CONTENTS

Point of order Request for release of Hansard tapes to the media. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2403

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates. Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 2404

Point of order Request to proceed to private Member's day. Mr. McGeer — 2404

Routine proceedings

Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 15). Second reading. Mr. Kelly — 2405

Division on adjournment of the debate — 2411

Point of order Clarification of procedure. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2411

Routine proceedings

Government Computer Privacy Act (Bill 21). Second reading. Mr. Curtis — 2417

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2419

Point of order Clarification of procedure. Mr. McClelland — 2419

Routine proceedings

Highland Water Control Act (Bill 22). Second reading. Mr. Liden — 2420

Point of order Possibility of Bill 22 being out of order. Mr. Chabot — 2420

Routine proceedings

Highland Water Control Act (Bill 22). Second reading. Mr. Liden — 2421

Citizens' Initiative Act (Bill 34). Second reading. Mr. Smith — 2422

Franchise Dealers Protection Act, 1975 (Bill 35). Second reading. Mr. Smith — 2423

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2424

Water Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 36). Second reading. Mr. D'Arcy — 2424

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2425

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in Committee of Supply and again in the House, certain events occurred about 3:50 p.m. involving the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). In view of the precedent established earlier this afternoon, I wonder if I might have the leave of the House for Your Honour to release the tapes of the proceedings that took place both in the Committee of Supply and in the House, commencing with the page marked 332-1 of Hansard Blues until the withdrawal of the Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the advisable course in a matter of that kind would be to have the consent of the parties concerned since there's more than one person involved — there are the Member himself and the other Members involved in it. I think if their consent were given ... and the House's consent should be given unanimously because it relates to things that were said back and forth that were, to some extent, out of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that and I anticipated your concern. I have taken the liberty of discussing this with the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano and he admits that in the course of the discussion he doesn't have an accurate recollection of precisely what took place and he will be pleased if those tapes could be made available. I assume that only you, Your Honour, and the Chairman are otherwise involved, and I am certain that you and the Chairman would have no hesitation in having the tapes being made available.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not present at the moment ... what am I saying? The Chairman isn't present — and I'm not present either, it sounds like. The Chairman isn't present at the moment, and I haven't got the copies of the proofs available, so far as the printed ones from Hansard are concerned. But as soon as I can get out of the chair for a few minutes, I will be glad to look at them, and at some convenient time discuss the matter with the House and see what the House wants to do about the matter.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When I released the tapes I was the only voice that could be recognized, as I understand it, on the tape. I certainly gave my consent as I felt it was in the interests of the people of British Columbia that the truth be known in view of the statements that have been made in the press.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Could I just clarify one thing? You say you gave your consent. Was there a request to which to give consent?

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, no. We've gone over that this afternoon. If you are talking about this other episode ... or are you talking about one now?

MR. McGEER: No, I am talking about the other episode. I am trying to establish....

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly gave my consent to my release of the tapes, yes.

MR. McGEER: You consented for yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Absolutely. I certainly did.

MR. McGEER: I see.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought it was a wise thing to do in the light of the libels that were being spread around the province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, for the same reason I make the request, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't like there to be any suggestion of any libel on any Member of the House, the Speaker or the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: And that is the difference, maybe, in this case. We will have to consider it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think the appropriate way is to make the tapes available.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly give it my urgent consideration.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): You just said that the tapes contained libelous statements. Considering your comments this afternoon....

MR. SPEAKER: What tapes are you referring to?

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know. You said "libel." I didn't say it. You said that there were libelous statements being spread.

MR. SPEAKER: I said....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, are you saying that...? You know, in light of the comments you made this afternoon, how does that stand with the comments you made about immunity for the Members — privilege for the Members?

[ Page 2404 ]

MR. SPEAKER: You mean that statements are made outside the House?

MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say anything about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements that are made outside the House that are libelous can be corrected by the publication of the tape that showed quite a different story than what was being spread throughout the province by the two Members concerned who claimed that there was some kind of an agreement to throw them out which, of course, was absolutely false.

Interjections.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter of concern for all Members. I would ask that the House rules committee, if the House agrees, come together with the Speaker and work out some method of handling this for all Members.

MR. SPEAKER: It might be a very salutary suggestion.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: We have a standing committee on the House rules.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the salutary offer of the Premier, but I think our rules are adequate in this respect. You, Your Honour, have indicated quite clearly that you will take this matter under consideration. I respect the advice you will give to the House, and I don't think we have to go farther than that.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll take a look at it and see what I can see and advise the House about it because there are other persons involved in this matter. As in any case where there are other people involved, I am going to consult with them.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two guests who have come a very long way to watch the provincial Legislature in action. They are Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Henry from Denver, Colorado. Mr. Henry is an attorney in Denver and a former member of the state Legislature. I'd like the Members to make them both welcome.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: correction services, $27,501,093 — continued.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 10

Mr. Morrison requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises, reports progress and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that there was a division and asks that it be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 23, second reading.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to standing order 25. Today is Thursday, private Members day, and our

[ Page 2405 ]

orders of the day, under that standing order, call for the precedence of Committee of Supply and, following that, public bills in the hands of private Members. The House Leader has called for public bills and orders in defiance of the orders of the day, and I insist that she follow standing orders and proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that insistence is not necessary. We are quite willing to proceed with second reading of Bill 15.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that I'll reserve on the question raised because it seems to me there was some case I remember reading on the question of whether that sitting meant the afternoon sitting and the evening one as well. I'll look into it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, today is Thursday. It is spelled out quite clearly in standing orders, and the private Members on this House have continually....

MR. SPEAKER: I understand. Let's not have an argument about it. I said I'd look at the question. I haven't had time to even consider it. We'll deal with the public bills in the hands of private Members.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I am indeed very pleased to be able to rise today to speak on behalf of the bill that I introduced in this House early on in this session.

The bill, An Act To Amend the Industrial Act, doesn't sound very effective — or it doesn't sound very spectacular, I should say. This is a bill, when it was originally introduced many years ago, which gave the authority for the original damming of the Nechako reservoir. This was the bill that gave the Alcan Co. of Canada the authority to utilize the power from the Nechako reservoir.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): What government did that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Long time ago. Can't remember.

MR. KELLY: This is the area where, even today and under laws that were passed years ago, that company still has the rights and, maybe, through the laws that were passed in those days, is required to go ahead and develop the second phase of that Kemano enterprise: the increasing of power through the damming of several rivers in that complex up there in the Dean, the Morice, Nanika and other rivers in the area.

MR. FRASER: What year was that passed?

MR. KELLY: I believe, Mr. Member, it was before the time of your government.

MR. FRASER: Why don't you say that?

MR. KELLY: Certainly I'm not trying to put any blame on anybody today. It happened so long ago that I'm quite sure there's nobody here, including myself, trying to lay any blame on what happened in those days. The fact is that we have that history behind us.

The Nechacko reservoir, which is very remote, really isn't in the forefront in the eyes of the politicians or the people in the province. Very few people are actually concerned about what is happening there. But here we have a reservoir with practically 1,000 miles of shoreline and with 80,000 acres of drowned timber protruding above the surface of the water. That was one of the greatest disasters that ever happened in British Columbia.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Next to the flooding of the Peace.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Columbia.

MR. KELLY: What frightens this Member, of course, is that there is a possibility that the levels of the Nechako reservoir might be increased once more because of what might have to happen in terms of increasing the power at the Kemano 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have the power to do that.

