[ Page 2793 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act (Bill 120). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2793

Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 119). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 2793

Securities Amendment Act, 1974 (bill 116). Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 2793

An Act to Amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act (Bill 125). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 2793

Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 10). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 2793

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2794

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2794

Mr. McGeer — 2794

Mrs. Jordan — 2795

Mr. Gardom — 2796

Mr. Wallace — 2797

Division on amendment to section 4 — 2797

Report and third reading — 2797

Transit Services Act (Bill 70). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2797

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2798

Mr. McGeer — 2798

Mr. McClelland — 2798

Mr. Wallace — 2798

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2799

Mr. Smith — 2799

Mr. McGeer — 2799

Mr. Wallace — 2800

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2801

Mrs. Jordan — 2801

Division on amendment to section 2 — 2801

On section 2.

Mr. McClelland — 2803

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2804

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2806

Mr. Fraser — 2807

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2807

Mr. McClelland — 2807

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2807

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2809

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2810

Mr. Gardom — 2810

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2812

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2812

Mr. McClelland — 2812

Mr. Wallace — 2812

Mr. Phillips — 2813

Mr. Curtis — 2813

On section 2.

Mr. McClelland — 2814

Mr. Wallace — 2814

Mr. Gibson — 2814

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2815

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2815

Mr. Phillips — 2815

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 2816

Division on amendment to section 2 . — 2816

On section 5.

Mr. Gibson — 2816

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2816

Amendment to section 10.

Mr. Gibson — 2817

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2817

On section 11.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2817

Mr. Wallace — 2817

Mr. Fraser — 2818

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2818

Mr. Gardom — 2818

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2818

Mr. McGeer — 2818

Mr. Cummings — 2819

Royal assent to bills — 2820

FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon Members, the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised a point — really, a point of privilege — as to the means by which complaint is made on breaches of privilege, and words that are complained about in the House. In effect, he asked for some direction and advice on the question. He referred to the matter earlier in this session dealing with a complaint of a breach of privilege involving the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

The practice in Britain is set out in May in the 17th edition, page 463. I think it would be a salutary practice in this House henceforward, where a complaint is made of breach of privilege relating to statements made in the House, that a motion that the words be taken down be made to the Speaker. On breaches of privilege interruption can take place immediately, as Members know.

Of course we have a system here of taking the words down in any event. A clerk takes possession of them, and then the matter is gone into as to the words — providing the Speaker finds when that complaint is made that the words to be taken down indeed constitute a prima facie case that should be proceeded with.

This will obviate the difficulty raised by the Hon. Member for Columbia River and make it clear that the words that are taken down and complained of are dealt with in the manner set forth by the authorities. I make that clarification because the matter has come up not only in his remarks but in the press since.

Introduction of bills.

FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC
SERVICES COMMISSION ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act.

Bill 120 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Mr. King, Bill 119, Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 116 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL
INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 125, An Act to Amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

BURRARD INLET (THIRD CROSSING)
FUND AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, the bill as has been described before and yesterday is in considerable measure bookkeeping. But there is one respect in which it represents the going back on a very clear obligation to the people of the North Shore. This defect could be largely remedied were it provided that the moneys originally appropriated, and continued in this renamed bill, should continue to be for the improvement of service of transportation between Vancouver and the North Shore.

I would suggest to the government that this is a matter of faith and not really a matter of substance, because they are going to be spending funds in excess of this magnitude in any event.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move that section 4 should be amended by striking out all the

[ Page 2794 ]

words after "or services" and adding the following words: "As may be required to provide for improvements of service in transportation between the North Shore and Vancouver."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that amendment on the order paper, or have you got a copy of it for us?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It doesn't have to be.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I'd like to speak in favour of the amendment. The bill is unfortunate in one respect: it does not continue the obligation to the residents of the North Shore who now number some 140,000 and who will, in 1985, according to good surveys given to us, number over 200,000. We're going to need to spend money in that area.

The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the previously committed moneys will be spent for the purposes originally intended, at least with respect to improving transportation and improving rapid transit between the North Shore and the City of Vancouver.

The government's plans for having houses built on land which is not valuable for agriculture will in no way succeed unless there is encouragement for housing and transportation links to areas which are at the moment either woodland or wasteland. The North Shore is one area which is not agricultural and which would provide some of the opportunities talked about by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).

Therefore, we think this amendment, which would be a confirmation of commitment, is a very valuable one and one we should certainly have every Member of this House endorse.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): While I can recognize the good intentions of a Member attempting to fight for his own area, it is the responsibility of the government to provide mass transit for all of the Province of British Columbia. The question of just providing this amount of funds for mass transit for the North Shore does not hold water, if I may use that expression, in that there was an attempt to have a capital expenditure for a bridge to serve automobiles. We're now saying that we don't see the automobile being serviced by taxpayers' money as a priority for mass transit.

Therefore, we are taking these funds and putting them into a pool of funds for all the people of British Columbia for the initiation of mass transit for all the people of the province. It's just as simple as that. There's no way we are going to designate funds for mass transit for one particular area. All people in the province have a right to mass transit, and this is the first step toward ensuring that for all the people of the whole province.

Who most needs it? Anybody who goes to work back and forth every day and needs to have an opportunity of getting in a bus or subway or a ferry service or something else.

If I was a backbench MLA and I was a Liberal, I'd fight for that particular angle too, because you'll never be elected in any other areas anyway. But the point is that we've served the whole province. That's why we've got 38 and you've got five.

This motion proves again that their vision is tunnel vision, if I may use a phrase. They haven't been able to bridge their vision to the rest of the province. So there it is again, so early in the morning, that we get evidence the Liberals only see one thing. I suppose they put in an amendment to save West Vancouver–Howe Sound and North Vancouver–Capilano, and to heck with North Vancouver–Seymour. We won't stand for that, so therefore we reject this amendment.

MR. GARDOM: Streetcars don't float.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "A Streetcar named Desire" is what you're....

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, that was a very fine political speech by the Premier...

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was a political motion.

MR. McGEER: ...on a political bill. And he admits that it's a political bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: But it's not serving the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. That's why the socialists will never again have 38 seats in this assembly. Never again!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: The people will learn in four short years — if the Premier decides to go that long — the inadequacy of the socialists given power.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: It's a continuation of discrimination against the North Shore, political discrimination against the North Shore...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

[ Page 2795 ]

MR. McGEER: ...which might be tolerable were it not working against the interests of the majority of people in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Withdraw. My mother-in-law lives over there. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now we know. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Proof positive. That is a shocking admission.

MR. McGEER: I hope Shirley isn't up in the gallery. (Laughter.)

The people of the North Shore have been paying taxes for adequate transit for over 20 years in this province. That's the length of time when transportation facilities to the North Shore have been inadequate. The people from the North Shore carried the bridge system when it was a money loser. That Lions Gate Bridge was only taken over by the former Premier in order to reduce the embarrassment he had at all the bridges he made in this province under the toll authority that were losing money. Then all the tolls were removed, but the people still continued to pay for their share of adequate transportation through the gasoline tax which now brings in well in excess of $100 million a year. Adequate transportation to the North Shore has been paid for over and over and over again in taxes.

You may go ahead and say that rapid transit is for all of the people of British Columbia, but it isn't. Rapid transit is only for those people who live in densely crowded areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. McGEER: They're the only ones who will use it and they don't occupy the vast bulk of British Columbia. It's only those who are confined to a small area.

I say once more that the province has no decent plan for rapid transit because the only kind of rapid transit we have, even in the most densely crowded areas of British Columbia, is the automobile. I don't want to discourage the government one bit from improving and improving substantially the bus service they provide and from introducing public transit into those growth areas where public transit is now lacking. I would certainly include the Premier's own riding which is inadequately served by transit. Were we a government, we would see that his riding was adequately looked after.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): That's an easy promise.

MR. McGEER: Oh, it may be an easy promise to you, but don't be over-confident, Mr. Minister. Certainly if I were in your position I wouldn't be politically confident at all. I don't think a lot of Members in this House have anything to be politically confident about.

What we should be addressing ourselves to are the real needs of the Province of British Columbia. The fact that that particular area provides the third gateway to the Interior means that it is for all the people of British Columbia in a much more definitive way than the vague transit plans the government has so far come up with, which to my way of thinking are not plans at all.

An adequate crossing will be built sooner or later. I suppose as long as the NDP government remains in office it will be later. But when it is built, people will look back and wonder what on earth was wrong with the Bennett government and the Barrett government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I just want to speak in relation to the debate that has taken place since the amendment was introduced and condemn the government. The government's policy on transportation here since taking office is the subject of more suspicion than almost any of their other policies. Why not make clear to the public exactly what the policy of the government is?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't you want transit in Vernon?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes I do, and I'll come to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We should be dealing with the amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They want it just for North Vancouver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: I'm dealing with the speeches that have been made to the amendment when the Premier of this province got up and waxed the NDP cradle of love, saying that his position was for rapid transit for all of British Columbia. He did it beautifully.

Then the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) got up and said rapid transit should be in the areas of dense population and referred specifically to North Vancouver. I fully support assistance to North Vancouver in terms of rapid transit and the metropolitan area. The government should come clean on its policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

[ Page 2796 ]

MRS. JORDAN: But at that time, after his NDP cradle of love the Premier gave a few minutes ago, he completely agreed with the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey and said, "That's right. That's right." So within a matter of five minutes the Premier of this province got up and indicated publicly and to the media and to this House that he was for rapid transit for all the people in the province.

When the Hon. Member pointed out that the need should be only in the densely populated areas, the Premier says, "That's right. That's right." I want to know, in speaking to this amendment, the government's policy in this relationship.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: It is. This government is guilty of secretive and dictatorial actions in relation to rapid transit in the metropolitan area and particularly in the North Vancouver situation.

Mr. Premier, if you have a policy, through you, Mr. Chairman, come clean with the people in this province. Come clean with the municipalities all over British Columbia, not just in North Vancouver, although indeed you should come clean with them.

Communities all over this province are redesigning, redeveloping and spending large sums of money in their downtown core areas, and they must know what the government's intentions are in relation to transportation assistance in the future because, while North Vancouver is in dire need and the lower mainland metropolitan area is in dire need, these communities must plan for the automobile and the use of the automobile.

Many communities now are spending thousands and thousands of dollars a year in subsidizing transportation. If they redesign their downtown area as the one in Vernon is, then they must know if the government is going to come up with a policy of cost-sharing for them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want the Member to speak either for or against the amendment. You're getting far beyond that.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm relating my remarks to the debate that has taken place....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want you to relate your remarks to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: So come clean, Mr. Premier; stop this secretive love feast that's going on and stop being so dictatorial at the end of the love feast., Give the councils and the elected people in this province your policy. Solicit their help so that it reflects the wishes and needs of the people, so that they can get on with their planning. Don't duplicate service or waste money on programmes that have to be altered because of a government's erratic and late policy on rapid transit.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the $27 million that was set aside by the former administration, Mr. Chairman, was an insufficient amount of money to build a crossing. As a matter of fact, it would probably have been the only bridge in the world that one would not have been able to get on or get off.

