system, that people who are experiencing this changeover are not going to have pain; they're going to have joy.

Always when these systems are converted, as with the English monetary system, and as we did with the apothecary system to the metric system for drugs, it has been predicted that it would be difficult. As soon as the public got something that was simpler they were just delighted and relieved.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why the metric system has been so slow in being introduced to North America has been the reluctance of American manufacturers to undertake the expensive conversion. It has held us back by imposing on us an inefficient, irregular, outmoded conversion system. Hopefully, pressure from places like British Columbia, however small, may be sufficient to spur the day when these American manufacturers will do what they should have done 50 years ago and give to us a system that is easier, better, more convenient, and one which the public, once given a chance, will accommodate to quickly and with joy. I hope no one will further the myth that the reason the metric system needs to be introduced slowly is because of public resistance. I just don't believe it for a minute.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this party strongly supports the bill.

While the First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has pointed out one reason why perhaps progress has been slow, I think the reason it is now happening is because we are living in a very much smaller world where international trade and our international communication is going on at an unprecedented scale. We have trading nations entering into agreements such as the European Economic Community where, whether they like it or not, the efficiency of the business dealings will definitely be enhanced by a uniform system of measures.

I think it is also related to the mobility of people and the fact that the citizens of different countries have, as the First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey mentioned, become aware of the convenience of the metric system and the fact that, once they understand and see the benefits and the advantages when they travel in other countries using the same scale of measurement, found it very convincing.

I don't think we should, however, overlook two points. A tremendous amount of education will be needed. I wonder what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) specifically is doing in the schools. I know this is not strictly relevant to this bill, but I would hope the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is in close communication with the Minister of Education. Surely it would be much simpler for the children in our schools if the present use of weights and measures was downplayed and tremendous emphasis given to the metric system so that at least many of our children don't later on in life, as they get older, have to make the change which our mature population will have to do.

The second point is that I don't think it will be done all that easily. The Provincial Secretary made mention of the conversion of the monetary system in Britain. I know, even to this day, as recently as a visit I had with my sister and her husband, there are still problems in Britain today. The older citizens, who have lived for 40 or 50 or 60 years using the pounds, shillings and pence, still have some difficulty in dealing with the new system. This occurs despite the tremendous effort, the tremendous amount of money, the tremendous number of programmes that were drawn up to make the conversion as painless as

[ Page 2720 ]

possible to the citizens of Britain.

I also recognize the Provincial Secretary's emphasis on the federal-provincial co-operation that is involved here. I just say in passing that I am very surprised that vote 209 in the Provincial Secretary's estimates is only $21,000. This may not be the time to go into that; we can perhaps touch on that during his estimates.

The Provincial Secretary has said this will not be rushed. I hope, on the other hand, with the small budget which is listed for this programme and the reasonable degree of hesitation that he implies in his statement, we will get ahead with it.

I do know that in the health field, and certainly in the hospitals, there was this initial apprehension by doctors and nurses and medical staff that it was just one more nuisance to start learning grams and milligrams instead of ounces. But I know that it has received a great measure of acceptance. Again, when you are dealing with medical publications from many parts of the world where the metric system is used, I think the physician in particular realizes its real significance., I'm sure on a personal level that the Provincial Secretary is much happier to weigh 110 kilograms than a certain other figure I might mention.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I. too, am very pleased to see this bill being read for the second time after being introduced. During the throne debate I brought up the fact that there was a great need for us transferring to the metric system. I was hopeful something would be done in the schools, very, very quickly.

Let me first say that we already use some of the metric system outside of the medical field. For instance, because of our participation in international sports now, our tracks and our pools have to be on international standards. That means they have to be measured in metres and no longer in yards. The inch-pound system is becoming obsolete of itself. If you go to the grocery shelves now you will be able to find food marked both in litres and in pounds or ounces, or whatever it might be. So some of that can be studied that way.

As far as measurements, I think the remark of the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) was almost chauvinistic. To think that I might be 91-60-91! I rather resented that, Mr. Member. But I don't know what I can do about it. (Laughter.)

However, I'm sure we will get used to the difference in measurements. Measuring in decimals is certainly much simpler than measuring in pounds and ounces or in inches, feet and yards. I don't think the conversion will be that difficult once we get started on it, but we must get started on it quickly.

Thank you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as well as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) having an interest in this matter, particularly in view of the article just recently delivered to her by the page on weights and measures, I'm sure the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) will have some concern in her department for the possibility of the conversion to the metric system. I would trust that, as well as education in the schools, the Hon. Minister would concern herself with the need to educate the public generally as to the relative conversions between the two systems.

Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Provincial Secretary, while I don't wish to deal with the specifics of the bill, I can't help but notice that in section 1 there is a specific definition of a "Canadian measure" but nowhere else in the bill do those words appear. I would hopefully suggest to him that the Legislative Counsel might consider the operative section, which is section 2, and see if the words "Canadian measure" have not been omitted from section 2 because the amendment might make the section more appropriate.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we've heard support from the business world, the medical profession, the legal profession and the teaching profession. I think I should put in a word for the engineering profession, even though it is the junior one — the power engineering.

I can remember attending technical school in Ottawa and always having to learn these conversions from the metric system to the system we are using at present, in weights, measures, distances and temperatures. I would certainly hope that when this conversion is complete to the metric system, it also includes the temperatures so we can get away from this Fahrenheit system into the centigrade.

We also found that, added to the difficulties of power engineers in this province writing for higher certificates to move up in their chosen field, questions are quite often worded, a few on each examination, which required some calculations be given in the metric system. Some would be given in feet and inches, and pounds and ounces. So conversions always had to be made. A question could be answered absolutely correctly but a mistake done in the conversion would lead to a lot of difficulty in receiving the higher certificate.

The one thing I hope we do not get with the metric system is the weight measure of stones. That's one that I've never been able to recognize. When I'm told that someone weighs so many stone I've never been able to understand it or convert it in time to realize what anyone weighs.