MR. KELLY: They do have the power to do that. Do you know that there have been experiments in attempting to clear some of the present reservoir? This is a terrible disaster that happened. When you see pictures of the reservoir as it is today, there is timber below the surface of that water that will remain there for hundreds of years in perfectly good condition, but it is just as treacherous as any iceberg ever was in the ocean. Something must be done to stop the continuation of creating these kinds of reservoirs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Several people have died as a direct or indirect result of this drowned timber.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): When? Name them.

[ Page 2406 ]

MR. KELLY: In recent years, Mr. Member. I don't remember their names but I was in the location where these people were caretakers of the Redfern Lodge on one section of this reservoir. They found the family all drowned; they were going through an area of submerged trees.

MR. CHABOT: What was the coroner's decision?

MR. KELLY: I can't blame the death actually on this submerged timber but I would say it happened as a result of the drowned timber.

MR. CHABOT: That's your opinion.

MR. KELLY: That's correct. That is my opinion.

It's been known as a fact that many hundreds of animals have attempted to swim this reservoir and drowned as a result of the blockage of timber on the windward side of that reservoir. Even that is a terrible loss to the community.

They have in fact attempted to clear some of this reservoir. It is strictly experimental, but there is one commercial operation that is doing quite a good job. Even at that, it will take literally dozens of years before this reservoir will be cleared up.

MR. CHABOT: You're against Block Bros.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Hon. Members have anything to contribute to debate, they could do it in a formal way.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, with the money that has been put into this cleaning of this reservoir, it is estimated that it could cost $30 million, $40 million or $50 million to clear it to where it could be considered satisfactory.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MR. KELLY: That is probably a conservative estimate, Mr. Member...

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MR. KELLY: ...because of the vast amount of timber that is submerged and is actually just laying there below the surface of the water. If it is ever to be considered a recreational and maybe transportation corridor on quite a large reservoir in that area, all this wood will have to be removed. I would suggest that that amount might have to be doubled, in fact, before it could finally be cleared to be completely safe.

I know that it is a terrible thing to look at environmentally. I guess some of the worst damage that people have ever seen except in the Williston reservoir is there — certainly the worst that I have ever seen. Even flying in a plane, you can see for 60 or 70 miles in one direction and see nothing but trees sticking through the water now, maybe 20 or 25 years later, laying in utter wreckage because of the ice flows that have pushed it from one direction. Then when the wind changes from another direction, it pushes into another direction. So rather than standing up as it was when it was first drowned in the lake, now a lot of it is just a mishmash of debris of trees standing in the shallow water near the shores of the lake.

Mr. Speaker, my bill was, I think, introduced to curb the further construction on that reservoir to add to the water in terms of holding water, and to get public response to this kind of an operation. I think that it was quite necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver....

Oh, I'm sorry, the Minister of Lands....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'd be quite glad to call the Hon. Member I was about to name — the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) — unless there's a point of order which has priority.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): No, I just.... He has the floor so many times, Mr. Speaker, he's used to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member named please proceed?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I appreciate the courtesy and generosity of the Minister. It's hard for us independents here, Mr. Speaker, to make ourselves heard at times but, of course, the Minister recognizes the courtesies of the House in going from government to opposition side.

As a representative of the government I want to compliment the Member because, Mr. Speaker, I'm completely in support of the position that he has taken. Like the Minister of Lands and Forests, when he was in opposition, I heartily support the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and want to say that some of us in this House have consistently called for action to clear up the debris of former regimes. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, we're going back well over a generation, because the damage was done by a rather careless act of the old coalition government, and it was ignored during 20 years of Social Credit. Now during almost three years of socialism there's absolutely no progress at all.

It turns out that the socialists are more callous

[ Page 2407 ]

towards environmental damage than any government prior to them, Mr. Speaker, because their inaction — there has been inaction — is set in a rather different context. In prior times there wasn't the demand, there wasn't the concern for the environment that we have today. Former governments — the old coalition government and the Social Credit government — didn't seek a mandate from the people on a platform of improving the environment. Only the socialists exploited the environmental issue. Only the socialists were the opposition at a time when this became a matter of world-wide concern, and a particular matter of provincial concern because of the neglect of many governments in many generations.

But in office the socialists have just been as callous as any government before them. And now, Mr. Speaker, who has to carry the torch?

AN HON. MEMBER: The independents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pat McGeer!

MR. McGEER: No, no, no, Mr. Speaker! We speak as we've always spoken — consistent to the end. Mr. Speaker, it's the backbenchers. Yes, it's the socialist backbenchers — the people who've been sold out by those whom they supported in government.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Are you talking as a recycled Socred or a recycled Liberal?

MR. McGEER: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the former Member for that same area, who at one time was a member of the Liberal Party and changed to Social Credit and became a cabinet Minister, spoke very eloquently for action in that area. But the Minister of Lands and Forests in that former government was just as indifferent as the Minister of Lands and Forests in this government. The Minister has no concern for the pollution of the atmosphere. He won't even answer questions on the order paper. The former government always did that. We have this autumn madness every year; our sky is filled with smoke as the Minister of pollution who now has control of things carries on in his madcap way.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Read tonight's paper about Woodfibre.

MR. McGEER: Woodfibre? I can tell you, I was going to take pictures of Howe Sound last summer when I was out boating on it, because we never had more debris, never more air pollution, never more water pollution on Howe Sound than we have today. Never more debris in Vancouver harbour, never more debris coming down the Fraser River. Never more pollution in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, than this very day! The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has done nothing in the time he's been in power. All we've done is to sleep, and to sink deeper in this environmental morass.

I want to congratulate the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) for having some courage. He's the only one with any guts on the matter of environment in the NDP government. He's brought a bill forward. He's blown the whistle on the government, Mr. Speaker, and he understands about this area. I've been up and examined it. I know what his concern is.

This was formerly Tweedsmuir Park, named after a great figure in this country, formerly one of the beauty spots of the world, now turned into an environmental nightmare through indifference and carelessness, perpetuated by indifference, callousness and neglect by the present government.

Mr. Speaker, in my view, the only way to handle this and other problems is to begin cracking down. It could be readily done by requiring that those who benefit from the power developed by that flooded land either be required on their own to repair the environmental damage they've created, or that the provincial government do the job for them and charge it to them either by taxes or by direct levies. The appropriate way, of course, is to draw down the reservoir the necessary number of feet while that total area is cleared out on the foreshore.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: That's the way it's been done ... yes, you're quite right. It was the old B.C. Electric that flooded Stave Lake.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: It's going to take a long time, but the point is that the job has been started on Stave Lake. There's a little bit of profit there; there are valuable trees.

But, Mr. Speaker, how hollow it is for a government to stand in opposition to convince the media and the electorate that they deserved office because they were going to attend to these things; then get into that comfortable row of pews over there on the other side.... Nobody's more comfortable than the elegant Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, wallowing in the luxuries of office, indifferent to the concerns of the little man, contemptuous of the rural areas of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's No. 9 speech, isn't it, Pat?

MR. McGEER: No, no, that's coming later.

Mr. Speaker, there aren't too many people who have courage of principle. We can certainly exclude

[ Page 2408 ]

the Minister responsible.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Like sticking with the Liberal Party.

MR. McGEER: I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker: some of us are consistent in the stands we take. We mean what we say, and if we were to claim we were going to do something about pollution, we'd do it. But the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is a man who had much to say in opposition; and as far as I can tell from studying his actions, he has been what the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) said: Mr. Inconsistency.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's you.

MR. McGEER: I didn't coin that phrase for him, but it certainly fits.

MR, L.A. WILLIAMS: If the cap fits, wear it. And put the hair in next time.

MR, McGEER: Certainly I could....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's quite uncalled for.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You already withdrew that matter; I'd be delighted if you'd leave it where you threw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you just throw him out?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I could spend the rest of the evening citing the hypocritical stands of that Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the word "hypocritical." You know it's not permitted in the House.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll rely on my records here of Hansard to illustrate my point. I would leave it to you, Sir, and the Members to....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member withdraw the statement?