But had that $27 million been put into an interest-bearing situation, the interest today would have come in at around $13 million to $17 million or $18 million, and there would have been around $45 million ready and available to at least launch the project. That would still have been completely insufficient funds.

To give the former administration credit, they did at least recognize the need and they labelled something to fulfil that need and to provide a cure not only for transit to North Vancouver from Vancouver and vice versa, but in order to provide a proper and adequate gateway to the north.

But, once again, the bill that we have here which this amendment is seeking to rectify, Mr. Chairman, is "trust us" stuff, without legislative sanction, without legislative vote and without public scrutiny. We're again leaving it up to the cabinet or to the Minister of Finance to make up his mind, large or small though it may be — or their collective minds, large or small may they be — as to when, where or how rapid transit or transit funds can be expended in the Province of British Columbia — without any cost projections, without any plans, without any programmes that have ever been made public.

This is again a classic example of government in the Province of British Columbia being behind the red door of cabinet. It's another denial of public accountability. The Premier, in support of the bill and in his-support of the amendment, has not advanced to anybody any programmes that the government has in mind. We don't know what they're going to do with this money and he's talking about public transit for all of B.C.

Well, great heavens, is he thinking of subways in Alert Bay or Namu or something like that? As the former lady Member well indicated, we haven't even had an expression of woolly thinking from the government. All they're asking to do here, Mr. Chairman, is once again give unto themselves complete and total power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. GARDOM: Socialism is not creeping in the Province of British Columbia; it's raging forward. And the people, fortunately, are becoming disturbed — more disturbed every day.

[ Page 2797 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you a Member of the B.C. Liberal Party or the federal Liberal Party?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I feel also that a commitment was made to the North Shore. I said yesterday that there is no doubt that a third crossing is required and that the attitude of the government is wrong in leaving the implication in this bill that the third crossing will no longer be considered, and that in place of that we have some very diffuse, vague definition relating to services, or transit facilities, or services in the province as may be required.

I think that this, as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has just pointed out, is the very vague but nevertheless extremely authoritative kind of power which is to be placed, in this section, Mr. Chairman, on the Member of the executive council administering the Transit Services Act. So here again we have the House being asked to give enormous power and authority without any real definition of the guidelines and, in fact, breaking a commitment which was previously made that the residents on the North Shore would be guaranteed a third crossing.

For these very basic reasons, which are really a repetition of the reasons I stated yesterday, we certainly would support the amendment.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 30

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order. I wonder, if by leave of the House, the division on section 4 could be recorded?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GIBSON: The most difficult aspect of this section is the fact that the Minister has extraordinarily, broad powers to delve into, and plan for, and shape, and formulate the transportation patterns of municipalities all over British Columbia. Yet he is in no way required by this legislation to do this in consultation with the particular municipality, regional district or whatever local government might be applicable.

Because of the tremendous import of transportation problems in not only influencing the current convenience of citizens of our metropolitan areas but at the same time influencing in the most pervasive ways the development patterns of those metropolitan areas, it seems to me that the Minister should be required under this legislation to carry on his planning in consultation with the municipal governments and not leave it to the good fortune that this particular Minister of the day might have good intentions of that regard....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I want to draw to the Member's attention that you're discussing the principle of the bill which has been dealt with and passed.

MR. GIBSON: No sir, I'm not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You haven't drawn attention to anything in section 2.

[ Page 2798 ]

MR. GIBSON: I'm about to move a very specific amendment to section 2 (a). section 2 (a) currently reads that the Minister has the power,

"to investigate, research, design, and plan public passenger transportation systems for the Province or for any municipality or regional district thereof."

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have an amendment to move on section 2?

MR. GIBSON: I have. That is precisely the point I was speaking to. There are very strong and currently unregulated planning powers of the Minister, planning which is not simply planning but has weight in implementation terms under the powers of this Minister in other areas. Therefore, the point I was making is that this planning should not go forward in a vacuum but that not only the Minister of today but the Ministers of the future, whose names we cannot at this time know, should be specifically governed by this legislation to consult.

Therefore, I move that section 2 (a) should be amended by adding, "in consultation with that municipality or regional district." And section 2 (b) should be amended by adding, "in consultation with local government."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion you've sent us here hasn't a signature on it.

MR. GIBSON: It has on the first page.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It hasn't on either page, as I see it. We'll get some signatures on it. It would appear that it's in order.

On the amendment to section 2.

MR. McGEER: ...from the Minister. We presume he will accept the amendment. But until he gives us an indication that he's prepared to work with the cities and municipalities — even if the meetings have to be in camera — we should really speak more strongly in favour of the amendment by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano just in case the Minister hasn't yet made up his mind. We know he is noted for his quick and decisive action, but he was just a little slow on the uptake.

May I say that we questioned the Minister during his estimates regarding the statement he had made that the local taxpayer was going to be dunned a minimum of two mills for these public transit plans. I'm not sure....

AN HON. MEMBER: Maximum.

MR. McGEER: Well, it always turns out that the minimum is the maximum and then we revise it up from there.

Mr. Chairman, I can't quite understand, in reading through this bill, whether the bill gives the power of the government through the agency it's going to establish to make that levy against the will of the municipality or regional district. I suspect it does. He says no, but I don't see anywhere where it says no. The Minister certainly indicated otherwise in his public statements.

We do know that if the amendment of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano was to be accepted, this problem wouldn't exist. Of course, the NDP government is very broad-minded about these excellent amendments brought in by opposition Members. While we're confident the Minister will accept this amendment, we would just like him to give an indication for those in the backbench who are waiting for the signal.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): ...wait for the Minister to give that indication. This is an excellent amendment and one which should be supported by every Member in this House. The Minister, who among the municipal people is rapidly becoming known as Dr. No-no, is taking too much upon himself again in this bill. Secret talks about transit; secret talks among his own staff apparently; never allowing the municipalities to take part. We can't allow that to continue to happen.

This classic takeover bill, again the like of which we're seeing over and over and over again, can't be allowed to continue. We must get back to the principle that local government does know in many instances, in most instances, what is best for the local community. Certainly local government must be consulted at every step of the way in the concern as important as transit of all kinds in all parts of the province.

So, Mr. Chairman, we certainly support this amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it's obvious the Minister is collecting titles every day. He has been entitled to the name of Caeser Augustus and Dr. No-no and Rip van Winkle so far in this session.

But seriously, this particular part of this section to which the amendment relates is the focus of much of the criticism that this party has directed against the bill. That statement, 2 (a), which was quoted by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano pointed out very well that there's tremendous authority in section 2 (a) but no commitment or obligation whatever for the Minister to discuss it with the municipalities or the regions.

I can almost predict what the Minister is going to say when he does get up. He is going to say: "Well, of

[ Page 2799 ]

course it's implicit in this bill that we would consult with the municipalities and the regions." I can almost be certain that's what he is going to say. It's like his reassurance that, although there's a lot of power in this bill, they are not going to use it all. I quoted yesterday from the Minister from a newspaper clipping in the Province that, of course, he wouldn't use all the power in the bill. Well, similarly, by omission as well as commission, we have concern about this bill that the guarantee of consultation is omitted from this bill. The amendment tries to make it obligatory for the Minister to consult with the municipalities and regions.

When the Minister gets up and assures us that he will, I think we have to recall the events that have been discussed already in this debate, where the Minister was already very concerned with certain Vancouver regional district officials whom he accused of revealing private information to the media. And when he was disturbed on this score he simply said: "Well, we won't have any more meetings, and we'll do the planning and we'll tell you what's good for transit in Vancouver."

The fact is that it's on the record, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister in the past has shown an authoritarian attitude to the municipalities and regions and has said that if certain conditions which he, in his own wisdom, considers necessary are not met, then there just won't be any more meetings, and any planning and implementation of transit services will be decided by him.

Now that is a very dangerous attitude by any Minister in any government. For us then to come up with the Transit Services Act, and — to look at subsections 2(a) and 2(b) — realize that in fact he is simply trying to put into legislation what he said to the media a few weeks ago and quoted in the press, I think really is just a little more than we are prepared to accept.

If, in fact, the Minister does get up and say, "Well, of course. I will consult with the municipalities and the regions," my simple request is: let's put it in the bill.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It will be a surprise to you to hear me say we are always in full consultation with every municipality and city in which transit facilities are coming along. However, I am not prepared to give the municipalities a veto power over the provincial — and most important — area of transit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: In the transit services, we will be delivering services to the whole of the province. We cannot allow veto power to be given to one community in this; so I completely reject the amendment.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It is obvious from the remarks of the Minister that he would consider this amendment veto power in the hands of the elected municipal officials, but he makes no reference to the veto power that he holds within his own hands right at the present time. The manner in which this bill is written places the municipalities at the mercy of the provincial government with respect to the development of rapid transit in this province. They will be told the costs as a matter of fact and they will be expected to pay their fair share of that cost.

I am sure that every municipality that has a problem of traffic in and through their borders is concerned about some form of mass transit, rapid transit, to move people in and out of the cities. They are as concerned as the provincial government is about it, and this is why we should spell out in the statute that they will be consulted on any matters that affect the taxpayers they represent.

What you are asking for here is the power of taxation without representation, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: You know, it is funny the number of remarks we get from the sidelines in debates like this, but few pertinent points that these same Members make on their feet on the floor of the House.

I repeat: what you have asked for here is the power of taxation without representation. And if things don't go as well as you might expect, you'll turn around and with that same power say, "Well, the municipal officials are the ones you have to talk to if your mill rates go up."

Certainly, if it is fair for the provincial government to have the power of veto, it should be fair for the local municipal representatives to have that same power. But this amendment suggests that there should be no power of veto in the hands of anybody and that you should on a fair basis consult with these people, and write it into the statutes so they know where they stand.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would be good enough just to pass the amendment over to the Minister so that he can read it, because I don't think he understood it.

The amendment didn't say that the regional districts or the cities and municipalities should have veto power. It said that the Minister should consult with them before he went ahead. We know that the Minister, or at least we suspect that the Minister maybe introduces bills without reading them, because

[ Page 2800 ]

that seemed to be the problem he had with the Island Trust Act he introduced earlier on. I don't think he had read it before he brought it into the House. When he did, he decided to make some changes.

Perhaps if he were to read this amendment....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the bill.

