[ Page 2537 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting petitions

Hydro rate increases. Ms. Sanford –– 2537

Routine proceedings

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 3) (Bill 40) .

Hon. Mr. Davis. Introduction and first reading –– 2537

Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 41) .

Hon. Mr. Davis. Introduction and first reading –– 2537

Oral questions

Legal costs of MEL Paving settlement. Mr. Lauk –– 2537

Good Hope Lake trial irregularities. Mr. Skelly –– 2538

Cook Bicentennial celebrations. Mr. Gibson –– 2538

Funds for Vancouver Association for Children with Learning Disabilities. Mr.

Wallace –– 2539

Welfare applications by WCB appellants. Mr. Barrett –– 2539

Student summer employment programme. Ms. Sanford –– 2539

Activities of B.C. Hydro chairman. Mr. King –– 2540

Alleged conflicts of interest at Vancouver Stock Exchange. Ms. Sanford –– 2540

Medical coverage for senior citizens. Ms. Brown –– 2540

Statement

Northwest rail agreement. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2540

Mr. Barrett –– 2541

Mr. Gibson –– 2541

Mr. Wallace –– 2541

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977 (Bill 47) . Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2541

Power Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 30) Committee stage

On section 1.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2542

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2542

Mr. Lockstead –– 2542

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2542

Report and third reading –– 2543

Gift Tax Repeal Act (Bill 11) Committee stage

On section 1.

Mr. Cocke –– 2543

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2543

Mr. Barrett –– 2543

Mr. Cocke –– 2545

Mr. Barrett –– 2546

Mr. Cocke –– 2546

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2547

Division on report –– 2547

Division on third reading –– 2547

Psychologists Act (Bill 16) Committee stage

On section 1.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2548

Mrs. Dailly –– 2548

Ms. Brown –– 2549

Mr. Gibson –– 2549

Mr. Wallace –– 2549

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2550

Ms. Brown –– 2551

Mr. Levi –– 2551

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2552

Ms. Brown –– 2553

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2554

Division on section I –– 2554

On section 4.

Mr. Gibson –– 2554

On the amendment to section 4.

Mr. Wallace –– 2555

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2555

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2555

On section 4 as amended.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2556

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2556

On section 6.

Mr. Wallace –– 2556

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2556

Ms. Brown –– 2557

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2557

Division on section 6 –– 2557

On section 16.

Mr. Gibson –– 2558

Mr. Levi –– 2558

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2558

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2559

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2559

Mr. Gibson –– 2560

On the amendment to section 16.

Ms. Brown –– 2560

Division on section 16 –– 2560

On section 17.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2561

Mr. Wallace –– 2561

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2561

Mr. Levi –– 2561

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2561

Mr. Wallace –– 2561

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2562

Hon section 18.

Mr. Gibson –– 2562

On the amendment to section 18.

Ms. Brown –– 2562

Division on the amendment –– 2562

On section 18.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2562

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2562

On section 19.

Mr. Wallace –– 2563

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2563

Mrs. Dailly –– 2564

Mr. Cocke –– 2564

On the title.

Ms. Brown –– 2564

Division on third reading –– 2565

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 1) (Bill 7) Committee stage

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 2565

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2567

Tabling documents

Northwest rail agreement documents. Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2568

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Today in the House we are honoured to have Mr. Chappie, member of the California Legislature and caucus chairman of that body, and Mrs. Chappie. I would like to ask the House and the members of the Legislature to welcome them.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a large group of very hard-working members of the Victoria Social Credit constituency organization. I would ask the House to bid them a warm welcome.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Later on, about 3 o'clock this afternoon, in the gallery we will have several grade 10 students from Burnsview Junior Secondary School in North Delta. I would like the House now to make them welcome.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today is the president of the UBC Alumni Association, Mr. Jim Denholme, and the executive director, Mr. Harry Franklin. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make welcome a group of students from Langley from the Alternate Learning Environment School, along with their teacher, Steve McCarthy, who are here today to visit the House proceedings.

Presenting petitions.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MS. SANFORD: This petition, Mr. Speaker, contains 400 signatures collected in the community of Williams Lake and reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, believe that B.C. Hydro's latest rate increase is unjustified. We therefore request that:

" 1) the regressive surcharge on electric bills be repealed;

" (2) the rate structure be adjusted so that users pay according to volume used-,

" (3) future rate increases be submitted to the B.C. energy board for approval after it has held public hearings; and

" (4) the emphasis be on conservation rather than on increased production with its attendant problems of increasing debt and environmental damage."

Introduction of bills.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (No. 3)

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Davis, Bill 40, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 3) , 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.

COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Davis, Bill 41, Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 1977, 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.

Oral questions.

LEGAL COSTS OF

MEL PAVING SETTLEMENT

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, we're about to take an Easter break.... (Laughter.)

Interruption.

MR. LAUK: Sabotage! Sabotage!

MR. SPEAKER: Self-inflicted, hon. member. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I hope your jokes don't come off of my time (laughter) - much as I appreciate them.

On February 24,1977, my colleague, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , asked the Minister of Economic Development the following question: under the MEL Paving settlement, we have the cost to Russel & Du Moulin at $288,000. Would the minister advise the House what the real total legal cost of that case was, including the government's lawyers, witnesses, experts and consultants? In other words, what was the real cost?

Now the minister took it as notice, and I wonder if he's had time to look into it. I'd like to sort of study his answer over the Easter holiday.

[ Page 2538 ]

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): He can't recall.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): He can't recall? He just asked him!

MR. BARNES: He can't recall.

MR. LAUK: Well, I understood the minister was prepared to answer, Mr. Speaker. What is the total legal cost to the government in the MEL Paving case, including lawyers, witnesses, experts and consultants.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): I'll take the member's question as notice.

Interjections.

GOOD HOPE LAKE

TRIAL IRREGULARITIES

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, in mid-February I asked the Attorney-General a question, which he took as notice, concerning irregularities in the case of Regina v. Arnold Campbell at Good Hope Lake, involving the assault on Newton Carlick. The irregularities involved trial irregularities and irregularities in the investigation procedure. I wonder if the minister will respond at this time.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): To the member: I've sent the member a letter on the point, which I know the member has not yet received, because I just signed it before I came into the House. But it is to the general effect that I requested the particulars from officials within the ministry concerning the case as to whether or not there was a basis for appeal. Both the prosecutor and the regional Crown counsel were of the view that a sentence appeal was not available. They had made an extensive consideration of the applicable law and that was the conclusion they had reached.

However, as the member knows, there are other problems in the area. I requested that the B.C. Police Commission look into that aspect. I understand that they have already made plans to attend, and if not, they have already attended. I've not yet received a report from them.

I would also say to the hon. member that when I was in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, I had a couple of discussions with the Hon. Iona Campagnolo concerning other difficulties in the area. I brought those to the attention of the ministers of Human Resources and Health.

COOK BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary if the government is planning to produce a film about Captain Cook as part of the celebration of the bicentennial of his landing at Nootka Sound.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, to report to the House: as you know, the Captain Cook Bicentennial celebrations are in the hands of a committee of the cabinet and there is a bill to be presented before our House. Some of the recommendations to the committee have been along those lines but final plans have not been made. We hope to have that kind of film not only for worldwide and North American distribution to entice people to British Columbia for those celebrations but, we also hope, in conjunction with the Minister of Education, to have this as an educational film which can be shared with all of the school children.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Are you looking for a part?

MR. GIBSON: Well, it goes along those lines, Mr. Minister. I'm glad to hear of those plans. In view of the fact that the Provincial Secretary is the minister responsible for cultural development in B.C., will the minister assure the House that the script will be written by one of B.C.'s very talented authors and not by Mr. Pierre Berton, as is rumoured; and that the film will be produced in a B.C. film studio and not in Ontario, as is rumoured; and that mostly Ontario actors will not act in it, as is rumoured; but it will be, rather, an all-B.C. production? Will the minister give that assurance?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I've made it clear that none of the plans are finalized. It's difficult to respond to rumours, as has been suggested by the hon. member. I can assure the hon. member that the committee will be addressing themselves to all of the problems regarding the production of the film and it would be our concern as a government to make sure that it is produced in the province of British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: Is it not a fact that agreement was reached on this Ontario scheme in negotiations at the committee level last week?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Interjections.

[ Page 2539 ]

FUNDS FOR VANCOUVER

ASSOCIATION FOR CHILDREN

WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education, with regard to the Vancouver Association for Children With Learning Disabilities: I asked the minister on February 24 and again on February 28, whether his ministry would be funding this organization. Since the minister announced to the B.C. Teachers Federation that his ministry has begun a study aimed at improving conditions for children with learning disabilities, can the minister tell the House, in regard to his study, whether input has been, or will be, sought from the Vancouver Association for Children With Learning Disabilities: I asked the minister on February 24, and a great deal of expertise to offer?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm sure it will, Mr. Speaker. In the event that the ministerial study committee has not already sought their advice, I'll advise them that they should seek the advice.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, since recent news reports have stated that the Vancouver Association for Children with Learning Disabilities has been unable to obtain funds, in spite of submissions to four different government departments, and consequently may have to close its Vancouver resource centre, can the minister now tell the House that funding will be forthcoming from his department?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the application of that association is under consideration at the present time. It does not meet the criteria for grants in the field of education because we don't support community groups. But there may be some aspect of their operation that would fall into the educational sphere itself, in which case they'd be eligible for funding. So we're looking at that at the present time.

MR. WALLACE: In the light of the minister's comment, could I then ask whether he or his department will very shortly meet with the representatives of that association to try and give them the necessary guidance which would enable them to change their criteria and qualify for aid? They've applied to four departments and can't seem to come under anybody's umbrella.