MR. McGEER: Of course.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. McGEER: I just want to cite evidence and leave the conclusion to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the matter is to be unqualified, and that's all there is to it.

MR. McGEER: Of course, Mr. Speaker, of course. I don't want to make a value judgment; I would like the House to do that.

I quote from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources with respect to estimates of the Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Williston) who preceded him. May I read what he had to say in Hansard, January 26, 1970, page 32?

The Minister of Lands and Forests' estimates during the last session were dealt with in one day. The economic base of this province — lands, forests and water resources — were dealt with in one day, because the Leader on the other side of the House was determined there shouldn't be a full debate. That's the reason....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Who said that...

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It was a good speech.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: ...about the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources? The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

When did he say that? Mr. Speaker, he said that when he was in opposition. He sat right down there in the chair now occupied by the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison).

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Those were the days.

MR. McGEER: Those were the days. Yes sir, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of thing he said when he was in opposition.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He was a real fighter then.

MR. McGEER: Yes sir, criticizing the government for passing estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in a single day — two and a half hours of debate. Boy, did he think that was disgraceful when he was in opposition!

[ Page 2409 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Two and a half hours?

MR. McGEER: He was a tiger about those sorts of things then, and he was a tiger about pollution.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I'm not going to call him hypocritical, Mr. Speaker. That's unparliamentary.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I wouldn't call that Minister hypocritical.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. By doing it indirectly, you are doing so.

MR, McGEER: I'm not. I'm not calling him hypocritical, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that becomes a sophistry, as you know.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, would you explain that?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, after the big words you used yesterday, we are clearly entitled to try.

MR. McGEER: I'm trying to support the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly). I'm trying to tell the Member for Omineca and the House the sorts of things the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources used to say before he began to wallow in the luxuries of office — when he cared about the people instead of himself, when he was worried about the environment instead of the comforts he had in office, when he was a man instead of a Minister.

Yes sir, Mr. Speaker, times change, but the problem stays because the people who now occupy those offices — I won't call them hypocrites...

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't cry.

MR. McGEER: ...that's unparliamentary. But I will say this, Mr. Speaker, if I may: they were less than totally frank. I don't think they wanted to solve these problems; I think what they really wanted was power. I think they were willing to say anything to gain power, and I think that when they got power they lost their interest. That's why the Member for Omineca has to bring in bills like this one: because the government doesn't care about anyone but itself. The government is callous. The government doesn't care about the environment. The government doesn't care about any of the things it crowed about when it was in opposition. The government only cares about itself.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): All you care about is yourself. You're the most selfish man in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to make comparisons, but I think that was unkind. (Laughter.) I think that was very unkind.

MR. SPEAKER: I think both sides of the House have been unkind this evening, and I hope that kindness will restore itself to the debate.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between kindness and candour.

AN HON. MEMBER: See a doctor, Pat.

MR. McGEER: I've been advised to see a psychiatrist, but I'm resisting that temptation for the moment.

MR, L.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Transport has lost his voice.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, I want to once more reiterate my strong support for the Member for Omineca, and I want to remind him that many times in this House I've said that the backbenchers must rise up.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right.

MR. McGEER: They've got to fight for their rights, because their own survival depends on it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we backbenchers — and I speak for myself as well as the Member for Omineca — stand up and strike a blow for the people, we'll begin to get some action on the problems that have been neglected for so long in British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't help but think that maybe the Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) might reconsider the bill after that speech from the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

You know when I hear a speech like that from the good doctor from Point Grey, the professor from the

[ Page 2410 ]

university, I can't help but think about giving some kind of grade. At best it is a C-minus piece of work. It's just too much to hear from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey talking about lack of concern by this government with respect to environmental questions.

You can check your estimate book. You can see what we are spending now in Williston reservoir. Hydro is spending more than it ever spent. It is mopping up the mess left by that crew in terms of their projects all across the landscape of British Columbia. Hydro now has the job of cleaning up, with the British Columbia Forest Service, the massive mess on Williston reservoir because you didn't care about it at the beginning. You were willing to create the biggest lake in the province, inundate all the trees, forget the wildlife, not even carry out hydrographic surveys — not even hydrographic surveys with respect to creating the greatest, huge, the largest lake in British Columbia. Absolutely incredible!

That was par for the course for 20 years in British Columbia. So we are now spending more money cleaning up as a result of the Columbia River treaty. In the lowest water on the Arrow Lakes in the last year in the summer we spent extra money out of B.C. Hydro — not tied to the Columbia River treaty, my friends — extra money from our own Hydro utility to clean up the beaches on the Arrow Lakes. The people on the Arrow Lakes know it, but I doubt if the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey ever gets up there.

Additional work is going on now on that mess that is named, beautifully, Williston reservoir. We have had to create a huge new barge to burn the debris in the middle of the lake. We are trying all these new experimental methods. As a result, the British Columbia Forest Service under the NDP administration has become the world's experts in cleaning out massive, messy reservoirs — something to be proud of, gentlemen and madam. That's the job we inherited from you. And then to hear from the Liberals....

AN HON. MEMBER: Independent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whatever.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Liberal-Socred or whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Tory backbencher.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a recycled Liberal — a retread.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. No wonder the price for recycled products is going down these days and the recycling agencies are having trouble.

But one can't help forget, Mr. Speaker, that Ootsa Lake and the dam that created Ootsa Lake was named after a prominent Liberal, Mr. Kenney, another former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. That was the way the Liberals did things in the old days. And Kenney Dam — what kind of money did Mr. Kenney think was tremendous funding for reservoir cleanup on Ootsa Lake, the very one that the Member for Omineca is concerned about, just as the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Shelford) said he was concerned but never did anything about it? What amount of money did Mr. Kenney think was great from the aluminum company for cleaning up that mess? Why, he included $250,000 right in the bill and agreements! A quarter of a million dollars was the outside limit for reservoir cleanup on Ootsa, Whitesail and all of the various lakes in the chain and all the rest in Tweedsmuir Park — $250,000 from the big-spending Liberals concerned about the environment in those days!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How much would you have spent 30 years ago? Where were you 30 years ago?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And what was the impact even of that? Minimal, absolutely minimal. And now the job has fallen to the new government. The job again has fallen to the new government, again to work on the mess left from the coalition administration.

We have spent $300,000 a year in experimental work on Ootsa Lake south of Vanderhoof to see exactly what the costs will be. The intent is to follow that up once we've developed a full programme — and we are very close to that now. Then we can go to the aluminum company and say: "Look, this is the cost of the mess. This is the cost of the inheritance you've left us and we think the job is for you to do and for you to fund." That seems a reasonable approach to me, and I am sure it would seem a reasonable approach to the Member for Omineca.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey can say all he likes about the lack of concern, but what about new projects? It just isn't happening any more in British Columbia. The new projects of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority will involve total clearing of the basins, and they will be small basins. We don't intend to get into the massive reservoirs that you on that side got into in the past, both for the aluminum company in the form of the Liberals and the old Tories and the messes that Hydro had to create under the former Social Credit administration. It simply isn't happening.

There's now a process, and the process involves public hearings. But before the public hearings, there are information meetings. As a result, in the Pend-d'Oreille, information meetings were held by B.C. Hydro in the area. Subsequently there were hearings held by the water comptroller from the

[ Page 2411 ]

water resources branch. There will be additional hearings by the comptroller of the water resources branch with respect to the Pend-d'Oreille. There will be full clearing of that basin.