I would wonder also if we would see the end of the furlong system in races. Perhaps they would be run in metres rather than in furlongs. But there is

[ Page 2721 ]

going to be probably some confusion, a few problems that would occur with the people who have been working for so many years with our present system in the engineering profession.

Once the conversion is made and everyone becomes used to it, I'm sure we will appreciate the fact that we have this system and that we should have been on it much sooner than we did.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Provincial Secretary mentioned that of course there must be and there is good co-operation between our two departments in bringing about the metric system in this province.

I would like to tell the House that we have started the teaching of the metric system in grade 1 in the schools in British Columbia. This is the area, of course, where it is most easy to start teaching the metric system.

Our biggest problem will be in teaching the metric system to the adults of the province. This means that it will be necessary for us to put on courses in time, probably based in our community colleges, to assist people in this.

MR. CUMMINGS: I feel I'd like to support this bill but I don't feel it's going to be as easy as everyone would like to make out. I'm thinking of the legal profession — all the contracts that are made up with pounds, inches, foots, tons, the laws that are made up. I think the conversion....

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your foot's got in your mouth.

MR. CUMMINGS: "Foots." That's a legal definition, isn't it? How do you take ten per cent of a foot?

MR. GARDOM: How many grams in a big man?

MR. CUMMINGS: Four ounces, grams, I don't know. I'm afraid that the old measurements are going to be around for a long, long time and I don't feel it's going to be as easy as it sounds.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm very interested in the two thoughts that have been expressed. If I may take the liberty, I will categorize them by saying there is the note expressed by the First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and that which was expressed by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace.) I don't think they're mutually exclusive and I'd like to deal with them, if I may, and tell the House that I support the notes and the encouragement that I found in their speeches.

First of all, I entirely agree with the Member for Vancouver-Point Grey, who has had a great deal of experience personally of this, that we should be approaching this problem with optimism, with delight, with anticipation. If I inadvertently for one second did anything other than that, I withdraw it and apologize for it because my concerns are the same as those which were expressed by the Member for Oak Bay.

I agree with the good doctor from Point Grey that we shouldn't back off this in the slightest, that we shouldn't delay it one week in the anticipation of its reception at all. In fact the studies and all the things I've read indicate that the faster we can accomplish it the better.

However, the implementation is fraught with difficulties, not from the point of view of the recipient or the consumer, but indeed the implementer.

For instance, the federal government sped ahead and passed the packaging and labelling Act which was proclaimed 10 weeks ago. It's hopefully going to come out of the hopper supported by all parties. I think that what the bill does is to enable the packaging industry to get on to the metricalization of weights and measures.

Here I may have confused you because there are two Acts going through the federal House at the same time. One has gone through and one is now being debated. The packaging one has gone through.

The trouble was that that has gone through, expectations have been aroused, people have been sort of smacking their lips waiting for a taste of metricalization — and there wasn't the slightest bit of consultation with the lithographing industry. Instead of the programme being on line, it's now been shifted back. I quote from the official report from Mr. Gossage of the metric commission: "It was far too ambitious and will take much longer in full implementation."

That's the caution I'm trying to point out. But I agree entirely with the Member for Vancouver-Point Grey that we should be anticipatory, we should be delighted, we should be confident and we should be optimistic.

I think I should share with you, because of the importance of the country to the south — and the Member for Vancouver-Point Grey referred to that — what is going on there, because I think you may well be asked. The hearsay legislation for metricalization has been released from the House of Representatives rules committee in mid March and should shortly be considered by the House with the provision that amendments may be permitted from the floor of the House. That is a specific device they have which I consider may mean trouble for the passage of the bill. That we'll have to see.

Due to the strong label lobby a generous

[ Page 2722 ]

compensation for buying metric tools and seniority protection are seen as protective clauses that must be included in the bill. It's unlikely that the bill would see passage before the summer recess. It'll provide one year for the board — a conversion board — to produce a plan for Congress and the President, and a life of 10 years is given for the Metric Conversion Board. However, it's a judgment of the National Bureau of Standards that metric conversion should be completed in the States by 1980 and will not take the full 10 years.

That's the most optimistic note I've seen in 18 months of correspondence from both the federal House and others regarding metrication. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are one of the key members of the Council of Ministers on Metric Planning for Education. My colleague has already mentioned something of that.

We are watching the labour scene closely because some horrible fallouts from this legislation will be some amendments to the Income Tax Act regarding credits for tooling up, from the point of view of the work person who needs tools to accomplish the same job once we go on to the metric system, and the collective bargaining ramifications with industry, and also the cost of going metric.

The federal government has clearly stated it doesn't want to make a profit out of going metric, which it may well do if you extend this thing along and look at the purchasing programme.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: No guess at the cost. No, knowing the Olympics and other things, they're not going to hazard any guesses on this one.

May I also say that one of the things that disturbs me, and why I share the concerns of the other Members that I categorize as putting the two points of view forward, is that other provinces have not approached it in the way that I think we're doing. For instance, Ontario appears to be changing over to a metric system on a piecemeal project basis with some sensationalism attached to each announcement.

The golf course and water department meters in one town of Mississauga, which I think many of you know, have been changed over to metric. High school football is going to be played on metric distances. In addition, industry is up in arms in Ontario because of a decision of the provincial government to change over to International Standards Organization range of paper sizes in advance of any planning — in advance of the international metric programme and any consultation with suppliers. Those are the problems, I think, that other Members are touching on.

With the risk of repeating it again, we should have the confident attitude as expressed forcefully by that Member who would be concerned about the implementation. That was expressed by others.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, it would affect the rugby field. It may be shorter and we may get there faster.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm pleased with the comments that have been made, and I assure the Members that my department is putting out regular bulletins on it. Anybody who wants any advice at all, please get in touch with me. I thank the Members for their contributions. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 80, Metric Conversion Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

LOTTERIES ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, by your permission, one note. The Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed out something in the previous bill we discussed. I think I agree with him and I think I'll file the amendment that he proposes.