MR. McGEER: Yes, well, or the bill, too. He would realize the value of it. Mr. Chairman, nobody wants the regional district to have a veto power over the Minister — least of all the Members of the opposition. No Member of the opposition would draft or suggest an irresponsible amendment of that kind.

So we ask the Minister to read the amendment, if he didn't quite grasp the meaning of it. I think he was trying to think very hard of reasons he could give for not accepting it. We're not trying to humble the government; we're trying to make an honest and constructive suggestion, one that is going to help the Minister out.

Just let me say for all the backbenchers here who might have understood it better than the Minister: this is in no way a veto power. No one would suggest that. The idea is just to consult.

Now the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) is shaking his head.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Are you against consultation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: It will remove that paranoia that some cities and municipalities might have that the Minister was trying to dictate to them. This is really in the very best interests of the Minister and of the government. I would appeal, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister doesn't understand it right now, for the government backbenchers to support it, because the Minister will eventually grasp the import of this and the fact that we are trying to help him.

So the Minister really just didn't know what he was doing. We still believe the amendment is in the best interests of the NDP government, and we urge the backbenchers to support it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this government sought office on the slogan that it would be an open government. The term "open government" to my mind inherently implies that the people will be consulted, particularly in relation to legislation which is to intimately affect almost, if not all, every citizen. That is my main reason for supporting this amendment.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think that it is a rather weak-kneed reason the Minister gave to equate the word "consultation" with "veto." I think that any kind of objective approach to the use of the word "consultation" simply means that you discuss with individuals concerned the issue of the moment. In this case the issue happens to be the development of transit facilities and services of the widest scale and greatest possible ramification in section 2(a) and 2(b).

I think it is rather unfair of the Minister to stand up and say that the reason he cannot accept this amendment is that he cannot accept veto powers in municipalities and regions. We never asked for that, and the amendment doesn't ask for that, and I'm not asking for that now — nor would I ever.

The importance of government is mutual cooperation among all the levels of government. We pay all this lip-service to national federal cooperation, and to the importance of cooperation between the provincial government and the municipalities and the regions. That is all we are asking in this amendment.

I just say again, Mr. Chairman, that the record shows that that kind of mutual cooperation has not pertained in recent months. For the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) to chirp at my elbow that of course this harmonious cooperation and great consultation already exists, I just happen to disagree with him. And not just my disagreement should be recorded but the kind of quotations that I read from the newspaper the other day in another debate.

If the Minister in fact does agree that consultation is important....

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Ask ICBC.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, let's not get onto that, Bob. That would take the whole week if we discuss ICBC; I think that we can almost guarantee that that will take a week in fact.

But to return to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, since I know you....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always appreciate the Chairman coming to my defence — not that that happens very often.

These points really pervade this whole transit legislation. Because we've complained about the power in the bill, we are seeking some of the safeguards for other levels of government and other groups and individuals who are likely to be very intimately affected by the kind of plans that are implemented by this Minister.

[ Page 2801 ]

I think, therefore, this amendment is not only very apt and reasonable but it should not be rejected on the basis that by consulting with the municipalities you would be giving them some kind of veto power. We all know on this side of the House, as does the Minister, that the provincial government is a senior level of government and that municipalities are a creature of the provincial government. We know all that; that's basic. So the amendment, even if it sounded that way, could not possibly give veto powers to a lower level of government over a senior level of government. The Minister knows that.

If he is promising that he will consult, there is no valid, objective, intelligent reason why he cannot accept this amendment. I hope he would reconsider it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a good point, Mr. Chairman. It is quite possible for us in committee to stand a particular section to go on to others and return to this one.

The Minister, from his statement, did not understand, in my view, the amendment as proposed by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. He didn't understand the relatively innocuous amendment which would simply guarantee something that he says is happening in any event. If it is happening in any event, obviously no harm can come to him from putting into writing something which exists in practice. If it doesn't, as was said by the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), the cities and municipalities and regional districts who do feel they've had their rights trampled somewhat by the government will at least have some reassurance. Whether it's only psychological or not, it's at least important to them.

I recommend to the Minister, without making a formal motion — he can do this — that we stand the section, proceed with sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, and then return to it. In that period of time his assistant, who is writing so industriously, will have had an opportunity of going through this, looking at the actual wording of it and pointing out to the Minister that, really and truly, an amendment of this nature only shows his good will. It does nothing to his powers in any event. It would certainly be of some psychological assistance to municipal officials who feel threatened by the centralization in Victoria.

MRS. JORDAN: It constantly amazes me that in bill after bill brought into this House by this government, that amendment after amendment put forth by all parties in the opposition — and many of the bills deal solely with the matter of consultations with the various public elected bodies — this government has consistently shown not a tendency but a determined pattern to dominate, dominate, dominate. They have a God-knows-best attitude and they relate it strongly in their legislation. There's no question in their minds who the good Lord is.

I quite agree with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) when he says that this government was elected on a false premise which they put forth themselves that they were a government of the people, that they believed in consultation and that they would move and bend with the will of the people. That was not true and it's reflected over and over again in their legislation and in their actions and in this bill.

This is another example, if the government doesn't accept this amendment in this section, of forcing more shotgun marriages in the provinces, and, furthermore, a shotgun marriage which has a poor chance of survival at the best, as we've seen in other instances where the government has applied it. This is a chauvinistic marriage and that Minister has a straight, downright cold, chauvinistic attitude in these marriages he is making with the municipalities all over the province. He's boss. They will do what he says and they'll love him for it. That isn't true, Mr. Chairman, and it's foolish and irresponsible of the Minister and his government to even try and bring this about.

I spoke before in the debate on another amendment when I asked the government to come clean with the municipalities and the regional districts in this province as to what their transportation policy is. I would just add to that further in terms of telling the Minister, if he doesn't know — and he should know — that municipality after municipality around this province have been planning the future of their transportation systems in accord with the Department of Highways which was started by the former administration.

They were setting up to study the main transit areas and the internal transit areas of their municipalities and regions and the province. They all have their own planners; they all have their own advisory planning commission; they all have their own regional districts; they all have their own input mechanisms. Many of these programmes are very far advanced. But these municipalities have had no word from this government as to what, in fact, might even be their view to be considered by the municipality in relation to transportation services in not only the metropolitan areas but the smaller cities of this province such as Kamloops, Vernon, Nelson, Fort St. John.

Mr. Minister, it's going to mean a duplication of planning and a waste of the public's money. It could well mean a duplication of service because private industry is in there now in many of the transportation areas in the smaller communities. They are in there in cooperation with these municipalities; the municipalities are offering assistance to these

[ Page 2802 ]

private transportation firms with rigid controls in order to provide a service for the people within the area.

What, Mr. Minister, is going to happen to these plans? Why don't you come clean? Why don't you be open? What is going to happen to these private people who are all small people who have invested money in buses and repair shops and have cooperated through mutual discussion with their municipalities and regional districts in providing a service? What is to happen to them when big daddy comes along and puts the clamp on?

The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) says "harmonious discussion." We've had example after example of what this government considers "harmonious discussion." I refer specifically to the "harmonious discussion" that led to voluntary binding arbitration between the nurses and this government. The nurses made it very clear they got an ultimatum: "Do this or else." — arm-twisting in that instance in what the government calls "harmonious discussion." Plateau Mills takeover....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I think the Member knows that she is supposed to be dealing with the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman; I'm pointing out why this amendment must be accepted. There must be consultation. Unless it's put in law, this government is incapable of "harmonious discussions." It is only capable of a chauvinistic attitude and a dictatorial attitude that is evident in this bill and so many of their other bills and in the actions that I am mentioning. In Plateau Mills they said "harmonious discussion," and the Mayor of Terrace accused them of arm-twisting.

The North Vancouver council in relation of transit. Discussions? The council was planning for use of properties in its own municipality. The government knew this. The council was dealing with private individuals and their planners to work out this plan, and the government knew this. Then the government went in and made an improper proposition to the council in terms of asking them to hoodwink the individuals involved, and the council refused. Still the government didn't say anything, until one day North Vancouver and the individuals involved and the planners involved woke up to find that this harmonious, consultative type of government had taken over the land.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say again, with proof — just three instances — that this government is incapable of acting in a harmonious manner and that it must be written in the legislation that they do consult with the various municipalities. Not six years from now but they consult with them now and come clean so the municipalities can plan their own problems.

In all municipalities the parking problem in the downtown area is one of the most acute concerns they have. Certainly, the downtown cores of many small municipalities are ripe now for assistance to go into a central core type of electric motor, non-polluting transportation. It is far less expensive than underground parking in a small area and it means that parkades can be built and parking areas could be provided outside the core area, which again would prove less expensive in terms of land acquisition and less disruptive to the downtown core. The core could be dedicated not to parkades but to small, people-oriented shopping centres and the carrying on of a people-oriented commercial trade.

I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment. I again deplore the fact that so many of the amendments must be of this nature...the government should know better. That kindly Minister, that little Sleepy of the Seven Dwarfs, should indeed be one of the Ministers most aware of why this amendment should be accepted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 30

MR. GARDOM: I would move as an amendment to section 2 that there be added, as subsection (1), the following:

"Any acquisition of the Minister hereunder shall be for proper compensation, and in the event that the amount of such compensation cannot be agreed upon, it shall then be fixed pursuant to the provisions of the Arbitration Act."

The obvious purpose of the amendment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you can wait until we

[ Page 2803 ]

see if the amendment is in order.

MR. GARDOM: The obvious purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to ensure that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't recognized you yet. We're just checking to see if the amendment's in order.

I rule the amendment out of order on the basis that it involves the expenditure of public funds.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, I would just draw to the attention of the Chair that it has been the practice of this government to expropriate without compensation. I find it extremely unfortunate that the Chair has made a ruling such as this which is denying people an opportunity to see that they receive compensation for expropriation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: Fast draw of the north — that's what we've got here.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this bill is not a message bill....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I'm on a point of order. I'm pointing out to you that this is not a message bill; it's a bill from the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. If it's out of order to make an amendment amending what he introduced, then of course his bill is totally out of order, because it itself would offend a ruling that the Clerk — who doesn't understand the rules — has put in your ear.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: I suggest you're running the House by a double standard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: You have to be consistent in this House. If it's a message bill it's a different thing — but this is the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I've ruled that the amendment is out of order. You may appeal that ruling if you wish.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Fidel Barrett! Grow a moustache!

AN HON. MEMBER: Confiscation without compensation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): On a point of order, in the first place I'd like that Member over there in the comer, in the darkest place in this House, to withdraw his remark. He is the most miserable man I have ever seen and he knows it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Further, that learned man over there....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You've asked the Member to withdraw....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You've asked a Member to withdraw a statement.

HON. MR. COCKE: I tried to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Member made a statement that insulted other Members in this House, he should withdraw.

