[ Page 2931 ]

CONTENTS

Point of privilege

Legality of preceding sittings of the Legislature.

Mr. Macdonald — 2931

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2932

Mr. Gibson — 2932

Mr. Lea — 2934

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2935

Mr. Barrett — 2937

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 77) Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading — 2937

Mineral Resource Tax Act (Bill 57) amendments. Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading — 2938

Public Construction Fair Wages Act (Bill 83) Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading — 2940

Motion

Motion 11: appointment of committee to select an auditor-general.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2940

Mr. Macdonald — 2940

Mr. Gibson — 2940

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Dismissal of Victoria pupil. Mrs. Dailly — 2940

Reduction of ferry crews. Mr. Wallace — 2940

Public opinion poll during December election.

Mr. Gibson — 2941

Motor-vehicle registrations. Mr. Cocke — 2941

Chilliwack agricultural land reserve. Mr. Skelly — 2942

Bell Copper-CAIMAW dispute. Mr. King — 2941

Ferry fares for senior citizens. Mr. Macdonald — 2942

Premier's mode of transport. Mr. Lea — 2943

Financial aid to Vietnam children. Mr. Wallace — 2943

British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act (Bill

46) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2944

Mrs. Dailly — 2944

Mr. Gibson — 2945

Mr. Wallace — 2946

Mr. Stupich — 2946

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2947

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 55) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2948

Mrs. Dailly — 2949

Mr. Wallace — 2950

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2951

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 61) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2952

Mr. Cocke — 2952

Mrs. Wallace — 2953

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2954

Division on second reading — 2955

Consumer Protection Act (Bill 65) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2955

Ms. Sanford — 2956

Mr. Wallace — 2957

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2958

Public Service Benefit Plan Act (Bill 64) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2959

Ms. Brown — 2960

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2960

Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill

72) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2960

Ms. Brown — 2961

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2961

Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 25) Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 2962

Judicial Review Procedure Act (Bill 44) .

Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 2962

Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 69) Committee stage.

On section 8 1.

Mr. Nicolson — 2962

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2962

Amendment to section 117.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2962

Amendment to section 118.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2962

Report and third reading — 2963

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 74) . Committee stage.

Amendments to sections 2, 3 and 13.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2963

Report and third reading — 2963

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 62) .

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2963

Report and third reading — 2964

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 60) Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 2964

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a point of privilege that I think demands the immediate intervention of the House, but if there are introductions I'd be glad to stand down and yield for that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member yield to what would apparently be some introductions from the floor?

MR. MACDONALD: Very good.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I would like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Lattimer, visiting Victoria from New Plymouth, New Zealand. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a long-time resident of Victoria but one who, to the best of my knowledge, is not often in the galleries. He is Tom Christie, a former secretary-treasurer of the Greater Victoria School Board. After retirement from that post he went on to another career on the city of Victoria as an alderman who was recognized always for crisp and direct comment on various issues. Would the House welcome him today?

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): In the gallery today is a very dear old friend of mine who left Cranbrook several years ago, which was Cranbrook's loss, and moved to Victoria, which would make it Victoria's gain. I would ask the House to welcome Bill Lyle.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): With us in the galleries this afternoon is Mr. Manmohan Kang from the village of Granisle in the constituency of Omineca. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising under the rules of the House as laid down in May, particularly in the 18th edition, where privileges are discussed on pages 341 and 342, in respect to the matter which I say is a matter of privilege involving the House and its members which demands the immediate intervention of the House without the usual two days' notice. The motion on privileges which I make reads as follows:

"Whereas the Legislature has been sitting outside of the regular hours of the House provided for by standing orders, and whereas there is doubt as to whether the orders for adjournment of the House to regular hours of sitting have been made properly and in accordance with parliamentary law and precedence and sessional orders, be it resolved that a special committee on privileges be named forthwith by the select committee and directed to examine and report upon the question of the sittings of the Legislature outside of regular hours and the lawfulness of legislative orders passed at the present session outside of the regular times of sitting and with power to summon and hear persons and testimony."

Mr. Speaker, just shortly as to the reasons why I submit the matter is both urgent and one of privilege, the House has been sitting at extraordinary hours, and estimates and bills have been passed with only some of the members present. Perhaps extraordinary hours do not matter, but if the hours are irregular in terms of parliamentary law and the precedents of parliament as they have been laid down through the centuries, then that is a matter that demands the immediate intervention of the House.

I suggest that the positive way in which this can be resolved is that the matter immediately be referred to a committee on privileges so that there can be no question as to the standing of this Legislature in the eyes of the people of the province and its lawfulness in the eyes of the courts of the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize any other member who I assume may be speaking to the same matter of privilege, I'd like to say to the hon. first member for Vancouver East that according to our rules in this House a matter of privilege is one that is taken into consideration immediately, which would mean that the Speaker would have to examine it in some detail within the hours that are available to us in this session this afternoon, I would hope.

I am of the opinion that "immediately" means that. It means as soon as possible following the matter being raised on the floor of the House. While I'm prepared to listen to comments from other members of the House if they feel it will be of assistance to the Chair in determining the matter of privilege, I would reserve for the immediate moment a decision on the matter because I do want to take time to look at it.

It is a matter of grave concern when a matter of privilege is before the House, and it's something that cannot be dealt with in 30 seconds. However, I would give the hon. member for Vancouver East the undertaking that I would examine it as quickly as it is possible for me to do so today and hope to have a decision for him. I saw other members about to rise in their places. If they have something to offer for the benefit and guidance of the Chair, I would be pleased to hear that at this time.

[ Page 2932 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I might just say that while the word "immediate" is there, I appreciate what you've just said and if the matter comes back in the matter of a very few hours with a decision after careful consideration, that would be, I'm sure, satisfactory to all members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, in reply to what you have said, I realize the urgency in your mind; otherwise you would not have put the matter in a motion to the floor of the House. I also think that you realize that I had no notice of the motion, which would have been customary, so that I've had no prior knowledge of it or opportunity to examine it. So I say to you quite openly that I will examine it as quickly as is possible and get a report back to the House, because I think that's in fairness to yourself and also in fairness to the chair. I hope that you wouldn't expect me to have it back into the House in 30 seconds or 30 minutes or something of that nature.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, last night you drew attention to the decision of the former Speaker, Gordon Dowding, of March 22, 1973, which quite clearly spells out the routine to be followed when a situation arises where the sitting hour has allegedly elapsed and where it is quite proper for somebody to give an order for the next sitting of the House to be established.

I'd like to draw your attention to a further ruling of Mr. Speaker Dowding with respect to the right of the House to sit, once it has established the time at which the next sitting is appropriate. I don't think we have to deal with the question of whether or not it was appropriate for an order to be given for the House to sit at 10 a.m. this morning since this was adequately covered by Mr. Speaker Dowding's decision of March 22, 1973.

He further goes on, Mr. Speaker, on March 29, 1974...and I draw your attention to page 127 of the Journals for 1974, in which Mr. Speaker Dowding points out: "The House today, having at 12:58...."

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, the Minister of Education is debating the substance of whether we were lawfully sitting this morning, for example. The question before the House is whether or not that should be considered at once by a special committee on privileges. That's the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate what the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, and I would suggest to the minister or any other hon. member who wishes to give guidance to the Chair that I will not entertain a debate on the matter at this time. I think that would be improper, but I am prepared to listen to hon. members who wish to give guidance to the Chair by way of decisions or rules of this House which they would like me to take a look at in relation to the motion which was proposed by the hon. first member for Vancouver East.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's precisely what I was attempting to do, Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted. To go on with Mr. Speaker Dowding's decision on this particular case, I read just the relevant paragraph from Mr. Speaker Dowding's decision. He said:

"The House today having at 12:58 p.m. fixed its next sitting to commence at 2 p.m., it thus follows that the purpose of standing order 3(2) is no longer required, and the next sitting of the House can be ordered to be fixed for any time after the House adjourns from the 2 o'clock sitting. In this instance, the hour was fixed for Saturday at 10 a.m. and the House, having inherent power to regulate its own sittings, may make such an order for whatever hour or day it chooses, whether it be for 10 a.m. Saturday or six months hence. As the Saturday 10 a.m. sitting is a duly constituted sitting, it follows that the House will have the power to adjourn that sitting by order."

Mr. Speaker, we have been following a precedent established by the New Democratic Party of sitting at 10 in the morning. We have established by precedent Mr. Speaker Dowding's rulings for the House to follow during those occasions. What has been done is entirely within the rules established by the NDP in their term of office.

I suggest to you that the appeal of the first member for Vancouver East is entirely out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: That last comment, Hon. Minister, is not in order. I think it is a matter for the Chair to decide. I appreciate your guidance and your assistance in drawing to my attention the ruling which was made by a former Speaker on March 29, 1974. I will certainly look at that in conjunction with other rulings before I bring back a decision to the floor of the House.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I had intended to bring this particular question up as a point of order, but since the hon. first member for Vancouver East has raised it as a question of privilege perhaps I might suggest to you some of the authorities that seem to me to bear on the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Please do.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey had an interesting point but I think it is not relevant.

[ Page 2933 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is as much out of order as the suggestion that was made by the hon. member who just preceded you in debate. I think that if you have references to points of law or points in either the standing orders of the House or other rules, you should bring it to the attention of the Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The relevant question to me is not whether the time of this morning's sitting was legal but whether the session was legally constituted at all or whether it was correctly called last evening. Of course, any finding that the session wasn't legal could call into question the legality of such important bills as Bill 57. That's why I think we ought to have a ruling on the order of it.

The basis on which the finality of the session last night called the session this morning was on the ruling of Speaker Dowding of March 22, 1973, particularly at page 173, the final paragraph, where Speaker Dowding says: "In sum, in my respectful opinion, the assembly by reason of standing order 3(1) can adjourn the debate and agree upon the next sitting at the hour of interruption" — I underline the next point — "since the motions are made without the right to debate and because the assembly has the power to preserve proceedings by its own will and purpose."

First of all, you will note there is an "and" in there; it's a conjunctive double condition. Of course, the situation, by precedent of this House, has changed, since the time that Speaker Dowding made that ruling. In other words, the motion to adjourn to a particular time — particularly a time that is not otherwise contemplated in the standing orders — is clearly subject to debate. You may recall, sir, that you ruled in that way earlier on this session when on an occasion at 11 o'clock there was a move to adjourn to 11:05 and that motion was debated for some time. So it seems to me that the conditions upon which Speaker Dowding based his 1973 ruling have been changed by the practice of this House.

Perhaps from there I may proceed to some citations from May — as to what happens if the conditions for a legal carrying on of business at the interruption of business by the clock are not fulfilled. First of all, with respect to the business that is under discussion at that time, May, 18th edition, page 290, notes under the heading "Interruption of business":

"On every day of the week, except Saturday and Sunday, the working hours of the House are subject to the following regulations. Under S.O. No. 1, business is interrupted on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at 10 o'clock, when, if the House be not engaged in business exempted under S.O. No. 3(1), the Speaker rises from the chair and interrupts the business then under consideration; or, if the House be in committee, the chairman leaves the chair to make his report to the House. Under S.O. No. 5, the moment of interruption on Friday is 4 o'clock."

The following I underline:

"The business under consideration at the moment of interruption, if no day is named for its resumption, becomes a dropped order."

Next we proceed further down the page to the status of dilatory motions at the time of interruption of business. May notes:

"Dilatory motions, i.e. motions for the adjournment of the House or of the debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the chair, pending at the moment of interruption, lapse without question put."

That refers to such motions as may be pending at the time of interruption. There is provision for them to be made thereafter.

Further down the page, he speaks of transaction of business after the moment of interruption. This is very important, because of what Speaker Dowding said about motions without the right to debate versus motions where there is the right to debate which are clearly opposed business. May notes here: "After the business under consideration at 10 o'clock, or at 4 o'clock on Friday, has been disposed of, no opposed business can be taken." That is very categorical. In my opinion, the motion to adjourn to an unusual time — 12:01 — is opposed business since through the ordinary operation of our standing orders we would otherwise have returned to the House at 2 o'clock today, and here we are.

Later on, at page 296, May mentions what happens when objection is taken to business which is attempted to be transacted after a motion of interruption. He notes here clearly:

"If, however, when such a question is proposed from the Chair, a member rises to object to further proceeding, or offers to speak to the question (an action which is construed as signifying objection) his action brings into force the provision of S.O. No. l(b) and converts the business then under transaction into opposed business. "

So to me it is conclusively proven that the motion to adjourn to an unusual hour was, at that point, opposed business and could not be taken.

Finally, I would draw your attention to our own standing orders, which in any event would overrule any other precedent where they may be applicable, and draw your attention to the fact that Speaker Dowding's ruling of March 22, 1973....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member quote the standing order?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, standing order No. 3, Mr.