Mr. Speaker, moving second reading of Bill 83, I want to inform the House that under the Criminal Code of Canada, the government of British Columbia has a responsibility for licensing and regulating lotteries in the province.

The federal statute allows the province to conduct and to manage a lottery scheme, either alone or in conjunction with the government of another province, subject to approval by the legislature of that province. This bill seeks that authority, Mr. Speaker.

Governments of many countries all over the world have introduced lotteries to raise money for either essential government services or special purpose projects at the same time as satisfying a citizen demand. It is evident that there is demand in this province for a provincially run lottery. Numerous citizens have written to this government endorsing a province-wide lottery. The special Canada Summer Games lottery of last year, which was licensed specifically by this government by the statute I referred to above, was well received by the population and provided a significant source of income to the games organizers.

The frequency of provincial residents as finalists in

[ Page 2723 ]

lotteries run outside of British Columbia indicates a substantial flow of personal income that has been earned in the province for some programmes and projects in many other jurisdictions as far away as South America and Ireland.

I realize I'm probably inviting some debate on this, but there is a dream in the majority of people of having enough money to do something special. A few are able to satisfy that dream through an inheritance. Some are able to make it in the market, but for the majority the only opportunity for that kind of win is by taking a chance on a lottery ticket on a draw.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, will allow the province to operate lottery schemes either alone or jointly with other governments. The government proposes, and I've made announcements about this, to operate a province-wide lottery that will be a western Canadian lottery, jointly sponsored by British Columbia and our three neighbouring prairie provinces.

Representatives of the four western provinces have investigated the feasibility of such a co-operative lottery and the plan has been generally advantageous for the following principal reasons: (1) the maximization of the prize pool; (2) the elimination of inter-lottery competition and the slow reduction in the individual lotteries themselves; (3) the operating cost reductions through economies of scale.

The government sees a provincially run lottery scheme as a means of retaining income in the province that might otherwise flow to other jurisdictions and that will prove to be to the general advantage of British Columbia.

This province's net proceeds from the lottery will be devoted to cultural or recreational purposes and for preserving the cultural heritage of the province. It will support budget items already before you, because we are not just making it simple that this will pay for everything. We are already paying more than the government ever did before and now we intend to add to it with the proceeds of a provincial government lottery scheme. It will provide community non-profit organizations with a continuing source of income for their community projects.

Mr. Speaker, the lottery scheme will be administered within a department of the public service, although the costs of administration will be charged against revenue from the lottery which will be paid into a special lottery fund. The legislation requires the filing of an annual report with the Legislature. I move second reading of the bill.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill I would like to point out some of the difficulties that have been reached in other jurisdictions with lotteries as a source of financing, and also some of the experiences that they have had.

I'd like to quote extensively, if I could, from a recent survey in an article on some of the eastern United States who have had lotteries for a decade or more, some of the unforeseen situations that have developed, and in regard to this as a financial base and also the socio-economic implications of it, and also mention my own thoughts as to how it would affect really those lotteries that many small organizations in communities in British Columbia use. I talk about community lotteries which are used to raise funds for community projects. Would this lottery, indeed, as has been the case, interfere with the sale of their tickets? So I would like to quote some of the problems that some of the eastern United States have had.

I quote from a recent finance journal on government financing. It relates specifically to lotteries, and it says:

"At the start a decade ago the idea of a state lottery appeared to have everything going for it. People are going to gamble, the argument went on, so all the state has to do is offer a keen game, lure the people away from the illegal bookies and peel off a layer in the proceeds to the taxpayers."

It's a sort of painless taxing process. It goes on to say that somehow things haven't seemed to work out as planned and in very few states has the sale of lottery tickets to the bettor measured up to predictions.

Rather than quote the whole article, Mr. Speaker, I go on to say that to maintain revenues all of these states have had to increase the frequency of the lotteries. Lotteries that started out on a monthly basis were reduced to a twice-monthly basis, to a weekly basis, and now we have states such as Pennsylvania which has three drawings each week — it started out on a monthly basis — just to maintain the original revenue. New Jersey has gone to daily lotteries to maintain the revenue, and Maryland has plans for a daily spin-of-the-wheel too.

What has really happened to these lotteries is that not only have they had to increase the frequency to keep up the gambling interests, because they found out, Mr. Speaker, a waning of the public interest after an initial flurry. That initial flurry may be for a year or two. I'm talking about over a 10-year period. They have had to go to increased promotional costs so less of the money goes either to the lucky winners or to those areas they are raising the money for — those areas where they are using it as an extra tax. More and more of a percentage of these lotteries is going into promotion and into the promotion of gambling.

We have quotes from such states that have just recently turned this down — a state very close to the Province of British Columbia. A governor who very recently made a visit to this Legislature, Governor Dan Evans of Washington state, has just vetoed a bill

[ Page 2724 ]

making his state the first west of the Mississippi to sponsor a lottery. He said:

"Lotteries have been shown to be an unreliable source of steady income.... For the first time our state government would be engaging itself in a gambling activity as a principal participant.... I'm extremely reluctant to approve a measure which would result in the state, by its action, fostering a climate of gambling which may lead to professional gambling and the various forms of criminal activity."

That is not so far-fetched as it was once thought, Mr. Speaker, because experience with off-track betting in New York state, which was an extension of their lotteries and the legalization of gambling, has been a very sad one. Rather than removing the criminal element we've seen an acceleration and an increase in the problem of gambling and the increase in the problem of illegal gambling. These are just some of the problems that started with the province running lotteries and the people participating.

I would like to go on further. I just point out one of the major problems of lotteries as a tax base. The study particularly points out that the same amount bet necessarily represents a larger proportion of lower incomes and in this sense the lottery operates in the same manner as a regressive tax — that is, falling with disproportionate weight on the poor. In that case, Mr. Speaker, the tax is not a fair tax. It is not an equitable tax if we are calling lotteries, indeed, a tax. It has an unreasonable burden on those with lower incomes because the very price of the tickets will weigh disproportionately on various incomes.