MR. PHILLIPS: If they don't want to be called their true name, I'll withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't have a qualified withdrawal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Consider the source.

HON. MR. COCKE: Fascist. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're back to section 2 of Bill 70.

MR. McCLELLAND: I, too, lament the fact that the Chair saw fit to rule that amendment out of order, because it was a good amendment, one which would have protected the rights of the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That amendment is out of order. You can appeal that, or deal with section 2.

[ Page 2804 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I fully intend to deal with section 2. The Minister has been asked a number of times, by myself and yesterday by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), what the government's intention is with regard to interprovincial bus lines. I've asked the question half a dozen times in this House, and so far the Minister has refused to answer.

Section 2 (e) gives the government the opportunity to purchase lines of buses, or "otherwise acquire" — those fantastic words which appear so many times in this bill. Lines of buses, Mr. Chairman. What are the government's plans with regard to that kind of bus service? Will we be establishing either in the near future or at any time under the terms of this bill a bus transportation system to serve this province from point to point, from Vancouver to Prince George, from Kamloops to Quesnel?

What is going to be the status of Greyhound Bus Lines in this province following the passage of this bill? Does the government intend to cancel the operating franchise that Greyhound Bus Lines has with this government now? I think those questions have been asked enough times now. It's time we got some straight and honest answers from this Minister with regard to the plans of this government for intraprovincial bus service.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Although the amendment had been regretfully ruled out of order, the problem still remains. In fact, that's why it remains. We can certainly discuss the unfortunate fact that we have no guarantee here that there will be fair payment. If people keep telling us....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As many people seem to think this government is being very fair in expropriation, I'd like to refer the Attorney-General to a case I brought to his attention back in February. I sent him a letter dated February 1 in which I said: "I thank you for your interest in this matter and for the helpful and sympathetic response from your assistant." That was the end of sympathy and response.

This is the case of a Mr. Baumgartner, under chapter 261 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia. I'll say no more but this: here is a man who has had his land expropriated or thinks he has.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): He's out of order in bringing up expropriation under this particular section.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Are you on a point of order? I want to remind the Member on his feel that you're dealing with section 2 of Bill 70, not some other bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Exactly, Mr. Chairman; you've put your finger right on it. It's this type of legislation which leads to the case of people like Baumgartner. You've put your finger on it. It's section 2. We happily have this flim-flam from Members opposite about how: "Oh, we wouldn't possibly. Us? We wouldn't dream of taking anything away from anybody without due compensation. Sure, you can't find provisions there which guarantee it, but, oh, we wouldn't do that." Then you come to chapter 261 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia and you come to the case of Baumgartner — and it's being done by that government.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that you ask that Member under what statute that person is being expropriated and in what way it bears upon this particular section. I wish you to rule him out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want the Member to deal with just this section that's before the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right; that's what I'm trying to do. The fact of the matter is that when you don't have clear provisions, you get into a situation... And I did name the bill as I should. I gave the number of the Act for the Hon. Minister of Housing: No. 261, title being, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. It's 261. I gave that to you twice before — now four times. You can look it up; it's in the statutes. You can look up the case of Baumgartner. But it's this problem we face. Now, the plea is obviously different.

You have ruled, Mr. Chairman — and I'm not questioning your ruling. Had we done that, we would have questioned the Chair in the traditional manner. You are ruling that we cannot bring in an amendment which might cause financial cost to the Crown. But surely all opposition parties have the right to urge the Crown to put in an amendment similar to the one that was ruled out of order because of the fact he sits on this side of the House and not in the cabinet.

As far as the statement of the Premier, I trust he'll reconsider it because, in actual fact, the Baumgartner case is worth looking at. There are problems which arise with expropriation. I shouldn't even say that is an expropriation case; that is simply a taking-away case.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Second

[ Page 2805 ]

Member for Victoria; are you finished or are you going to continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I wonder whether the Premier is going to withdraw his remark because it was unfair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What remark?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The remark that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if you don't remember what you said twice....

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no expropriation power in this Act....

MR. GARDOM: Oh, get away!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Has the Second Member for Victoria a point to make on section 2?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Absolute nonsense!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, your difficulties in maintaining order stem from the fact that the government is sure it's always right. It's not always right. Indeed, the Attorney-General had to accept an amendment not so long ago from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) of an error in the drafting of the bill. That's right, and that's within the last week. It was a drafting error.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What has that to do with this?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your belief and the Premier's belief that if anyone disputes anything he says or his interpretation of a statute.... "Anyone who interprets the statute differently is lying," was the gist of his words. Now, that's not necessarily so. People can dispute this, and this is why we have courts, as the Attorney-General well knows. Lawyers analyzing problems come up with different interpretations of both fact and, of course, the law in particular. This is why we have a judicial system; this is why I reject the concept that the government is always right and you need to have no legislative provisions and protection for the average citizen.

Our job here in our system is to try and make sure that citizens' rights are protected from the executive. You can see this morning the attitude of the government. If anybody disputes it, if anybody has a different interpretation of this particular section 2, then they're lying. Now, that's not so. I think that the Premier is not only showing ill temper....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you really believe that this bill has expropriation powers? Do you really believe that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you want to get on your feet and argue later on? I will make my speech and you can make yours. I personally believe there's enough doubt in this matter — and I'm not a lawyer as you seem to fancy yourself as being — that there may be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ask your lawyer friends. There is no power to expropriate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member for Victoria please continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have there the arrogance of the government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're backing off, huh? Now you're backing off.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I'd like the Second Member for Victoria to be able to complete his remarks.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So would I. You have here the arrogance of the government. If you dispute an interpretation of an Act, you must be lying. That's the statement of the Premier in this particular section on expropriation. What we are requesting, what I am trying to get across — and I regret that the Premier is between me and the Minister of Municipal Affairs — is that there is some need to guarantee fair play to the citizens who may lose a business, the land or anything else by reason of government action, however you wish to interpret the word "expropriate." They can lose it; they can be put out of business in that respect; they can lose real property; they can lose their source of income. It's there, otherwise the Minister would have taken a very different tack in his

[ Page 2806 ]

speech earlier. What we're asking for is a guarantee.

Why we need it — and I trust Members will think of this — is because of cases like the Baumgartner case. I'm not saying it's identical in all points. It's not the same Act; it's Act 261. It's somewhat different in that regard. It is a case of a man who feels his property, which he purchased in good faith, which was registered, I understand, at the land registry office, has been taken away from him under a statute of the Province of British Columbia and he feels aggrieved.

All we suggest is, in this great machinery of government, in the 30,000 civil servants that we have, injustice can occur to individuals. Our job in the Legislature is to try and write in the guarantees and protections for citizens which will give them some sort of recourse in the case of ill treatment. Ill treatment does occur from time to time, even with the best intentioned government — and I'm not sure that this one is.

The government's attitude that it knows best and others who dispute any of its interpretations with respect to section 2, expropriation, of this Bill 70, must be liars is a type of arrogance which only underlines in red many, many times the need for legislative protection by this House against actions of the executive.

If we have to go through a theoretical discussion of the distinction between the executive and he Legislature as legislators — and that includes the backbench — to protect individual citizens from arrogant government, I will do so. I trust I don't have to.

We are proposing here a reasonable proposal to protect. We can listen to a reasoned argument from the Attorney-General, who was so far wrong in Bill 41, so there were powers of compensation that didn't exist. We can listen to a reasoned exposition from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. But simply to have remarks hurled across the floor, as has been done by the Premier, is absurd. What we want is to get some sort of protection in here. If the government is true to its word, true to what it said about there being no need for it because people are protected, then it may be redundant, just as the previous amendment put forward by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was claimed by the government to be redundant.

We think it may be necessary, and we wish to argue that point. The arrogance of the government this morning proves that if we can't at least discuss these things in this House, what chance has the citizen of the province who may not have the means to hire lawyers, and may not have the means to even go to court? What chance has he against dictatorial bureaucracy?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member talks about arrogance of government. There is also an arrogance and ignorance of opposition Members. At no time have you brought evidence into this House to indicate that you've done a single lick of research on this issue. As a matter of fact, that's the kindest and most charitable statement I could make. The Member over there, who's a lawyer, is hurling remarks like "Castro" and everything else across the floor. Every lawyer in this province knows very well that these words — "otherwise acquire land" — do not include the power to expropriate. Five minutes worth of research....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, Mr. Chairman, they want to yell, they want to holler, they want to talk about arrogance, but they're not prepared to do a lick of honest research and consult with any lawyer who will tell you, absolutely, that these words — "otherwise acquire land" — do not give the power to expropriate.

You talk about arrogance. You talk about smear. That group has deliberately tried to create fear in this province around these words in an attempt to smear a government saying that they're socialist and taking away the ordinary rights of people. Legislation passed by the federal government and legislation passed by the former government has these words, and the interpretation in court has always been that there's no right to expropriate. You come in here with your right-wing smears and attempt to scare people when legislative protections have been guaranteed even by the former government, the Socreds, who were not known for having access to courts.

I find that your performance is geared to one thing and one thing alone: deliberate smears against the government without doing the most charitable thing that I could say — a lick of research. You come in here and attempt to smear this government as taking away people's rights. You come in here and attempt to smear them as being ignorant. You attack the Attorney-General as if he never passed law school, when he's one of the most respected Attorney-Generals this province has ever had.

You talk about name calling. The performance of the Liberal Party is one of scandalous, cheap, verbal attack with no respect whatsoever for this House or for the traditions or the courts of the province. I get a little bit steamed up, as may be evident this morning, when I see the performance and hear the performance of a so-called lawyer and would-be lawyer when they try to leave a distorted impression with this House that these words mean expropriation. They do not, they never have, and they never will. It's the old bogey man smear tactic by a group that is so far down the political ladder that they have absolutely nothing positive to contribute to this Legislature!

[ Page 2807 ]

There isn't a single lawyer in this province who would tell you that these words mean the right to expropriate. Yet you come in here and try to deliberately create an atmosphere of fear. You've made no effort to give a positive contribution in this debate. I find it pretty scandalous, especially when people aspire to hit the bench, and they take with them these kind of attitudes. If you've got something to offer the House positively, offer it. But don't leave the deliberate impression on something that you know very well with five minutes' research, if you care to do it, doesn't exist.

I tell you this and I say it again — anyone who deliberately goes out and says that this gives the power to expropriate, and hasn't taken the time to do the time to do the research, is absolutely lying.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the remarks on this subject, but I want to make the point that they don't have to have the power to expropriate. I'm referring to the licenced public passenger carriers in this province. All you have to do is cancel their licence, as they get their licence from this government. I would like to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs say that he is not going to cancel the licence of the private enterprise carriers of this province and that they will continue to operate.