In addition, there will be moneys provided to add to the development of wildlife areas and the rest that will be affected by that small pond. It is a totally different approach to any administration in the history of British Columbia — at long last, Mr. Speaker, an administration that accepts environmental responsibility and is willing to pay the price and the costs to see that the right thing is done. It's never been done before in terms of the treatment of our resources in this province, and I am very proud of these kinds of tremendous changes and steps that have taken place in little over two years.

I therefore move adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker, until the next sitting.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 14

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, where do we start? The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Could you explain how we moved from public bills in the hands of private Members to public bills?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we wish to make a correction, and move to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, how did we get to public bills when we haven't discharged...?

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we're still on public bills in the hands of private Members. The order paper has not been discharged. How did we move to public bills?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I haven't had the opportunity to deal with that query that I had as to whether we could move on to any public bills in the hands of government.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How can you move without a motion of this House?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You don't need a motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, this afternoon I seem to recall we went on with debate on a public bill in the hands of the government — the Minister of Finance — without objection. Now is the position that the Hon. Members object to debate on any public bills in the hands of the government?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I specifically object. I want to point out to you that the order paper for today, May 15, page 20, gives second reading of public bills in the hands of private Members. The government knows full well that it can't defy orders of the day without unanimous leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, we've moved through a period of the evening right through the orders of the day. We're moving from that section of the orders of the day and standing orders demanded by standing orders. The House is now ready to move to the next item on the order paper, which is public bills and orders. That's what the Member said when she asked for second reading of that bill — public bills and orders.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, items come up in order, on page 20 of our orders of the day. The next tern after Bill 15 is second reading of Bill 16. We're

[ Page 2412 ]

not going to have that government trample on the rights of private Members; we're not going to have them defy the rules. You have insisted, Sir, that we stick by the rules of the House, and we're going to do that. Unanimous leave is not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: If you look at the standing orders, on page 20, you'll see public bills in the hands of private Members — well, we've had that both this afternoon and this evening.

MR. McGEER: Oh, Mr. Speaker, don't try that. The order paper says it clearly, and you cannot defy the order paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm trying to explain the situation.

MR. McGEER: You have already made one bad mistake in a week.

MR. SPEAKER: We've had public bills in the hands of private Members this afternoon and we've had the same public bills in the hands of private Members this evening. We've also had public bills in the hands of the Minister of Finance — a government bill — this afternoon. We've got to that stage of the order paper, page 20, and the question I have to consider is whether at any stage you can move out of that item on the order paper. That's the question I want to consider; that's why I was....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think this confirms my own thinking on it. I think the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is correct in that this is private Members' day and that we have been in public bills in the hands of private Members this evening. We haven't exhausted that subject.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Carry on.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to obtain a further step in the order paper to public bills in the hands of the government, we would have to have leave of the House. If leave is denied, and it is clear from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that it is denied, I would ask the Hon. House Leader to carry forward with the private Members' day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Don't get up, Bob. Don't get up. Down, Bob.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...for years in this House, there has been a well-established precedent that we can move through the order paper on any day. It is a well-established precedent and it has happened for years. As long as I have been in the House, the government has been allowed to move through private Members' day and move on to public bills and orders, time after time after time....

MR. SPEAKER: I would appreciate the help of the Hon. Member in the particular standing order that would assist....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. This is not a time for a row. It is time for settling the question...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: ...which I would suggest would be to the advantage of private Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. Right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They just want anarchy, that's all.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Oh, read your standing orders.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know my standing orders and I know what the precedents of this House are. You don't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Challenge the Speaker's ruling, Bob.

MR. McGEER: We know what the precedent of the House is.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think if you look at standing order 27:

"All items standing on the orders of the day, except government orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper.

"(2) Whenever government business has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit.

[ Page 2413 ]

The right is reserved to the administration of placing government orders at the head of the list on every day except Wednesday and Thursday."

Standing order 28 deals with the third reading of bills. That is not relevant to this.

That appears fairly clear. Now if there is any interpretation of that, if any Member wishes to volunteer, I am always willing to listen.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What section were you quoting, so I can get it exactly?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Challenge his ruling, Bob.

MR. SPEAKER: I was quoting standing order 27, paragraphs 1 and 2.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Challenge his ruling, Bob.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to get the exact words, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: "Shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper" — orders of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the order paper.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay. We have accepted the precedent assigned to them in orders of the day...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...and we have moved through the orders of the day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh no, we haven't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, we have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. And when we move to public bills and orders, then the government order, as it says in section 2, has the precedence. We have moved through orders of the day and met the requirement of standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is arguing, as I take it, that once you go into the question of public bills in the hands of private Members, you have paid subservience to that rule and that you can then move on. Is that what you are in effect saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: What nonsense!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. And let me tell you further to my point, we did this exact same thing: we met the requirements of orders of the day at the very beginning when we moved into Committee of Supply and immediately — immediately, even though we were still on Committee of Supply — immediately the House accepted a motion that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. That's right. But we had met the requirements of the standing order and orders of the day.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Move a motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Challenge the ruling.

MR, SPEAKER: I would submit that the question in this is....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Challenge the ruling if you don't like the ruling.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is whether, having paid some subservience to the rule...

AN HON. MEMBER: Only lip service.

MR. SPEAKER: ...the House can move on without leave or without a motion.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Right. Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a very serious question. I don't know that it has been settled by a Speaker. I would like very much to look at the subject and, in the meantime, to avoid the problem being hastily decided, because it is very important to private Members, I would suggest that the House proceed with private Members' day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I'll look at that question.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we do this,

[ Page 2414 ]

then, on the understanding you are going to be looking into the matter and reporting?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I want to see this question properly decided.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 21.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order. Without interrupting the House Leader's calling of the bill, I just draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to your own report, The Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act, the second report, at page 40, where you refer to times allotted to debate private Members' business in British Columbia, which is supposed to be two afternoons per week. I would tend to think, Mr. Speaker, this is about the first time we have had private Members' business debated in this Legislature for the better part of a year, let alone two afternoons per week.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether that helps the problem, but anyway I will look at the problem and report on it.

MR. GARDOM: It may help Your Honour's interpretation.

MR. SPEAKER: Now may we get on with the bill?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I make a further request to assist Your Honour in this matter? I....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. One at a time, please.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with some advice that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) gave to you, because I've sat for many Thursdays in this House over the past 12 years, watching very carefully this particular rule. What has always happened in the past is that on Thursdays — and this is something that the Minister was unable to perceive when he was Leader of the Opposition — the government always called estimates to avoid this precedent of public bills in the hands of private Members. On one or two occasions there was an exception made, but always the government asked leave, and it was granted. Had the Government Leader asked leave this evening, it might have been granted...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who do you speak for?

MR. McGEER: ...but to assume that we would approve and ignore the order paper I think was a mistake on the part of the government. I for one, on this particular occasion, since we have not had a private Members' day for a year and a half, would want to see us have the opportunity to debate....

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know that that's contributed at all to the question I have to consider, although it sounds like an editorial. I'm only interested in proceeding with the bill that's been called. I can look into the question.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On a point of order, in view of the fact that just a little while ago we adjourned Bill 15 — and it was not adjourned to the next sitting of this House; it was simply adjourned — I think we should be returning to Bill 15.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Oh, come on! Wake up!

MR. MORRISON: It was not adjourned to the next sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Which one was that? What number?

MR. MORRISON: Bill 15 was adjourned, not to the next sitting of the House, but simply adjourned.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, silly bunch of jerks!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll check the record. I can't recall whether the motion was properly put.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're absolutely childish! You can't even keep the party together!

AN HON. MEMBER: You've forgotten how to govern!