[ Page 2934 ]

Speaker.

I would draw to your attention the fact that Speaker Dowding's ruling of March 22, 1973, referred to proceedings at 6 o'clock. The wording of our standing order 3 with respect to 6 o'clock is different than with respect to 11 o'clock. At 6 o'clock it is stipulated that the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 p.m. At 11 o'clock there's a different language; it then notes that the House will continue until 11 o'clock p.m. unless otherwise ordered. It was certainly not otherwise ordered before 11 o'clock, and therefore I would suggest that under the terms of standing order No. 3 the House had no authority to continue after 11 o'clock for the transaction of any business whatsoever, according to the plain language of our standing orders.

I make all of these submissions, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to you that the session this morning was illegally constituted and any legislation passed there is illegal legislation and should be challenged in court.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge you, when you're making your decision, to consider all of the facts surrounding the need for such a committee to take place.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If the hon. member has something to, quote in the way of a reference as guidance to the Chair, I am prepared and quite willing to listen to it, but I would say to you that it's not now a point of arguing the matter which is under consideration. So please don't engage upon any argumentative debate at this point in time.

MR. LEA: I do not intend to. All I would like to point out is that it is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that each member of this House feel he or she is protected equitably by the office with which you hold. I feel that there is a need for all of the matters surrounding the issue raised by the hon. first member for Vancouver East in his motion to be aired fully by urging you, Mr. Speaker, to bring in your ruling that such a committee will be appointed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! You are clearly....

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm just getting to a point that I think will be very interesting....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I appreciate the guidance which you are giving to the Chair, but I must say to you this: what you are trying to do by implication is suggest a solution to the problem.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Hon; Member, you are, in the language in which you have phrased the things that you have said in the last few minutes. All I'm saying to you is that it is unfair, really, for you to engage in the type of debate which in any suggests a solution to the Chair before the facts and the references which I will be looking at have been looked at.

Please do not enter into any suggestion that the motion is either in order, out of order, or should go to a special committee or anything of that kind, because that is for the Chair to decide after listening to arguments about the sources of reference, and I'm quite prepared to listen to that.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, one source of information that should be in your hands, and all members of the House should be aware of it, is the fact that no undue influence should be brought upon you in your office. Last night, I believe, there was the possibility that it would appear that undue influence had been brought upon your office by the Minister of Education and the Premier visiting your office. When we were in government, at no time did the Premier and the House Leader — and he carried both roles — visit the office of Mr. Speaker. I believe that at 11:45 last....

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Prince Rupert please desist in engaging in a debate on the issue at this particular time?

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: ...everyone understands where she or he stands within this Legislature, and the only way it can be done is if a committee is appointed and conclusively we come to the decision that the

[ Page 2935 ]

government is not trying to bring undue influence on your office. And it appears that that has been done by the Premier and the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, when you are addressing yourself....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! One moment please. I would hope that the hon. members of this House would give the hon. Attorney-General the same courtesy that was given to the other members when they were speaking about this particular matter, and that is to refrain, please, from the impulse to cast remarks across the floor, because I wish to give my undivided attention to the remarks of the people who are trying to assist the Chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, when you were addressing yourself to the motion on privilege, which deals with inter alia the suggested lawfulness or unlawfulness of legislative orders that conceivably passed this morning, I think that you have to also give concern to the general concepts of the parliamentary process. I would respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when considering this point you will direct your attention to whether or not parliament has a responsibility to all of the people and that the business of the people is the paramount interest and that that interest has to be served.

I am sure all members of the House will agree that that is not only a legal and a constitutional but indeed a moral responsibility, and anything less, Mr. Speaker — I would ask you as to whether or not in your view — would be a denigration of the job for which representatives are elected.

When you are considering the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the procedures this morning, Mr. Speaker, I would also ask you to consider as to whether the House was properly constituted, whether there was a quorum, whether the mace was on the table, and indeed, sir, that you were in the chair. I would furthermore ask you to consider as to whether the fact that there were opposition members present or not present will in any way impede the legality and the constitutionality of the House as it was established and sitting.

Insofar as the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I very much fail to see that that is garbage. Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to Votes and Proceedings....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I was listening very carefully, Mr. Speaker, to the motion put by the first member for Vancouver East. None of the points raised relate to the remarks of the Attorney-General. I therefore ask the Speaker to rule the discussions that he has entered into as out of order, and in addition, the Attorney-General seems to be more impressed with the people's business, but does not include in the people's business the role of the opposition, who should be present at all times during the presentation of contentious legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, without entering into debate, if you accept the hon. member's premise....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member! With respect, we cannot at this time engage in a debate, and I would ask the hon. Attorney-General to confine his remarks strictly to the relevant matter which you think I should consider in dealing with the motion which was moved, or which the hon. first member for Vancouver East placed on my desk. Do you have a copy of the motion, Hon. Member?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I do, and I thought that perhaps I would read it for the benefit of the member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: Could I just say that I would just, at this point in time, accept from the hon. member and the hon. minister specific references to items which he feels may be of assistance to me in making a decision?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member referred to the motion of privilege, and it states that you will give consideration, so forth and so on, to the lawfulness of legislative orders.

Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the points that has been raised by the member for Vancouver Centre is as to whether or not the process was lawful because there was an absence of the opposition. If one accepted that kind of a premise it would mean that an opposition who didn't appear...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2936 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: ...would completely bring parliament to a full stop.

MR. SPEAKER: With respect, Hon. Attorney-General, I am aware of what the other members have given to the Chair in respect of advice. If the hon. member has a new reference for me, I would appreciate it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I refer you, of course, Mr. Speaker, to the Votes and Proceedings of this Legislature, March 17, on page 10, which deals with the time of the sittings. Secondly, I again refer you, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Votes and Proceedings, March 17, page 10?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, and secondly, Mr. Speaker, I again refer you to the actual ruling on March 20 of 1973, page 167 of Speaker Dowding, at which time it says this:

"The Speaker's attention was drawn to the clock. On motion of R.M. Strachan, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House. The Hon. Dave Barrett moved that the House at its riding do stand adjourned until 6:10 o'clock p.m. today. Then there was a division and the House adjourned at 6:12 p.m."

All one has to do, Mr. Speaker, is just change the names of the people who proposed those motions and then read the reasons of Speaker Dowding reported on page 171, March 22 — and I think it's useful to reiterate this because this seems to be the gravamen of the decision:

"The sequence of events disclosed in the records indicate that while the hon. member was speaking after 6 o'clock p.m., the hon. member for North Peace River rose on a point of order drawing the attention of the Speaker to the clock."

Well, we just have to change the times and the names of the members. The Speaker asked the hon. member who had been speaking to be seated and he quite properly complied, as happened last night. A minister, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat — in this case, my colleague the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) — rose while the Speaker was in the chair and moved the adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House. When objection was heard, not formally however, the Speaker indicated to the House that the hon. member had seated himself, which in this case is the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), at the interruption of business and did not thereby lose his place in debate which had been underway. And this ruling is confirmed by May, 17th edition, page 444, at the bottom of the page. Carrying on with Speaker Dowding: "in other words, formal business has been...."

MR. SPEAKER:, One moment, please. The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that you are quite familiar with what the Attorney-General is reading and it's really taking up time if you are already familiar with it; and if it's being done for publicity....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I listen to references from other members of the House of which I have some knowledge including this one. As long as the members are giving the references which are helpful in making a decision, I feel that I'm obligated to listen. But I would hope that the hon. Attorney-General will not go into full detail of what was contained in that particular ruling by the former Speaker, because I'm sure that I have a reference to it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am just referring you to the high points, Mr. Speaker. That was the first one, and the second one is this:

"In other words, formal business has in fact, been transacted after the moment of interruption. Such a procedure is noted also in the British Journals and referred to in May, 18th edition, page 291. See Commonwealth Journals — 1957-58 at page 180."

Then at page 172 of the Journals of 1973, Speaker Dowding says this:

"Thus, so long as the House is assembled and properly constituted, such motions according to our standing orders appear to be in order. Were it otherwise the proceedings of parliament could be frustrated every day by a member holding the floor until past the hour of interruption."

Now I would like to refer you also to two more quotations dealing with the alleged lawfulness of the proceedings and the reference made by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and also I believe the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) as to the possibilities of the proceedings being considered illegal from a judicial point of view, the point of view of a court.

MR. SPEAKER: May I listen to the reference, please?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, the reference is a book, Constitutional and Administrative Law by S.A. de Smith. He is considered indeed a constitutional authority and I refer you to page 86:

[ Page 2937 ]

"The courts will not encroach upon the exclusive preserves of the two Houses. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689 — provides that 'proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.'"

They fall within the province of parliamentary privilege.

Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, I would direct your attention that the Bill of Rights of 1689 is applicable to this province. We took over the statutory common law of England and the procedures of the British parliament in 1858 by our English Law Act.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Erskine May in the 18th edition at page 196, again dealing with the "lawfulness" that has been raised in the hon. member's motion.

"The House of Commons claims that its admitted right to adjudicate on breaches of privilege implies in theory the right to determine the existence and extent of the privileges themselves. It has never expressly abandoned its claim to treat as a breach of privilege the institution of proceedings for the purpose of bringing its privileges into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than in parliament."

In other words, it appears to be the absolute and exclusive judge of its own privileges and its judgments are not examinable by any other court or subject to appeal. And on page 197 it says this: "On the other hand, the courts admit that the control of each House over its internal proceedings is absolute and cannot be interfered with by the courts."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is by coincidence that the member refers to Sir Erskine May, 14th edition, page 196, for his argument, as I do for mine. If you will continue his argument you will find that it is a matter of privilege, not of outside law, that governs the law of this House, and I refer you to the very example given by the member, Sir Erskine May, 18th edition, page 196. But to complete the reading, to point out the necessity of finding out that the legality of the proceedings is not outside the chamber, but indeed, as the member from Vancouver East has presented, within the chamber itself. That is what makes the urgency of the motion itself. Not a defeat of the motion, but support of the motion is really the point that has been more than emphasized by the last example, and I repeat again, Sir Erskine May, 18th edition, page 196.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. Leader of the Opposition, when you first started to speak you referred to the 14th edition. Did you in fact mean the 18th?

MR. BARRETT: Eighteenth edition.

MR. SPEAKER: So you're referring to the same....

MR. BARRETT: Eighteenth edition, chapter 11: 196, 197 and 198.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will get you in trouble every time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have engaged in a fair number of references to assist the Chair in making a decision on the motion by the hon. first member for Vancouver East. Certainly I appreciate the assistance of the hon. members in bringing to the Chair supporting evidence for their reasons that a motion be considered. I think that it is in the best traditions of parliament and that when we get involved, as we have done, in debate which has little substance with respect to the orders of the House or the assistance that we have in May and Beauchesne, it does degrade the parliamentary process.

I appreciate and thank the hon. members for their assistance and I would say further to the hon. members that if they have further assistance by way of a particular text they wish me to look at before bringing a decision back to the House, please do that when I leave the chamber to consider the matters which you have brought before me. I think now, hon. members, we should get on with the business of the day.

Introduction of bills.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. LAUK: Is it abolishing the opposition?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't have to abolish you, Gary.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2938 ]

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 57, intituled Mineral Resource Tax Act.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 57.

Leave not granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just like you say. Graham doesn't waste any time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, because of the fact that unanimous leave was not granted, you will have to go through the rather long procedure to introduce your amendments to this bill.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the minister....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is it on a point of order?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've already recognized the minister, and I'm sorry.

MR. D. BARRETT (Vancouver East): He wasn't on his feet.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have recognized the minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members! Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) if he will withdraw the remark that the minister is a coward. Please withdraw that.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We ask for an absolute withdrawal.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it is well established in this House that "political coward" is not unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: It's established.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Well, order, nothing! That's been established.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the hon. member to withdraw, an absolute withdrawal.

MR. LAUK: I said I withdraw the word "coward."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all I asked you to do.

MR. LAUK: He's a political coward. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a lame duck.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I remind all hon. members that you cannot do in this House indirectly what you cannot do directly, so I ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw without reservation the word....

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are in the middle of a point of order. Would the Hon, Member

[ Page 2939 ]

please be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An unreserved withdrawal.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: I offer an unreserved withdrawal at this stage, Mr. Chairman; I'll have more to say about this minister later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and it will have to be in order.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I note that you've insisted on a complete and unequivocal withdrawal of the words "political cowardice."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Political coward.