To sum it all up, what about revenues? It says here that lotteries are not likely to be significant sources of government revenue in relation to total revenue, and stability of lottery revenues can be obtained only with constant promotion. And there's the rub. Once the lotteries are started, and every province is running lotteries, as in the eastern United States, we get to the position that the government, to maintain that revenue, increases the promotion, increases the frequency, until in fact the true intent of the lottery is lost and in the search for money we have daily lotteries and a disproportionate amount of the money going into promotion and advertising, and the people aren't receiving the taxation benefits, and the winner is getting less and less of the purse.

There is another point I wish to make in speaking to this bill — one of the things that we should watch for. I buy lottery tickets, and have bought a fling, but I buy them mostly on the community level. As I pointed out earlier, community lotteries, or small sweepstakes, are a major source of funds for fish and game clubs and community organizations. If the frequency of provincially run lotteries were to increase, and indeed to be started, what would be the future in competition for many of the community lotteries in this province?

I would like the Provincial Secretary, in summing up this bill, to assure me that some provision will be made to protect their participation in this use as a community activity and a source of revenue. I wish he would comment on the fact that this government will never lose sight of why they introduced the bill in the first place, and we won't have the steady increase that we have seen in the United States, where they have lost sight of the original intent of the lottery.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was distressed by the Provincial Secretary's cheerful, enthusiastic advocacy of something which has a great number of problems, some of which were pointed out by the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) in his reference to that American magazine which I believe was "United States News and World Report," I'm not sure.

The fact is that a lottery certainly can be described in cheerful terms of people having their little hope of one day winding up to be a millionaire. Certainly, in a province such as our own where initiative is being stifled in other respects, in more legitimate forms of becoming wealthier or indeed improving one's status, this may appeal to the government.

But that's precisely why this type of lottery has been so popular in underdeveloped countries, South America in particular, and generally among dictatorships. The fact of the matter is that it takes the people's minds off depressing problems, and that's why it's often been put forward.

It's something I've seen frequently in the so-called third world. It's something which does come up as an indication of a way to escape your present problems. On that basis the tickets were sold. There is an incredibly small statistical chance of a payoff of any size. Yet it appeals, of course, to those who are poor because it offers them the glittering future, on a very, very remote chance, of a breakout from their existing and not altogether happy circumstances.

This regressive nature of a lottery, and the fact that it does tend to pick up large amounts of money from those in society who can least afford it — the fact that we do have in all societies, just as we have alcoholics and drug addicts, those who are literally addicted to gambling — and the Province of British Columbia is now going to encourage this, makes me feel that this bill should be opposed, and I intend to vote against it.

There is a difference, which has been indicated, between the type of voluntary tax which all of us have been subjected to — particularly all politicians have been subjected to — when you're nicked by the Fish and Game or the local Aid the Children Fund or the local school for retarded children, or something

[ Page 2725 ]

like that. You're asked to buy a lottery ticket and you know full well that they are simply asking you for money. It's a voluntary tax to support a charitable purpose or a worthwhile cause.

That we have all been exposed to. I doubt if there is a politician in Canada that hasn't shelled out 10 times as much after he got elected as the year before. It's one of those things that we know we can't avoid and we're happy to do it.

But that's a voluntary tax, even though there is some possibility of winning a camper, or winning a truck or a car or heaven knows what else. We all know that basically that's not why we buy tickets. We do it because it's a voluntary tax to help private, voluntary organizations to fulfil their objectives.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Don't forget the Miles for Millions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. Walk for Millions and things like that. That's another voluntary tax which the Minister of Mines mentioned. I'd like to thank him and the other Members of the House that put their names down for a couple of cents a mile or more when I walked in that Miles for Millions which the Minister just mentioned a moment ago.

Sure, that's the type of thing we're subjected to. But when you get into a state-run lottery, this lottery has to come up more and more and more frequently, because the interest in gambling or in the lottery tends to dissipate as it becomes a regular feature of society. As it's been pointed out, you have more and more draws and the thing becomes simply an industry of its own, encouraging the concept of gambling. And that's all you do.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The stock market.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The stock market was mentioned by the Hon. Minister of Mines. Now perhaps it's no coincidence that this bill is here before us at the same time as Bill 31, which is his bill to wipe out incentive in the mining industry, is also before us. On the one hand you take it away: on the other hand you give it.

The Premier giveth and the Premier taketh away, I guess, might be the slogan of the government. But the fact of the matter is that in mining or stock markets you're dealing with people who may well be able to put up the price of the stock or may be able to suffer the loss.

When you're dealing with lotteries the tendency is to encourage those who can least afford it to take the greatest risk. It makes sense that they do this because they've got the biggest payoff if they break out of their existing, somewhat miserable, economic status.

So I find this bill to be regrettable and I find a jolly, cheerful, explanation by the Provincial Secretary to be even worse. The whole issue of public involvement, government involvement, in gambling is a serious one, and to suggest that this is just a happy little flutter is something else. It doesn't necessarily work out that way.

I'm sure that information is available to the Provincial Secretary which he has not given to this House on the type of trouble that I've outlined and which this province and certain individual citizens in it will come into if this goes forward.

There's a different thing; when you have a special draw for the Olympics you can have a television extravaganza with all sorts of would-be beautiful people there to attract attention and pull the tickets out, and it's all great fun. But the day-to-day or week-to-week lottery of societies which have it does not work out that way.

I think that for the Minister not to mention the difficulties that are going to be faced, in terms of what is an essentially regressive tax on the poor of the province, is wrong. I don't see that we can serve any useful purpose in getting involved in this. I think the administration costs, as he will quickly find out, are far in excess of what really is reasonable. It always turns out that way.

The money which is put in, which allegedly is going to go into general revenue to help save people from taxation, should by rights be raised by taxation. I fail to see that there's any value in having this type of lottery put forward as an alleged tax saver. It probably won't work that way to any great extent. Even if it did it would be wrong in principle for services to be funded in that manner.