HON. MR. McGEER: I must say that each department, I think appropriately, should set up its own criteria for granting. It's not uncommon, mind you, for an organization to seek funding from several government departments, but the criterion that the Ministry of Education uses is that, by and large, the organization should be offering direct educational services, and not community services of one kind or another. We'll be very happy to meet with them, Mr. Speaker, and certainly their application is being reviewed.

WELFARE APPLICATIONS

BY WCB APPELLANTS

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on January 26,1977, 1 asked the following question of the Minister of Labour which he took as notice at that time. I asked the minister if he could tell the House how many people whose appeals are awaiting the Workers' Compensation Board decision have applied for social welfare while their appeals are pending.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I still don't have the full answers to that difficult question. It involves assimilation o f information from the board's review to the Workers' Compensation Board, and then to the Department of Human Resources, through its various agencies throughout the province, because the appellants come from various regions. I've asked that it be done, and I'll give it to the members as soon as it's available.

MR. BARRETT: Could not direct inquiry be made to the appellants and an assessment made on that basis? Surely they would be in a position to be truthful about that. While the minister is at it, could he also request a total amount that has been expended on welfare while these people are awaiting their decisions?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the method suggested by the member would necessarily produce the answers more quickly. To give the total amount expended I would have to know the period of time about which he's concerned.

MR. BARRETT: For each person who's waiting it may be a little different.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAMME

MS. SANFORD: On March 71 asked the Minister of Labour how many applications he had received for the student summer employment programme. At that time I also wanted to know how that figure compared with the number of jobs that are available. I'm wondering if the minister would have that information for the House now.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have the

[ Page 2540 ]

information now. The applications with regard to small-business operations, farms and the like closed on March 28. The time has been extended in some outlying communities. The information should be available and up to date in a week. The House being adjourned at that time, I'll be happy to advise the member by letter.

CHAIRMAN OF B.C. HYDRO

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, on March 24 I asked the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications whether or not he could tell the House precisely how much time Mr. Bonner has for B.C. Hydro. I asked if he is in fact attending regular board meetings in New York of the Schroeder Company, Inco and the Trilateral Commission. Can the minister now answer?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I don't have that information as yet.

ALLEGED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AT VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MS. SANFORD: On March 29 a question was addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning conflicts of interest at the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I don't know if I need to repeat the question at this time, but I'm quite prepared to do so. The minister is frowning; perhaps I should repeat the question. Does the minister think it is proper that one of the public governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, Mr. David Huberman, should be representing an unnamed financier in a takeover bid against Cheyenne Petroleum? It was taken as notice on March 29.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your guidance as to whether or not my opinion of' a matter like that is admissible or provident.

MR. BARRETT: You're the minister; you tell us!

MR. SPEAKER: You've taken the question apparently as notice, according to the hon. member. I presume that there would be an answer come back or a suggestion by yourself that it was inappropriate for you to answer it. At this time it's on notice.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can say this. I don't see how it would enhance the business of the House to know what my opinion is on a particular matter such as this. However, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I am looking into this situation because I think the question raised is an important one - not my opinion of the question but the question itself. My department is looking in to the situation that the hon. member is raising, I believe, on behalf of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , who asked it first.

MEDICAL COVERAGE FOR

SENIOR CITIZENS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on March 24 the Minister of Human Resources took as notice a question which I raised about some senior citizens who were tenants on an Indian reserve in Kamloops who had been refused medical coverage even though they were in receipt of GAIN. I wonder whether the minister has a response for me at this time.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): There will be a written answer forthcoming in the next day or so.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise this House that the government has signed a major renegotiation of the northwest rail agreement which will provide a much better financial agreement for future construction. This is the first major federal contribution towards the cost of provincial rail construction in B.C.

Under this renegotiated agreement the federal government has agreed to waive the cap or the limits that were specified in the original agreement and will now share all future costs on a 50-50 basis. Ottawa has agreed to pay immediately the approximately $81 million for completed construction.

The Dease Lake rail extension has been substantially completed to a point near connection, which is past Bulkley House and Bear Lake.

On the recommendation of the new board of directors of the British Columbia Railway there will be a pause in the construction of the line until we have a report from the royal commission looking into all aspects of the B.C. Railway. This pause has been recommended by the directors of British Columbia Rail because of escalating costs through changes in specifications and inflation and by delays in construction, combined with the fact that resource exploration and development these last few years have not proceeded as rapidly as was originally envisaged.

However, it is this government's policy, as part of our economic development programme, to encourage the resource development that was originally hoped

[ Page 2541 ]

would take place in this important area of British Columbia and to expedite as quickly as possible the full development of the northwest of British Columbia.

The federal government, who will be sharing 50-50 in future costs, supports this pause in construction. Original discussions called for this extension eventually to connect to the Yukon and Alaska. It is heartening to note that Alaska has initiated new studies and talks, and talks are underway for this potential eventuality.

MR. BARRETT: First of all, I wish to thank the Premier for coming to the House and making this announcement. In response to his announcement, I would request that the House be given a copy of the signed agreement. I assume that will either be tabled in the House or be made available. I would prefer it that way to someone dropping a suitcase in my office.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to say that I am deeply concerned about the announcement by the Premier that there will be a pause in construction due to a lack of investment capital or exploration in the northeast sector. We have been led to believe over the past 16 months under the new administration that that would be a major thrust of the economic development of this province. A pause may mean as much as a year's to two years' delay in the continuation of that line.

MR. LAUK: Three.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps three. Hopefully it wouldn't be any longer. It is a grievous blow to the potential economic development of this province over the next 24 months and a serious matter for this House to consider in terms of developing alternatives.

The last comment I have is that I hoped the Premier would give an assurance to the people of British Columbia, now that a pause has been ordered because of escalating costs, that the MEL Paving case will be directly addressed to the attention of the royal commission.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very glad to hear of the receipt of the federal money. I very much welcome the pause in construction which the Premier has announced. By the forecast of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , there is at least $100 million more to spend on completing that line and I don't think the traffic forecasts were there to justify that expenditure at this time. I think a pause is 100 per cent right until that royal commission reports. We have other uses for that $100 million in British Columbia right now - like a new pulp mill for the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) .

The future of the Suskeena-Terrace connection, I hope, is going to be provided for somewhere in that federal-provincial agreement that the Premier mentioned, because that Dease Lake line is much less useful without it. Otherwise you have to backhaul all the way to Prince George to get the tidewater. Alternately, the government should again look into the Bear River Pass route, which would connect to a port at Stewart and save tens of millions of dollars. I hope the royal commission will look at that as well.

But all in all, it's a welcome announcement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the Premier's visits to Ottawa are bringing forth some results. I want to say that regardless of what government's in power in this province, I for one am prepared to do all that we can to not only co-operate with Ottawa but in that respect have the very useful secondary effect of uniting this country and keeping it united.

It seems to me that regardless of the specific financial details, which are welcome in themselves, it is this first measure of obvious progress in constructive and positive negotiations with Ottawa which encourages me greatly. I also feet that it makes nothing but good sense to pause in the further construction of the Dease Lake extension when we have a royal commission with such wide terms of reference looking into the whole past, present and future of this railway.

So I just say that I think that the Premier has brought us good news today, and it's this kind of hard work on the part of this government, through the co-operation of the federal government, that I will always support in this House.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

Leave granted.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

COMPANY GRANT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977.

Bill 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

[ Page 2542 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to call, Mr. Speaker, first of all, committee on Bill 30.

POWER AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): As I expressed in my remarks on second reading yesterday, I'm somewhat concerned about limiting the amount available to a sum not exceeding 50 per cent. This could be 5 per cent, 25 per cent or 10 per cent. I'm wondering if the minister could give us some indication as to how the Energy Commission may be directed or how they may be going to govern themselves in deciding how much of an amount up to 50 per cent they may allow any given application that may come before them.

I gather that new power lines with transformers and so on at this time can run as much as $25,000 a mile, although they're usually a good deal less than that. But at that upper figure we're looking at 10 miles of power line per year for the entire area of the province served by the six utilities named under this Act. Of course, it would be somewhat more than that, but I think it's fair to say that some of the lines will be constructed in fairly difficult terrain, and when we break the $250,000 a year down into a per-mileage basis, it certainly looks as though we're looking at a couple of generations to perhaps supply all the rural areas that are in need of power.

I know the minister indicated that he hoped to re-examine that amount, but I'd just like to point out once again that when you look at it on a per-mileage basis, it looks even less than it does if you say the $250,000 quickly.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll repeat the assurance I gave the hon. member. I'll certainly do my utmost to get the total amount of this vote increased next year. The formula contained in the bill itself is a formula that's been in the Power Act since 1955. It is the formula employed by B.C. Hydro. While I'm not able to describe in any detail how it applies in practice, this suggests that similar practices to those employed by B.C. Hydro will now have to be following by the private utilities as well in respect to these extensions in rural areas.

MR. D'ARCY: I certainly appreciate the minister's assurances. The question really is: will the Energy Commission be simply using the pattern that B.C.

Hydro has used? I suppose the question could be asked about why B.C. Hydro is deciding and not the Energy Commission. Really, it's that question. Will they be looking at the areas on the basis of catch-up and saying that maybe we're going to adjust the formula upwards to some degree? Where normally they might have been allowing 20 per cent, perhaps they might allow 25 or 30 per cent within different parameters of the criteria being used.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Energy Commission, as distinct from B.C. Hydro, is being asked to look at several things. One is the character of the formula itself. Is it appropriate in this day and age? Secondly, they're looking at the proportionate sharing of the total amount of the vote as to whether the investor-owned utilities should get a larger share at least for catch-up purposes relative to B.C. Hydro over the next few years. They'll be looking at both of these aspects and, of course, the overall amount. What is appropriate? What is really needed in the rural areas generally throughout the province for electrification?