MR. KING: Political coward — all right, Mr. Chairman. But I would think, in light of what has gone on in this House the last number of days, that both the Chairman of the House and the Speaker would want to be even-handed in terms of enforcing the rules of the House. I would point out that the language contained in the budget of British Columbia — in the budget speech of the province of British Columbia this year — contained a phrase accusing the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) of political cowardice, and the Speaker refused to have that withdrawn and upheld the right of the government to use that terminology.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I find it very, very difficult to understand how you demand an apology and a withdrawal from the first member for Vancouver Centre when the government not only uttered that kind of charge but published it throughout this province. I think that brings the whole House, the role and the impartiality of the Chairman and the Speaker into question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I appreciate that observation. I would like to remind the hon. member of something he already knows, and that is that this is committee, that this is the Chairman of committee and the precedent to which he has referred rightfully belongs in the House, and I think the hon. member understands that.

MR. KING: I understand; this accommodates the government.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a point of order: with respect, the Chairman improperly reported.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you give an indication of how it is determined...?

MR. LAUK: He said the committee recommended the amendments. That's not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Chairman of committee then report in a manner which will not offend the member for Vancouver Centre?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, in reporting I neglected saying that we are recommending the introduction of the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, when you asked the Chairman to come back and report again the correct way, you said it was so that he would not offend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Did you mean the rules or the hon. member?

MR. SPEAKER: It seems both the rules and the hon. member were offended.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to a committee of the House having in charge Bill 57.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise recommending the introduction of the amendments.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You were one step ahead of yourself, Hon. Minister.

[ Page 2940 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the amendments be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 57.

Motion approved.

Amendments to Bill 57, Mineral Resource Tax Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION FAIR WAGES ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Construction Fair Wages Act.

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move motion 11 standing in my name on the order paper having to do with the appointment of an auditor-general.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll read the motion, Mr. Speaker, for the record. It's moved that the committee of selection appointed by this House March 17, 1976, comprising Hon. Grace McCarthy, Hon. R.H. McClelland and Messrs. Chabot, King and Gibson, be authorized to appoint a special committee of the Legislature to recommend a person to be appointed as auditor-general as provided under section 2 of the Auditor General Act.

MR. MACDONALD: May I inquire whether or not the committee to be appointed will have power to sit whether or not the Legislature is sitting? That might be in section 2 of the bill. I haven't been able to turn it up quickly.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Is it in section 2?

The second question would be: is there any indication from the minister as to when this committee should report back with its selection?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Vancouver East, before we proceed further, I think you are now discussing sections of the bill. We are on a motion which is before the House. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Finance can assist the hon. member in refreshing his memory as to what is in the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Act puts any time limit on which the committee would function. However, it would be at their pleasure as to when they would report. I am of the understanding that they would function throughout, regardless of whether the House is sitting or not.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a further clarification I would seek of the minister: during this debate the question arose as to whether this committee would be an all-party committee. Is it the intention of the government in the selection of the special committee that it will be?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, that was already indicated in previous debate; it will be an all-party committee.

Motion approved.

Oral questions.

DISMISSAL OF VICTORIA PUPIL

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Education. I understand the minister was informed this morning that a Victoria pupil was dismissed from his school, and 55 days had elapsed before the school board held a hearing — which is, of course, allowable under the Public Schools Act — and at which the parent can attend. My question to the hon. minister is: will he give this House assurance that he personally will look into this case which appears to be a very severe denial of the rights to education for a child in the school system?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the matter is already under study by officials of the Department of Education. When I receive their report I will deal with it and be pleased to inform the House.

REDUCTION OF FERRY CREWS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Transport and Communications: with further reference to my question of yesterday regarding the

[ Page 2941 ]

reduction of crews on the B.C. ferries, and the minister's statement that "the numbers required under the Canada Shipping Act are the numbers really required for high-seas operation and we are looking to the numbers required for inland water operation," can the minister tell the House if the government then views the Strait of Georgia as inland waters when it is used by a large volume of international sea-going vessels?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I think my reference to inland waters was inappropriate yesterday. I should have said protected waters.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With the reduction of crews on the B.C. ferries to the minimum allowed on the Canada Shipping Act, has there been any concern expressed, either by crew members or management, over the capacity of the crew to deal with emergency situations such as occurred in a collision with a Russian freighter in August, 1970, and the fire on the Queen of Victoria in November, 1972?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been some concern expressed. However, I will have to take the question as notice.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the crews were reduced in number, have the regular fire and emergency drill procedures been rehearsed, and have the results of these emergency drill procedures been satisfactory with the reduction number of crew?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer is yes to both those questions. But, again, I will take them as notice to make certain of my reply.

ELECTION PUBLIC OPINION POLL

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier: could the Premier advise the House whether he was privy to or aware of in any way the results of any public opinion surveys taken during the period of the general election in British Columbia last December?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I know of no surveys that were taken during the election last year.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary just to clarify that very precisely, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is not aware of any results of any surveys that were taken during the period between the calling of the election and its holding on December 11.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am not aware of any surveys that were initiated after the calling of the general election last year, no.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not quite sure what the question is.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary. The question wasn't whether they were initiated during the general election; the question was whether he was aware of the results of any surveys on which any soundings of any kind whatsoever were taken at any time during the period of the dropping of the writ and the holding of the election.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker. The only information I would have would be the enthusiastic reports of our campaign workers.

MOTOR-VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a question for the minister responsible for ICBC, the Minister of Education: almost a couple of months ago the minister said that he could not give the number of motor-vehicle registrations recorded this year because the ICBC computer was too busy on other work. It's now past the middle of June and long past the big general rush of the year. I wonder if the minister would furnish the House with this information now. How many cars, how many trucks are licensed to operate on our roads this year up to date, or at least up to last month?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll request that information and see if it's available, and if it is I'll report to the House by 6 p.m.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, while the Minister of Education, the president of ICBC, is getting that answer, if he can also confirm or deny a report that it is the intention of the corporation to fire or lay off at least 50 per cent of the adjusters who are working for the corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: That would be a separate question on the same general subject area, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it's not a supplementary question, but there is no such policy. Naturally the corporation will not keep excess employees; and if claims are down there will be some allowance for reduction in staff, but certainly not by

[ Page 2942 ]

discharging 50 per cent of the adjusters.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental, I wonder if while the minister is checking with ICBC for the information that I requested, would he check and ask the cash on hand figure and the amount of claims outstanding?

HON. MR. McGEER: On hand?

CHILLIWACK AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): My question is to the Minister of Environment. Has cabinet approved deletion of any land from the agricultural land reserve, based on an appeal from the township of' Chilliwack?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): If the member is referring to an 1,800-acre parcel, the answer is no.

MR. SKELLY: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister as chairman of the ELUC recommended to cabinet that all or part of the 1,800 acres covered by the Chilliwack appeal be removed from the agricultural land reserve — all or part?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Even though the question appears to be out of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't mind answering. To clarify it for the member for Alberni, the Environmental Land Use Committee has not received the application and subsequent information required for a decision.

MR. SKELLY: Has the minister received any representation from the hon. member for Chilliwack to remove all or part of that land from the ALR?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The word used, I believe, was representation. I have discussed the question with the hon. member for Chilliwack, yes.

BELL COPPER-CAIMAW DISPUTE

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour. Regarding the dispute that has been underway since February 7, between Bell Copper of Granisle and the CAIMAW union, I wonder if the minister is planning any personal intervention in light of the long tenure of this dispute and the catastrophic economic effect it's having on that community and the people of that community?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has asked the question. I am currently awaiting a report from the mediation officer who has been involved in that dispute, and the purpose of receiving that report is to determine precisely what action the Minister of Labour can take, either personally or through other avenues open to him, through his department or through the law, to deal with this matter.

MR. KING: On a supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister suggesting that a mediation officer has been involved in this dispute for four months and still has not filed his report to the minister?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the mediation officer has been involved and he has filed a report. I've asked him to update his report by getting in touch with the parties and advise me precisely what the situation is today.

FERRY FARES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Now that he has filed his answer and the effect of it is that the senior citizens, who travel by bus from Vancouver to Victoria and back, do in fact pay another $1.30 on their bus tickets, will the minister now reconsider his advertising to make it clear to the senior citizens of this province that it is not a free ride on the B.C. Ferries, but in fact they pay $1.30 more than free? Otherwise I think we are giving misleading information against the Consumer Protection Act. Will you reconsider your advertising?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall any advertising. We don't have any advertising programme to that effect, but it is true that senior citizens boarding ferries can travel on the ferries free between Monday and Thursday, and this is the first time in the history of B.C. Ferries that this has been the case.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): They have to walk 30 miles to the ferry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the minister make it clear when he uses the word "free" that the "free" costs $1.30 to all of those who travel by bus? It is not free, and will the minister correct the misrepresentation he has given to the senior citizens of the province? It's all the government....

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, it is true that senior citizens who commission a bus to travel from, say, downtown Vancouver to downtown Victoria or,

[ Page 2943 ]

conversely, also pay for the bus passage on the ferry, which costs over a dollar. So while they travel free on the ferry, they have, in effect, caused the bus to be transported on the ferry and that expense has to be met.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a ripoff!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

PREMIER'S MODE OF TRANSPORT

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Premier. During the Easter break of the Legislature, cabinet met in open meeting with the Vancouver city council. On the morning of that meeting would the Premier tell me by what mode of transportation he travelled from the Hotel Vancouver to city hall? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll take the question as notice and report back to the House. (Laughter.)

FINANCIAL AID TO CHILDREN OF VIETNAM

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health with regard to an earlier resolution of this House....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor on a question.

MR. WALLACE: With regard to an earlier resolution of this House to provide financial aid to the children of Vietnam and the fact that in light of the change of government in December that resolution needs reconsideration, is the minister taking any initiatives to reconstitute the committee, which was to decide on the disbursement of $2 million as approved by resolution brought into this House by the now Minister of Labour, to finalize the decision in light of the fact that various agencies are still seeking to know when the money will be made available to them to disburse it to the children of Vietnam?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay, I'm sorry I don't have the material with me at the present time, I was about to answer that question this week in the House, but from memory I would just say to the member that there is some difficulty in reconstituting that committee. There was a committee established and $2 million allocated to the relief for health care of the Vietnamese children. There were three awards made by that committee, I believe, in the sum of somewhere around $300,000. I don't have the exact figures here.

However, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the $2 million was never made available by Treasury Board, or by the government, to set up that fund. The $300,000....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the $300,000 that was spent was sort of borrowed from the fund which was set up for aid to developing countries through the Department of Agriculture with the understanding that someday in the future it would be repaid when the Treasury Board could find the $2 million to set up the fund and repay the agricultural development fund.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...since that money was never made available, the fund was never set up, and it was not known to the present government at that time what the previous Finance minister had done. There is no budget allocation in this year's budget for the $2 million to reconstitute that committee or spend the money.

Mr. Speaker, I have to recommend to my cabinet colleagues that at least for this fiscal year there would be no point in reconstituting that committee.

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 2944 ]

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 46, Mr. Speaker, by leave.

Leave granted.

BRITISH COLUMBIA EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS CAPITAL FINANCING
AUTHORITY ACT

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the principle of this particular bill is very simple and straightforward. It is to set up a Crown corporation ...

MR. WALLACE: Another one?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes.

...very similar to the B.C. school districts capital financing authority, to the B.C. hospital districts capital financing authority....

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinko!

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member just departing the House referred to me as a "pinko", and I hope that he'll withdraw that remark. I have never belonged to the New Democratic Party and I don't intend to.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): How many have you belonged to? (Laughter.)

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, I mistook him for the second member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who is wearing a pink shirt. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, to get back to the purpose of this bill, it's to give our post-secondary institutions, particularly the three public universities and BCIT, the same opportunities for long-term planning in their capital financing as we have brought for hospitals, for our school districts and for our community colleges, which at the present time are able to borrow through the B.C. school districts capital financing authority.

The wording of the bill itself, the form of the corporation, very closely parallels that of the other Crown corporations set up to borrow for hospitals and schools in British Columbia.

The problem the universities have faced over the years is that they have never been able to enter into any proper long-term capital planning. So much money has been allocated each year in the way of capital funds to the three universities, but frequently, if there's a major building project, the amount of money is insufficient to cover the tender which the board of governors must legally give in order for that building to proceed. It's led to difficulties over the years, and I think one only has to look at two of our three universities — the University of Victoria and UBC — to realize the handicap this method of financing has placed upon those institutions.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's not establishing a new principle as far as long-term government policy is concerned; it merely creates a parallel Crown corporation to give our universities and other post-secondary institutions the same opportunities for long-term capital planning.that now exists for our schools and hospitals.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting bill because actually, although it is called the education institution bill, there are a number of questions which we would like to have answered from the minister. But before I pose some of those questions to the minister I think it's quite obvious that we have here another move by the Social Credit government to move into deficit financing. Here again in the past we have always had the capital funds for universities laid out for us in the estimate book so members of the Legislature can ask questions about how much has been spent and the reasons why the government decided to give so much to the universities, or not as much as they had in previous years.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

It's interesting to note that this year the capital allotted by the Social Credit government to the universities was, I believe, in the area of $6 million — considerably lower than had been in former years. This is most interesting because I recall so many speeches made by the Minister of Education when he sat over here in which he condemned the former Social Credit government and the NDP government for lack of educational spending. And he was always particularly interested, in universities — far more so, I think, than in the public school area because, of course, that is the area in which he has been most involved. But I do find it rather ironic that this present Minister of Education — who spent so many years criticizing the former governments for their lack of contribution to education, particularly higher education in this province — brought in an estimate book this time with $6 million for capital expenditures for universities.