I find little to commend itself to me in this bill and I think I'll be voting against it. The fact is that you're withdrawing a source of funds to voluntary organizations — the voluntary tax that I talked about — at the same time as you are encouraging a regressive tax upon poorer people in British Columbia. I simply do not see that this is a correct course for the government to follow, and I think the bill should be opposed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Like the previous two speakers I find it difficult to support this suggestion of a lottery, basically for the same reasons: because of the problem that will result for many local organizations who really do develop their own source of funds and their own programmes in the communities by way of many lotteries.

I'd like the government to encourage them to take part. If there are going to be lotteries in this province, pass them opt to the local community organizations so that they can have the use of them and the use of the money thereby gained.

I'd hate to think that any provincial lottery, Mr. Speaker, is being touted as some kind of a panacea for any revenue problem in any area. I find it hard to

[ Page 2726 ]

agree with the argument that the gambling instinct is universal anyway, so we should let people gamble if they want. I don't think that we as government should be encouraging that so-called "instinct," Mr. Speaker, because, as has been pointed out, gambling can be a vicious disease — an addiction like many others.

We've seen now the development of an organization called Gamblers Anonymous. They find themselves, Mr. Speaker, in the same kind of a situation that an alcoholic does or a drug addict; they can't stop from gambling. They lose their homes. They lose their families. They destroy their lives because of that instinctive urge to gamble. So it doesn't behoove government to encourage that kind of urge or that kind of addiction.

There has been legislation all over the world against gambling of various kinds, including lotteries, since their introduction. I think they go back in biblical times, to the practice of drawing lots in biblical times and later on in the 14th and 15th centuries in various parts of the world. But that legislation against that kind of gambling was generally pretty well founded, Mr. Speaker, because in many cases the government began to rely too heavily on the lottery as a source of revenue. And as a source of revenue, as has been mentioned by other speakers, it does then become a tax which bears most heavily upon those people who can least afford to pay that tax.

There's also the danger — particularly if the frequency, or the incidence, if the lottery spreads, as we've seen some evidence of it doing in other jurisdictions — of contributing again to that gambling psychology. Once again, I don't think government should be put into that kind of position.

Most often, Mr. Speaker, we use the example of the Irish Sweepstakes to justify the need for some kind of a local lottery because we say the money is going out of British Columbia, or it's going out of Canada and we're spending money on Irish hospitals. Why don't we spend that money at home?

It's a good argument but we do forget that the total revenue out of the Irish Sweepstakes really doesn't go where it should be going, and that is to aid the hospitals of Ireland.

It would be a quarter or 20 per cent out of those hundreds of millions of dollars which are collected, even larger amounts going to the promoters of the contest.

I agree, too, with many people who say that we've established a kind of a double standard in relation to gambling. Because we hear on the one hand, we do allow betting on horse races, but we don't allow lotteries. But I think there's a difference, Mr. Speaker. It's a difference....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know if it's to improve the breed of the horse or the bettor. Which is it?

Mr. Speaker, I know that some of the other Members of the NDP Caucus, certainly those who are members of the clergy, will be speaking against the principle of this bill. At least, I hope they will be speaking against the principle of this bill.

But there is a significant difference, Mr. Speaker, between the kind of gambling that goes on at the races and the kind of appeal that a lottery has for the ordinary person.

The promise for a fortune for pennies, as acknowledged by the Provincial Secretary in his opening remarks, is too attractive for most people to resist. There are not many people who go to the races and spend money on gambling that way but everybody who has that dream will spend his money on a lottery. I can certainly understand the need for the dream. Most people have to have something to look forward to and something to dream for. But we must always remember that, while hundreds of thousands of people will buy tickets in this lottery, only a handful will win.

There aren't very many benefits for the people out of a lottery. It certainly doesn't generate any new income because the money comes right out of the steady stream of income that already exists.

While we can recognize, Mr. Speaker, that need for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow which most people have, we don't need that kind of attitude on the part of government. The government has to conduct its affairs on a much more sound financial basis than the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow attitude.

If we are going to use this as a means of tax, it is discriminatory against the people who can least afford it. If we are going to use it as a source of revenue, it doesn't make any sense at all. There isn't any Santa Claus, Mr. Speaker — only the taxpayer as Santa Claus in raising government revenues. So I think we should be careful in the manner in which we approach this idea of a provincial-wide lottery sponsored by the provincial government.

MR. WALLACE: This party will support the lottery Act. But in saying that I can't say that I am overly enthusiastic, but I can't find enough reasons to oppose it, to be frank. This is a problem in being a politician, Mr. Speaker, as you well know from your fund of experience. Things aren't black or white; there are always so many shades of grey that it makes life very tough to be in opposition without always appearing to be against everything.

I acknowledge some of the arguments which the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has made. Just because people want to gamble should the state, in some way or another, encourage it? I think that is a

[ Page 2727 ]

very valid question. But on the other hand, we have so many other problems in society; the Member did mention drug abuse and alcohol. We do find that the consumption of alcohol is a well established human practice and no government on earth will ever stop people from drinking. I'm sure they are never going to stop people from gambling.

The very valid point that convinces me to support this bill is that it is, of course, entirely optional. I'm a little at a loss in understanding how it could be regarded as a tax when, in point of fact, if I, as an individual, have no wish to put a plugged nickel into a state-run lottery, then that is my choice.

I would certainly be most distressed if the implication exists that should the lottery fund be poorly managed and not be able to pay the promised prizes that then some taxpayer's money would be taken out of consolidated revenue, or something of this nature. I'm not saying that this is in the bill for a moment. But that is about the only way in which I could accept the suggestion that this lotteries Act is a tax.

Mr. Speaker, I've tried to look at this from many points of view but I think it is very easy to be holier-than-thou on this particular bill. I wonder how many people in this House have not, at one time or another, bought a ticket in a lottery. I'm not suggesting that we take an official poll but I would think that there are very, very few people in this House, or indeed, in this building, who have not bought a ticket in a lottery — either an illegal ticket or a legal one.