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Yesterday, during the course of second reading of this bill, I asked the minister a question regarding people living in remote rural areas who cannot have power extensions because of high costs extended to them in many of these areas. My question was: if a group of individuals got together and formed a small corporation to supply power or electricity or energy to that group, would they be eligible for funds? I do have a copy of the minister's reply, which he tied in to B.C. Hydro. But the fact is that under this section of the Act, Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that perhaps if a dozen people or so in a remote area of the province got together, formed a small corporation and applied for financial assistance under this section of the Act, they perhaps should be able to receive such financial assistance without going to Hydro.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, it's conceivable that a number of people in a remote area could band together and form their own corporation, non-profit or otherwise, and receive assistance under this legislation. I would, however, put the question in that particular case to the Energy Commission and await its recommendation in respect to cases of that kind.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

[ Page 2543 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30 Power Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker. Gift Tax Repeal Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, all of the hon. members know we'll be doing all the committees this afternoon. We were going to follow with that one, but unfortunately the minister has had to withdraw for a few moments. He'll be back shortly and then we'll certainly carry on with it.

GIFT TAX REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, the operative section of this Act is section 1, which is the repealing of the Gift Tax Act. We thought possibly the minister, during the time we were debating the second reading of the bill, would probably think over this question and decide that what he had done was well worth thinking over. Once having thought it over, we know perfectly well his actions would be significantly changed.

The section deals with repealing the Gift Tax Act. We oppose that. The reason we oppose it particularly is the matter of timing. The suggestion we made was that even if one agrees philosophically with removing gift tax, now is not the time. When the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can't take care of the disabled in the province, when other people in the low-income categories are being affected, we suggest that now is not the time to make this move.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the minister has had time to think it over, and looking at section 1, the operative section, he's saying to himself: "I should mend my ways and bring back gift tax and bring back succession duties to the province." It's not too late now. Mr. Chairman, let's hear what the minister has to say to that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in response to the point raised by the member, I have given the matter a lot of thought since we debated this bill yesterday and I would disagree. I would say that now is exactly the time when this type of legislation is appropriate in British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given us an indication that he feels a sense of urgency but I have the feeling that the sense of urgency is more directly aligned to the political fortunes of this government than any investment in the province. The point has been specifically made by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , related to his opinion about a conflict of interest. Of course, the House ruled on that, and we accept the House ruling.

You've given no evidence that there will be improved investment because of this money. These people have this money and they don't invest it; it's stashed away. In the case of the companion legislation that deals with this as well, one estate left $28 million. That money wasn't invested, Mr. Chairman, and there is no indication that very, very wealthy people invest the money in economic development projects. Certainly it won't be in any risk capital.

There's no proof whatsoever of your argument that these very wealthy people are almost just bending over backwards to invest this money. The whole gift-tax reason was to prevent shifting of money within estates. It's got nothing to do with investment whatsoever. It's an unashamed grab for money. Let's deal with it on the truthful basis that it is. It is a protection for the super-wealthy of this province - that's what it is. You represent the vested interests of the very, very wealthy people who deign to feel they have the right to rule. This legislation is nothing more than a straight political payoff to those people who have contributed vast sums of money to Social Credit.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Do you want to disprove that? Then open your campaign books. We'd like to go through the list of contributors. When Mr. Austin Taylor was running around grabbing money to pour into Social Credit coffers....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't get me. I never support millionaires. They get along without my support. As a social worker I'm more interested in the poor people than millionaires. As a New Democratic Party member I've always found out that millionaires can take care of themselves.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: It's a question of power, a question of privilege. You represent very wealthy,

[ Page 2544 ]

powerful, privileged people in our society, and this legislation tips the balance against the ordinary people of this province - hardworking families in the suburbs, in downtown Vancouver, in Kamloops, in Omineca. I don't think there's a single millionaire in Omineca or in Skeena who's going to benefit from this. There used to be members over there who fought for the ordinary people of this province.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Still do.

MR. BARRETT: You're fighting for the ordinary people? I'm sure all the people out there who were planning to give their husband or their wife a gift of $10,000 but were prevented by the tax are now going to be happy. This never affected any gift below $9,999. Is that fighting for the ordinary people? This is taking all the taxes off anybody who wants to give a gift of $10,000 or more. Is that fighting for the ordinary people, the average person out there? Don't kid yourself. This tax, combined with the removal of succession duties, is going to save the super-rich $32 million.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No more? No more difficult.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No more gifting.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you mean you now want to destroy their relationship. At least money may have been the only thing they had going between them. Now that there's no taxes on the gift, there'll be no more gifting, uh? No more gifting. Really! Why don't you stand up and admit it? This is a straight handout to the super-rich. You haven't presented one argument in this House which says why you should remove this tax in terms of benefiting the economy. You haven't and you know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it doesn't affect the Chair. The Schroeder Company referred to by this member - Mr. Bonner doesn't affect the Chair either. I want to make that clear. The Chair is absolutely impartial and I respect the Chair and I am speaking of the Chair. I want to tell the Chair that not only is it not going to help the Chair, it's a ripoff for the rich. That's what it is - a straight, simple ripoff for the rich.

You can hardly wait to make sure that this money is delivered. Talk about shovelling money out of the back of the truck - this is shovelling out of the back of a Cadillac, so the rich can be well taken care of while you sit there, smugly thinking about how right you are, representing those who were born in the money. What a group! The sons of riches!

Can't you see it? It will be a whole sequel. We could do a TV series. "The Sons of Millionaires Looking After Themselves." This week's edition: "Remove all the taxes so the millionaires can sleep well." Next week's edition is: "Remove the taxes on gifts so they can shove the diamonds back and forth to each other." Don't worry about the ferry rates. They don't travel on ferries anyway. Income tax is irrelevant because they know how to beat that system. You're protecting the super-rich of this province in a sickening manner! Can't you see a 'whole TV series? Even Kojak, the former assistant to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , would never be able to solve that one. Anyway, he can't recall....

HON. MR. WOLFE: How about Baretta?

MR. BARRETT: Baretta? I want to tell you that Baretta ain't going to benefit from this legislation. I didn't know Shirley was planning on giving me a gift of $10,000.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Starsky and Hutch.

MR. BARRETT: I could think of a whole series of names of television programmes you could call this. "The Giveaway Gang, " for example; or, "The Super-rich Have Their Day"; or, "Let's Make Sure That No One Disturbs Their Wealth"; or, "Those With Power Should Retain It"; or, "Prove Again That Old Adage That Everybody Is Born Free and Equal. You Can Sleep Beneath the Bridge If You Want To."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Ivory Soap Tower.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, the silver voice of the loser in the leadership campaign, who still hasn't figured out what happened to him. Money bought the leadership. Money buys power. Money runs that party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to the second....

MR. BARRETT: Money influences this legislation. The ordinary people of this province are being taken for a ride in a straight ripoff.

I said yesterday, when I spoke on the legislation, quoting W.A.C. Bennett, that The Province and The Vancouver Sun wouldn't have it on the front page. I want to tell you that The Province did not disappoint me. I couldn't even find it reported in this morning's edition delivered to this House. You bet your life that you like that news hidden, don't you? You don't

[ Page 2545 ]

want the people of the province to know how the millionaires got saved in a tax bill. I want to tell you that if the NDP attacks the millionaires, it would have been headlines in The Province. But when you remove the taxes from the millionaires it's not even under "Help Wanted." It's under "Situations Satisfied"; that's what it's under.

MR. KERSTER: When you're on your feet, just check the press gallery.

MR. BARRETT: Maybe it never will sift out to the peons out there whom you've been taxing. Maybe it will never go through to those people out there. But I'll tell you that as long as I'm here and I have breath in my body, I'll fight against the kind of straight giveaway. That's all it is - a straight giveaway to the super-rich who run that government. And if that message never gets out to the people, that's fair enough. But you should know it, at least. Maybe your conscience will twinge you a little bit when you say your "aye" on this legislation. Maybe you'll know, when you give your gifts and pass on your millions of dollars, that you are doing the right thing by your kin-, but don't peddle the baloney around this province that everybody can pick themselves up by their own bootstrap and have a father whom they can inherit a million dollars from. There are 11 millionaires over there who are well taken care of all of their lives simply because of their lucky choice of parents. You go around talking about people on welfare and the handicapped not deserving the $17.50 a month. What kind of Scrooges are you? You take of yourself but the handicapped be damned!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to address you in this manner because I like you. But I don't like this bill. It stinks! I can say almost anything about the bill. The papers won't report it. Why? Who owns the papers?

HON. MR. MAIR: They're bored with it.

MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you something. They're bored with it; they know what vested interests they represent, too. Go chase another widow and split up her property. I find this an incredible situation in this province; a major piece of legislation benefiting the super-rich and there will never be a front-page story about it. There's $32 million being handed back to the super-wealthy, and you sit there smugly, making funny little remarks. It doesn't bother you one darned bit that the ordinary people of this province have been hosed by this government on almost everything you have done, including ICBC, sales tax, ambulance services, and the $17.50 that you won't Pass on to the handicapped. But you're taking care of the super-rich-, you haven’t any justification for it at all.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, my dear friend, the member for Kamloops who chases widows. You're at least an improvement from lawyers I know who used to chase ambulances.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: At least that much of an improvement - we ended that while we were in government through ICBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please move back to the section.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want you to get the impression that I won't be voting for this legislation. Just in case you had any doubt about it at all, I won't be voting for this giveaway to the millionaires.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, when I asked the question of the Minister of Finance - "Why now?" -his answer was: "Now is a good time." He has given no defence of either this bill or the one preceding it -at least, succeeding it on the order paper but preceding it in debate - the Succession Duty Act. He has not argued that they have provided any benefits for anybody else but the rich in this province.