What I am saying is you don't need powers of expropriation; you already have them in a backdoor way by the fact that they have to get a yearly public passenger licence from the authority of this government. All you have to say is you decline to issue that licence and then put your own buses on, and an outfit like Greyhound would have to go on a closed-door operation from the B.C.-Alberta boundary into Vancouver and back. They would have no pick up and delivery privileges between those points of the B.C.-Alberta boundary and the termination — Vancouver or wherever you decided to terminate.

I have no shares in the Greyhound bus line, but I want to tell you that they have the expertise, the people, the experience, and they don't run just in the little lowland Fraser Valley. They run all over this province and have for years. The people of this province from Hope north all through the Kootenays and the Cariboo and the north appreciate their experience and they don't want to see them put out of business and then taken over by the civic stage lines who don't even know how to put a set of chains on. They'd even get stuck when there was a cloud in the sky! They have no idea how to operate under the conditions that Greyhound has to operate.

I would like to hear the Minister say that clearly here they have no intention to put Greyhound or other private enterprise bus line out of business, because this bill certainly gives them the authority to do just that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does it have the right to expropriate? No, it does not.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the last remarks are the kinds of remarks that you would expect from a person supporting a government that was not prepared to provide services for people in this particular area. Public transit went down the drain the last 20 years. This government and this Minister are trying to get together a transit service that will provide that service for people, and all we hear are catcalls and insults from across the House for a government that is endeavouring to do its best for the people of this province, raising all sorts of straw men, fighting for the private companies and so on. What have the private companies to worry about? Most of them have gone out of business in the last 20 years. Where are they?

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that this kind of fallacious, specious argument has been the history in the last few months in this House and I wonder when we're going to get over that kind of foolishness.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, you are your usual consistent self. Despite the histrionics by the Premier and the Minister of defence, the question isn't of expropriation at all — it's of compensation. It really doesn't have anything to do with expropriation because if you allow expropriation, the person who's being expropriated at least has some access to the courts. But in the kind of backdoor takeovers that this government is becoming famous for, like the Insurance Corporation, there isn't any hope for compensation. When the government has the opportunity to cancel licences with a stroke. of a pen, that's expropriation of the worst kind, without any access to the courts.

I don't wonder that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) are pretty touchy on this subject, because they're standing by and watching the municipality of Surrey expropriate $1 million worth of private land with no compensation today, with the full knowledge of these two Ministers of your government — not much wonder, Mr. Chairman, that these two Members are touchy about the subject of expropriation without compensation.

Mr. Chairman, if you won't accept this amendment, there must be some other method by which we can ensure that there will be no backdoor takeovers by this government any longer without any compensation to the people involved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to just read from the 1971 Report on Expropriation by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. I

[ Page 2808 ]

want to read this to my lawyer friend, because I'm just a humble social worker. I don't have the brilliance or the deviousness of some lawyer's approach, but I'd like to read what the Law Reform Commission says on this very point. I want to point out that there's a deliberate attempt by the opposition to create an atmosphere of hate in this province by making statements that are not true and leaving impressions that are absolutely false.

This is what the Law Reform Commission said. Mr. Chairman, they don't want to hear what the Law Reform Commission itself said, but I'll read page 16:

" 'Otherwise acquire' — the mere granting of power to purchase or otherwise acquire lands cannot be regarded as conferring power to expropriate."

AN HON. MEMBER: How many members are lawyers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No one. Well, Davie Fulton was one at one time. He's on the bench, and he's a learned judge. Are you attacking the judges of this land now?

Do you know no limits? You've attacked the laws, the courts, and now the judges. Is that the kind of approach we're getting — because you can't have power you attack the very court system and Her Majesty's courts? Attacking the Queen on top of it!

How far will they go, Mr. Chairman? First it was the lawyers, then it's the courts. Now the bench and Her Majesty. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I am so shocked! Ending up attacking Her Majesty! I don't want her to hear.... Don't write this down! Don't write it down. I don't want her to find out about this.

But look what else it says in here:

"No one would seriously suggest that every company incorporated under the Companies Act has the power to expropriate merely because among the ancillary powers normally given the companies included in section 22...."

You didn't take five minutes out to do some research. You deliberately attempt to create an atmosphere of smear.

MR. FRASER: Davie can make mistakes too, you know.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've been known to make mistakes. I'm only human. That's why I go to the library on occasion and check the law. And what do I find when I check the law? The opposition not only makes mistakes, but they don't even make an effort to correct themselves. Oh, shame!

And now as a social worker I have to publicly castigate them for not making an effort to correct themselves.

MR. FRASER: What's the matter with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Can we get back to section 2?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly. They are right here and I'll go on to read:

"Where a similar power to purchase or otherwise acquire is granted to a Minister of the Crown" — all lawyers listen — "and there art. no other provisions indicating that an expropriation power has been given, "

as this bill has, Mr. lawyer Member,

"it is difficult to believe that a court would hold that expropriation powers have been created."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have made no effort. It is the opinion of the Law Reform Commission in this province and you're just abandoning it? Mr. Chairman, they cannot quote a single case to contradict the position of the Law Reform Commission of this province. They are deliberately creating an atmosphere that is based on no research, and if they've ever been exposed they've been exposed this morning as a phony bunch. A phony bunch!

MR. FRASER: A vicious attack!

HON. MR. BARRETT: A vicious attack? I'm being kind, I'm trying to help educate — and that's the reward I get for my patience. Oh!

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) mentioned a case of expropriation in Surrey. Who's Bob Wenman? We almost forgot. They forgot him in a hurry because he used to be a Socred MLA. He's on the Surrey council. He voted for that expropriation.

HON. MR. COCKE: And Vogel introduced it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Introduced it? Oh, my goodness! Why do we have to bring these things out publicly? I'm sorry I said it, but those Socreds are expropriating without compensation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't let the word get out. Don't let the word get out what they're doing! I don't want anybody to know that the Socred & Wenman and Vogel are expropriating without

[ Page 2809 ]

compensation. Ohhh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we deal with section 2?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we've had a lot said by the Premier, little of it relevant to the problem we face.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What we are talking about, you fail to understand, I think, Mr. Chairman, is that we are discussing Bill 70, section 2. A number of examples have been given by government speakers, but not many of them are relevant. An example I gave simply indicated that at the present time, under the laws of this province, people are having land taken from them under chapter 261 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia without compensation.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I'll read two short sentences from this letter to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). "I said at that time: 'This is not a case of expropriation. Even the latter would ensure some recompense.' " It's a case — and I'm not quoting here but I have it down here — of confiscation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact is that, as is typical with non-lawyers who dabble in the law, the Premier gets all huffed up by one particular word. If it comes down specifically on the word "expropriation" — and that's the only way that you can take away property from a person — perhaps he has some validity.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, "perhaps". Now you're backing off. Oh, "perhaps" we're right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, come on! The Premier typically did not....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, "perhaps" now, uh? Oh, perhaps now you're changing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier seems to think once again as a non-lawyer that he's stumbled on something which makes sense. The problem is that there are ways of taking away property, there are ways of taking away a person's ability to earn a living, as has been pointed out by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), which may not be expropriation. In the case of Baumgartner it's a case of confiscation, not expropriation. The reason we want to put in a provision of the nature of the one raised by the Member....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stick to the point.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's got nothing to do with this section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Come on, Alex, you know full well....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, whether the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) or Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) feel offended as the Premier apparently did, I don't know, but the fact of the matter is that legislation exists on the books of the Province of British Columbia which does lead to a person who claims to have had his purchase of land registered in the Land Registry Office receiving no compensation, according to him, for that land when it is taken away under chapter 261.

Now, it is a pretty simple proposition to ask that in this particular bill the government write in provisions for compensation which are in no way onerous or burdensome on the government, but which do protect individual citizens who might be affected by it. That is all we are asking. We can talk about former Members of the House. We can happily go along on to Law Reform Commission reports, which, as has been pointed out, is the opinion of that commission.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't do any research.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Let's not forget the very first words that the Premier quoted from that, which stated that alone.... Now, the fact is that those words often occur with other sections of the statute which may give them force for expropriation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They don't in this one and you haven't spent five minutes on it. It's a cheap, political phony issue and you've been exposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You are so phony on this, and you know it. If it was from the Socreds I could understand it, but you should know better.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I might take exception to the Premier's words more if I respected him more, but I don't, and I find that

[ Page 2810 ]

typical of the way he attempts to avoid the issue that was raised. The issue is simple. If in the interpretation of this Act by the courts it turns out that people can have property, real or otherwise...if they can have their right or ability to earn their living impaired, just compensation should be paid.

Now, that's the point of the Member's amendment which was ruled out of order. The point of discussing this with the government is to try to persuade them that a government which genuinely believes in people should incorporate into legislation fail-safe provisions just in case the justices interpret this Act in a way which would give the government power that the Premier claims it hasn't got. I'm not sure.

Time after time courts have looked at legislation made by legislatures or parliaments and they have come to conclusions different from those which the legislators had in their minds when they passed those Acts. We wouldn't have half the amendments that we do today, were it not for that problem, Mr. Chairman. You know that. Everybody in this room knows that. So this is why you try and work in the fail-safe provisions — so that we can guarantee individual citizens rights against governments which they believe to be extremely centralist and which, indeed, has turned out in many instances in municipal affairs to have disregarded local authorities and individual people.

That's the purpose for putting forward an amendment which you rightly ruled out of order. It's the purpose of us, at this stage, arguing with the government, asking them to put it into the legislation, because we can't do it but they can.

Irrelevant attacks by the Premier on us or anybody else are not particularly of much concern. The fact of the matter is that in section 2 of Bill 70 we would like to see some sort of provision put in for compensation just in case there is any difficulty as we have described.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would like to say that I am somewhat surprised at the obvious concerted effort to delay and hinder the total programme of transit in this province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you talking about the Premier?

HON. MR. LORIMER: But I want to assure the people of this province that this programme of transit is going to go forward vigorously, and that we hope to provide transit services for the people in communities of the province, many of whom have no automobiles to move about and are dependent on transit, and irrespective of the roadblocks that are thrown in our way we shall try and carry on and provide the services as quickly as possible.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked about Greyhound. There are no plans to remove Greyhound.

However, Greyhound, as you know, has stopped services in certain areas. And those services have to be picked up. For instance they dropped the area between Prince Rupert and Prince George, which was subsequently picked up be a private operation. So there may be need to provide that type of service in areas in the province.

But there is no intention, certainly at this time, of dealing with Greyhound at all. They seem to be providing a very good service at the moment.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, when the Hon. Premier was posing questions to the House as to whether things are true or are they not true, a very good question to pose to the Premier and to the other Members of the Government is: is it or is it not true that this government has confiscated in the Province of British Columbia without compensation? The answer to that happens to be yes, because that's exactly what happened with the insurance industry.