I'm not arguing that at the present time the $6 million was a figure that may be undesirable for the universities, but I do think that this minister who fought so strongly in opposition...certainly his words and his attempts to increase the spending for education have become very muted since he became Minister of Education, and not only in relation to university financing — and I want to keep on the bill — but also to all educational expenditures.

[ Page 2945 ]

Now this bill is obviously, as I said, another attempt by the government to move into deficit financing. They are setting up another corporation similar, as the minister said, to the capital financing structure we have for public schools. But why not be honest about it? Why doesn't the minister admit that the government is in difficulty financially and one of the reasons for setting this up at this time is because of the deficit situation in which this government finds themselves?

I don't think there's been much dialogue with the universities of the province over whether this is a suitable way of financing. I'm wondering if the universities council of British Columbia — which was set up by the former government, and which I know the minister apparently endorses — were asked about this. Perhaps they were. It would be interesting to hear from the minister how he arrived at this particular moment, so quickly, into a rather major change in the financing of capital costs for universities. I'd be most interested in the discussions which took place and led to this.

I know that the universities have been hit cold by this, which I think is unfortunate. I think that it's too bad that this Minister of Education does not seem to endorse the policy of consultation with those involved in the educational environment before he brings in some rather far-reaching legislation. I think there are a number of questions that the universities are asking, so it's obvious that there was not too much consultation — although I do know that the minister has made some speeches to them, and he has met with them.

I must say that in reading a report on one of the speeches made by the Minister of Education on this matter — the whole area of educational financing and capital construction financial problems — I think the minister actually said, and I stand to be corrected or expect him to correct me if I am misquoting him, to the university officials at one university: "Well, you know, if you are having problems with financing...." And somebody asked him about raising student fees, I believe this Minister of Education has gone on record in this particular article as saying: "Perhaps that's an area you'd better look at."

So we have it quite clear where this minister stands. Although he stood so strongly for increased expenditures for education when he was on this side of the House, his present policies have certainly not shown that he is carrying through what his words seemed to suggest as a member of the opposition.

I am also very concerned that he has actually suggested to universities that the raising of tuition fees might be one way out of their financial problems at a time when so many students are going to experience great difficulty in even getting into any area of post-secondary education because of this government's financial policies in so many areas, particularly their lack of ability to provide employment for students. I really think the minister stands condemned for suggesting at this time that universities should raise the tuition fees for their students.

I have a couple of questions on the bill. I know we are not in committee, we are discussing it in principle, but I think these questions perhaps could be thrown out, unless corrected by you, Mr. Speaker, at this time.

The universities are interested in the relationship of the universities council to this bill. I wonder if the minister will be able to explain, when he closes debate on this reading: will the universities council continue to make the recommendations on the financial needs of our post-secondary educational institutions? The universities, that is — that's all they are empowered to do at this time, I believe. Will they continue as they were doing in the past?

This new authority which is set up I believe will have three cabinet ministers on it. What relationship will this authority, with the cabinet ministers on it, have with the universities council? Will they still be looking to the universities council for input? Even if they do, I think it's quite clear that these cabinet ministers will make the final decision now on the final disposal of moneys for capital.

So really what I am trying to find out is: what are the terms of reference now at the universities council with reference to university financing for capital now that this new authority is being created?

I think the universities are also concerned about their total budget. Their operating budget has been reduced. It was considerably reduced by the government. I think they are concerned as to what is going to happen when this new authority comes in. Is the Minister of Education going to ensure that the Treasury Board makes provision for the payment back of the principal, interest payments, which must be provided for, I presume, by each individual university? Is it going to be the same as it is for the public schools? The universities are concerned. Or are they going to have to take this extra money for repayment for the capital construction out of a very, very skimpy operating budget for next year?

At the present time, Mr. Speaker, those are the points I wish to make, but I do want to close by saying that it does show that this government is in difficulty in financing. It really is another deficit-financing bill. Thank you.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I don't think this bill deserves a great deal of debate at second reading. It is, as the hon. member who just sat down said, just another deficit-financing bill. It's very, very curious that the government and that particular minister, in his other half as president of

[ Page 2946 ]

ICBC, was so anxious to pay deficits off before March 31 and is so anxious to incur them now. But we'll put that down as one of the funny little accidents in times of history.

This is a way, of course, Mr. Speaker, of generating a big surplus in the budget in the coming year — if they make it operational right away by borrowing money through this corporation and paying it out to the universities. It otherwise would have come out of capital grants showing up in budgetary account. So it's another way of fiddling around with the accounts. It is a separation between capital and operational expenses in the accounts of this province, and that's a good thing, but it could have been done right in the budget if the Minister of Finance had chosen to draw it that way. He didn't. The government chose to proceed this way. I see nothing terribly objectionable in it as long as people understand exactly what's being done, and that is that it is a deficit-financing bill.

The Minister of Finance very much must insist, in the accounts of this province and in his budgetary presentations from here on, that the borrowings and operating positions of all of these Crown corporations, which are being set up this session, are faithfully reflected in the accounts of the province and consolidated in order to give a genuine picture of the operations of the province in order that we will not have too much sleight-of-hand and the claiming of great changes in the financial position of the province in comparing apples and oranges to previous years. These are the only remarks I would have on the bill at this point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that in the years I've been in this House there's been a constant request by universities in particular for subsidy, and the government is meeting the request of the universities in that particular regard. However, I would just echo the comments of the other two speakers who have just taken their place in this debate. It's strange to me that right through the session this government, which sought the election on a very clear premise that there would be less and less arms, commissions, Crown corporations and various agencies of government, is really doing a surprising job in creating new Crown corporations. This, I think, is the third or fourth one when we consider the ferries corporation and the B.C. Buildings Corp. I may have missed one or two others this session that are on the order paper, Mr. Speaker.

But certainly here we have another Crown corporation where the authority is vested in the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education and the Deputy Minister of Finance. I just wonder whether this kind of authority, which, as has been pointed out, is certainly another smokescreen for deficit financing, is really the proper way to go about giving the universities the kind of help they want in their long-term capital planning.

In the budget debate and in many other debates this session I have pointed out that I think there is a schizophrenic approach by this government, that in operating dollars it absolutely insists that there must be nothing but black ink. But time after time bills come before this House asking us to authorize borrowing in very large amounts. The worst example I can think of is the B.C. Hydro Authority. That, in turn, with its debt-carrying charges, is reflected in the variety of ways which, nevertheless, cannot hide the fact that this is a debt. But I suppose to the man in the street that kind of debt through capital borrowing by Crown corporations is much less obvious than the so-called debt or deficit that might arise from the operating budget of the province.

I think it would be very important when these new Crown corporations are functioning that the clearest possible accountability be established at budget time each spring to this House and to the people of the province so deficits which are being carefully avoided in the operating budget of the province are not skilfully covered up by presenting capital borrowing through the Crown corporations in a less than obvious fashion.

Again I would refer back to Hydro and the ever-increasing debt of Hydro as an example, I think, of how the government is held accountable as guaranteeing a lot of this borrowing, but which for the ordinary citizen doesn't show up on the budget sheet each spring in this province. I wonder if the minister, who used to speak very eloquently and very convincingly from this side of the House as a Liberal for complete accountability in government, particularly the most important kind of accountability — the accountability for the spending, borrowing and dealing and all the handling of taxpayers' dollars that are raised either by revenues or by paying inflated Hydro rates because of the extensive cost of borrowing in Hydro....

When the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) stood on this side of the House, he was most emphatic that that should always be the case. So all I would say in supporting this bill in principle is that it provides borrowing and better capital planning on a long-term basis for universities and colleges, would the minister combine that with the very clear commitment and promise to the House that in the borrowing that is done we will receive total accountability and explanation at budget time each year?

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, while I agree that this is just another deficit-financing bill, I don't think it is good enough at this point in time to dismiss it lightly or even treat with it once over lightly by saying that it is just another

[ Page 2947 ]

deficit-financing bill. Certainly the explanation of the minister would lead us to believe that that is all it is — an attempt to take out of our consolidated revenue and expenditures this particular item and to finance deficits over a longer period of time, to finance capital expenditures. With that we don't disagree. We have argued that long-term assets might properly be financed over a long term. But we don't agree that control over these expenditures should be taken out of the hands of the Legislature.

I recall that yesterday when we were discussing another bill, I think it was the hon. member for Hawaii who said that it is not taking away from democracy to take matters out of the hands of the members of the Legislature and give those matters to the cabinet — that's really being more democratic because then you're giving it to the people who are better mentally qualified to deal with it. In the case of this bill, we are even taking it out of the hands of the cabinet and giving it to three people to deal with — and that's supposed to be, I suppose, an extension of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, previously in dealing with matters of capital expenditures for universities, we discussed it in this Legislature. It could still be done that way and they could still be financed over a longer period. We could be dealing with borrowing bills, borrowing bills that would provide money even for specific purposes. But they need not set up separate institutions, or separate corporations or separate authorities over which the Legislature has very little authority — very little authority, Mr. Speaker.

For some reason or other even Hansard has given up — at least I can't hear myself any more; I hope the minister can.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any need to go through this subterfuge in an attempt to fool the people of the province into believing that this government is not operating at a deficit when it is proper in this circumstance and for this purpose that they should go into a deficit when they don't have the cash on hand to pay for capital expenditures. There's no need to do this sort of thing. We should come out openly and honestly and say to the people of the province: "We're going to borrow money this year to build universities, to provide more buildings at universities, universities that are going to be discussed in this Legislature." The location of any new ones that might come up, the possibility of expansion at existing ones — these are the kinds of things we should be discussing in this Legislature in conjunction with votes that are coming before us, at which time we will be determining how much money would be allocated to that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular bill, unless I have missed it in going through it, there isn't even an upper limit on the borrowing that the government is going to be called upon to guarantee. Now what effect will that have, Mr. Speaker, on our credit rating with unlimited authority to guarantee money that might be borrowed for this purpose? Certainly, I suppose, there would be a limit to the amount that would be spent on this purpose, but not a limit set by the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see in reading this legislation. There may be a limit possibly set by the committee of three, but only possibly. It doesn't even say that they will control the spending by whoever is going to build university plans.

There is nothing in there to say who is going to set the targets, nothing in there to indicate in what years these buildings would be built, how much money would be spent, nothing in there to indicate what will be the plan of action at all, nothing to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that we are doing anything else other than agreeing to pay for a long-term asset, which is proper, but agreeing also, Mr. Speaker, that this is one more example of this government taking out of the control of the members of the Legislature the spending of people's money.

Mr. Speaker, I'll remind you that this coalition over there — all of them — were the people who used to talk about not dime without debate. Consistently in this session, Mr. Speaker, they have, through their actions — not through their speeches, but through their actions, through their deeds, Mr. Speaker — one time after another shown that they are only too willing, too anxious and too determined to take out of the hands of the members in this Legislature not only the spending of dimes, but the spending of, as they say, unlimited tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, the province guaranteeing that these payments will be met without knowing just how much that guarantee is going to be.

Even with B.C. Hydro, Mr. Speaker, as much as it spends and as much as we have guaranteed on behalf of that corporation, at least we go through the motions every year of changing the upper limits. There's nothing in this about limits at all, Mr. Speaker. We would support deficit financing for purposes such as this because we think it's a good purpose and we believe that long-term assets should be financed over long-term periods when you don't have the cash to do it, but we're not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to support one more attempt to hand over to a very small body control — control that should be in the hands of the people through their elected representatives in this House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just in closing, to answer some of the questions and, I hope, alleviate the anxiety of the members who have spoken, yes, the amount of capital available for the universities is down this year. We've restricted the available capital to the completion of buildings that are already underway, but that won't restrict the universities from taking advantage of this bill, if it passes the

[ Page 2948 ]

Legislature, to commence now their longer-term plans. The dilemma that we were faced with, as far as the universities council and the universities were concerned, is their need to have some long-term capital base. But as the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) and the former Premier (Mr. Barrett), who was also the Minister of Finance, will know, you don't undertake long-term financial commitments that obligate you beyond a given budget year. In order to solve this problem, we propose to place the universities on precisely the same basis as the school districts and the hospital districts for their financing.