MR. BARRETT: Super-rich.

MR. COCKE: The only benefits are for the super-rich in B.C. There is no benefit for the disabled; there is no benefit for any other group of society except the super-rich.

What did they do to the ordinary people? They increased the sales tax 40 per cent. What did they do to the people on Vancouver Island? They increased their ferry rates 100 per cent. What did they do to the people driving cars in this province? They increased their premiums by anything from 110 to 300 and 400 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, then he gets up and he says: "Now is a good time." Now is a good time when he talks in terms of everybody else tightening their belt, everybody else....

HON. MR. WOLFE: You're wrong.

MR. COCKE: Oh, don't talk about jobs!

Now is a good time. Okay, Mr. Chairman, then I

[ Page 2546 ]

ask you this. He says: "Now is a good time." I suggest to him that this is a good time to reduce sales tax; I suggest to him now is a good time to reduce ICBC rates; I suggest to him now is a good time to reduce the ferry rates. These are, I think, much more important than that little tiny band of people who are going to be affected by this bill.

Mr. Chairman, there is no defence for this kind of behaviour in the province by a government who is so self-seeking as to lock in their supporters - their few supporters - to pay large amounts of money toward the next election. I can see no other reason for this kind of bill. It can be judged, I would say, as infamous, particularly because of the timing.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I did not yesterday hear the comment of the minister when I read the words of the former Premier of this province (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) , who initiated this legislation, when he said about his own family, Mr. Chairman, in the records of this House.... He said these words:

I want to say this, that whether it's my family or any other family that makes money and develops partly on their own benefits, through their own abilities but partly because of economy established by this government and by the great people we have in this province who've come from everywhere - without them they could not make this money. I say they should pay a part of it to the state, because the state has that money in trust for all the people of the province - all the people.

Are you saying that the former Premier was wrong?

MR. KERSTER: Times change.

MR. BARRETT: Times change and interests change. At least W.A.C. Bennett understood the ordinary people of this province. You are the super-rich representatives and you represent a special-interest group.

He went on to say this:

This is a fair tax. This is a fair tax. Without this tax our succession duties would be worth nothing because you could give it all away and therefore succession duties would be of no value.

You've eliminated the succession duties, now you're eliminating this. Was W.A.C. Bennett lying when he said this? Certainly not. Was he incorrect when he said his opinion was that his own family should pay? Certainly not. How interesting it is that his own son, who is going to be the major beneficiary out of this kind of argument, doesn't agree with him. I didn't raise the question of the family; the father did. W.A.C. Bennett himself is on record saying that his family shouldn't benefit. We've not heard one word from the Premier of this province related to this, not one. There is no use even beating our gums any more. It's a commitment you made months before the election, before you got the campaign funds. You know very well what you went around saying to get money for Social Credit.

MR. KERSTER: Sour grapes.

MR. BARRETT: Sour grapes! Goodness gracious me, I'm prepared and proud to stand and fight for the ordinary people of this province any time! I'll make you this commitment loud and clear: if we're ever returned to government, the first legislation we're going to pass will be succession duties back on again and gift tax back on again. Let the rich pay their fair share. That's all we're asking. We're not asking for any more; we're not asking for any less. Let the rich pay their fair share, even broke richies.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Never again in British Columbia!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that vengeful fighter for the Omineca territory sits there Never again in British Columbia!" He hasn't even the courage to debate the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on their local radio station. "Never again, " he says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On to the section, please.

MR. KEMPF: He's got you brainwashed too, eh?

MR. COCKE: Ah, come on. I watched you when you were a mayor.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one other question of the minister that he doesn't seem to particularly concern himself about, but I would be concerned about this. I'd like to take an example of a person by the name of Mr. Jones, just so we can't identify Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones has five sons and daughters. Mr. Jones is a very wealthy man. He has a multi-million-dollar estate, and because of his multi-million-dollar estate, which is invested, he's paying fairly significant income tax. I'm not talking about succession duty now. He pays significant income tax.

Now one day down the line, he's going to pass on this significant estate to his five sons and daughters. As long as they're all adult, once he makes this gift to those children, he reduces significantly the amount of income tax that that family pays because they will all be taxed at a lower tax level. Mr. Chairman, again where does the benefit run? Who loses? Who always loses with this kind of inconsiderate, thoughtless government with respect to ordinary people? Under this circumstance again the very same thing occurs.

Now there are other situations that one could refer to as collusion where a person kept control of that income. Things along that line have occurred in this

[ Page 2547 ]

country. I recognize that it would be collusion if a person had access to that income himself and hid it. But in any event, this one example that I pointed out is an example that could very easily occur and thereby reduce the amount of income tax that family collectively pays.

So, Mr. Chairman, it's not succession duties- it's the gift tax. It's the whole philosophy behind what's done here; it's the whole philosophy. It's wrong. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) indicate that if ... once we're re-elected, this kind of tax will be re-instituted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Careful, Dennis!

MR. COCKE: It's going to happen. It'll happen even sooner if you sic that member for Burnaby Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) into New Westminster very much more. The best thing that I've had happen to me politically in the number of years that I've run is his help. They look over there and they say: "Well, aren't we lucky!"

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the minister answer that particular question.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member put forward a case regarding a family situation, a large family with a large estate - $1 million - paying income taxes and so on. The answer to that question lies in the fact that some three or four years ago the federal government moved out of the estate-tax field and introduced capital gains taxes. So in the case you mention, regardless of whether a person gifted his estate during his lifetime or after - in which case there would be no estate taxes subtracted - there would be capital gains tax that he would be exposed to in any event in transferring these assets. As I said the other day, it's been proven that some 61.6 per cent of all the assets probated on estates in British Columbia have been the subject of capital gains tax. So this is where the discouragement, you might say, of the dissipation of an estate during a lifetime would lie - in the exposure to capital gains tax.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 31

NAYS - 14

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the members of the House to stay where they are? There'll be another division in 20 seconds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

The House resumed-, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 11, Gift Tax Repeal Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 32

NAYS - 15

[ Page 2548 ]

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker, Psychologists Act.

PSYCHOLOGISTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, my concern is with the definitions here. Once again, we have the bill defining people. "Psychologist" means a person qualified to carry on the practice of psychology. "Register" means a register kept by the registrar under this Act. "Registered psychologist" means a person who is registered under this Act as a psychologist. Those sound straightforward enough on the surface, but later on we find that these definitions are not going to be governed or controlled by the government but rather by a private association.

In the earlier provisions, I know the minister has told the House and will probably tell us again that even though there are all these individuals names ... and we can go through it:

" (i) the provision to individuals, groups, organizations, or the public of any service involving the application of principles, methods and procedures of understanding, predicting and influencing behaviour, including the principles of learning, perception, motivation, thinking, emotion, and interpersonal relationships; or

" (ii) the application of methods and procedures of interviewing, counselling, psychotherapy, behaviour therapy, behaviour modification, hypnosis, research; or

" (iii) the construction, administration and interpretation of tests of mental abilities, aptitudes, interests, opinions, attitudes, emotions, personality characteristics, motivations and psycho-physiological characteristics and the assessment or diagnosis of behavioural, emotional and mental disorder for a fee or reward,

"for a fee or reward, monetary or otherwise."

Now the minister is going to say that's merely covering all the bases. That's merely protecting us. But the fact is that even though the bill doesn't specifically say in a loose legal interpretation that someone who is not registered cannot do all these things, at the beginning of this section it says the practice of psychology includes all these things.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is going to have an intimidating effect on people who may be involved in all kinds of things in a purely honest way, in a purely straightforward way, in a way that they're going to wonder: "My goodness, I shouldn't even open my mouth; I shouldn't even read palms." Practically, as one person with legal training stated, this puts the tea-leaf readers out of business, taken in a straight interpretation. That's what really bothers me. Even though there are matters later on which say that it doesn't really say that, the fact is that when an individual opens the law that's the first thing it says. The practice of psychology includes all those things which I read off.

I think it's far too broad a brush, Mr. Chairman. I think that the practice of psychology should be clearly defined by the government, and that interpretation of what is psychology, as defined by the government, should lie with persons responsible directly to this Legislature and not persons responsible to their own self-regulating body, making up their own rules, their own bylaws and their own regulations.

I must strongly speak against this section, Mr. Chairman, in the form in which it is written right now.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY: (Burnaby North): I have a question to the minister. In this section, there is mention and definitions of "fee or reward." Could the minister tell us if it is his intention and the government's intention, once this association is established and if the bill is passed, to include the certified psychologists under medicare? Will they be able to qualify as physicians can now?

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Absolutely not - is that correct? You have no intention of that.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: No, I know it isn't, Mr. Minister-, but I think it's very important to those of us who are debating this bill, and to the many people outside who are interested in the government's intentions, whether it's in the bill or not. The point is: is it your intention to eventually include them? If that is the intention of the government, British Columbia could become swamped with many people wanting to practise psychology here. As has just been pointed out, we haven't even a definition of what a true psychologist is. There's nothing clear in the bill.

I think the minister owes it to the House and to the public to tell us if those are your intentions. I'm not concerned whether it states it in the bill or not,

[ Page 2549 ]

but I think it's important for us to know whether that is the government's intention.

MS. BROWN: Again I'd like to add my concern to the definition of the practice of psychology. What the minister has done, Mr. Chairman, is to take a number of responsibilities which a number of different professions are involved in and use them as a definition of the practice of a psychologist.

By so doing, he is now saying that this exclusively is now the venue of a psychologist; that no one else, except someone registered under this piece of legislation, is going to be permitted to practise hypnosis. My dentist practises hypnosis. Now he's no longer going to be able to do that.