And is it or is it not true that British Columbia has the most arbitrary powers of expropriation of any area outside of the Soviet Union? The answer to that question is also correct, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, that was an opinion that was considered and at one point stated many, many years ago by Mr. Justice Thorsen.

Since then we've had the benefit in this province of the Clyne royal commission on expropriation. We've had the benefit of the very great and a very remarkable in-depth study of the Law Reform Commission. I see its report is dated 1971, Mr. Chairman, and we're now into 1974. It was the firm recommendation of both the Clyne commission of some years ago and of the Law Reform Commission that we have a single statute dealing with expropriation in the province and that fair compensation be provided.

It was considered at all times by these learned gentlemen and the many people who assisted them in their endeavours that we've had a hodge-podge of confusion of arbitrariness, of unfairness and of powers that you'd never hope to find — yet indeed are existent in a democratic society. They have tried to cure all that and the government has absolutely sat on it. This is one of the reasons we are having the confusions that we're having today.

The Premier made a great point out of quoting from the report of the Law Reform Commission. When he's referring to these otherwise acquired definitions, that's only an expression of opinion. It is in the grey area. The thing has never been tested per se in accordance with the provisions as indicated in this particular statute.

Also, the summary of remarks to the report of the Law Reform Commission are certainly worth drawing

[ Page 2811 ]

to the attention of the Premier, who claims to have been exceptionally well read on the point. It says that a general expropriation statute be enacted embodying the proposals on procedure and compensation — and compensation! — put forward in this report.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: No, no, you're missing the point, Mr. Premier. It is not separate from this Act. And I would be very happy if the Hon. Chairman would return my amendment to me; I can't even get that back. It's been confiscated at this point. Or would you please at least read it to the House? Would you mind reading my amendment to the House now? I'd like to refer to it and you've got the only copy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your amendment is ruled out of order. And you can....

MR. GARDOM: Then return it; I'd like it back. Trot it over here. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's part of the records here and you should have a copy of it. If you don't I have a copy.

MR. GARDOM: As you see, it's done in longhand and we don't have carbon paper at our desks, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure you'll be able to get a copy of it later.

MR. GARDOM: It's not provided by the Speaker, I guess.

MR. BARRETT: You just thought it up on the way.

MR. GARDOM: Carrying on, Mr. Chairman, I would draw to the attention....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is now the property of the House and it stays here. You should be dealing with section....

MR. GARDOM: Then you might refer to it. I'm dealing with exactly the same points as the Premier dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are dealing with section 2 of Bill 70; that's what you should be dealing with.

MR. GARDOM: Indeed I am; indeed I am. And I'm also dealing with the points raised by the Hon. Premier. I have certainly the right to do that.

We find the Law Reform Commission reporting, Mr. Chairman, that in determining compensation payable the provisions of the general statute would apply. But this is a very important statement here which says — and this is the crux of the matter before us this morning in this section — on page 182:

"The various statutory positions which create or might appear to create expropriating powers be reviewed and revised when necessary to ensure the statutory language creating those powers clearly and expressly demonstrate intention to confer those powers."

Now this is one of the reasons that we have confusion here this morning. It is open to court decision as to whether the words "otherwise acquire" constitute expropriation. It is also open to the government to make an offer that an independent person could not afford to refuse — much along the lines of the Godfather.

It is also open to the government, as it has done with the insurance corporation, to close the doors of a lawful, law-abiding, tax-paying, non-polluting, democratically -operating occupation. That power is there.

We think it's most unfair, if we are in this shade of grey, if the government has these powers — as was illustrated by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), and as was illustrated by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) when he talked about whether they are going to take over Greyhound Bus Lines. You can do that by saying to Greyhound Bus Lines, "Thou shall not operate in the Province of British Columbia." That is what happened to the insurance industry.

This is a democratic society. They weren't compensated; their doors were closed. Not yet, you can't function in the Province of British Columbia — lawful people, law-abiding people, in a democratic society. You Castroized the insurance industry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on. Oh!

M R. GARDOM: Yes, you did. Did you compensate them? Is it or is it not true that you didn't offer them 10 cents worth of compensation? Not a nickel; you just shut them up. And you can do exactly the same thing with Joe's Taxi, Terry's Transit or Greyhound Bus Lines.

What we have asked you to do here is something that the Premier in essence — although he doesn't see it, unfortunately — is arguing for. He says: "We can't expropriate; we'll compensate." If he means what he says, let him bring in an amendment to his message bill and provide due and fair compensation for any purchases or acquisitions.

Mr. Chairman, if these amounts cannot be agreed upon.... There are no built-in checks or balances, that the amounts have to be agreed upon in here. We know the' might of this government and how they

[ Page 2812 ]

snap their fingers and make their decisions — and crack the whip — without research.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Okay, but build in a check and balance and say to the general public that if the government comes in with its heavy hand and says, "We're going to purchase, or maybe things are going to be a little tough for you," and they disagree with the price.... Maybe the private sector might be asking too much. Maybe the government might be offering to pay too little. Both of those ills can occasion. In all fairness, put it into arbitration.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come off it!

MR. GARDOM: Put it into arbitration; that is what is contemplated under the provisions of this very excellent report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. They said: "Let there be a check and let there be a balance, and if the government offers an outrageously low price and if the private sector requests an outrageously high price, put it to arbitration."

Let facts and figures be presented on oath. Let there be evidence; let there be proper assessments and appraisals. And let the individual, who's entitled to the best break of all — surely to goodness, in a democratic society — let him be entitled to his fair share and to a fair break.

That's the reason we're opposing the section. The Premier's arguments support, in essence, our opposition to it. He says there's no expropriative power here. Well, unfortunately — or fortunately, I should say — he is not the court of this land. There may well be. There may well be; I tend to think there is. I would say there is. But that's something to be determined by a court.

Why put people to the expense, inconvenience, time and trouble of having to go to a court to see that their rights are protected, when all he's got to do is to put a provision in here that fair compensation will be paid for the acquisition of any assets called for within the provisions of this statute?

If that is too much to ask, we are in, without any question, the heaviest of hands of state socialism. They're becoming not only government supreme, as is demonstrated later on in this statute, but cabinet supreme. The supremacy of the backbench — the elected representatives — is disappearing in the Province of B.C. and to the secretariat, which is the cabinet. The secretariat, the politburo, is now running the Province of B.C.

MR. GIBSON: On a different aspect of section 2, I have a very brief amendment which I think is surely only the result of government drafting oversight because the Minister has said in the past that this is his policy. That relates to the disposition of assets which is provided for under section 2(d). There was some discussion in a case earlier this year with respect to the disposition of certain Crown assets by public tender. The Minister, if I recall rightly — he can correct me on this — made a statement that that was his general policy.

I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that section 2(d) be amended by adding words at the end, "through public tender."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you provide us with a signed copy of that amendment?

I'll allow you to speak on your amendment if you wish while we are considering whether or not it's in order. Have you got some remarks to make on it?

MR. GIBSON: I've said all I had to say on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment proposed here is that in section 2(d) you add the words, "through public tender " at the end of the sentence.

The amendment seems in order.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I have already stated that the policy of the government is to sell by public tender. I reject the amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Briefly, in support of it.

That Minister stands up and is totally contradictory. He stands up and accepts the principle of going to public tender and yet rejects the kind of amendment which would ensure that every government and every Minister following him would also have to go to public tender. He tells us in this House that he accepts the concept of public tender and yet his attitude in the past has been one of a totally different attitude than that which he tells us in this House today.

In the matter of a disposal of Crown assets for B.C. Hydro, no public tender. In the matter of a purchase of buses from the Western Flyer Company of Manitoba, no public tender. All we want in this House is the assurance on paper over somebody's signature that you will go to public tender from now on. It's a simple assurance which you should be able to accept easily because of your stated comments in the House earlier.

MR. WALLACE: This is just more evidence of the kind of situation we had earlier on in this debate where the Minister gives verbal assurance that a certain policy will be followed, whether it's consultation with the municipalities or putting matters of a disposal of Crown assets out to public tender. We're asking on this side of the House to formally put it in writing. I think it's a standard

[ Page 2813 ]

acceptance in any modern society that when you really mean something you put it in writing and sign it. When you buy a home or marry your wife or do any of the important things in life, you put it in writing and you sign a document.

Surely in the highest court in the land, in the federal or provincial Legislature of this land, if a man or a cabinet, with the authority they have, really, sincerely believe in a certain policy or a certain procedure or practise and stand in this House and say they believe in it and this is how things will be done in future, I just am at a loss to understand why a simple phrase cannot be written into the legislation such as the two particular amendments that have been accepted in principle by the Minister but rejected in practise.

I can't say that I'm anything but dismayed that we would have the Minister say, yes, he'll consult with the municipalities; yes, these matters will always go to tender, and not put it in the bill. I can recall a year ago we came up with other amendments of a similar nature in other bills which were turned down by this government on exactly the same kind of point. The government says, "Well, this is what we will do anyway."

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Scott, do you always tell the truth?

MR. WALLACE: Yes. I don't know why the big man from Little Mountain is so sensitive about putting in writing those things that he believes. I'm sure that, when you sell your ice cream, you sell it by signed contract — or do you just make your ice cream contracts by verbal agreement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Oak Bay has the floor and was dealing with section 2. He actually should be dealing with the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: I was trying to deal with section 2. We're having trouble from Dairy Queen on the other side of the House, Mr. Chairman.

But seriously, this is a principle, whether it's specifically this amendment or any other similar amendment in the future. It is very difficult or contradictory, as said by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), that a Minister should stand up and accept a principle which is very important — the principle of submitting government business of one kind or another to public tender — and say that he believes in it and that it will be government policy, and all we are asking is to put that in the bill in writing. In any area of human affairs where an important commitment is made or where some responsibility is accepted by a politician or anyone in business, it is just the most automatic, accepted, reasonable thing to put it in writing.

I think this amendment eminently sums up the position of the opposition parties. I hope again that the Minister will reconsider.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to lend my support to the amendment. One of the reasons that this side of the House is leery of the government is because of the actions of that government since they came to office.

We can look back over the record and the Premier, standing on his feet, shouting, ranting and raving. But we still don't hear the Premier any longer saying, "Trust us." He knows we don't trust him. It has been his actions that have made us so leery. When we ask the government to put in writing their intentions, we know then they can change it with an amendment in a few months anyway. But at least it would be down in writing.