While it certainly should not be the function of government to encourage the gambling spirit, I do feel that it is analogous to the drinking of liquor. Certain people drink liquor and certain people buy lottery tickets. If that is the case let's try and regulate it in the best way we can to provide lotteries which are well-organized, well-publicized, thoroughly legal, and leaves the purchase of the tickets very much at the option of the individual in society.

We are always preaching from this party about how important it is to have free choice and to allow the individual to make his own choices in life with minimum interference from government. Many individuals happen to prize the freedom they have to take part in lotteries. It has been that way for years and it will always be that way.

And so, although I have some reservations and would, certainly from an ideological point of view, like to discourage gambling — because there is no doubt that some of the points made by the Member for Langley are absolutely valid, people ruin their lives gambling — I don't think that legalized lotteries by the government of the province will change that particular situation in regard to these individuals one way or another.

I hope that the Provincial Secretary will try to set up the system in such a way that there are substantial benefits and that all the time, effort, and money that goes into it is not used up with prizes and overhead costs and a very small amount left available for worthwhile social causes. That again, is something which we are not really able to debate on second reading. But perhaps in closing second reading the Minister will be able to give us some general outline of how the system will work.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I am against this bill and I am against lotteries. I am not against lotteries because I am a Christian clergyman but I want to be realistic. I want to look at life realistically.

We are talking about this in principle. I find no need for our government to condone something which is already unlawful, although in lesser ways we have various types of lotteries and tickets. But I don't think that just because the three other western provinces want to legalize this — and other political groups want to make lotteries an expedient thing to raise, I understand, $2.5 million for sports and other things — I see absolutely no reason for our government to do that.

We are a wealthy province. I would much rather put my hands in my pockets and pay for things — whether it is hospitals or sports or culture. I'm glad that our government is spending money in these fields but I see no reason, as a democratic socialist, to take and to condone and to, in a sense, sanction something which does take money from the people who seem to be deceived more easily.

I don't think it is socialistic at all in the sense that I thought democratic socialism was involved in encouraging people to have a just distribution of the wealth. There is no real just distribution of the wealth when it is often the people who are easily deceived and who, as the Member for Langley said, see a certain kind of pot.

We obviously all have pots at the end of a rainbow. We all should be having a dream. But the dreams I have are certainly not in this legislation. I'd just like to go on record as liking to think that our government and all MLAs try to face things realistically. They don't encourage deception. I don't find anything ennobling about this legislation. I find it a very dumb and very awkward way to raise money. It really isn't going to raise that much money anyway. I think the bureaucracy involved will be rather depressive. You know, we can do the statistical thing about Ireland — only 19 per cent of the total gross sales, I understand, in Ireland is raised through lotteries for the actual purpose intended.

It's just about as bad as New York State where they are now raising, I believe, $250,000 through lotteries. I just think that we are a wealthy enough province, we are a progressive enough province, and

[ Page 2728 ]

we don't need to use deceptive ways to raise money. I do not believe that there is something in this world for nothing. It is just not that way. That is not at all systematic with my democratic socialist position. So let us pay for services and let's not do it this way.

I will be voting against this bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, just before mentioning one or two other comments on the bill, I would like to go back to the Minister's words which caused some concern in my mind. I'm not trying to quote him. I don't have Hansard here. But he mentioned that one of the objectives would be to try and coordinate lotteries, and this struck a chord within me.

I would like to know whether in fact it is eventually the government's intention to coordinate lotteries not only in the western part of Canada but within British Columbia, and that it is the unstated intention of this government to eventually do away with every lottery in British Columbia. Because once there is one legal lottery in British Columbia there is going to be a redundancy or a number of requests to have other types of lotteries.

Is it going to be just the state prerogative to hold a lottery? Will this preclude the Knights of Columbus, or the Eagles, or the Elks, or the Guides, or the Boy Scouts from having their own lotteries, so that in fact it would be a state-controlled programme and it would be coordinated?

In light of many of the statements that have been made earlier in the debate, Mr. Speaker, regarding the problems that have become very evident in areas where they have been having lotteries for a number of years, including Ireland, and the fact that they tend to proliferate in an effort to keep garnering more and more money, would in fact the government move to outlaw other lotteries which take place in British Columbia and are thought to be illegal but in fact are going on all the time?

I would name specifically the Irish Sweepstakes. In an effort to keep British Columbia money in British Columbia, which is part of the intent as outlined by the Provincial Secretary, would the government itself increase the penalty or in fact force a penalty on those who are taking part in the Irish Sweepstakes and other non-western lotteries?

One of the areas of concern that should be mentioned, because it happened so recently, and that was in the Olympics lottery at the federal level, where there's now likely to be a court case emanating over who, in fact, did win the $1 million because the first number flashed on the screen was in error and it was not the number of those that won.

Now the lawyers are in the picture and no one knows who won the money. Instead of it being a matter of national pride and interest and great joy, it looks like in part for the winner, the questionable winner, that it might be a bit of a national disaster.

Another matter that comes to mind which I would like the Minister to commit himself on is really what is the government's policy, or how does it reconcile its policy in terms of windfall profits. Consistently the NDP have spoken out against windfall profits. Consistently the position of the NDP government has been that in accord with the double taxation that is going on in British Columbia in the matter of estate taxes between husband and wife, the Premier of this province stood up within this session and said that each was going to pay his way. Yet in that instance, Mr. Speaker, you have the husband and wife working together legally, honestly, and with effort, and paying just taxes along the way, and then with the loss of one partner the other partner is taxed. And yet we see here a position of the government where they are trying to encourage the hope of a windfall profit in individuals.

How does the Premier, with that in mind, reconcile that with his stated policy that eventually the government will go into limited profits in many areas of the economy in British Columbia? The party has often made it very clear that it is the state's responsibility to provide many of the social services and pleasantries that people want, and that this will be done through taxation so that the individual who is working legitimately and in a responsible manner is under this government going to be more heavily taxed and have less play money in his pocket with which to select their options. Yet in this bill we see them taking a position of suggesting that by entering into a particular scheme — in this instance a lottery scheme — that there will be windfall profits to some 1 or some 2 or some 10 or some 50.