You're talking about dealing with interpersonal relationships. Your definition of the practice of psychology is wrong and incorrect. These practices are carried out by social workers, psychiatrists, lay counsellors and a number of other people, and you have said this is a definition for the practice of a psychologist. This section, Mr. Chairman, needs to be changed. It's too restrictive in terms of other professions.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I agree with these concerns that are being expressed about the definition section. I particularly share their concerns because of the prohibition section, section 16, which gives effect and force to these definition sections. It would or could be construed to prohibit persons from engaging in activities which I think are perfectly legitimate to be carried on by others than psychologists.

Let us look under the practice of psychology here. It includes a "provision to individuals, groups, organizations or the public of any service involving the application" - and I skip a bit - "including the principles of learning, perception, motivating, thinking, emotional and interpersonal relationships. . . ." Isn't that what a school teacher does every day?

Let's get on to (ii) , under the practice of psychology: "the applications of methods and procedures of interviewing, counselling This is a perfectly ordinary activity, Mr. Chairman, for counsellors in a school system or in a university. They would, under section 16, be engaging in the practice of psychology, because they're being paid a fee for their professional counselling services.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You haven't read the whole section.

MR. GIBSON: Which is the part that I should read, Mr. Minister - the part about "for a fee or reward, monetary or otherwise"?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Section 16.

MR. GIBSON: Section 16. I'll read it, if I may have your permission, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps section 16 could be dealt with when we reach section 16.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: What I'm trying to do, because the minister just asked me to read it, is establish the importance of this definition. You see, it turns on this. Section 16 (1) says:

"No person shall engage in or carry on the practice of psychology" which is the definition we're looking at "and represent himself as a psychologist, unless he is registered under this Act."

Now "psychologist, " under section 1, is defined as, "a person qualified to carry on the practice of psychology, " so therefore, just slotting that right into section 16 (1): "No person shall engage in or carry on the practice of psychology and represent himself as a . . . " and then substitute " . . . person qualified to carry on the practice of psychology."

In other words, put another way, no one shall engage or carry on the practice of counselling, let's say, and represent himself as a counsellor, unless he's registered under the Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It doesn't say that at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: No, Mr. Minister, that's not nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: A judge, when he comes to interpret something, has to take into account not the intent of the government but the plain wording of the statute. It's the wording of the statute we're supposed to be dealing with in committee stage. I am very concerned about this wording. I think it casts far too broad a net, and I really think the minister ought to withdraw a little bit into his counsel and take it up with a semanticist, or a psychologist, and decide if these definitions should be amended a little bit.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my voice to that concern. That was the opinion I expressed when we debated second reading and, as I recall, the minister gave the assurance when he wound

[ Page 2550 ]

up the debate on second reading that church people and lay people of various kinds would still be able to function and provide counselling and advice, and would not be contravening the definition of the practice of psychology.

I just repeat my thought that the breadth of definition is extremely wide here and, regardless of the comments other members have made, I would just pick out subsection (3) , which talks about the assessment or diagnosis of emotional and mental disorder. I presume that even practising psychologists, to some degree, are going to be practising medicine. I always think that a very large part of a general practitioner's work is to diagnose mental disorders, so there seems to be an overlapping jurisdiction here inasmuch as persons providing certain of these services, who are not technically trained as psychologists, will be regarded as practising psychology. Yet, on the other hand, psychologists, in my view, are being given some overlapping jurisdiction to practise medicine. I just see a tremendous difficulty in writing an appropriate definition for the practice of psychology.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that's why this bill has been considered by previous governments and has been found difficult to implement. It's for the very simple reason that what constitutes the practice of psychology is an extremely difficult area to define. I have to agree with the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) that many of these phrases which are part and parcel of the definition represent work that many other disciplines are doing every day. I suppose, if I could just be facetious for a moment, Mr. Chairman, even we politicians are included in the definition because subsection (1) talks about influencing behaviour.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I suppose maybe I'm being conceited when I suggest that the MLAs in this House influence anybody's behaviour other than their own.

But seriously, Mr. Chairman, the scope of the definition could make it possible for the association being set up under the Act to take a rather rigid and literal interpretation of these terms with the result that many persons providing some of these services might well find themselves precluded from doing so.

During the debate on second reading, Mr. Chairman, I quoted the concern of a lay hypnotist. I'm sure there are many other persons working in that area - just to take it as a specific example - who are indeed concerned about the manner in which the provisions of this bill will be applied by the B.C. Psychological Association.

I would just like to add one last word about the phrase, "for a fee or reward, monetary or otherwise." I wonder if the minister could give us some idea how "otherwise" is likely to be defined in the regulations.

I'm assuming that it's easy to determine what a fee or monetary reward is, but the word "otherwise" is a very vague word capable of enormously wide interpretation. Since, for example, many persons offer counselling - for example, in high schools or through the vehicle of the churches - I just don't think the word "otherwise" is appropriate inasmuch as these two particular examples I've quoted are being paid either through a salary as a school teacher or through a stipend as a minister.

I think that the concern expressed by the opposition members in the House is a reasonable one. I just want to make it clear that I want to support this bill, to prevent some of the abuses which I and the minister mentioned in second reading.

So what we're looking for is some modification of either the terminology of the definition section or some idea of whether the regulations that will be written for this bill will cover the points of concern that many members of the opposition have raised.

I think if anyone reads the language in section I objectively, you can't come to any other conclusion but that certain persons providing some of these services will find that, in fact, they are no longer able to do so. This will be a very considerable hardship to a wide range of people in differing disciplines. I just don't think that any of us are able to measure the extent to which these people will be affected or how many of them will be affected. I think that since the bill is well motivated - to prevent abuse of the kind that's been described - it would be a pity and I would very much regret having to vote against a section, and appear to be voting against the overall thrust of the bill. But I do feel that the minister should try to give us some explanation before we pass on to section 2.

MR. D'ARCY: I want to make sure that the point is absolutely clear here. My concern is not that quacks do not exist, and not that they don't do people a whole lot of harm, and not that some effort shouldn't be made to control them. The point here is that this section is going to control and intimidate and restrict the good people. But it really doesn't specifically apply, and what it means is the whole section is one large loophole big enough to drive a medicine show through. And medicine shows will be driven through it. But the people working in schools, working for churches or working for counselling associations in the community are going to look at this and say: "My gosh, I've got to be very careful of what I'm doing. I could have to pay a fine of up to $500 a day."

It's like a great deal of what all governments do: they have a policy that tries to be too specific but it doesn't define it. The fact of the matter is that it takes a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out that it doesn't really apply. The people who really want to

[ Page 2551 ]

get around the law and the people who really want to do harm to society have no trouble flouting the law and making a complete travesty of this Legislature and the government of the day and of society itself. But the people who are really doing a service in the community, who are really well intentioned and in many respects completely qualified - in fact, overqualified - are going to look at this and say: "Hey, man, just because I'm not on the register" -and I don't make the rules for the register the government or somebody else does - "I'd better be careful what I say to this particular client or patient who is coming to me."

That is my concern. My concern is it's going to control the good people, and the quacks and charlatans are going to laugh at it and thumb their noses at this House and the government.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would really like to belabour this point, if I can.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You will.

MS. BROWN: Yeah! Because I think it's a very serious mistake that the minister has made in terms of his definition. Now I'm not saying that the psychologists' practice doesn't include all of these things. I'm saying that this is not exclusively theirs, and that there should be - if you tic this into the prohibition section you see where the danger comes in - something in the definition that states that, notwithstanding the above, other groups are permitted to practice this, too.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I've got a copy of the World Book definition of psychology, and it says:

"Psychology is a broad science and includes many areas of inquiry. Psychological studies range from the causes of international tension to the ability of earthworms to learn to pass through a maze."

It does cover a very broad field, but there are a number of other disciplines that do precisely that. For example, if I can zero in on the word "psychotherapy, " there is a tremendous amount of debate raging around whether psychologists should be practising psychotherapy, or whether it is the exclusive preserve of psychiatrists. When you put this into a section that says, "The practice of psychology includes . . . " and then in section 16 say, "No person shall engage in the practice of psychology unless they're registered under this Act, " you are saying to lay counsellors, nurses who are involved in a number of various areas of counselling, preachers, counsellors in the school system, social workers, counselling groups, women's study groups and other groups involved in dealing with interpersonal relationships that they can be prosecuted under this Act because they are not registered.

You cannot give a definition for the practice of psychology. You can't do that and then make it exclusive to psychologists, because a number of other disciplines do precisely this. The only thing that psychologists do exclusively has to do with their measurements, the tests that they give and the way they interpret them and measure it. But once they move into the area of counselling and predicting behaviour and influencing behaviour, they are doing a lot of things that sociologists and anthropologists do. All kinds of people in the behaviour sciences are involved in precisely these same kinds of methods.

This is very short-sighted, Mr. Minister, to lay this definition down and then say in section 16 of the bill that nobody but a person registered under this Act is free to involve themselves in these kinds of practices. It just doesn't make sense. Nobody is going to be able to live up to this Act. In fact, you are going to cause a tremendous amount of concern in the community among people who are involved in different types of counselling, different types of therapy, different types of interpersonal relationships and, as I said, research or hypnosis psychotherapy - all of these things.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MS. BROWN: Did you amend it?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I see. I just love the undivided attention that I always get, Mr. Chairman, from the minister.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Yesterday the minister said the reason he's bringing the legislation in is because every other province in Canada has one and we don't have one. I guess we feel lonely. But the thing is, why does he want to bring something in just because other provinces have it when the legislation he has drafted is really not the kind of thing that should be done this way?