Therefore there's no more an upper limit on this particular bill than there's an upper limit for the borrowing for school purposes. So it's not like some nefarious new scheme has been introduced to take spending authority from the Legislature. Far from it. I'd like to assure the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that of course there will be full and complete accounting of all the money which is approved for borrowing purposes under this Act at each session of the Legislature. My passion for full and open disclosure of finances, Mr. Member, has not dimmed a bit from the perspective of this side, and I certainly strongly support the Auditor General Act which is coming forward which is going to give us a degree of accountability which the province has never before had at its disposal.

Now there is the problem of separating capital and operating, and only for a brief period during the 1960s was the province fully self-sufficient in both capital and operating from its various incomes. Even then, the capital projects undertaken by the Crown corporation, including schools and hospitals, were being financed by money that was in effect borrowed from the people through the various pensions funds. I refer particularly to the Canada Pension Plan and to the teachers' pension fund and the various other trust accounts. So while it was not necessary for us to go outside of British Columbia in those years to provide for the capital and the operating needs of the province — I might add at some penalty to the educational institutions — nevertheless it was necessary for borrowing to take place from the fund.

So, again, we're not extending any new principle from the point of view of the way the province's finances have been governed. With the introduction of the auditor-general to the financial system of British Columbia, it will all be displayed in much more vivid fashion for the two former Ministers of Finance (Mr. Barrett and Mr. Stupich) who sit on the opposition benches now, and it certainly will add greatly to the opportunities that our universities and other post-secondary institutions will have to plan an adequate long-term capital plan,

I think most members would agree with me that the job which has been done so far is far less than satisfactory. I can assure the members that it's going to be something which will be corrected with all possible dispatch.

Now the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) wondered whether the universities council would be making the recommendations to the government. If she looks at section 10, she will see the provision there for the universities council to make a recommendation on each and every project before it's approved by the government for funding.

Now the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has just disappeared for the moment, but I want to explain to him that the kind of capital that you borrow for long-term capital purposes is entirely different than the kind of reserve account that must be established in an insurance corporation to pay for claims which have been incurred, but for which the payout has not yet been demanded.

I think if he thinks about it a little bit, he'll realize how specious his argument was in trying to make a comparison between ICBC reserves, where individuals are owed money by the corporation, even though they haven't collected it and the building of an appropriate edifice for our post-secondary institutions. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move the question now be put.

Motion approved.

Bill 46, Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): On behalf of the House Leader, (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) second reading of Bill 55.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this bill is the traditional bill which appears from the Department of Education every year setting forth amendments which are deemed appropriate after, I might add, considerable consultation with the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C. School Trustees Association and our own Department of Education.

I won't, in attempting to establish the broad principle of the bill, go into each of the individual sections. We can deal with those in committee. I might, however, mention some of the more important features of the amendments for the members' consideration.

Section 7 of the bill — and I realize I'm transgressing perhaps a little bit in this, Mr. Speaker, but if the members would wish me to establish the more important principles contained in this, I shall. I don't know what the wish of the House is.

[ Page 2949 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? There's not a single principle in this bill because it's very....

HON. MR. McGEER: It's the educational equivalent of the Statutes Law Amendment Act, and Mr. Speaker, section 7 amends the Act to make it clear that principals, teachers, vice-principals and other administrative staff are really teachers and they can be reassigned to teaching duties by a board.

I think the hon. members realize that our total school population in British Columbia is remaining constant, and in some school districts the school population is actually declining. In view of this, of course, it's going to mean some shifting of the personnel in the educational system. All this makes clear in the Act is that an administrative post is not a post where life tenure is granted, but a person is really a teacher who for a period of time is being assigned to these other administrative duties.

Section 6 of the Act makes it an offence for a person not to leave the lands and premises occupied by a school when directed to do so by an authorized person. This is merely to establish a little more authority in the school system so that people cannot wilfully disrupt the activities of a school. In former times, a person could go onto the school grounds and while they might be disturbing the school, as long as they ceased for the moment they were under no obligation to leave when they were asked to. This just corrects that.

Section 9 makes it possible for a board to take action which is in between either complete reinstatement or complete dismissal, and regulations will have to be established under this particular section to see that it's fairly and appropriately administered.

Section 13 will permit there to be busing of people attending independent schools, and I believe that was something what was sponsored by the previous government. We think that that's an excellent proposal and here it is in the legislation.

There is in section 5 a more precise procedure defined for suspending or expelling of pupils and I think that this will bear in a positive way on the question asked by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) earlier in the day.

There's a section in there which allows the instructional unit to be increased in value according to the consumer price index.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the sort of scattered grab-bag nature of the amendments introduced this year, but as I say it's a rather standard thing for the Department of Education, and these are what we consider to be the most urgent items that need to be attended to.

I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: I agree with the minister that it is a bill that you either don't discuss at all until committee stage or you deal with some of the major sections, — so I would like to make a few comments on the bill in response to the minister in concerns which have been expressed to me by other interested people in this bill. Then, of course, in committee stage we'll have an opportunity to go into it in more detail.

The majority of the amendments produced here seem to have been a continuing process for the number of amendments which the New Democratic Party government had already been making. I think the minister's aware of that, so I'm very pleased with the carrying through of some of the amendments here.

I think it's most interesting that the one on the assignment of principals was one which we brought into the House a year ago and held back specifically so that we could get a reaction from the teachers and the trustees and others on it.

Now I understand that the time has passed. The minister did say he's had considerable consultation, but to my knowledge I really don't think — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister — that there really has been the kind of consultation taken place in his department and under his ministry which did take place before, and I think that's regrettable.

Certainly I agree that you don't expect groups to see direct copies of the bill, but I do think that it is unfortunate that the minister personally did not attempt to set up meetings with himself in personal attendance with the groups in the province who are very, very interested in what proposed amendments are coming out. Most of them just had to wait and wonder just what was going to drop, which I think is an unfortunate way to move into legislation.

However, on the matter of the assignment of principals, there is an area of concern here, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to bring it to the minister's attention — I know it has been brought to his attention by the teachers already — and I think the teachers and the trustees both agree with the basic principle of calling a principal or a teacher who can then be assigned from principalship back to teaching or the other way around, et cetera.

It's needed, but the teachers are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that there is no real appeal process for a principal who could be moved from a principalship to a classroom. I would wonder if the minister could perhaps respond to their concerns, because I personally am concerned that, by and large, I'm sure most school boards will handle this matter very carefully, very delicately, but there could be areas where it may not be handled that way.

What recourse does that principal have who suddenly finds himself assigned from a principalship to a classroom? Yet teachers and trustees, I know, both agree with the principle of the amendment. The teachers though are concerned, and I am personally,

[ Page 2950 ]

with perhaps the lack of safeguard here, if we could put it that way, for the movement and the transfer of a principal to teacher.

So I hope the minister will tell us how he feels about that and if he really feels that due process of appeal has been given. I frankly do not feel it has.

I think the matter where it gives an opportunity for someone to be moved from schools...in school grounds who's causing problems, I think is a necessary one and I'm glad to see it here. But I do think perhaps the minister should look carefully at the actual section to perhaps give a better interpretation as to who really has the authority to ask someone if an unruly student or a person should be removed.

I don't think the section is quite clear on who really has the authority to ask that person to be removed, and if you try to go up to a person and ask them to move, the point is that they are going to question under whose authority. I wonder if the minister could perhaps clear that up.

I'm glad to see there are changes in the whole area of dismissals of students. As the minister said earlier, we were discussing that in question period, and whatever we do it's essential to maintain the rights of the child or the student in the case of dismissals and suspensions and transfers.

I'm still a little concerned that perhaps there is too much leeway for the principal, perhaps, and the teachers — I mean primarily the principal — to make these decisions, perhaps with isolation from the board. Although I do know there are some safeguards there, I think, perhaps, it could be strengthened to ensure that the child's rights come first in all ways, when it comes to the right to education.

There are a number of other sections of this bill which I would prefer to leave to the committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, — I just would seek the same rule in this debate that we might discuss certain individual principles. I'm particularly concerned about the one to which the minister referred and which has been mentioned in question period.

I understand that prior to this bill a principal could only dismiss but not suspend a student, and I would certainly appreciate the minister's attention to the questions I wish to ask. I notice he's otherwise distracted at the moment.

I notice that in this new bill the power given to the principal, the teacher and the board uses repetitively the word "suspend," whereas my understanding of the pre-existing legislation is that a principal or teacher could only dismiss a pupil, whereupon a certain train of events was put in place whereby automatically the responsibility was passed to the board to determine for how long that child should be out of school.

I think, Mr. Speaker, they're dealing with a very, very important principle here. I use the word "principle" on this point.

Under the new legislation it would appear, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong, that the legislation we're now debating gives the principal, in fact, the authority to suspend for up to five days. Presumably, if the child or the parent then wishes the child to return to school on the sixth day after suspension, there will be no further procedures involved, no notification of a superintendent and no board hearing. This would be my understanding from reading the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to go into great detail unless we can perhaps deal with it fully in committee, but I would like the minister to have this foreknowledge that I want to raise this point and discuss it very carefully in committee — have we changed this basic thrust that, in fact, a principal or teacher now under this new bill has the authority to suspend for up to five days on his or her own authority?

Subsequent to that point, if the suspension should be considered to be necessary for longer than five days, has the principal, indeed, to notify the board of the school district and the board will then hold a hearing, at which time the pupil and the parent or guardian appear before the board?

If my interpretation of this new bill is correct, I wonder why five days was chosen. I presume that means it was chosen as five days happens to be a school week. It does seem to me to give an additional significant degree of authority to the principal or teacher when in point of fact the previous legislation made the board directly responsible as soon as a student was dismissed.

It's very much an important difference between using the word "dismiss," which can quite readily mean that the child could return to education tomorrow, whereas "suspend" connotes a definite period of time, which this bill chooses to be in the order of five days, five school days. This is one point that I think we should be clear about.

The other point is that in relation to the hearing which the child can have before the board in the presence of a parent or guardian, I wonder if the minister has given any thought to the importance of the parent or guardian having the right to have some kind of adviser with them at the hearing before the school board. After all, a school board may well be composed of six or eight or 10 trustees with various officials around a large table, and it is a rather awesome experience for a parent who is already concerned about the behaviour of the child who has been suspended or dismissed to go before this kind of audience of elected officials when usually the parent

[ Page 2951 ]

would have limited or no knowledge of the exact provisions of the Public Schools Act.

I'm not aware, and this is a question I had intended to ask the minister in question period..... Excuse me, between coughing and sneezing this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I'm having some difficulties.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Take two aspirins. (Laughter.)

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): See your doctor. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the treatment I've tried for my allergy in the past puts me to sleep and I'm sure the government wouldn't want the opposition to go to sleep. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: If I can just remember what point I was trying to make it would be just great.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if in this principle of the bill the minister would consider incorporating some kind of assurance that the parent or guardian will have the right to have an adviser present in the hearing before the school board. My understanding at the moment is that by regulation of each school district this might be possible. But I would suggest that there's enough at stake in trying to straighten out the troubles of a student who is being dismissed and the concern of the parents that it should not be up to the option of the school board to decide whether or not some other adviser might be present at the hearing.

I think the parents or the guardian and the child should be given that right within the legislation and the assurance within the legislation that they may have the option of having an adviser. Whether that would be a legal adviser or a teacher or any other person is not nearly as important as the assurance that someone who is well aware of the provisions of the Act and who can guide and assist the parent and guardian.... I think that would be a very progressive step for the minister to take.

Again I would ask him, if there's nothing in this bill at the moment to give that assurance, would he perhaps take the matter under advisement and consider a possible amendment to ensure that when the situation has reached the point where the student and parent or guardian go to a board meeting, they have the assurance and the right that they can be accompanied by someone of their choosing who will advise and give them the kind of confidence that otherwise I think would be lacking in that kind of hearing?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, just to deal with the last point first, in closing debate — we can go into a little more detail in committee. It's our advice that the parent is entitled to be accompanied by someone. I hope that, having said that, we are not going to have specialists developing in representing students who may be suspended or expelled.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I am not sure whether it was appropriately denied, but we'll have to go into that. Certainly I'll have some answers for the time this comes up in committee.

Now a suspension must be reported forthwith by a principal to the board. So while it doesn't have to go formally before the board for a hearing, they must become aware of it. I think that one of the difficulties of the present system and why this spells out more exactly the procedure is that it isn't always easy for a board to be assembled for a hearing. Again we've got this case where a youngster waited 55 days, and I really just don't understand yet the reasons why that took place. But we will be investigating it.