I would like to know how the Provincial Secretary and the government reconcile themselves in this conflicting position that they hold and what in fact their policy is.

This brings to mind, Mr. Speaker, another point which should be of serious concern in light of what I mentioned about the government's position against windfall profits for anyone, and also in relation to exchanges between husband and wife.

In the end do they in fact, once lotteries become legal, intend to tax the windfall profits of those who win? Perhaps not this year or next year, but it would be very much in keeping with the espoused policies of this government and very much in keeping with the way that their major legislation is moving.

So I suggest again that this could very well be in the back of the minds of the government — that eventually, perhaps after the next election, should they perchance win it, they would in fact, once lotteries became legal, not only be in a position to tax winnings but in fact would do this.

I would like to hear the Provincial Secretary in

[ Page 2729 ]

speaking for the government, comment on these various questions.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have in the back of my mind the picture of a drink-crazed, poverty-stricken idiot walking down the main street of Granville because I introduced this lottery Act this afternoon. I've never heard so many men of straw thrashed around on a simple piece of legislation that has been forewarned to this Legislature by my statements over and over again in the last 18 months.

I don't know what you do with those people who we have given you to work but I'll tell you, when I listen to some of this stuff about taxes, who is winning, what the prizes are, and what the profits are, you've had all of that information over and over again in the last 18 months.

We have been co-operating with the three western provinces — Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan — for 18 months on producing a western Canadian co-operative lottery. The tickets are going to be $2.50. I'm not going to twist some little old lady's arm on Granville Street to buy a ticket.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll buy one now.

HON. MR. HALL: I don't think we will see the bingo palaces going on a Saturday night, out of business. We are asking questions about introducing a whole new social ethic — gambling. The previous administration licensed lottery after lottery after lottery, bingo fix after bingo fix after bingo fix, until such time as the Attorney-General had to do something about it. And they changed the rules and regulations.

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order. I would ask the Provincial Secretary to withdraw his statement that the former administration licensed bingo fix after bingo fix after bingo fix.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If there is any incorrect statement made by any other Member you have the opportunity, if it affects you, to correct it after the Minister has concluded his remarks. That is the rule.

MRS. JORDAN: I was a member of that former administration and I ask the Minister to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Then, if it is a proper point of order, the House accepts the statement made by the Hon. Member at that time. Would the Hon. Minister continue?

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of record that in the '60s there was bingo fixing in this province and they were in operation by virtue of a licence from your government.

MRS. JORDAN: That is not a licence to a bingo fix.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I heard the straw thrashed this afternoon until I thought I was back on the farm. But I want to say this because the first Speaker asked me some questions that were worthy of some answers.

First of all, he wanted to know whether or not this government was going to interfere with the other smaller lotteries. First of all, it is our duty to license lotteries as I read out in the opening remarks by virtue of the Criminal Code of Canada.

We see no change in that process going along at all. In fact, we are going to continue the previous government's policy which laid down certain percentages regarding charity. We will, however, be limiting large-scale lotteries to a specific number per year. That is part of our agreement with the other provinces.

We will, however, in contra-distinction to that which has been alleged by the other side of the House, be assisting community groups because community groups can apply for licences to sell the western Canadian co-operative lotteries at a commission — to community, non-profit groups — of 33.3 per cent. In fact, we are going to be helping the very people that the Member was worried about. I think that is a serious question and I hope I have answered it to his satisfaction.

There is no intention for this government to look upon the lottery income as a significant part of its revenue at all. It is very much a minor affair, very much a co-operative affair with the other provinces and will stand on its own two feet.

Certainly I'm conscious of what can happen if lotteries aren't run correctly, I'm conscious of the fact that other lotteries in the eastern part of another country have increased that frequency.

I want to say this to the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) re the Liberal Party. He says: "It was great to have a one-time affair of television with Olympic lotteries." Mr. Member, you know as well as I do that Olympic lotteries are here to stay, week in, week out, ticket in, ticket out at $10 a head. Ten dollars a head.

You talk about the two principals because I've met with them over and over again and that's one reason we won't allow the Canadian Olympic lottery to come here to stay, that we instead have made as part of the follow-up effects of this legislation a specific amount of 5 per cent of the revenues of the province will be given to things like the Olympic Games.

We certainly don't want to see it here forever and a day. Which is what is going to happen in the other provinces.

[ Page 2730 ]

Mr. Speaker, the frequency of tickets: does that affect the sales of the community groups? I am told by the Minister of Cultural Recreation in Alberta, Horst Schmidt, that in fact what has happened in his Albertan jurisdiction — and he's not in a South American country or dictatorship I don't think, although we had all that drawn across the trail of the debate — in actual fact Alberta has probably the heaviest gambling figures on a per-capita basis than any province in Canada. They've seen that the selling of the tickets for the Canada Games, for the Commonwealth Games has actually increased. The awareness and the sale of tickets from the community groups were such as those that were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett).

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) couldn't decide whether he was for the bill or against it. He talked most of the time about Irish Sweepstakes and that's the very point — we don't want to go that way. So he should be voting for the bill.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) I think found himself in the position that most people find themselves in, that you've got to face up to the devil you know. And that's what this bill is attempting to do.

As far as my good colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) is concerned, the lottery, the presentation of the lottery, the support of the lottery is policy for the party that I am pleased to serve as government for. Our comrades across the prairie provinces in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be joining us in providing that service.

Mr. Speaker, I think if any Members need any more information about the proposed lottery which hopefully will take place about October 14, I'd be pleased to present not only the figures of the prizes, the percentage for commissions, the price of tickets, the costs of administration, and the estimated sales and contributions, but I will also show them some of the material I've gathered from the other provinces about the success in Winnipeg and elsewhere. I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 9

Bill 83, Lotteries Act read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, rising on a point of privilege dealing with the same matter that I raised a little earlier in the afternoon, I find now from a little bit more checking that you weren't entirely candid with the House regarding the matter of the Blues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member withdraw that remark?