For instance, I suggested to him yesterday in second reading that this bill should more properly have gone to the private bills committee. Last week we listened to hearings from accountants. One group of accountants came before us because they wanted to become a corporation; they wanted to do certain things. At that time other accountancy operations had a chance to come before that committee and register objections. It would have made a great deal of sense to put this bill before that committee to have an opportunity for people like the social workers' association, the child-care association and all the other people who are in the people business to come

[ Page 2552 ]

forward and give their input, and to assist in the definition aspect because this definition is really horrendous.

I think everybody who has commented on it has pointed out that, as I said yesterday, there is every opportunity, Mr. Chairman, that a number of people who are working in the people business are going to find themselves right out of business. I'm not meaning in terms of business but in the practice of what they are doing; they are going to find they can't practise it anymore.

Believe me, you do have a pecking order within the professions. The minister's experience in the area is mostly in the communications field but those who have worked in the people business know that there is an horrendous pecking order where people say: "I'm better trained than you. Therefore I should do all this and you mustn't do this."

Then we have right in the middle of it an attempt by the government to come in and using.... As he said yesterday, the statement was that "we don't have a bill and we need one." Well, we don't need a bill in all that much hurry. We can have a good bill and good legislation. It's been the practice in this province from time to time, regardless of what government has been in, to produce good legislation. This is not good legislation. The definition section is not....

One of the questions that I would like to ask the minister is: did he get representations from the psychologists' association regarding the definition? The reason I ask this, if I might, Mr. Chairman, is to give an example of the kind of thing that can happen when you get one or two people who are drafting an Act, who have got to give a definition about psychologists.

In the Criminal Code we have a section called "dangerous sexual offenders." When they first introduced that legislation, when it was under a different Act called the Criminal Sexual-Psychopath Act, the lawyers went to the psychiatrists and said: "Will you tell us what a dangerous sexual offender is, a criminal sexual psychopath, because we want to write a bill. We want to put it in law." So they gave them a definition. Then the lawyers got hold of it and played around with it. Do you know what one of the sections says, Mr. Chairman? It's right in the Act today. It says that a criminal sexual psychopath or a dangerous sexual offender is a person who is unable to control his sexual impulses and is liable to commit "hurt, harm or other evil on an individual." That's in the Criminal Code today. That's when you get bureaucrats who draft laws and professionals who give them advice. That's the kind of concoction you get.

What we have here is a concoction, and a very bad concoction. There was every opportunity.... I would hope that this is not going to be the practice that every group is going to come and the minister is going to bring a bill into the House. Let the thing go through the private bills committee. Then if the minister, after all of this input.... It will all be recorded if it is before the private bills committee; then they can sit down and think seriously about an omnibus bill with definitions relating to all of the particular professions that they wish to have some control over. So that's fair enough, but not this way.

So can the minister tell the House whether he got input in respect to the definition in the Psychologists Act from the psychologists' association? What definition did they provide you with?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just in answer to a couple of the questions, I'd just remind members that this bill's been on the order paper for five or six weeks, approximately, and all of those organizations which have been mentioned have had the opportunity to respond to the bill. None of them have. I have had two or three letters of concern about some of the things that have been raised in this House, and they've been answered, as I intend to answer those questions of concern that have been raised now. The fear among some of the people who are practising in various areas that might be included in this definition is largely, I would expect, because of the misinterpretation that's going forward now, like the comments made by the member for Burrard, for instance. They're totally wrong and totally out of step with what the bill says.

There is no possibility for any of the people mentioned by that member - school counsellors, ministers of the cloth or anyone else - to be affected by this bill whatsoever. It is not an exclusive bill. The definition of a psychologist includes those items which are in the definition, because it must be very broad. We must have the opportunity to define all kinds of areas in which a practising psychologist might be engaged. It's broad for those reasons. It does conform to the standards used in a majority of jurisdictions in North America.

I might say that the first request we had for this bill didn't come from the psychologists but rather came from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., who are extremely concerned about some of the practices that were going on in the community. We responded to them. It took us a long time, I might add, to put this bill together. It has been changed a number of times. But I can tell you now, and I want it to be out in the public for sure, that none of those people whom you've mentioned will be affected by this bill - only those people who are practising psychology and who label themselves as psychologists. They must do both of those things before they can be covered under the terms of this bill.

[ Page 2553 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I can't help the stupidity of that member who can't understand why you have to have a very broad definition. You must have defined every aspect of psychology that might be practised or there's no point in defining it at all.

MS. BROWN: But you haven't.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We have, Mr. Chairman, and I'm telling you that none of these people will be affected unless they hang out a shingle, call themselves psychologists and practise psychology, which may include many of these items which are in here. I can't make that strong enough. If the members on the other side can't understand that, I can't help that.

MR. LEVI: I'm not really satisfied with what the minister says. My God, you've created such a mosaic of qualifications in here. You've got a section later on which allows people to have them go before the courts because they're alleged to be practising. You've covered so many sections here that people can be reported for sneezing. What is it so broad for? You've got definitions on counselling here; you're going to scare the heck out of the probation officers and the parole officers. You haven't provided any definitions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member please address the Chair?

MR. LEVI: The thing is you haven't provided any definitions; you've provided a series of labels. "Behaviour therapy." What's behaviour therapy? If there's one, there must be 15. What is he talking about when he talks about behaviour modifications? What is he talking about with learning, perception and motivation - motivation in schools, motivation in terms of dealing with people who are in trouble with the law in terms of probation? You haven't defined any definition here; you've put in a lot of labels. Those labels are subject to a great deal of discussion and argument, Mr. Chairman, within the professions themselves. It's very difficult.

What I'm concerned about is that all of these people other than psychologists who are involved in their own practices are going to find themselves being reported. The minister said all these other people are safe; nobody's going to bother them. How does he guarantee that? What is he going to put in the regulations that will exclude all of these people? I see nothing in the bill that excludes them. Now he's assuring us that these people will be able to continue, Mr. Chairman. Where is that assurance within the

Act? That's the question I'd like you to answer.

MS. BROWN: He has made it worse with his explanation. As the second member for Vancouver-Burrard said, take a word like "psychotherapy." Books have been written just trying to come up with a definition for a word like "psychotherapy." What he has said is that if you practise psychotherapy but you do not call yourself a psychologist, that's fine. If you practise behaviour modification - and again, everybody has their own definition for behaviour modification - but you do not call yourself a psychologist, that's okay.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

But then really the only important thing is to go through life not calling yourself a psychologist, so all the quacks who are out there, practising all of these strange kinds of types of behaviour modification, have to do is to stop calling themselves psychologists. So really his explanation, Mr. Chairman, makes the Act even weaker and more useless than it was before. Really, as long as you do not call yourself a psychologist you can do all of the things that you used to do before. So that certainly is not protecting the public except in terms of people not using that, word "psychologist" - it's protecting the word "psychologist." Now it becomes a very important word and can't be used lightly, but that is all.

Mr. Chairman, the minister raised the point that the bill has been on the paper five weeks, which I question. It hasn't been that long. But despite the fact that it has been on the floor for quite a while, when I contacted psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and all of the groups to ask them to give me some input on the bill, nobody had received the bill. The only thing they knew about it was what they had read in the press.

You see, we have a very strange way of disseminating the information. Unless somebody knows to write in and ask for a copy of a bill and the Queen's Printer mails it out or whatever, these groups really don't have access....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I did send out a number of copies of the bill and the feedback you're getting from me is twofold - from my own experience in the field as a counsellor, so I remind the minister I know what I'm talking about, and also from the people in the field, psychologists and others to whom I've spoken.

As I said earlier, it was the lay preachers themselves who contacted me and expressed their concern about the scope of the definition of the bill. In fact, the definition does not include a number of

[ Page 2554 ]

things that psychologists do. What happens to those psychologists who involve themselves in practices which are not included in the definition? What's going to happen to them?

The definition goes too far in some respects and not far enough in others. It's totally unsatisfactory. That is the reason why the amendment was moved to give the public and everyone else an opportunity to have some input and some dialogue about this.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am more than a bit disturbed that the minister, the man who is responsible for the care of the sick and preventive health care in the entire province of British Columbia, is either unwilling or unable to understand what is being said on this side of the House. Instead of taking a mature approach to what is being said and answering the questions or attempting to answer the questions in a mature and reasonable way, he reverts to hurling childish insults across the floor at a reasonable question being asked. That really disturbs me, Mr. Chairman.

Now going back to what I've said earlier and what the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) said, we have in the definitions here a series of names which are not defined as to what they mean, but we also have the fact that a psychologist is not defined. The question is going to be asked - I'm going to ask it right now in a rhetorical way - is: who defines what a psychologist is? The minister? The government? The opposition? Who? But we see where a psychologist is going to be defined in section 6 where it says that "the association will set the qualifications and standards required for registration of psychologists." So we see what is going to happen.

The minister says, "Don't worry - it's all right, " but the fact is there is no definition of psychology in this bill that the government may lay down which the opposition may examine, which the public may examine. But there are all these labels which are totally meaningless except for a person who may look at it and be restricted in terms of what they're doing in their profession and their occupation in their quite legitimate concerns about helping society.

As I said earlier, the individual who is merely trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and the government - if we go for a fee-for-service thing they could be pulling the wool over the eyes of the government, rip the public off and do things which are deleterious to the public interest and to health care and sick people in this province - will look at this and they will laugh. They will snicker and they will laugh and they will go on doing exactly what they did before, knowing that we've got an Act now, it's spelled out, it's no longer a grey area, and it doesn't apply to them - they can go on doing their thing. That's what we're concerned about on this side of the House.

I would hope the minister would consider a government definition. Let him consult with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, let him consult with any profession or lay association he wishes, but let the government and the minister come up with a definition and let us in this House then examine that definition and vote on it, because we certainly can't vote on labels and names which are totally meaningless and undefined and could apply to almost anyone - politicians, probation officers, social workers, teachers, ministers of the cloth, priests, almost anyone who talks to other people about human problems, familial problems and social relationships.