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, I would like to suggest to the Hon. House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) that if she looks at our own rules, standing order 27(l), when we are in the process of debating public bills in the hands of private Members, and we're on second reading, "all items standing on the order paper (except government orders)," which this is not, "shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper." I would suggest that you're bound by that rule to call 16 and 17 before you get to 21, Madam House Leader.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You're correct.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's an obligation to call

[ Page 2415 ]

the items on the order paper, except government orders, in their proper order on the order paper.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Did you move adjournment of this one, Bob? Then we'll go to second reading of Bill 16.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't think there's really much use in calling Bill 15 again because I would assume that if there is some defect in the adjourned debate motion....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: You say there was no defect? The motion was that the debate on Bill 15 be adjourned. Is that what you're saying?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We moved adjournment of the debate, as I recollect. That's automatically until the next sitting.

MR. MORRISON: No, it's not.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Bill 16 has been called, Mr. Speaker. The House has disposed, one way or another, of Bill 15. The House has disposed of it.

MR. MORRISON: No, it hasn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It certainly has. Bill 16 has been called for second reading, and I now move adjournment of debate on second reading of Bill 16 until the next sitting.

MR, MORRISON: You can't do that!

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of order, could I have clarification whether, in fact, Bill 15 was adjourned until the next sitting, or simply adjourned?

MR. SPEAKER: It was simply adjourned, and that means that it has been taken up on the order paper. We now move on to 16, because 15 was before the House, was called, was debated, was adjourned — whether it was adjourned to next sitting, it was dealt with, and we called the next in precedence, which is Bill 16.

MR. GIBSON: Surely now we're back to that same point again where that bill was adjourned in the same sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the point is I don't think that because it was just simply adjourned....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Have you any great thoughts on the subject? It seems to me that once it's been adjourned.... That debate has been called; it's been adjourned....

MR. GIBSON: It should be called again until it's adjourned to the next sitting.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, who's in charge over there? It's hopeless!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're trying to ruin this place!

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crushing majority!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think Members should realize that this rather novel situation of moving the adjournment of a debate without setting a time could result in what would amount to a dropped order. That is, it might not come up again on the order paper unless it is restored to a time. Since there's no time set for it to debate, it's in limbo at the moment, as I see it.

If anybody has any great thoughts on the subject....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: These people are trying to create a shambles of this place. There's a motion before the House!

The House has disposed of Bill 15 and it now must go to Bill 16. I have moved adjournment of the debate until the next sitting, and that's what's before this House — nothing else!

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Hon. Minister whether he wants Bill 15 to be in limbo. It is, after all, a bill standing in the name of a Member of his own party.

MR. SPEAKER: I am prepared, with leave of the House, to revert to Bill 15 before any motion on 16. I think it might solve the difficulty of leaving a bill out there in the cold. (Laughter.) Shall leave be granted?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, somebody has to move the motion. Despite the irresponsible

[ Page 2416 ]

behaviour of these people, I am going to recommend that the Member move that it be adjourned until the next sitting — despite their irresponsible, shameful behaviour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I was trying to ask the House for leave to revert to and call Bill 15. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I recognize the Hon. Minister....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. Minister adjourned the debate, and if it were called the next day he would be the first recognized. It's being called now, and he adjourned the debate.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The motion, Mr. Speaker, is to adjourn this debate until the next sitting.

MR. MORRISON: He can't do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member tell me why he can't do it?

MR. MORRISON: That Minister has lost his place in the debate for today. It must therefore be adjourned by some other Member.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, the adjournment was by this Member. Therefore I believe that I had the right to then follow up with respect to the debate, and I have moved adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: So where do we go from here?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I explain the situation? The House agreed to the adjournment of this debate, moved by the Hon. Member, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and the debate was adjourned. By leave of the House the bill was recalled, as if it were another sitting. Therefore, since he adjourned the debate, he would naturally have precedence on the order paper if this were another sitting. Since it's been called the same day by leave of the House, I must recognize the Member who adjourned it, and I so do. The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I move adjournment, Mr. Speaker, to the next sitting.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion.

MR. McGEER: Point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. McGEER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 54: "A motion being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be put again in the same session...."

MR. SPEAKER: Well, as you observed earlier, this is a different motion.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that Member's putting the motion twice in the same sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: No, he isn't. The Hon. Member himself observed that the motion that previously was given was not the same as he's now given. The motion he's now giving is quite different from the one which merely adjourned the debate. This is a motion to adjourn the debate to the next sitting of the House, which is a different motion. Consequently, the standing order you referred to would not apply.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, it says under that same rule 54 that, whatever the motion was, it must stand as a judgment of the House. A vote in the affirmative may be rescinded in order that the House discharge on a motion to that....

MR. SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately for your point, the House gave leave. That changes the situation.

MR. McGEER: Did the House give you...?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. McGEER: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour say aye.

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary if any, no.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall leave being given by Members to make the motion. It reflects on the House — that's another standing order — that to have a motion put which rescinds the effect of another motion reflects on the House and can't be put. Another Member could put that motion, Mr. Speaker, but, really, I think we're violating standing

[ Page 2417 ]

orders.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I must disagree. It's been a long custom that the one who adjourns the debate is the one first called upon. The House gave proper leave for the bill to be called again, and it would pick up where it left off, with the same Member speaking and his position is not well-taken on standing order 54. In any case, I would now confirm that we are taking the motion. I'll take it again.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading, Mr. Speaker, of Bill 16.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: For the third time this evening, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate on behalf of the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown).

AN HON. MEMBER: She's not here!

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that if he were absent from the House he'd expect someone to move the adjournment of his bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. House Leader.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 17.

TENANTS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could clarify for the House, when we are referring to the past two bills, the Affirmative Action Plan Act by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and the Tenants' Collective Bargaining Rights Act by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is very strong in her affirmative acts and approach to women's liberation, why the Hon. Minister keeps insulting her by referring to her as the lady Member from Burrard. It's the Hon. Member for Burrard. I am sure she would wish us to take this up on her behalf.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm sure she would.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 21.

MRS. JORDAN: It's Bill 18, and the Member isn't even in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is here I believe.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm going by the orders here.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry, it's not in that order?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's not in that order on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we follow the order paper, then?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Wasn't Bill 18 withdrawn, as indicated by the sponsor of the bill, the lady Member for Comox?

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, yes, I think it was. Yes, I recall that the Hon. Member asked leave of the House to withdraw that bill, and it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Which is the number of the bill?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 21.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER PRIVACY ACT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I rise with some hesitation tonight after the fate suffered by the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), who not only lost out but left the chamber in horror and shock. However, I hope that after a fairly spirited few minutes I could bring the attention of the House to a principle which I believe to be quite important, and that is the need now for an increased awareness on the part of government, provincially, federally and at local level as well — municipalities — for computer privacy. That is the theme of the bill which is before us — the Government Computer Privacy Act. It has been on the order paper in previous years.

In The Vancouver Sun, briefly, Mr. Speaker, on March 8, 1974, in one of a series of articles.... I'm sorry that the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) is not in her place at this time because I really think that any Minister in charge of consumer affairs in any government must, in the course of his or her daily activity, realize the threat posed by the increased use of computers, not only in the private sector but the public sector as well. In fact, I would go so far as to hope and guess that the Minister of Consumer Services in the present government would support the principle of this bill.

This article, to which I referred earlier, in The

[ Page 2418 ]

Vancouver Sun well over a year ago was one of a series from "Consumer Cause," and the author is Peter Wilson. I won't take more than a few moments to read just three paragraphs:

"The envelope is becoming a familiar visitor. Every month for the past year it has been popped into your mailbox shiny bright, fresh from the computer. Inside the envelope is a bill for a toaster, six pairs of socks, a tennis racket, two dozen buttons. In all, it comes to $82.57. What angers you is that it is $82.57 worth of goods you never bought. Even worse, the toaster, the socks, the racket and buttons are billed to a department store account you cancelled three years ago."