Now the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) raised the subject of the appeal of teachers or principals to reassignment. Of course, this is something that the B.C. Teachers Federation has had under consideration for a year, as the member well knows, when it was proposed before as an appropriate and necessary measure. It doesn't come into force until January 1 next year, so the B.C. Teachers Federation has six more months to consider what they would deem to be an appropriate method of appeal. We're quite open to whatever suggestions they might make, providing they are practical suggestions.

For the moment, Madam Member, there is an appeal to the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council so it is not as though there were no appeal procedure at all. Some might consider this the highest court in the land. Others might consider it a hopelessly biased and inappropriate body. But whatever lies in the individual's mind about an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the fact remains that it does exist at the present time. Before the enactment of the bill people can come forward with a mutually acceptable system for hearing appeals out. We're more than pleased to accept them.

Now having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move the question be now put.

Motion approved.

Bill 55, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1976,

[ Page 2952 ]

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 61, Mr. Speaker.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Automobile Insurance Act are very routine indeed. They're explained in the little explanatory notes to the bill.

Once more, it's a grab-bag — but a very small grab-bag — and the basic thrust of the amendments is to give the insurance corporation defences in court which would be open to any other insurer in British Columbia.

The second package is to provide for situations where a person is run down in British Columbia by an uninsured...and, of course, as the members well know, that could never be anybody from British Columbia, but it's conceivable that somebody who is uninsured from outside of British Columbia could be driving within the province of British Columbia. If they strike somebody who is uninsured and, therefore, unprotected, ICBC deems it appropriate that it should only pay the claim in the event that the person who is injured would come from a jurisdiction that would give the same consideration to a resident of British Columbia were they in that position.

I move second reading of the bill.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I'm pleased that the minister dubbed the bill, Bill 61, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, with a new name. He called it "grab-bag." Mr. Speaker, I for once in a long, long time agree with the Minister of Education. It's a grab-bag. It's a grab-the-money-bags of the people of British Columbia. Don't let them kid you about talking about nice housekeeping amendments.

Look at the significance, Mr. Speaker, of these amendments. You have time while you're sitting in the chair, I'm sure, to go over all the bills, and I'm sure that you have done so long before now. By now you're certainly in agreement with me that what the Minister of Education, the minister responsible for ICBC, is doing is making the way nice and easy for the advent of the private insurers who devastated our land in the past and will be back to devastate our pocketbooks some more in the future.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two items, just before I get into that particular area, that I'd like to discuss. The first part of the bill, I think, pretty well proves to me that ICBC has been infested with NSF cheques. That, I suspect, is why the first part of that bill was necessary — that kind of housekeeping. We suggested that there would be, as a result of the departure from the normal practices of ICBC, by the beginning of May — that was the beginning of the second cheque that was.... At that time, ICBC could pick up the second cheque from their pre-authorized cheque accounts for those who were on partial payment, and it would seem that there are many uninsured drivers driving the streets of our province.

Mr. Speaker, again in that section, the early section of the bill, it departs from the compensation fund — that is, the normal kind of compensation fund that we wanted to get into, like the Workers' Compensation Board. What they've done now is they've precluded that. I believe this is just another way of making way for the private insurers.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill really says loud and clear is that we're going to have a new system of insurance payments. If you look at not only this bill but also Bill 80, you'll find that this also goes along with the same direction. Bill 80 says that people will be buying their licences at different times of the year — orderly. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's orderly enough, but there are no safeguards. This is the way the private insurers do it, and I suggest to you that only a stroke of the pen in the future is necessary to bring the private insurers back.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why it's necessary to bring the private insurers back. Certainly ICBC under this government has made it, I guess, no less attractive having the private insurers back. Our rates now are comparable with the rest of the country, and certainly much, much higher than Saskatchewan and Manitoba, higher than other jurisdictions in line with what we considered before the highest ratings in Canada, and those were to be found in Quebec, in Montreal, and jurisdictions like Toronto.

No, Mr. Speaker, all that we worried about when this government started their direction on ICBC I'm afraid is coming to pass. The way will be made clear for the private insurers who were, along with the mining companies and others, instrumental in the election of this "populace movement."

Mr. Speaker, I had to smile; I read that the other day in a column about this populace movement. I don't know if you'll find very much populace about a movement that's nothing much more or less than a coalition of very ambitious people. And their ambition shows up in this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets up and gives the bill a short shrift, when the minister gets up and says, "a little housekeeping, you know, just the sort that makes things straight," the kind of housekeeping we have here is a broom, and that new broom is sweeping the way clear for the private insurers to come back.

I can understand the minister's motivation. He's overworked — look at him, he needs a rest. It's obvious. Last night he even had to go into the

[ Page 2953 ]

Speaker's office for a rest at a quarter to eleven. He didn't take a rest, unfortunately, however, because the Premier walked in, the Speaker walked in, and before they knew it they were making all sorts of plans. But aside from that, Mr. Speaker, what we're looking at here is a minister who says to himself, "Well, I need a rest, and therefore if I get rid of ICBC, dump it on the private insurers...." and we're back to square one.

Mr. Speaker, we've gone through all the reasons, hour in and hour out in this House, why we should not go back to the mercy of the private insurers. All across this country and all across North America people are becoming fed up with the private automobile insurers. People want off it. They're not looking to B.C. any longer, because we're no example, but they're still looking at Saskatchewan and Manitoba where good, fair automobile insurance is available.

Mr. Speaker, I have said before and I'll say again that what this government is doing is trying to prove to the world that private insurance is the way to go. They are doing that for their friends. But the people in this province had a taste of private insurance; they had a very short taste of public insurance, and got the feeling of what public insurance could do for them.

Mr. Speaker, they don't want the stroke of the pen; they want some kind of assurance from that minister today, in this House, that what I say is not true. They want that minister to stand up here and defend ICBC, to say that it's an ongoing corporation that will have the protection of this coalition government as long as the coalition government lasts. Yes, protection.

You see, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, when you become, as ICBC has, one of the highest-rated insurance companies in the country, then the private insurers can come in and undercut, particularly on the basis of creaming off the best of the market and leaving the worst risks for ICBC. Let's not kid ourselves. The Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) shrugs; he looks like Pierre when he shrugs. But, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Consumer Services, doesn't understand that, who should? You should.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. If the member for New Westminster would continue to address the Chair, perhaps....

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I missed your presence for a moment, and I'm sorry about that. I direct my discussion to you and I reiterate that this bill, the Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, was carefully named by the Minister of Education — he called it a grab-bag. That's right; it is a grab-bag, an opportunity for the private insurers to grab bags of money, as they once did, from the people in this province. Unless the minister can stand up and assure and reassure us that that is not the case, that they are not making way for the private insurers, then we have no alternative but to vote against this bill in principle, if in fact you can call it a principle. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're interested to hear what that minister has to say.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, this bill is the death knell of ICBC. I am amazed that the government is moving so quickly to destroy something that has been built for the people of British Columbia. If this bill passes, we will in a year's time back in this House find ourselves with another bill proposing to sell ICBC to the private insurers for the sum of $1, because that's all ICBC will be worth once we find ourselves in the position of having the private insurance companies back in the province of British Columbia.

This is the direction this bill is taking us. It is not a simple housekeeping bill; it is the fulfilment of an election promise to put insurance back in the hands of the private insurance companies in British Columbia.

The deals are already being made, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with the private insurance companies to come back into the province, to take over the good risks and leave ICBC, as the member for New Westminster has said, holding the bag with the poor risks and the expensive sort of insurance. This is the death knell that this bill passes; it is the first step to destroying ICBC. For that reason, I feel I must rise and oppose the bill.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister could have done far better than take the stand he has taken in financing the total costs of ICBC in one fell swoop with a rubber cheque to the Minister of Finance...

AN HON. MEMBER: A rubber chicken.

MR. MACDONALD: A rubber duck of a minister.

MRS. WALLACE: ...of paying off, at the expense of the citizens of British Columbia, the entire cost of ICBC in one fell swoop and then preparing to destroy that very company which we have built with the taxpayers' money and with the money of the drivers of British Columbia, a company that was able to provide the kind of insurance that should be provided — full insurance, no quibbling in the courts as to who was guilty or who was not guilty, but complete coverage, safety, assurance of financial security when you were on the road. This has been destroyed, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest. This bill is

[ Page 2954 ]

moving even further to destroy that very concept that ICBC was all about.

I abhor the government moving this quickly to destroy something that was performing such an excellent service for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I abhor this government moving so unashamedly to fulfil its promises to the private insurance companies, that it moved so quickly to get those rates up. Just as soon as they were in a position to do it, those rates went up so the private insurance companies would find a competitive market here in B.C. Now we are moving through some administrative changes to make it even more palatable for those companies to return.

This bill is not a simple housekeeping bill, Mr. Speaker; this bill is destroying ICBC. I am completely opposed to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I found it hard to believe my ears at some of the arguments that were being set forward by the opposition with respect to this bill. I would have thought they might have at least read the bill, read the sections, and realized that, really, what was involved here is just protecting the treasury of British Columbia against unjustified claims from people who live outside the province, and in some cases giving ICBC the same protection in the courts as now exists for the private insurance companies. Why the members would be opposed to that I simply cannot understand.

Certain statements were made about ICBC — reference, of course, here to the section on cyclical billing which, it is the hope of the government and ICBC, can be brought in perhaps not for this coming renewal year but the one after. All this is going to do, Mr. Speaker, is spread a workload that is now condensed into one month over 12 months and allow for much greater efficiency of operation, and permit people to be more productively employed than having to do all of the work in one month and then cool their heels for the remaining 10 or 11 months. The cyclical billing will reduce the cost, by our calculation, perhaps as much as $20 million a year, which will be of benefit to all the people of British Columbia. Why you would be against that I cannot understand.

As far as the NSF cheques — I'm sure there will be some of those, I hope very few, issued to the corporation — that doesn't mean that a person is uninsured, as the member should well know. If they have a decal, as far as the law is concerned, that person is insured.

Now if they are in arrears in their payments, they won't be able to collect on any collision; but as far as liability is concerned, other people are protected. If they are in arrears in their payments, they may have trouble getting a renewal if they owe the corporation money and if they haven't paid. If they are in arrears, as the member well knows, they are subject to having their licence picked up by the police. These are the protections that the public has against people who would wilfully not pay the insurance protection they must have in order to drive in British Columbia.

The member seemed to think that there is some kind of sinister plot to bring private insurance companies back to British Columbia. Well, Social Credit made it very clear during the election campaign that the private insurers would be invited back to British Columbia at some future time to compete with ICBC, and whether or not they wish to come back in force is anybody's guess. But at the present time licences have been issued. No directive from the government but Mr. Cantell, the superintendent of insurance, has been issuing licences to the private insurance companies, and indeed some of them are selling at the present time fleet insurance in British Columbia.

So where the private insurers can offer better rates they're doing so. But what's wrong with that? It's certainly no sinister plot and it's nothing new. It was part of the platform of the Social Credit Party, and I take it from the results of the election that that was endorsed by the public of this province.

ICBC — the former minister responsible for ICBC said that we should give the people reassurance that ICBC was going to exist. Well, Mr. Speaker, we only give this reassurance about ICBC. So long as that corporation is an efficient corporation...and it is an efficient corporation now, operating at millions and millions of dollars less than under the NDP, not protected by any false prospectuses issued by the government, not by any false budgets but by legitimate bookkeeping and proper business management, and because of that the public of British Columbia in a very real way is going to benefit by millions and millions of dollars.

Now if people can come in and do an even more efficient job than that, then it is to the benefit of British Columbians. But the suggestion is being continually made by the opposition that somehow the books should be cooked so the public of British Columbia would believe that they were getting low-cost insurance when all the time there was an inefficient corporation operating that had to be subsidized by the public treasury — those days are gone under this new government, Mr. Speaker.

I tell you that the only protection the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will have will be as a well-run corporation that brings service to the people at cost. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that under this

[ Page 2955 ]

government the real cost of that service is going to be considerably less than under the socialists.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 16

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

Bill 61, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased — as a matter of fact, I might say I'm very proud — to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 65, the Consumer Protection Act.

Over the years the British Columbia Legislature has given its approval to a number of statutes which have been designed to protect consumers — and not only to protect consumers but, just as importantly, to help the many honest businessmen who suffer just as badly as consumers do when unscrupulous competitors are allowed to take advantage of the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, a landmark move in helping consumers was the 1967 Consumer Protection Act. It set up much-needed controls for door-to-door sales and made clear that the cost of borrowing had to be disclosed honestly in percentage terms to consumers who bought on credit.