That's the concern on this side of the House. We've been talking about this for some time now. I hope the message is getting through to the minister as to how we came up with our concerns and why we are so concerned.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 31

NAYS - 17

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

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned with making a potential improvement in section 4, which I think might very well be simply clarifying the intent of the government. I would hope and believe that a board of this kind should contain lay representatives and not simply registered psychologists under the

[ Page 2555 ]

meaning of the Act.

The section currently provides for five psychologist members and a sixth member whose condition in life is not specified. He may be a psychologist or may be a layman. I would like to move an amendment which would clarify that, and have the effect of adding one further person to the board, so that there would then be five psychologists and two laymen.

The amendment would be to section 4 (4) and would read as follows: "adding after the word 'sixth', the words 'and seventh'; adding an 's' to the word ‘member’ and adding after 'years', which is to say, the end of the clause, the words 'and shall not be members of the association."' I would so move. As I say, that would have the effect, as I see it, of providing for an extra member of the board, and of providing that two of the members of the board shall be laymen and not members of the association.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, while we consider the amendment.

MR. KING: It's in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just would like very much to support the amendment. I listened to many of the comments of the opposition and it's quite obvious that in a bill of this nature, setting up a self-regulating body within a particular profession -in this case, the profession of psychology - it is felt that it could carry some of the inherent dangers which exist in any self-regulating professional body.

It seems to me the Liberal leader's suggestion that two members, at least, of the board of directors be from the lay community is an excellent idea. This trend has already begun in other jurisdictions and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. First of all, I think, in Ontario, there was a lay person appointed to that body.

It is, I think, a very timely and reasonable suggestion that no matter how hard people try within the professions, or how well motivated they are, the fact that they regulate their own peers often creates the feeling publicly - not always accurately, but it certainly conveys the feeling publicly - that these professional people look after their own peers and may not always make the same decisions as there would be if some other member of the public were a party to their decisions.

I don't know whether that's a valid criticism, but it is certainly a point of view that I hear quite frequently in regard to the medical profession. Here this bill is setting up a self-regulating body of psychologists to regulate their peers. I think right at the start it would be an excellent idea if the public at large were aware of the fact that at least two lay persons served on the board of directors as both a voice from the community at large and, at the same time, a listening post as to the ongoing development of the affairs of this association.

Therefore I think that this would be a very progressive and forward-looking effect that this amendment would have on this bill, and I strongly support it.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: No, it's not conservative; it's progressive.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to thank the Liberal member (Mr. Gibson) for advising me ahead of time that he planned to make that amendment. It was the intention of the government that the sixth member would be a lay member, but I have no objection to that being spelled out, and I certainly have no objection to a seventh member being added. So the government would be happy to accept the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: I'll be supporting the amendment, but quite frankly, as I've indicated to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, and I indicate to the House now, I think it's a faint step in the right direction. But it's rather difficult, Mr. Chairman, to amend or improve a bill that's basically a bad bill.

I certainly would agree with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that you should have peer groups setting much of their own disciplinary actions, but that's not what we're talking about here. If that's all we were talking about, I would support that; but what we're talking about here is a self-appointed, self-regulating group defining who's okay and who isn't okay. To have a five-to-one professional representation and to make it five to two instead - so what? Make if five to three or five to four.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you should be speaking to the amendment. If the amendment carries, then you can get back to the section.

MR. D'ARCY: Well, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Chairman, the amendment was that section 4 (4) be changed to allow for two government appointees rather than one - was that not correct? -and that those would be lay people. That's exactly what I'm talking about. We're talking about an amendment which increases the number of people on the board from six to seven. As I said, you have six

[ Page 2556 ]

people, you have seven people - so what?

The fact is, the overwhelming majority are going to be people from the association. I appreciate the member for North Vancouver-Capilano's (Mr. Gibson's) good intentions with this amendment but obviously it's one which I'm sure the government is glad to accept because it doesn't mean anything. It does not change the section. It does not change the Act. It does not change the powers of the board. What's really wrong with the board, Mr. Chairman, is not that they have a self-disciplining peer group; what's really wrong is the fact that they have powers to regulate not just a profession but an entire occupational group.

Amendment approved.

On section 4 as amended.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, on section 4 as amended, maybe you'll think my remarks are a little bit more in order now. I do believe - and I'm very, very concerned - that this section allows all kinds of powers to a board which is not responsible to the government; it's not responsible to the public; it's not responsible even to the occupational group or the profession. They set their own rules, their own qualifications, their own entry situation.

If it was merely a question, such as some other professional groups have, of regulating their members, I certainly wouldn't be concerned about that. I have to speak very strongly against this section, Mr. Chairman, because the fact is it simply gives a group of private citizens too much power. In fact, it gives them powers that perhaps even a government shouldn't have over people who are engaged in a very broad occupational group. It takes these powers out of the realm of the government and gives them to a private group. I'm strongly opposed to this section.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, the powers are not taken out of the hands of the government because the government has the ultimate responsibility, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to approve all of the bylaws and all of the regulations of the board and the association. That power will always be there in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, Mr. Chairman.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, briefly on section 6, 1 just want to comment on subsection (f) which deals with the words "misconduct" and "incompetence, " stating, in effect, that the board of the B.C. Psychological Association "may define , misconduct' and 'incompetence' for the purpose of these bylaws." I just feel that is a very extensive power which is being given to the board in an area where we've already decided that the scope and extent of defining the practice of psychology is tough enough to start with. If, on top of that, we are rather loosely.... I say "loosely" because the word "incompetence" in the bill is in quotation marks, which I think reveals that the people who drafted this bill were very sensitive to the fact that the word "incompetence" could have a very wide-ranging' interpretation in this particular field of endeavour, namely the practice of psychology.

I just have some concern that in creating this new bill and in breaking new ground, it would be wise if the minister could consider a more specific definition of the words "misconduct" and "incompetence." Mr. Chairman, I think the word "misconduct" is perhaps more readily appreciated and more generally understood as to what it means since it is an area where, again, medical personnel have, from time to time, been guilty of misconduct. That has been defined under the Medical Act, in the courts and, on many other occasions, by precept and example and by the outcome of litigation, civil and criminal.

This whole business of incompetence is an immensely difficult field. It's a difficult field in the medical profession, which has had years and years of experience in trying to determine when a position is or is not incompetent.

Here, in this other area of psychology, which is much more loosely defined to start with, I just express some real concern that this new board of directors - five psychologists and two lay persons -should be given this degree of power and authority. I wonder, in fact, if they would be happy to receive this kind of responsibility. It would seem to me that there should be some assurance in this debate - this is the kind of assurance that might have been forthcoming from committee study - that a wide variety of persons with expertise and knowledge should perhaps have tried to give some definition or some guidance on this word "incompetence."

The minister may be quite correct in suggesting that it is an extremely difficult word to define and that this is the best we can do in this bill. I don't agree with that point of view. I wonder if the minister has given any consideration at this stage to deleting this particular section, which gives power to the board to decide on its definition and to determine what represents incompetence in this very difficult field.

MR. D'ARCY: I appreciate the minister's point that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have the

[ Page 2557 ]

right to approve, but the fact is that the board will set the qualifications in standards, according to the Act, required for registration of psychologists, and also set the subject of study, examinations and experience of persons applying to be registered as psychologists. It seems to me that they certainly can set those standards, and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can certainly approve or disapprove them as they see fit. The fact is that they will be approving the standards. Once they are approved, what control does the government have over the institutions and the organizations that will be administering and putting out those standards?

I would suggest to the Committee that the Lieutenant -Governor-in-Council will have absolutely no control or possibility of review once they have approved the subject of study and examination in principle.

However, Mr. Chairman, farther down - and this is, I think, in keeping with the member for Oak Bay's point of view - it indicates that the board will have powers to define what is desirable ". . in the public interest, the suspension, revocation or non-renewal of his registration; and the board may define , misconduct' and 'incompetence' for the purpose of these bylaws. . . ."

Mr. Chairman, this neatly steps around what the minister was saying about the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council having the final say, because we see that it says right there that for the purpose of these bylaws, the board may themselves define what is in the public interest - who should or should not be suspended, who should or should not be registered, or who should or should not have his registration suspended. I consider that far too heavy a power and perhaps, as I said earlier, a power that should not even lie with government, let alone with private agencies.

MS. BROWN: The minister was going to respond. But I just want to ask very quickly: what happens to those psychologists who are not registered under this legislation? What kind of power does this board have over them if they should be involved in misconduct or malpractice or whatever?

The minister, I think, is going to respond.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if a person is not registered under this Act, the board obviously has no power over those persons who are not registered.

I would just like to say that both the regulations and the bylaws must be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. You will notice, as well, that there is an appeal section for persons who feel aggrieved; they may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is a protection for the people who are aggrieved in one way or another.

The definition of "misconduct" and "incompetence" - we recognize that both of those are very difficult to define. But the reason that particular addendum is in the Act is not to widen the powers of the board, but rather to restrict it in some way, so that those people who are being judged or considered by the board will be able to see in the regulations what the terms of reference are for the board's powers in its dealing with people who, in one way or another, may be judged to be incompetent or guilty of misconduct.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this section certainly highlights the weakness in the Act, because, in fact, it's not compulsory for a psychologist to be registered under this piece of legislation.