Now that article and others along the same vein deal with the nuisance factor of computers. It is, Mr. Speaker — I think all of us will recognize — a common comment in conversation these days to refer to the fact that, "I've been talking to a computer in Toronto about my gasoline bill," or, "I've been talking to the ICBC computer; I've been talking to some other computer; and I'm not getting any answers. The computer is ignoring my answers."

Yes, even getting bills and cheques from ICBC, Hon. Members for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison).

So much for the nuisance, however. The intent of this bill is to make certain, whether it happens now or at the earliest possible time after this government leaves office, that the Province of British Columbia will take the necessary steps, will take a leadership role in a matter which should be and which we believe is of an increasing concern to many of our citizens.

That is the abuse and possible misuse of computer information by government departments and agencies, not necessarily for political reasons, although that's a subject in itself, but rather the transfer of information from one department to another, the building of a file in the hands of government, with no need for accountability and with I think, great threat to the individual citizen.

I would hope that the bill would commend itself. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), if you are not happy with it, but I would hope that the bill will commend itself to a number of government Members, not the least of which, as I said earlier, would be the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have seen material related to this. I have held for some time a portion of a report which is entitled "Privacy in Computers." This is a report of a task force established jointly by the Department of Justice and the Department of Communications in the federal government, the Government of Canada, 1972, and it deals, over many pages, with computer privacy:

"Privacy is not a single value or claim or interest. It is the constellation of values, claims and interests in a universe of concurring and competing values, of supporting and antagonistic claims of allied and adverse interests. The claim to privacy, as we know it, is eminently a phenomenon of the industrial and post-industrial age. The process, however, is at times one way."

The concept of privacy is dealt with in this document, Mr. Speaker; also there are many points which deal with the history of privacy as far as the individual is concerned, of laws which guarantee the freedom of movement and expression, prohibiting physical assault, and restricting unwarranted search or seizure of the person. A sense of privacy which transcends the physical.

Finally — if I could just find the crunch — on page 20 of the report to which I referred you:

"Provided the political will exists, the computer can be a most effective instrument for achieving the dispersal of information, and therefore, to the extent that the two are linked, for the dispersal of power.

"Like any powerful implement, the computer can be exploited for good or for evil. The public will, rightly, cease to hold the computer in awe only when it will clearly be used solely as a power for good. Although its influence appears to have been largely beneficial so far, in terms of enhancing productivity and efficient administration, the issue of its full social impact is far from settled."

Now, Mr. Speaker, last year I had correspondence from a member of the Department of Consumer Services, in fact the Deputy Minister, who felt that this question of computer privacy was fully dealt with in bill which was introduced by the government. But that is not the case when we review what is now in law in British Columbia and what is still needed.

Whether it's a private Member's bill, and their fate is well-known, I would urge all Members of this House that we address ourselves to the question of computer privacy and not leave it simply to legislation against the private sector — that will be necessary; that is recognized and admitted — but the government now in British Columbia takes the leadership role that is necessary and set a standard for other parts of North America.

I move second reading of Bill 21.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the former government's attitude to people's rights, I find this a strange bill from that Member. I find also, in looking at the bill, that it is out of order. It requires an expenditure of government funds. Therefore I won't move adjournment; I'll ask that the bill be

[ Page 2419 ]

considered to be out of order. It insists that a Minister set up data bank, and that requires government expenditure.

MRS. JORDAN: Which bill are you referring to?

HON. MR. COCKE: Bill 21. It requires that the Crown expend money. If you will check, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I've looked at the bill.

HON. MR. COCKE: Section 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Section 2 and section 5 are two items without which the bill could hardly function. Therefore they are sections of the bill which are requisite to its functioning, and they require, in the first case, section 2: the expenditure of public moneys; that a register be kept by the Minister and that many things be done with respect to that; the operation of a data bank; the operator advising the Minister; a number of records have to be kept; and a government data bank and so on. All those are matters of public expenditure that would be required by this bill.

The second point is that the Hon. Member has provided for penalties against persons. It would be out of order for a private Member to propose penalties to any member of the public in a public bill in his hands. I might point out that the rule is, under standing order 58, that before I put the question on the bill it is my duty to rule the bill out of order before the second reading is completed. Second reading on that bill was not completed; the Hon. Member adjourned the debate, as you recall, when he was winding up. So we never did get to the putting of the question of second reading.

I try to make a practice of allowing debate until I am stopped by a point of order, I was not stopped by a point of order, as you will recall, on that bill. But on this one I have been stopped on a point of order.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to differ with your interpretation. The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) did move second reading. Then there was a full range of debate on that bill...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...a full range of debate on government bills which were clearly out of order for the same reason.

MR. SPEAKER: May I read the standing order to the Hon. Member?

MR. McCLELLAND: There was never anything said. The Member for Richmond moved second reading and closed the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: No, he didn't.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: As long as it's a government Member, everything's fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please withdraw that?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the Member for Richmond this afternoon in which he moved second reading of his private Member's bill — a public bill in the hands of a private Member. There was wide-ranging debate on his bill. He was allowed to close the debate....

MR. SPEAKER: He did not close the debate.

MR.CHABOT: ...which you're not allowing the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) tonight. How inconsistent can you be?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is not only insulting; he is in error.

MR. CHABOT: You're inconsistent.

MR. SPEAKER: You, Sir, are quite wrong, and I'll point out why.

MR. CHABOT: Okay, try.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member spoke on the debate in second reading. He was followed by a number of Members who also spoke.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. He then started ... he was recognized to speak on it in winding up. Before he finished winding up, he stated that he wished to speak further on the subject. He moved....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! He moved adjournment of the debate, and the records of this House will show that.

MR. CHABOT: He was allowed to close the

[ Page 2420 ]

debate. You're not allowing the Member for Saanich to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: He did not conclude closing the debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll tell you the simple reason that makes it entirely consistent. A Member was recognized on a point of order — the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was recognized in this debate — and he pointed out that it was out of order. When that happens, it is my duty to draw to the attention of the House that it's out of order. But in the case of the Member for Richmond, no one brought it to the attention of the House. Therefore I could not feel that I could rule it out of order without someone raising that point of order. But remember this: standing order 58 also says that before I put the question, it is my duty, under that standing order, on my own volition to rule it out of order if, in my opinion, it is out of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, because I didn't put the question. The question on second reading has not been put. It will have to be called on a further day when the Hon. Member either concludes his remarks, on which are adjourned...

AN HON. MEMBER: It'll never happen.

MR. SPEAKER: ...and in which case I will then have to deal with that very question. I read out to the Hon. Member for Columbia River:

"Whenever the Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately before putting the question thereon and quote the rule or authority that is applicable to the case."

In this case, the Hon. Member's bill is out of order under standing order 67 because it calls for an expenditure and it also involves penalties to citizens of the province.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

HIGHLAND WATER CONTROL ACT

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, after what we've seen — the kinds of strange moves being made by the opposition here tonight — I sort of wonder what kind of point they're going to raise next.

We do have an opportunity to discuss our bills, and this bill, the Highland Water Control Act, comes from the fact that the farmers, in the Fraser Valley particularly, have a real problem. They have a problem because of the development that's taking place in the highlands. That problem exists in many areas; it's existed for many years. We've certainly had it in the municipality of Delta where when we've had rapid development on the highlands for housing....

MR. CHABOT: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member has a point of order. Would the Hon. Member for Delta be seated for a minute?