The 1967 Act, Mr. Speaker, was amended several times in ensuing years to take care of situations which became apparent as those requiring correction. I refer particularly but not exclusively to the situation when credit cards were handed out like boxtops off cereal boxes. It was interesting to see how this legislative reform brought a corresponding reform in the marketplace in that particular area.

The old Act, Mr. Speaker, has served this province very well. I think this Legislature and the people of British Columbia ought to be very proud of the people who brought that legislation in and very pleased with the way that it has served us. The situation is, of course, Mr. Speaker, that times change and times have changed to the point giving rise to the necessity for Bill 65 before the House.

Bill 65, Mr. Speaker, has been prepared to meet a number of very important purposes. I hasten to say to the members opposite that it's not intended to be exhaustive by any means of the problems that come into the marketplace, but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it takes care of a great many of those which are causing the consumer and the honest business alike trouble in the marketplace today.

Specifically, first of all this will extend a greater degree of protection and a new degree of protection to consumers who pay for certain goods and services in advance. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, it will put the people who extend services in advance in the position of having to wait for their money until they have delivered the services.

It will, Mr. Speaker, give further help to the perhaps most vulnerable of all buyers — the door-to-door consumer — in extending the time within which the consumer can negate the contract.

It will go at least some way down the road to protection of the consumer against the tax discounter or tax buyer by forcing them to keep proper records and to disclose in percentage terms the effective rates of interest wrapped up in their so-called discounts.

Mr. Speaker, the bill will also assist those consumers who have billing complaints with respect to credit cards and mail order schemes — in the latter regard, particularly the negative option scheme where the name of the game is that if you don't refuse delivery of what you have ordered you get it.

It will assist in the fight against inflation, among other things, by making it unlawful for credit card companies to make a deal with the merchant whereby that merchant cannot offer a cash discount.

It will make it easier for victims of unconscionable mortgages to make out their case in court. Specifically, it changes the onus from the borrower to the lender.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to suggest to this

[ Page 2956 ]

House that Bill 65 is the only answer to the problems in the marketplace, nor indeed that it is even the best answer. It is only part way to where we eventually have to be, but it is a very significant step.

Some of the problem areas that we face today will always be calling for better law reform. It is the nature of a complex, every-changing marketplace to make it virtually impossible for every clause of such a bill to cure the problem that is perceived today.

This kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker, has to be kept constantly under review and surveillance. I know that it will not take my department another nine years to do a complete refurbishment of the Consumer Protection Act.

My department, when the Act is passed, as I'm confident that it will be, will monitor the Act and the effect that it has on the marketplace. It will be ever concerned that it continues the practice of this department to act as a fair and reasonable referee in the marketplace as between 'the vendor and the purchaser.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. members also, and particularly those who are lawyers, that there are a number of housekeeping amendments and amendments of a technical nature which I will ask them to consider in committee. I'm told that the Queen's Printer will have a convenience bill ready in the very near future, and presumably in time for that.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 65.

MS. K.E. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for outlining the provisions that the new Consumer Protection Act provides for the consumers of this province. The bill is overdue and it certainly will improve the chances of consumers in this province to get a fair deal.

The sections that deal with dance studios and health spas and reducing salons and prepaid trips, for instance, under the prepaid contracts, have bilked consumers in this province for a long time. I think the minister is aware of that and I am pleased to see that included in there.

The safeguards that have been built into the legislation with respect to extending the time in which people can cancel contracts is welcome, extending that from three days to seven days. The three-day section, I understand, was under the original Consumer Protection Act, and it's welcome; it's good.

The fact that there is a $500 limit set on contracts of this type is also welcome, so that consumers in the future will not be able to sign away thousands of dollars in order to sign up for either dance lessons or some other services.

The other point that you mentioned with respect to putting money into trust is also a very good aspect of this bill, because consumers would prepay for these services and then suddenly the services would not be there. It reminds me, Mr. Minister, of a similar situation that is not covered under this legislation, and I'm appealing to you at this time to turn your attention to the problem that I am about to outline, and perhaps in conjunction with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) a solution can be found to this.

I mentioned during the discussion on the estimates of the Attorney-General a particular situation which was brought to my attention by one of my constituents whereby the constituent had engaged a builder to build a home. He had put down a significant down payment, which was probably his error. But in any case he had put down a significant down payment. The builder in question built part of the house, then decided to take a vacation in Hawaii, came back, declared bankruptcy, with the result that my constituent lost his home entirely. He had no recourse. He's tried every avenue but he apparently has no recourse.

Now this kind of thing is prevented under prepaid contracts as far as health spas and dance studios and reducing salons and other things, but it does not cover situations that apply particularly to the builder in my riding who ended up losing his home.

The section which deals with cancellation of contracts, I think, is somewhat weak in that if there is a change in circumstances with respect to a purchaser's mental health, physical health, medical health — and this would be certified by a doctor — if there is a change then the purchaser of the contract may cancel. I'm not sure of the number of the section, and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should be dealing with this in committee stage. But in any case it does not take care of problems which result from people who may be elderly, who may be forgetful, who may not realize exactly what they are getting into.

It certainly would not prevent, it seems to me, an 80-year-old signing up for $500 worth of dance lessons if the seller were a pushy person who could convince such a person to engage in dance lessons. I don't think it deals with that. The section deals only if there is a change in the circumstances, and I don't know how you would cover this, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that it's a problem that the minister might also turn his attention to.

The other points that I would like to make relate to the income tax rebates. Now the minister, according to the press, has indicated that he feels that the legislation dealing with income tax rebates should be handled by the federal government.

I'm not quite sure of his reasoning for this, and I had hoped that he would comment on that in his opening remarks. But it seems to me that while there are restrictions now put on them to a certain extent, they now have to keep records and they have to disclose what the interest rate is that they are charging — the actions of the people involved in

[ Page 2957 ]

income tax rebates have been so reprehensible that it seems to me that the legislation here should have been more adequate in dealing with them.

For instance, many of these income tax rebate firms are in operation for only one year, and then they go out of business. I know that we've had examples of people that have taken in their income tax in order to get their rebate, have accepted the terms that were offered to them — whether or not they understood the interest rate is another question — have accepted the terms, and have accepted a down payment on the understanding that they would get the rest of their money once the income tax rebate had come through. Then the company in the meantime had disappeared, like folding its tent and disappearing into the night and perhaps reappearing the following year under another name. Now that's not dealt with in here.

It seems to me that the legislation with respect to credit transactions with the income tax rebate should be much stronger, and I fail to understand why the minister is not able to incorporate into this legislation actions — and I don't know what the amendments are that he's talking about — which will deal more severely with the flagrant abuses taken by the income tax rebaters.

The sections dealing with the freezer and food plan contracts are long overdue. We've had examples time and time again of the way in which the consumers have been bilked, getting involved with signing contracts there.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, it is a good bill. We certainly on this side will support the bill. I hope the minister will consider some of the suggestions that I have made. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking further questions when the bill comes into committee.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the work for this minister in introducing this bill has been very, very light, because the bill was on his desk, left there by the previous minister (Ms. Young). As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he did not have to change one word of the bill before introducing it into this House.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the previous Minister of Consumer Services had a notice to introduce the bill during the last parliament. The bill was never introduced, so it was there and waiting for the Minister of Consumer Services to introduce. He didn't have to do anything, not even change one word.

Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Consumer Services has done nothing for the consumers of the province except to introduce the bill which was left to him by the previous minister. He has sat there in cabinet and allowed this government to attack the people of the province in every way, shape or form, through increased taxes, increased rates, increased this, increased that, and he has sat on his hands in cabinet and allowed it to happen.

Now I hope, once this bill has been introduced and discussed and passed, the bill which was prepared by the previous minister, that this minister will do something to protect the consumers of this province. Mr. Speaker, never before have the consumers of this province more needed a minister who had their interests at heart.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this bill is a big step forward, as the minister himself said in introducing it for second reading, in the direction of plugging many loopholes in the marketplace. Some time ago I brought forward a private member's bill to deal with the particular problem of dance studios and dieting parlours, or slimming parlours, or whatever the official title was of the various clinics who guarantee that the consumer can still eat all he wants as long as they follow the rules and not gain weight.

This used to distress me as a physician that not only did it often prove costly to the consumer in terms of dollars, but I was never completely convinced that the promotional material that the consumer read and was subjected to was valid advertising. It often left the consumer with the impression that exercise was so much more important than diet that really, the control of obesity could allow a fair amount of eating by the consumer as long as they had the vibrators and the exercise machines and the bicycles and so on.

I think the minister is to be commended for putting together this bill and covering many of the areas that have been causing problems. I particularly like the idea of allowing cash discounts, although the person supplying the service may be a member of a credit system. One of the problems in terms of inflation is that too many people are willing to borrow and live against next month or next year's income, and credit cards certainly encourage the individual consumer to be less sensitive at the time of purchase to the actual cost of what he's buying.

I think we should say, at the same time, for the person who is perhaps much more considerate of their spending — and that seems to apply usually to Scotsmen — that if you have cash compared to the person who is buying large amounts of goods on credit, the cash customer should certainly be entitled to a discount representing a part of the cost of the goods, which for most people is being eaten up by the cost of carrying credit. So that's a particularly good part of this bill, in my view.

I'm also happy — well, I'm both happy and disappointed on the tax discount problem which also has been raised in this House in the past, and I'd like to ask the minister a question which is a legal one, a question in relation to powers that he might have put in this bill. In other words, disclosure is now essential

[ Page 2958 ]

for a person who is buying a tax rebate from a consumer, but there is no mention of interest rates that the consumer might be charged. Let me make that a little more clear, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation, as I understand it, has to document what interest rate is being charged. The question I'm more concerned about is that there appears to be no ceiling or restriction or attempt to set some maximum interest rate that the discounter can charge. Now the minister is quoted in news clippings as stating that — anyway I can't find the precise quote — but he is quoted as saying that responsibility is primarily in the federal sphere. I presume it is, but it also appears we have been waiting several years for initiatives at the federal level to deal with this problem. Until such time as more complete control is gained over the potential abuse, I'd like to know if the minister, either under this Act or presumably under the anti-inflation Act that we've just passed in this House, might be in a position simply to state that the maximum interest rate in this kind of agreement shall be X per cent. I'd welcome the minister's comments on that.

One of the areas that is deficient in the bill, and presumably will be forthcoming later, is the whole question of car purchase, and particularly the purchase of used cars. It was very interesting that just yesterday the courts issued a decision that although the consumer may buy a car, in the popular phraseology, "as is," and it may conk out after moving three blocks. Just because it was sold "as is" apparently, in the view of yesterday's court decision, it doesn't mean that the seller has no responsibility whatever. Again, I'd like to ask if the fact that the minister has not included any section on this question of the consumers' protection in relation to second-hand cars relates in any way to this established view by the courts, that in fact the seller still has a substantial degree of responsibility, even though using words such as the words "as is" at the time of selling the goods.

So, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a serious attempt to establish the kind of balance which I think is very important — namely, protection to the consumer but no undue or excessive restraint on the part of the energetic and conscientious seller either of goods or services. I think it would be an unfortunate day in a so-called enlightened society if we went overboard in trying to hold the consumer's hand every time he goes into the marketplace. On the other hand, it would be regrettable if, in light of well-established examples of abuse, we do not in fact go out of our way to protect the consumer in such areas as tax discounts and the payment ahead of time for services which are still to be rendered.

The whole question of previously being able to sell dance lessons, for example, to persons who would have to live many years to be able to use them was always wrong. It's a pity that the government of this province has not previously dealt with this problem. Since this bill obviously goes a long step down the way to reaching that happy balance between consumer protection and individual salesmanship, I think that it should have the support of all parties in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) first, and perhaps it would be appropriate if I dealt with the less attractive part of her speech first. I don't think that I have ever claimed that I took quill to paper and drafted this Act, section by section. I'll tell you precisely, members of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, what I did. I read with great care the study that had been commissioned and had been prepared, spent many long hours with senior staff going over those recommendations and their recommendations for legislation, and the result is here. It isn't a question of philosophy at all. It's a question that I simply agree that the consumer in the marketplace is deserving of this kind of protection. If somebody else wants to take the credit for the draftsmanship, I hope they will also draft the household amendments that are necessary and fix it up and tidy it up.

My only point is, Mr. Speaker, through you to the members, that this is good legislation and I think it's deserving of the favourable attention of the House. Getting back to the questions raised by the member, I think that the points she makes are very good ones. One of the points that has been made to me by the members of the business community in looking at this Act since it has gone in for first reading is that when the consumer is cheated, not only is he cheated but so indeed is the honest businessman who would presumably have got that consumer's dollar for that service had it not been cheated from them. I think this is very important that we remember that the marketplace does not just involve consumers but involves honest businessmen who make up 99 per cent of the people who are in the marketplace.