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, if it offends you, I'll withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest you state your position, and if I disagree with it, I'll tell you.

MR. CHABOT: I'm rising on a point of privilege, and I think you're abusing our privileges, Mr. Speaker, and I'll state the matter here. I think that this afternoon when you had an excellent opportunity when the questions of the distribution of the Blues came up, you failed to inform this House that you had taken punitive action against the Members by informing the Chief of Hansard to no longer make the Blues available to the Members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: You always want to interrupt.

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly will interrupt, because the Hon. Member is quite incorrect in his statement. I sent a note to the Chief of Hansard advising him to distribute the Blues today because they are made up. They are presently available for Members. I sent that note to my office, and I presume it has gone forward to the Chief of Hansard.

The question of where we go from here is another matter, and therefore on that point I am giving due consideration to all the problems involved. I suggest to the Hon. Member that there is no right to the distribution of Blues. That was a decision made by this Speaker in October 1972 as an assistance to the Members of this House. So far as its use is concerned, it is still governed by standing order 129, and on that question there has got to be further consideration because of the rules of the House and the orders of the House.

[ Page 2731 ]

The Hon. Member is mistaken. Had he had the courtesy, instead of attacking the Speaker, to find out the facts, perhaps he would not have said what he did say a minute ago.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would stop being political when you bring down your rulings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member withdraw that remark?

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the remark. I'll withdraw, but don't attack me as a Member of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: Don't attack me constantly as a Member of this House. There were instructions issued.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member be seated? There is no point of privilege.

MR. CHABOT: There most certainly is. I checked with the Chief of Hansard and he informed me that this morning you advised him to no longer distribute the Blues to the Members of this House until there had been a clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the Hon. Member if he had been more courteous in his address to the Speaker instead of attacking the Speaker and imputing motives to the Speaker as he did, which is quite improper, that he would have found out the facts. That is, until this matter has been deliberated upon by me, and every consideration given to all the problems relating to it, that I was not prepared at that time, this morning, to have them distributed without further consideration.

This afternoon, as I have already indicated to the House, because they are already made up, I had them distributed. I don't like to see waste.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon you had an ample opportunity to clarify your position and to indicate to the Members that you had issued certain instructions to the Chief of Hansard. You failed to do this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member withdraw that statement? Attacks upon the Speaker are prohibited by every rule of every parliament. Will the Hon. Member withdraw that statement?

MR. CHABOT: It's not an attack upon the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It certainly is.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I just said you had issued certain instructions to the Chief of Hansard this morning, and it's most unfortunate that this information wasn't made available to the Members of this House. You've indicated on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, that you are a servant of this House. If you are, Mr. Speaker, it's most unfortunate that you didn't relay that information to the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a somewhat different point. In view of the fact that you need time for due consideration and deliberation, I would ask by unanimous consent of the House to move that the practice of circulating the draft copies of Hansard (the Blues) to Members of the Legislature be reinstituted until such time as you have had time to continue and finish your deliberations.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would like to point out the government's position on this. I think because of the emotionalism attached to this issue, I think it's important that Hon. Members submit a motion. Let's do it in a proper way and debate it in a much calmer atmosphere.

AN HON. MEMBER: No more debate....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Hon. Member, but I've found that for one reason or another, perhaps for the simplest reason of all, without any political motivation, people are misinterpreting. I suggest we need time, and we need the Speaker to be left with time to come in with recommendations that we can deal with as a House. I just cannot understand the emotionalism about this that we have had twice today. I appreciate your desire to help in this situation, but I don't think a motion helps at this point.

I think the Speaker should be left with the normal procedure for handling the matter.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Stupich files the 1973 annual report of the agricultural aid to developing countries and rural disaster areas fund.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.

[ Page 2732 ]

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on pages 2696 and 2698:

66 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 66) intituled Prejudgment Interest Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2:

(a) By repealing clause (b) and substituting the following

"(b) where there is an agreement between the parties respecting interest; or".

(b) By striking out the period in clause (c) and substituting the word "; or".

(c) By adding the following as clause (d):

"(d) where the judgment creditor waives in writing his right to an award of interest."

Sections 3, 4, and 5 are renumbered as sections 4, 5, and 6 respectively and the following is added as section 3:

"Default judgment.

"3. Where a judgment is obtained by default under an Act or the rules of court, the registrar of the court may exercise and carry out the powers and duties of the court under this Act."

Section 4 (as renumbered): By striking out section 4 (as renumbered) and substituting the following:

"Payment into court.

"4. Where a party pays money into court in satisfaction of a claim and another party does not accept the payment and obtains a judgment for an amount equal or less than that paid into court, the court shall, notwithstanding section 1, award interest only from the date the cause of action arose to the date of payment into court as if the date of payment into court had been the date of judgment."

Section 5 (as renumbered), line 1: Be striking out the word " section" in the first line and substituting the word "Act".

Section 6 (as renumbered), line 2: By striking out the word "May" and substituting the word "June".

[ Page 2732A ]

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on pages 2699 and 2713:

75 Mr. Gabelmann to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 75) intituled Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 3: To add, after the third line, the following words:

" 'rent' includes an amount charged for such services or conveniences as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe;".

Section 4, line 6: To add, after the sixth line, the following words:

"Other rental costs.

"5. The Lieutenant — Governor in Council may define rent for the purposes of this Act, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may order that rent includes an amount charged by a landlord for parking, utilities, and such other services and conveniences as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may specify."

By renumbering section 5 as section 6.

The following motion is referred to on page 2704:

75 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 75) intituled Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2:

(a) Line 6: By adding, after the word "is", the words "more than".

(b) Line 8: By striking out the word "same".

(c) Line 16: By adding, after the word "is", the words "more than".

(d) Line 18: By striking out the words "before the date he purchased the residential premises, for the same", and substituting the words "between the first day of January, 1973, and the date he purchased the residential premises, for the".

(e) Line 22: By adding, after line 22, the following words:

"(4) This section does not apply to residential premises that were not rented as residential premises after the first day of January, 1973."