MR. CHABOT: A point of order. On examining this bill it appears to me that the bill involves an impost on the Crown — the expenditure of public funds. It appears to be clearly out of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I'm doing the same as your Minister of Health did; absolutely the same kind of garbage you offered. I've seen you do it before.

MR. LIDEN: The opposition in this House is not one to cooperate to try and get any business done.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the Member for Delta's mike was turned on without his being recognized in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! How did that happen?

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he is wielding a very sharp, two-edged sword.

MR. CHABOT: I don't take that kind of nonsense from you, Mr. Speaker! You can tell me when I'm wrong or right according to standing orders. I don't think that kind of facetious remark....

MR. SPEAKER: It wasn't a facetious remark. I point out that the Hon, Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) was allowed to complete his statement on what his bill was. While he was doing so, I was studying the bill to make sure what its state was in regard to the rules of the House. I was trying to do that as well with the bill that is before us now, Bill 22.

But I point out to the Hon. Member for Columbia River that the type of order he raised just now invites the kind of retaliation against Members of the opposition as well. I was rather hoping that both sides

[ Page 2421 ]

of the House would be tolerant with each other with regard to their private Members' bills.

MR. GARDOM: It's an asinine rule!

MR. SPEAKER: It may well be, but I have to administer the rules as they are. I hope for some tolerance by the Members so that each Member may have an opportunity to explain the purposes of his bill before some other kind person gets up and tells him it is out of order. If the Hon. Member and the opposition want me to be absolutely inflexible, it is no problem. But I would like a little flexibility in coming to the conclusion that a bill is out of order. I want to look at the bill; in the meantime, I would suggest the Hon. Member pursue his explanation.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to this House, and it ought to be obvious to everybody in the media, obvious to everybody in this province, obvious to everybody in this country, the kind of thing that's been going on in this House, particularly from the Member that's taken up from his seat and heading for the door. He has been doing this sort of thing today, yesterday, the day before, and he had the help from all of his other....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

The Hon. Member for Columbia River on a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: I wish, Mr. Speaker, from time to time you would listen to the debates that are taking place in this House and see whether they are relevant to the matter at hand. It appears you do when it happens to be the opposition, but not when it is the back bench.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say to the Hon. Member that as a result of his previous offer of information to me, I have been studying the bill. I am looking at it at present so my attention was somewhat distracted. I don't know what the Hon. Member was saying that the Member for Columbia River takes exception to.

MR. CHABOT: Don't give me that stuff!

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the Hon. Member for Columbia River would take exception to anything that is said in this House unless he says it. He is so busy trying to make the rules. He wants to leave the House. He doesn't want to hear what has happened in the past when this problem was raised when they were the government and nothing was done.

As far back as 1955, Mr. Speaker, there was a bill introduced by that group to try and correct the wrongs that exist in the farmlands that receive the runoff from the developing highlands. That bill was introduced in 1955. It was a government bill at that time. The government of that day backed off and they didn't care to move forward to solve the problem. Some of the areas have been able to solve the problem themselves. Some of them have been able to tackle it because it was within their boundaries. But there are other areas like the lowlands, the Serpentine, the Nicomekl River. Those are the kinds of areas where the farmers have some real problems. They can handle all the water that falls on their own land with no difficulty.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey ought to know — he's got some rose bushes in his constituency...

MR. GARDOM: No, I don't. No, I don't.

MR. LIDEN: ...but he hasn't got a piece of farmland. I wonder what else he's got there that makes him behave the way he is behaving. Maybe it is the kind of dinner he had tonight....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LIDEN: He's not very responsible. He hasn't been very responsible for some days.

MR. GARDOM: I've been here, you dumb-dumb. Don't pick on a nice guy like me.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, for a Member who is seldom in the House, to make that kind of remark isn't a very reasonable thing to do.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, don't give me that.

MR. LIDEN: This bill calls for the examination of the problem wherever it occurs, by a committee that would be set up at the request of a diking commissioner, a committee that would have wide representation from the Department of Agriculture, from Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and from Municipal Affairs.

The purpose of the committee would be to examine the watershed area to see where the runoff comes from and to make some recommendations in a report that would set out the drainage area and set out the system of taxation. It's not too far off the bill that was introduced by that government in 1955 — if they would have had the courage to go ahead with it, if they'd had the courage to even look at the situation. But they didn't.

MR. GARDOM: That was the lowland water control Act.

[ Page 2422 ]

MR. LIDEN: The problem is still there. The problem can be solved if we can set up some method of dealing with it.

I suggest that this bill provides that opportunity, and I move second reading of that bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the Hon. Members that the bill appears to offend against standing order 67, which declares: "It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, except by message of the Lieutenant-Governor...." and therefore I must rule it out of order.

I point out that section 2 describes certain reports that are advised to be done by the government, which would be expensive, which would have caused the appropriation of money. It also, in the explanatory notes, says the higher areas will be assessed this additional cost in said districts, which therefore would be placing an impost on the people.

For those two reasons I must rule the bill out of order.

I just want to add that it seems to me, as a courtesy to Members, it would be welcome if they would allow Members to complete their remarks in a normal, brief fashion on the bill while I can examine it to determine whether it's out of order without raising the point of order, because it really works a hardship on the Members of the opposition.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 24.

Regret was expressed at one of our Members being absent. I express my regret that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Bennett) is absent for his own bill.

CITIZENS' INITIATIVE ACT

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. SMITH: Speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition on Bill 34, I'm quite happy to speak to the House on private Members' day concerning this bill.

This bill, introduced for second reading this evening, really, Mr. Speaker, seeks to give recognition to a solution to the sense of frustration....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I interrupt the Hon. Member? I think the usual practice would be to move adjournment of the bill until the Member who is sponsoring it has an opportunity to introduce it. Would the Hon. Member accept that suggestion?

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: I would be quite happy to move adjournment of the debate on behalf of the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), provided I had any assurance that there would be any opportunity for the bill to be heard before this House before prorogation or adjournment of this sitting. Since it is only on rare occasions that private Members' days are allowed in this House, I think that I should have an opportunity to present a point of view.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: All right, go ahead then. I assume your leader will be in accord with your desire.

MR. SMITH: It is, as I suggested, that some people feel a sense of frustration — many groups do in our society today — as a result of bigness — bigness in government, bigness in business, big labour organizations. All presently have characteristics of this. The very fact that they are big means that many individuals who would like to put forward a point of view feel that they are frustrated in that desire.

You know, the growth of the parliamentary democracy system under the British Crown was a series of developments which added, from time to time, further opportunities for the access of individuals to the legislative process. As a matter of fact, we are participating in such a debate this evening, These include a long struggle for universal suffrage, the right of citizens to petition the Crown, the recognition of private Members' day in the Legislature, which we are recognizing and debating this evening, the rules of the Legislature providing for the presentations of private Members' motions and numerous amendments to various statutes which provide for the rights of referenda or plebiscites. All of these, I suggest, represent a growth of citizens' participation in the process of government.

Now the British Columbia Social Credit Party feels that there's yet another advance we could make at this time, and this is what I wish to speak to.

We feel that if a significant number of people feel strongly about a given or a particular subject, that in this statute, as it is presented, 10 per cent of the registered electors could petition the Legislature to have a point of view discussed and put forward for debate and be heard.

Now under our present standing orders, there is no absolute requirement that petitions, for example, come forward for debate. There is no requirement that the House Leader bring forward private bills or private Members' motions for debate. As a matter of fact, it sometimes is a very rare occasion indeed. We have seen in the past, and I presume that we will see in the future, many, many bills and motions die on the order paper with the prorogation or the adjournment of the session. The statute that I wish to introduce this evening would guarantee debate in the

[ Page 2423 ]

Legislature on proposals which were shown to have significant public interest.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that significant public interest would be shown by any group who felt strongly enough about any one particular issue that they were prepared to circulate a proper petition and obtain 10 per cent of the signatures of the registered electors in the province. It indeed would be a large undertaking and one which would certainly not be undertaken lightly.