Insofar as some of the questions about the new homes are concerned, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), I quite agree that there are a large number of problems in this area and, Madam Member, they are being looked at very actively by the department right now.

As a matter of interest to the House, I was at the opening of the New Home Warranty Organization in Burnaby, which is a very good organization. It has a very good programme. Of course, the problem is that it is limited only to those who are members of the programme. However, this is something that's coming

[ Page 2959 ]

all across Canada, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, and it's something that has our active consideration. It is a problem and I quite agree with your point.

The cancellation problems that you raise, Madam Member: I would remind you that the provisions of the Trade Practices Act still prevail insofar as forbidden trade practices are concerned. Without being specific concerning the examples you gave, I would think that in all likelihood the Trade Practices Act would cover any of those types of situations.

In any event we will monitor this situation, as I said in my opening remarks, very carefully and if there is a problem of this nature developing we will certainly come back to this House for further amendments.

Now I'd like to deal for a moment if I may, Mr. Speaker, with the question of the tax rebaters. I feel, as I think most members of the House feel and the leader of the Conservative Party and I'm sure most of the opposition, and I know the government, that this is a highly reprehensible practice. I'm not talking about the bank or near-bank or financial institution that advances money against the return of tax moneys but against those people who prey on the unfortunate once a year and prey on them for huge sums of money.

On February 16 last, Mr. Speaker, I was back after the ministers' conference in Ontario, armed at the time that the legal advice of my staff and the Attorney-General's staff which, for what it may be worth, accorded with my own view of the constitutional problems. I found that the other ministers — the other provincial ministers — had received similar advice, that while we as provinces could perhaps legislate a long way in the field, we couldn't go the whole way to curing the problem without coming up against the constitutional collision with the federal government.

At that time I think it was a unanimous request by the provincial ministers to the federal minister, Mr. Ouellet, that he do something about it. We were assured that he would do something about it in due course and, of course, unfortunately he telephoned a couple of judges he ought not to have in the meantime. We're now down to a minister who was sent a letter by myself three or four days ago pointing out in the strongest possible terms what I felt had to be done and the urgency with which it must be done.

What we are concerned with here, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the House, is that we don't want to get into any kind of a constitutional clash with the federal government so that the tax. buyer could shelter himself under the auspices of sub judice and continue for another year by saying "it's before the courts; it's not sufficient for you to get an injunction," because I don't think we would get an injunction and go down the merry road again.

What I propose to do, and I assure this House that I will continue doing it, Mr. Speaker, through you, is to continue to prevail upon the federal government what they can easily do and what they ought to do in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I deal now with the remarks made by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and I thank him very much for them. Once again I feel we're in a constitutional problem with respect to interest rates, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm convinced through the legal advice I get — and I must admit that I have to seek it in constitutional matters and others — this is a matter of federal preserve and something over which we cannot legislate directly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, it may very well be, although I haven't directed my attention to this, Mr. Member, that we could prevail upon the federal government to cooperate through that legislation in this regard, but in terms of imposing any interest limitations it is my advice that we cannot do so.

I'd like to remark finally, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Oak Bay, that the case to which he referred is the cobalt case. It is a case that had the intervention of our director of trade practices who was a party to the action under the Act. The rationale of the decision was that the Trade Practices Act, as presently law in British Columbia, does indeed apply to the circumstances that you raised. So we do have statute law, and very clearly that statute law was applied by the courts in this particular case. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 65.

Motion approved.

Bill 65 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 64, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, it should be noted that this bill is designed to replace the Public Service Group Insurance Act.

The present provisions of that Act, the Public Service Group Insurance Act, were designed to authorize a contract with an insurer for a programme of group life insurance for government employees and members of the Legislative Assembly on an optional basis.

Experience under the Public Service Labour Relations Act indicates the need for an overall Public

[ Page 2960 ]

Service Benefit Plan Act under which contracts can be made with insurers to provide a variety of benefits such as group life insurance, extended health benefits, dental plan benefits and long-term disability benefits having different characteristics for different groups of employees in the public service.

This bill would also permit different benefit patterns and cost-sharing arrangements for different groups consistent with the terms of agreements between the government and a bargaining unit established under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, not all government employees come within the scope of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Accordingly, it is necessary to provide flexibility in the bill for defining employees and groups of employees to whom the various benefit programmes apply. It is also necessary to provide for the making of regulations with respect to terms and conditions in contracts, rates and methods of contribution and matters to facilitate the efficient administration of the various programmes. In order that there may be full disclosure of all business contained under the Act, provision has been made for an annual report to be laid before the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the opposition will be supporting this piece of legislation, which has certainly cleaned up some of the cumbersome passages of the previous bill that dealt with this area.

We are particularly pleased about the section that has to do with the annual reporting, because that will give us an opportunity to see whether the kinds of negotiations which were contrasted deal with such things as differences of insurance for people based on sex and these other kinds of things. We think that the previous government started to eliminate those discriminatory clauses in the past; we certainly hope that the present government in negotiating with private insurance companies and other insurance companies will see to it that they don't enter into any contracts that would tend to lock in this difference based on sex or on age. But we certainly will be supporting this legislation.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think all that has needed to be said on the Act has been said. I am pleased to see the concurrence of the opposition. I now move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment — second reading first.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Oh! I move second reading, Mr. Speaker. We're all forgetting that today — I'm sorry.

Motion approved.

Bill 64, Public Service Benefit Plan Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 72.

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill I should point out that the present provisions relate contributions and benefits to the indemnity paid to members under subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 64 of the Constitution Act.

Chapter 20 of the Statutes of British Columbia, 1974, repealed section 64 of the Constitution Act with effect from January 1, 1974, and substituted new provisions providing for the payment of an allowance on an annual basis rather than a sessional basis as heretofore. The new provisions also provided a special allowance for the leader of a recognized political party.

The general principle of the amendments included in this bill is to bring the two Acts into conformity retroactive to January 1, 1974, and to make the averaging period and escalation arrangements the same as those in the Public Service Superannuation Act. Specifically, the contribution rate is unchanged at 6 per cent, but from January 1, 1974, the rate is applied to the legislative allowance, excluding the portion paid as an expense allowance, rather than to the sessional indemnity used before that date.

Provision is also made to increase the rate at the same time as the rate increases under the Public Service Superannuation Act for financing the escalation benefits which are paid out of the public service superannuation fund.

Length of service after January 1, 1974, is counted in years and months while the member is in receipt of a legislative allowance. Before that date — January 1, 1974 — each regular session is counted as one year of service. The maximum number of countable years is reduced from 24 years to 20 years and the annual rate of accrual is increased from 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent for each year.

The effect of these two amendments is to retain the maximum pension as being 70 per cent of the legislative amount after 20 years of service, rather than 72 per cent of the sessional indemnity after 24 sessions as it is under the present provision.

The averaging period is reduced from seven years to five years to conform with the averaging period

[ Page 2961 ]

now used in all other of our public plans — and I refer you to teachers, compensation board, B.C. Rail, Hydro, et cetera.

The co-ordination with the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is no longer necessary as each plan operates independently. Also, the provision requiring the suspension of allowances while the member serves as a member of the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada has been removed.

Amendments have been included to provide the same benefits for male and female members and the surviving spouse, whether male or female. The amendments are made retroactive to January 1, 1974, to conform with the effective date of the amendments to the Constitution Act. Those who ceased to be members prior to January 1, 1974, will have their superannuation allowances granted under the former provisions. Members who ceased to be members after December 31, 1973, and who are entitled to a superannuation allowance, will have payment of the allowance retroactive to the date on which they ceased to be a member.

It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that there is no legislation in our province today that gives a benefit for service to any MLA who has served after January 1, 1974, when the Constitution Act eliminated sessional indemnities. The retroactivity, then, provides pension payments to those who ceased to be members as of January 1, 1974, and as well as the very many who ceased to be members as of January 1, 1975.

The amendments included in this bill are in keeping with the policy of restraint, Mr. Speaker. The benefit levels are still significantly less than practically all other provinces, and we recognize that. Members will note that benefit payments cannot begin until the member has been elected three times, ceased to be a member, and attained the age of 55. I move the second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Again the opposition approves that the changes presented in this bill certainly have improved the services in this area, and we will be supporting the legislation.

I'm particularly pleased about the changes that show recognition for the fact that spouses are not always female, that occasionally there is a male spouse and that it extends the benefits to the surviving spouse of anyone serving in this House regardless of their sex. That's a very good section and I certainly support that.

AN HON. MEMBER: A spouse or a spice.

MS. BROWN: The other interesting section, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill offers a member the option as to which of their spouses should benefit from their pension — if a member has married a number of times, whether it should be the first spouse, the second spouse, the third spouse or even split it between four or five of the spouses as the case may be...

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: ...which offers some really interesting alternatives, and boggles the mind, really, when we think of the options that are now open to us as members of this House. So I certainly support that section and say it fits in very well with community of property legislation which is presently on the books and which I hope this House will support, which would make even this option unnecessary.

We are also pleased that the legislation allows for the coverage of a person who is transferred either to the federal House or to the Senate. The only question that I have, and maybe the minister in closing debate could deal with it, has to do with the age 55. I am wondering why, instead of just choosing an arbitrary age, there wasn't an option of, say 15 years of service or age 55, depending upon which came first or which came last, or 20 years of service, because I'm thinking of some of the really young members in this House, Mr. Speaker, who will take a very long time to reach age 55.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, you and I, right. The Premier and I. I mean, it's years before we will make it to age 55, and we'll be well past our 10 years of service, and we'd have to sit and wait another 30 years before we were eligible. So I am wondering if....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: There's another 30 years before we reach our age 55, hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), and maybe the minister could explain why we didn't have this option in terms of years of service or age, and why it really is specifically tied to age 55.

Other than that, it is good legislation, and we are certainly going to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the queries raised regarding the age limit, that part of the Act has not been changed, as I mentioned that simply for the information of the House. That is no different than it's been before, and I am advised that it was truly an arbitrary figure chosen in heretofore past legislation. I can't tell you how it was figured out. The suggestion, however, is very good and I

[ Page 2962 ]

think that in reorganizing and looking at this superannuation Act in the future all of us should address ourselves to that particular point and to many others.

It is not a revision of the Act completely, as you know. It is to take care of those members who were left out of the benefits because of the change in the indemnity as opposed to sessional allowances. But I will certainly take that under advisement.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 72.

Motion approved.

Bill 72, Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 25.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS (1965)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Barrett in the chair.

Bill 25, Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 44; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 24 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 44, Judicial Review Procedure Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 69.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (COURT RULES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 69; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 80 inclusive approved.

On section 81.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, the amendment is in Form F of the schedule by striking out "Fi. fa." in both places and substituting in each case "seizure and sale." I think some explanation is in order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. Member, the proposed amendment is to strike out "Fi. fa.", which is short for "fieri facias", which is the writ of seizure. Under the new statute the terms "seizure and sale" are used as opposed to "fieri facias." It's "Fa. fi." or " Fi. f a." depending upon your destination, pronunciation and interest.

Section 81 approved.

Sections 82 to 116 inclusive approved.

On section 117.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 117. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 117 as amended approved.

On section 118.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, there is another amendment here, just to clear up the terminology, and I would move that amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

[ Page 2963 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 118 as amended approved.

Sections 119 to 155 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 69, Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules) Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave of the House, today, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 69, Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules), Amendment Act, 1976, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 74; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendments to sections 2 and 3. This is to clear up essentially a printing difficulty in the bill. The printing ended up backwards.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 13.

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 74, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 74, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, Mr. Chairman, to section 2.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 25 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 2964 ]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 62, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976 reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 62, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 60, Mr. Speaker.

CREDIT UNIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 60; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 60, Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on page 2962:

69 The Hon. G.B. Gardom to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 69) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules) Amendment Act, 1976 to amend as follows:

Section 117: By deleting the proposed section 22 and substituting the following:

"22. (1) A Chief Administrator of Court Services, a Deputy Chief Administrator of Court Services, an Administrator of Court Services for each registry and such other persons as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act and the duties assigned to a registry by the Rules of Court may be appointed pursuant to the Public Service Act.

" (2) Subject to the direction of the Attorney-General, and to the direction of the Chief Justice in matters of judicial administration, the Chief Administrator of Court Services shall direct and supervise facilities, registries, and administrative services for the Court."

By deleting the proposed section 24 (4) and substituting the following:

"24. (4) The Registrar may appoint any person to act temporarily as a District Registrar, Deputy District Registrar, or Registrar or Deputy Registrar of a County Court."

Section 118: By deleting "Court Administrator" and substituting "Administrator of Court Services".