But to give the amount of power that is in this section to that Minister bothers us. One of the reasons is that all you have to do is look at Bill 75. Retroactive legislation. It enforces landlords to give money back to tenants. Retroactive legislation. That's one of your bills, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that one of my bills?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, you're supposed to be on the amendment to section 2.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking to the principle of the amendment, Mr. Chairman. We want to see it in writing; we want it added. To be quite truthful with you, we no longer trust your government. We want to see it in writing. It has been the actions of the government that have given us this mistrust. All you have to do is look at the land bill, look at the insurance takeover, look at the purchases without tender, look at the entire record of the government. No wonder we want it down in writing, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. COCKE: We've just heard from the dark side of the moon.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, speaking to the amendment and in support of it. The brief statement of rejection by the Minister a few moments ago demonstrates an incredible and unexpected inflexibility in my view. Certainly, when he is involved in his other responsibilities as Minister of Municipal Affairs, he is charged with enforcing an Act for municipalities which makes it very clear that, when a municipality is disposing of material or goods or equipment of one kind or another, it must do so by public tender.

This position taken by the Minister this morning

[ Page 2814 ]

takes us back to the very old days in this province. I would have expected in something as straightforward and appropriate as this that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would have accepted the amendment of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

I really wonder if the Minister wouldn't like to reconsider the position he took fairly arbitrarily just a few moments ago. Perhaps he is considering it now with his cabinet colleagues. Whether we trust this Minister and this transit organization over the next few months is beside the point. As I understand it, if we trusted everyone we would have very few laws.

So let's get it in here not only for the present, but for the short and long-term future. I urge the Minister to reconsider his position and accept this extremely important amendment.

Amendment to section 2 negatived.

On section 2.

MR. McCLELLAND: One brief comment before section 2 passes and I'd like to thank the Minister for finally telling us and assuring us that he has no intention of canceling the opposition franchise of Greyhound and also admitting to us that he does intend to go into the intra-provincial bus line business and from the looks of the bill we also will be going into the manufacture of buses, probably a money-losing operation like Western Flyer and I guess, because of Section f(2), we can also expect to be going into the restaurant and hotel business as well and I'd just ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, when and where we can expect the first Lorimer Hilton to be erected?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't think this year.

MR. WALLACE: I have no wish to prolong the debate but I do think, as I mentioned in the comment yesterday, restaurants and hotels are a little peripheral, to say the least, in the whole business of transit services. Again, I'm like the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), I think the rather flippant answers and the short contradictory answers that the Minister's giving really isn't doing justice to this debate.

In other words, we've all acknowledged that there is a real problem in our burgeoning urban areas of transit, but hotels and restaurants to be built or operated or managed by government, I would submit, is a very peripheral matter compared to the very basic business of providing transit avenues and lanes of cars or buses or trains or what-have-you.

We are accused of being too apprehensive about powers and the scope of legislation in this bill and in others, and yesterday somebody shouted from the other side "Quote to us what your concerns are. Where is the power?" The power is right here for the government to get at the restaurant and hotel business when the bill is actually transit and transportation of people that we're talking about, not accommodation of the people once they get to where they're going. I just feel that when the Member for....

HON. MR. KING: What about the restaurants on the ferry?

MR. WALLACE: ...well, the restaurant on the ferry is in the act of being transported....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...and restaurants in bus....

MR. WALLACE: ...I think you can't compare the.... Well, what about hotels if you want to be so picayune about it. What about hotels?

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it's the other side that's picayune.

MR. WALLACE: I say that the government should deal with the moving of people without these other areas which are much more appropriately dealt with in the private sector of the economy and not by government-run and operated or state-controlled hotels and restaurants. I would accept, as the Minister of Labour has interjected, that a restaurant on a ferry makes a lot of sense and if the ferry is being operated by the government, then, of course, the restaurant obviously is an integral part of that. But this power in this bill deals just in section f (2) just says 11 passengers' depots, waiting-rooms, restaurants, hotels." It doesn't necessarily define them as being part of the transportation system. It just leaves the power wide open to the government to do as and when it wants by entering into the hotel and restaurant business. I wonder if the Minister would be a little more detailed on what their plans are. Or is it that the facilities will, in fact, be restricted to such areas as ferries?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped the Minister could give some kind of reply to the question from the Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to remind the Member that this debate took place in principle and replies were provided then. It's very difficult to separate the debate but I suggest to you that you deal with the business of section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, we're in committee now. We can ask the Minister questions. He can hopefully give us answers. The Hon. Member for Oak

[ Page 2815 ]

Bay (Mr. Wallace) was just talking about Section f, which I was about to stand on, and Section f provides the Minister the power to enter into the operation of business including the hotel business.

I was about to say, before you interrupted me, that I wish he had given some notice of his intention in that because it relates to another clause which I wish to discuss, namely Section 2 (j) which, Mr. Chairman, gives the Minister the power to become a manufacturer — manufacturer in constructing rapid transit vehicles, which is generally speaking considered one of the heavy industrial applications on this continent.

This is a proposal that the Minister should be given this authority on a blank cheque without even any suggestion "of intent to this House, as to how such a potentially immense industrial undertaking should be looked after; whether he has any proposal to do it or not; whether he wants to develop a system in British Columbia of manufacturing all-Canadian buses, that might be a wonderful thing.

Section j might be used for wonderful purposes, Mr. Chairman, but we have no declaration of intent from the Minister at all and it seems to me that if he and this government want to get into the manufacturing business on transit vehicles, that deserves a bill of its own which would be discussed on its own merits and I therefore move that Section 2 (j) be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you got a signed copy of that amendment? On the amendment. It is an order to delete section 2 (j).

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think I could answer. As far as hotels are concerned I don't anticipate any construction of hotels, at this stage, but certainly the restaurants part I think it's necessary and will be necessary at bus stations and so forth. But as far as J is concerned, at the present time I don't think we intend to manufacture from start to finish immediately.

But I think there is an area here which I hope to be looking into this summer, as to the feasibility of completing from the shell upwards, in other words, farming out seat manufacturing, and that sort of thing and electrifying the bus and have it assembled in British Columbia. Possibly some of these sub-trades being performed in a variety of parts in the Interior of the province. That is the manufacturing aspect of it at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the words of the Minister. We don't know whether it's going to be called "Lorimer's Villa" or whether it's going to called "Slumber Lodge," with Suite No.1 reserved for cabinet Ministers. We don't know, but the fact of the matter is that the principle of having a bill which allows total power for construction of hotels and restaurants, construction of vehicles, as well as taking over transit companies, is one that obviously we will have difficulty with.

On the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) we simply think that if you haven't done the studies yet as you admitted, you said you should have been looking at feasibility this summer. If it hasn't been done yet, for heaven's sake just accept the amendment. You can always come back and amend this bill later if you need powers later on after you've done your assessments. After you've looked at the feasibility studies which, by your own admission, from what I gathered you said, have not yet even been considered.

HON. MR. LORIMER: What did I say hasn't been considered?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the feasibility has not really been considered....

HON. MR. LORIMER: More delays.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it may be more delays. That's true because you're entering into an area.... Yes, it may be true there may be delays because there has to be an amendment in the fall session of the Legislature but if you're not doing studies, I gather, until the summer, there really is no great delaying at all in which to proceed. We dislike and we repeat this time after time, we dislike granting powers on the vague assurances of Ministers that these powers, of course, will probably not be used. We don't know who will use them. We don't know what subsequent government will be using them and we'll be perfectly willing to consider any proposal you come forward with, after you've done your feasibility studies, after you determine whether it's a good idea or not.

But to ask us in this Legislature, all of us, backbench as well as opposition, to give you powers beforehand is certainly the wrong way of going about it and I urge you to consider the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I also rise to support the amendment. I think when you're considering this amendment and the reason we're concerned and would like to see the amendment passed, all you have to do, Mr. Chairman, is take a look at section 12 of this bill, where "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by order authorize the company to carry out on behalf of the Minister any or all of the duties of the Minister under this Act for this purpose and authorize the company to exercise the power and authority conferred upon it by the Minister."

[ Page 2816 ]

In other words, this Minister can give this company the $76 million that he has and it can go off and do anything that it really wants to do. This is really what we're concerned about. This doesn't even have to go back to the Minister, doesn't have to go back to the executive council, and doesn't have to go back to this Legislature; $76 million for the company just for starters. It's section 12 coordinated with these other sections that really bothers.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. Give the $76 million to this company and this company can do all of these things, go into the restaurants, the hotels, construct the buses, do whatever they want to. The company doesn't even have to come back to the Minister. The Minister just says: "Go ahead and do it. We don't care where you do it."

It's the company who will automatically take on the powers, go into municipalities and take another look at section 7 where this company under the power given to it by the Minister can go into a municipality, completely disregard the authorities in that municipality, put up the power lines, do anything without any consultation with municipal authorities.

So it's really the company that's going to be formed under section 12 that gives us more concern. I think that it would only be in respect of the parliamentary system that the Minister should accept some of these safeguards that we're trying to have built in here. The government says "Trust us," but if they want us to trust them, why don't they prove trustworthy?

Amendment negatived.

On section 2.

MR. WALLACE: In further respect to section 2 and in the light of the Minister's statement a few minutes ago that he does not anticipate building hotels, I would move an amendment to section 2(f)(2) that the word "hotels" be deleted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 28

MR. WALLACE: I ask that you request the division be recorded when you report to the House Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. GIBSON: Just a brief question for the Minister. This would appear to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council power to fix the fares on all passenger traffic carried by public passenger transportation systems established under this Act. Does that include public transportation systems which might be established under section 3 of this Act which would be operated by municipalities? In other words, is the Minister asking for power to fix the fares on municipal bus lines as well as lines which might be run by his transit authority?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, the local municipalities have their own fare, although in the case of West Vancouver it's been by agreement between the Hydro operation and West Vancouver operation.

MR. GIBSON: Could I suggest then, Mr. Minister, that this section as it is currently written would appear to give the Minister power to fix municipal bus line operation fares, and I wonder if the Minister would be agreeable to an amendment which would rule that out of order by making it specific that this applies only to systems operated by the province?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, there's no intention here to interfere with any municipal bus lines. There's very few left. I don't think there's going to be any left because they've all come to us asking us to take them over, so I don't think it's an issue, as a matter of fact. The only one that will be left as I understand it will be the West Vancouver bus line and they want to carry on, and by agreement they're going to carry on. They've agreed to the proposition of having their fares structured the same as B.C. Hydro. I don't know of any other municipal bus line that will be operating in the province.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

[ Page 2817 ]

On section 10.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks on second reading I noted that I would be moving amendments under this section, the reporting section, on the grounds that where the tremendous amount of discretionary authority is conveyed by a bill, the opposite side of that coin should be detailed reporting requirements.