Under a long history of the development of the British parliamentary system, most of the struggles have involved the rights of the people as opposed to the power of the executive branch of government. Indeed, I don't wish to reflect, but I suggest that that is exactly what we are engaged in when we talk about the closure that has taken place with respect to estimates.

We feel, as members of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, that it is time now that we extend this type of right to the citizens of this province. It's a further avenue of approach, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the province and the people who are not personally represented — they are represented, but by a Member in this House — could have recourse to alleviate their feelings of frustration which, under modern conditions, go hand in hand with big government, big business and big labour organizations.

We feel it is yet another method of ensuring the individual rights of people so they are not buried by bureaucratic government, big business, big brother government, or any of the problems that we become involved in today.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 34, Citizens' Initiative Act, at this time.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we've had a lot of discussion tonight, and this bill deals with giving citizens initiative.

Just briefly, I would like to remind the House how much initiative existed prior to 1972. This House had no Hansard. It had a rule that the way you got the estimates through was by sitting all night until the estimates were through.

MR. FRASER: At least we got them through.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, yes, you got them through all right — with an iron boot. With an iron boot, Mr. Member.

MR. FRASER: Ohhh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Exactly that. I sat in this House until 12:35 the next day, and so did you, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, come on. Well into the night.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what has happened here has been a relaxation of the rules in order that Members can exist like human beings, and the opposition have taken full advantage of that kind of situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Interjection.

MR, SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is out of his seat. You shouldn't be voting out of your seat.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: This is the first time I noticed you out of your seat.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 35.

FRANCHISE DEALERS
PROTECTION ACT, 1975

[ Page 2424 ]

MR. SMITH: Bill 35 is entitled the Franchise Dealers Protection Act, 1975.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can read.

MR. SMITH: Don't be facetious. We've had enough of that type of banter back and forth across the floor of this House in the last week, Mr. Member. Don't add to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that in a case of private Members' bills, and when it's in the hands of another private Member — in this case, the Hon, Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) — I should properly ask for leave of the House for this Hon. Member, the Member for North Peace River, to move on behalf of the other Member, who is not here, second reading. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking to the principle of the bill, many collective agreements today provide a systematic system for the arbitration of grievances between employees and employers who are parties to a collective agreement.

The purpose of the Franchise Dealers Protection Act is to provide a system which permits a small businessman, who has entered into a franchise agreement, a guarantee of arbitration with respect to any onerous conditions imposed by a franchise grantor. After all, many of the people who are involved as small businessmen in the Province of British Columbia are not large enough to be involved in a collective agreement. They are quite often one-, two- or three-man business enterprises with a small number of employees, and the success or failure of the business quite often depends upon their retention of a franchise — a franchise which can sometimes be arbitrarily lifted from that dealer without recourse, something similar to what happened to the private insurers in the Province of British Columbia when they were turfed out of the insurance business as a result of ICBC, and without compensation and without payment.

In many instances the grantor is a corporation outside the Province of British Columbia, and it is therefore very difficult in some instances for the franchise holders to effectively object, to oppose, conditions which they consider to be a burden. I am sure the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) knows what I am speaking about.

Complaints have reached our office that during the life of a contract pressures have been put on individuals and dealers — sometimes to participate in expensive advertising campaigns or forfeit their franchise, sometimes to enter into schemes that they feel they would not otherwise have been willing to participate in or forfeit their franchise, sometimes by extreme pressure to feel that they have to out-produce the volume or quota of the year before by 10, 15, 20 or 30 per cent or lose their franchise, In such situations at the present time there is very little recourse for the person involved in such a scheme, or the holder of such a franchise. For that reason, the purpose of this statute could very well have application with respect to the position of, for instance, a small automobile dealer, someone who operates a filling station for a large oil company, someone who has a franchise to sell small equipment, sporting goods. As a matter of fact, I suppose if we tried to make a list we would find that in the Province of British Columbia we have hundreds and hundreds of franchise dealers — I would say thousands.

All of them have signed a contract between themselves and a company which sometimes have restrictive covenants in them that are hard to live with. That is why we feel that such a provision enshrined in the statutes of this province would provide not only a degree of safety to these dealers, but it would also make the companies that issue franchises aware of their responsibility to the small and individual person and the small businessman in the Province of British Columbia.

Thus, regardless of the size of the franchise or the dealer, there would be fairness and equity to all, and small businessmen would feel they had the same protection as others. If they were unfairly dealt with, they would not have to become involved in a lot of litigation and expensive and costly court fees to seek satisfaction for their particular point of view.

With those few remarks I take pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 35 on behalf of the official Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to a number of sections in this bill that would make it out of order.

MR. SMITH: What's out of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You cannot say that it's just a number of sections.

HON. MR. COCKE: It is so obviously out of order.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. It is setting up boards and so on, Mr. Speaker. It is quite obvious to all who read it. We listened to the arguments and it's....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the same rule applies that I indicated earlier in dealing with the Hon. Member for Richmond, I think it was, on one of his. He had set up a corporation or commission. The same, I think, applies in regard to the Member for Saanich and the Islands' bill — that it would require an appropriation of public moneys, and it is not with the sanction of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by message as a message bill. Under standing order 67 I would have to find that the bill is out of order in the hands of a private Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 36.

WATER FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, the Water Facilities Assistance Act is a fairly simple bill but rather, at the same time, comprehensive in its generalities. It is designed to provide and recognize the need in the many communities of B.C. — mostly in small communities, but in a few cases, large ones —

[ Page 2425 ]

for senior government aid for water collection and distribution systems.

We have seen this government in the last three years, for the first time in the history of the province, place substantial aid into sewage systems, into recreational facilities, and expanded aid into senior citizens' housing and housing of all kinds. But assistance in that most vital commodity has never been provided for by Act of parliament.

I have hoped that, should the Legislature support the principle of this bill, they would recognize that the water systems of the province are not confined to municipalities, they are not confined even to regional districts. Water systems of this province cross municipal boundaries; they cross regional district boundaries; and they are provided for by irrigation districts, improvement districts, municipalities, private companies, and in some cases, industrial systems as well. I would hope that there would be a maximum amount of flexibility and a maximum recognition of the work that the water rights branch of the water resources service has put into this area over the years and the knowledge they have of local conditions throughout the Province of British Columbia.

I also would like to suggest to this House that water is a resource. It is a licence to collect water. There are conflicts between different agencies. There are shortages of water in various areas of the province. There are problems with quality as well as quantity, With such a material as sewage, for instance, it is obviously not a resource, unlike water. In recognizing this principle, I would hope the House would support me.

I now move second reading of Bill 36.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would draw to your attention the imposts on the Crown under section 67 — valid as the proposal might be.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the operative words are "shall pay." As soon as you see those words in a bill, it is obviously going to be out of order if it doesn't have the message from His Honour brought to the House. On standing order 67, I have to rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House I would like to move the following motion, without notice, that the House shall sit as a Committee of the Whole House from the hour of 10 a.m. until 12 noon on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to examine any estimates now referred to the Committee of Supply, and not previously agreed to in that committee. This order to be effective so long as the House has fixed the day for its next sitting, unless otherwise ordered.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who said no?

MR. MORRISON: I said no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You said no. Okay. That's fine. No, they don't want it. They don't want what they have been fighting before. It's been a fraud!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no point of order on this matter. It has been disposed of by the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:41 p.m.