I therefore move section 10 be amended by adding the following words: "This report shall include detailed accounting of (a) service, profit and loss on major passenger routes; (b) consultation with local governments; (c) planning studies undertaken, completed, and in progress and summaries thereof; (d) economic and demographic impacts of major new transportation routes or systems; (e) major changes in capital, operating practices and personnel over the year."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you a signed copy of that amendment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a point of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If this was imposing additional duties of the Crown, it would be out of order, but it seems to me that it really isn't because it already says that there has to be a financial statement of operations. So really it is in the section anyway.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what the amendment...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I haven't really raised a point of order. I said let the thing go to a vote because we feel it is in the section anyway.

MR. GIBSON: What the amendment is seeking to do is make it abundantly clear that these matters are included in the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are accepting that it is in order.

Amendment negatived.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of provisions in it which we are unable to accept.

The first is, of course, that "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by order establish a corporation." We prefer to have, and we think it would be proper to have, of course, this Legislature, not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, form corporations.

The second point, of course, is 11(5). The provisions there appear to be in conflict with sections 23 and 24 of the Constitution Act which forbids this double-dipping into the public purse by MLAs, and I think that while they might be entitled to reasonable expenses, a payment to them is clearly out of order.

The 11(7) is "the Companies Act does not apply to this company." Here again we have an example of the government setting up its own corporation in a preferred position vis-à-vis other corporations, because of course they do not have to abide by the law which other corporations do, namely the Companies Act of British Columbia.

I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, that section 11 be deleted in entirety. The thing that we can do instead if there is a need for a corporation to proceed with transit, is of course, use B.C. Hydro which is already being used.

The Minister has made it clear that there is unlikely to be any other municipal authority, except perhaps the West Vancouver one, and he indicated that he did not intend to take that over. So therefore the Crown corporation is already in existence, and the B.C. Hydro would seem to be the vehicle for such government increase in activity in this area, and I would think that this section 11 is redundant for that reason.

I would move that section 11 be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That kind of amendment is out of order in that the proper procedure is to vote against the section if you want the whole thing deleted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we will be voting against this section for basically the same reasons, that this British Columbia Transit Company as proposed in section 11 is ill-defined and again has authority and privileges in the subsections which we think should be in separate legislation.

We are very concerned that in repeated pieces of legislation, time after time the government is setting up various companies to which the Companies Act does not apply, and it seems to us that there's one set of ground rules for private companies doing business .in this province and a completely different set of ground rules for government companies.

We feel that if the government feels that it is necessary to have a Companies Act for private enterprise, the same supervision and openness and accessibility to company business, and observation of the Companies Act regulations should apply to any company set up by the government.

We also feel, as has already been stated by many

[ Page 2818 ]

Members of the opposition, and specify this as another example, I think the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has often asked why are we concerned about the power, and we've been mocked a little bit about the use of the phrase "broad sweeping powers," and I'm just taking this opportunity to point out again that section 11(l) gives a degree of power and authority to the cabinet which we feel it should not have.

This is an honest difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. We believe in this party that to set up a transit company which undoubtedly will have a great deal of authority and the spending of a great deal of public money, should be set up by a separate statute of this Legislature. This opposition's responsibility would be carried out in discussing, debating and criticizing such a specific separate statute, giving a great deal more detail of the functions, structure and all the other details of such a company with that degree of authority and power.

Therefore we do oppose this section.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask what qualifications do these five members of this transit company have to have? Are there any guidelines, or do they have to have any qualifications in the transit business. Also I see here you can also appoint MLAs to it. Would they just have to be government MLAs appointed to the transit?

HON. MR. LORIMER: In subsection (5) the remuneration will only of course be their out-of-pocket expenses. That's the intention of that. As far as qualifications, there are no set qualifications. I expect there will be some experts and some lay people.

MR. GARDOM: If what the Minister says is correct he should certainly delete the words "pay such remuneration for services." If he's just talking about out-of-pocket expenses, that's covered under section 2. But remuneration for services is something entirely different and we've already had a vote here, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the powers of this government to go into the hotel business. Does this mean that there is going to be a back-bench boondoggle to go ahead and provide a little more lolly outside of the MLA stipend for government Members?

Everybody shakes their heads. The Minister says this is nothing to do with remuneration for services. Why did he put the words in there? Why does he put the words in there? Delete them.

He's speaking against the provisions of his own bill when he says it's not applicable to that when the bill says very, very clearly that it is. And I agree with the Hon. Member that those words should be deleted, and I suppose if I propose to delete them my amendment would be ruled out of order because it is something to do with the public purse. So I suggest that the Hon. Minister bring in his own provision to cure the very thing which he had indicated to this House he wishes to cure.

But this is a very historic moment in this House, Mr. Chairman, with the inception of this section because it is the most extravagant power yet that has ever been given to a cabinet, since B.C. has been in confederation and before that. Never before, to my knowledge, has a government ever given to its own cabinet the power to bring in or to establish a Crown corporation and with unlimited funding according to the provisions of this Act until March 31, 1975.

It is just another tragic example of the excessive power, of the attitude and philosophy of this government, that it intends to rule British Columbia not by the Legislature, not by its own government, but by its cabinet rule. And we've got cabinet rule coming into B.C. left, right and centre.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I am very much shocked by what the Member has just stated. It shows that he has just not followed the history of this province, nor the history of his party. He should well know that this legislation was put there to help people, to help the environment, to help mass transit of people, so that everyone doesn't have to get into their car every morning and drive to work. It is to help conserve fuel.

As for the history of the Liberal Party, the present leader, the ex-leader, or the next leader display a complete lack of knowledge of what Premier Pattullo did here in the Depression. He brought in the special powers Act to put down the working people in this province. This legislation is to help people.

It was bad enough Jerry McGeer reading the Riot Act in Victory Square. But the then Liberal Premier of the Province brought in special legislation that gave him dictatorial powers to put down the working people should the occasion arise.

MR. McGEER: We heard from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) the other day that Jerry McGeer read the Riot Act on the court house steps. I think you people ought to get a little history straight yourselves and be certain where these historic things were done.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs why the Companies Act doesn't apply to this company that he's trying to form? Is there any earthly reason why we should continue on with the arrogant practices of the Crown?

I thought that the New Democratic Party government was going to come in and abolish all these arrogant practices. That's what we heard when they were in opposition, and this is what we've heard so many times from the Premier. Yet when the

[ Page 2819 ]

legislation actually comes down, it's worse than anything the old Bennett government did. They were arrogant; they had all these kinds of things; they believed in a double standard — they were quite open about it. There was one standard for them as government and another standard for everybody else.

What makes the New Democratic Party worse in government is that they continue on with all of that, all the time telling the public that that isn't what they're going to do at all — no sir! "Open government democracy! Never do any of these things -everything for the people; nothing for ourselves."

But the legislation says differently. The legislation excludes your little corporation under subsection (5). You're going to appoint yourselves to this transit corporation. You're not going to appoint Members of the opposition. You're not going to appoint experts on transit. You're going to appoint yourselves and your friends; that's what an NDP corporation is.

Mr. Chairman, not only that... That's for yourselves, that's not for the people. Not only that, you specifically exclude the ground rules for the rest of us: that's the Companies Act. That's for the average guy, just the sort of person we depend on to organize and keep British Columbia moving.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Oh, there's a big Companies Act and....

Mr. Chairman, if that's the case, if it didn't require you to undertake certain responsibilities that you wouldn't want to undertake, why specifically exclude it? If that's all, then it's just a question of certain sections not applying, because it isn't a shareholders' corporation. That's not the reason at all.

The reason is that you want it easier for yourselves. You want all the power and none of the responsibility. You don't even want to bring the incorporation of this transit company that's to do everything for the people to the people's Legislature for a vote. You want to do that behind those great oak doors of the cabinet — just like the other guys used to do. Remember them? Only the difference between you and them is that they never thought that they had to run everything; you do.

Mr. Chairman, obviously I am going to vote against this section. But I would like the Minister of Municipal Affairs, if he would, to explain why the Companies Act should be excluded.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to correct something I said on this Act earlier. I suggested it wasn't a message bill, and of course it was a message bill. I was out of order in suggesting that the amendment of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) didn't apply.

Nevertheless, I think the bills would get through more quickly if the government were to permit open debate on some of these amendments. I apologize to the Clerks. But I don't think I'm out of order here in saying that the Companies Act should not apply to this corporation. The Companies Act should apply. And subsection (7) should be deleted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Chairman, I didn't think it was possible to find myself in agreement with a Liberal, but I have to say that I can't vote for (5) of section 11.

We are elected as MLAs. There could be conflict of interest between us and the government — because I am not a member of this government. I am a backbencher; I'm a supporter of this government. I'm not on the Treasury benches.

MR. WALLACE: Right on, right on!

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Chairman, I feel the oath of our office prohibits us from taking any other money from the Crown other than that due for performing our duties. Now I have confidence in the government that our government has no intention of doing the wrong thing.

But this is the law of the land; this will remain after we're dead and gone. And this will allow, with no change of the law, for a pork-barreling type of government to....

MR. FRASER: You get the message, Roy.

MR. CUMMINGS: ...work backbenchers into line, cajole them, bribe them... "if you're not a good boy, you're not a director of this company."

I just can't buy this Act at all. I think it's very, very important that the MLAs, even though we are supporters of this government, check on the power of this government and any government.

MR. WALLACE: Right on!

MR. CUMMINGS: The opposition has managed to bring a lot of red herrings into this debate. They've actually made a farce of this Legislature. But as for this clause, whoever put it in, if he works for the Attorney-General there's only one place for him — down the ruddy road.

If the Crown wants to appoint an MLA at no salary and pay his out-of-pocket expenses, it should be clearly spelled out. I don't even like that, because out-of-pocket expenses could be quite a lot.

For example, these out-of-pocket expenses might be at the Rogers Pass Hotel; this might be quite nice. I just can't buy section 11 (5). It's a very, very dangerous law; it's a bad law - a bad clause.

May I draw your attention to the clock?

[ Page 2820 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Lieutenant-Governor is here to give assent to some bills. If we could have the committee rise, then we could deal with that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress on Bill 70 and asks leave to sit again, further reports that there was a division earlier on that bill, and asks leave to have the division recorded.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files the third report of the Royal Commission on family law and children's law.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr., Speaker, I ask leave to file with the House a written answer to the question I received in the oral question regarding a paramedical school closure.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would inform the House that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is here, if everyone would remain in their seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Members please remain seated until we receive the necessary signal to receive His Honour. Would all Members please rise?

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

DEPUTY CLERK:

Administration of Justice Act

Administration Amendment Act, 1974

Occupiers Liability Act

Frustrated Contracts Act

Crown Proceedings Act

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974

Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974

Coroners Amendment Act

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974

Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974

Unified Family Court Act

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1974

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Hartley files answers to question 122.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:07 p.m.