The very things the minister is trying to prevent by introducing the legislation are not going to happen. It's quite possible for charlatans or some others, as long as they do not call themselves psychologists, to continue involving themselves in any kind of malpractice in the community, and they would not be affected one bit by any of the censure embodied in this piece of legislation. That's what I mean when I say it's not going to do its job.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 31

NAYS - 15

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

Sections 7 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

[ Page 2558 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, section 16 to me is the most important section in the Act. This is the section which gives this association which is being created by this bill the powers to control the practice of psychology in the province. The particularly important part is section 16 (l) , which I will read. It's very short. "No person shall engage in or carry on the practice of psychology and represent himself as a psychologist, unless he is registered under this Act."

Now, Mr. Chairman, to fully understand the meaning of that innocuous little sentence, a person has to go back to section I and the definition part of this bill where the practice of psychology is defined -as was mentioned earlier on, it is very, very broad -and where the word "psychologist" is defined to mean a person qualified to carry on the practice of psychology. Now let me just take, for example, one of the things which is included under the concept of the practice of psychology. Let me use the word "counselling." Let me transpose that definition into section 16 (l) . That section would then read: "No person shall engage in or carry on the practice of counselling and represent himself as a counsellor unless he is registered under this Act."

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I heard the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) say across the floor: "You can't make that double change." He's one learned in the law; I wish he would stand up in this House and explain why we cannot. I'm simply substituting in the sentence the things which are contained in the definition section. I'm substituting for the phrase "practice of psychology" one of the things which is described under practice of psychology, and that is counselling. So that is a member of the general class of things called "practice of psychology." Then I am substituting under the word "psychologist" one of the descriptions of a person engaged in the practice of psychology, who would be a person qualified as a counsellor.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, they represent themselves as a psychologist, because a psychologist is a person qualified to carry on the practice of psychology. Surely a counsellor is qualified to carry on the practice of counselling. That's the plain meaning of the language. So whatever the intention of the government may be, the courts have to give effect to the meaning of the language. To me, the language is either ambiguous or dangerous. I read it as giving extraordinarily broad powers, broader than I would want to give, to this association of psychologists.

I have an amendment, but I won't move it at the moment. I'll just wait to hear what the minister has to say about it and what other members have to say about it. But that's the interpretation as I see it at the moment.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could cast his eyes onto section 16 (5) , and perhaps give us the rationale for that particular section. "The court, on proof that a person has contravened or is contravening the section, shall order him to pay the board or other persons $500 for each day the contravention occurred or continued."

Now this, as I understand it, is the prohibition section. But I cannot recall, Mr. Chairman, that we've had such a section where a member of a society is fined, is actually found to be delinquent in some way, and then ordered to pay to the board or other persons "$500 for each day the contravention occurred or continued." I don't understand the rationale for this at all. What is this - to provide a fund for the psychologists' society? If there's a problem in terms of the Act and the behaviour of an individual, surely this is a kind of matter that has to be dealt with in court, not that we grant powers to a society to fine its members $500 a day. My, that's more than we fine polluters in this province.

Perhaps the minister could indicate to us, after he checks with the Attorney-General, or maybe the Attorney-General, if he's not doing anything, would look at the section. What is the rationale for such a section, Mr. Chairman, where we are granting the privilege to a society to fine its own members? That's absolutely unheard of.

Could the minister comment on section 5, which is the one related to the $500 fine that must be paid for every day that an individual contravenes the section? It's paid to the society. Now what is the rationale for that kind of thing - to pay the society the money?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of reasons why. First of all, the fine is to be levied because of an infraction to the Act.

MR. LEVI: By whom?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: By the practitioner. Secondly, there may be very heavy legal costs for one thing, on the part of the board or other person - the government or whoever may bring action.

Also, there have been some very serious problems existing with people who have been practising psychology or a form of psychology and who have asked for payment in advance from people, and very considerable payments at that, before any services are ever rendered. In fact, quite often the services were never rendered at all. I'm talking about amounts of money in the thousands of dollars. That person should have the opportunity not only to seek redress through the Act in terms of the person acting illegally

[ Page 2559 ]

but also in terms of getting some of their money back or all of their money back, if possible.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, if an individual goes to court and he's going to the supreme court of the province, on proof that a person has contravened.... The court meaning what? The supreme court, I presume. That's in the section. It's the supreme court that makes the ruling. The supreme court is supported by the taxpayers. It's paid for by the taxpayers. Now I fail to see that the minister is suddenly getting generous by saying that we fine the individual, which is a complete departure from the usual kind of sanctions that take place through the courts, but the court, on proof that the person has contravened this section, shall order him to pay to the board or another person $500 a day.

The minister tells us that that is to take care of some of the money that it has cost the association. What about the taxpayer? Normally if that kind of thing is levied, let the court levy it and pay it into the courts. If they want to seek costs from the individual, let them seek costs in the normal way. We could have every association in B.C. coming forward and asking for this kind of section. The courts are operated and paid for by the taxpayer. If the court orders somebody to pay something, surely that money should be paid into court, not to an association. I think that's quite a departure from the general practice in terms of the way you deal with people who contravene an Act.

MR. D'ARCY: In dealing further with this section, Mr. Chairman, we have had and still have a provision in the law, which I'm sure the minister is aware of, called restitution. If there is malpractice involving funds, surely the regular legal procedure is the same as any other criminal offence. Any other person who is convicted of fraudulent practices should make restitution when and if ordered by a court in the amount ordered by a court. It's paid to the court.

As far as the minister's point that it costs the association legal fees, what about the costs to the individual? Suppose he should be found innocent? Can he recover $500 a day or his legal costs from the association who took him to court? What about the civil rights of the individual who is wrongfully attempted to be disciplined by the board when the court finds in favour of the defendant? What about that particular case?

I find this most irregular, most strange. While speaking on this section, again I have to agree with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) when he says that this is really the guts of the bill when we see in section 16 (l) here that "no person shall engage in or carry on the practice of psychology and represent himself as a psychologist unless he is registered." We have a board that decides who can be registered and who is not registered and how long that registration should take place. The minister has already told the House; "Oh, it says he must do both. He must represent himself as a psychologist and carry on the practice."

I know this is going over old ground, Mr. Chairman, but the fact is that many people will look at that and say: "I can't even counsel my kids. I can't even be a parent any more because it could be, as defined in the Act, said that I'm indulging in psychology." The ordinary lay person is likely to think that. The charlatans will not think that. They will look at this and in five minutes of less, maybe 30 seconds, they will realize; "Hey, this doesn't apply to me. It's business as usual." But ordinary lay people who are trying to do something in the community are going to have a problem with this.

Maybe after two years or 20 years the word's going to get out - "don't pay any attention to this bill" - but in the meantime we are going to see a situation where ordinary citizens' ability to function and carry on the occupation that they've been carrying on is going to be somewhat circumscribed by this bill because they are going to believe and they are going to feel that there are pressures and threats and intimidation on them merely by the wording in this bill that probably any lawyer would say are not there. But the fact is that people do read bills - not just politicians. People look at this and they see: "Wow, $500 a day I may have to pay to the association. How far are they going to go back? How long have I been counselling people?" That's what they may be concerned about.

The point was made by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) that the board can ask for $500 a day from the court, and if the court finds the individual guilty, it would be paid directly to the board. I find that somewhat nefarious, Mr. Chairman. That certainly should not be in there. I believe that the board should look after its own legal costs. I believe that anybody taken to the court by this should look after their own legal costs, and I think if there's any fine or anything to be paid, or any penalty, it should be paid to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, exactly the same way as any other individual who is found guilty of an offence pays their fine into the court and does not pay it to a private association.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have to say again, I guess, that this section permits only those persons registered under the provisions of this Act to represent themselves as psychologists and to practise psychology both at the same time. That's all this section does. It does prohibit the use of the terms "registered psychologist" or "psychologist" unless that person is registered under this Act.

I said yesterday that the government has never

[ Page 2560 ]

held out that this bill will solve all of the problems that we're faced with. But right now there's nothing. We've had very strong representations from the College of Physicians and Surgeons and a lot of people out in the community, and the letters are growing day by day. I can say right now that this is the first step towards making the practice of psychology much more credible in the community and making sure that persons who call themselves psychologists are living up to some kind of standards of registration and competency of practice.

Mr. Chairman, my tiles are full of complaints from people who are being ripped off in British Columbia today. Families are being destroyed in British Columbia today. People are being abused, Mr. Chairman, by people who are practising psychology without any training whatsoever today. The government has said that we want to take a step to stop these abuses now. This is the first step in doing that.

I hope that once and for all, Mr. Chairman, one item is made very clear: this bill does not cover any of the people who are lay counsellors, who are lay hypnotists, who are ministers, who are members of school boards and happen to be counselling students. Those people, Mr. Chairman, know that. The bill covers only those people who lay themselves out as psychologists and who practise the art of psychology under the terms of this Act.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I support what the minister has just said. If the language of this section were unambiguously capable of interpretation in that direction, then I would support the language of this section, but I do not believe that it is. As further evidence of that, I invite the committee to look at section 18, which finds it necessary to specify certain exemptions from the operation of this Act and from the operation of section 16. One of the exemptions is: "Nothing prevents a person from acting in the course of employment by a provincial, federal or municipal government or government agency, where qualifications in psychology are conditions of such employment." Well, why do you need to have that kind of exemption if the only prohibition is from a person engaging in the practice of psychology and using the word "psychologist" as part of their description to the public? You don't need the exemption if that's the only thing that section 16 (l) means.

To me, section 16 (l) is capable of far broader interpretation. That's why I want to move this amendment which, I believe, is foursquare in line with what the minister says it's intended to mean. I move that section 16 (l) as currently written would be excised and it would be replaced by this: "No person shall engage in or carry on the practice of psychology while describing himself by the word 'psychologist' unless he is registered under this Act."

That's the amendment. I'll send it up to you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me to do exactly what the government wants to do but in clear unambiguous language, not capable of misinterpretation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the amendment while the minister takes a few minutes to read it because really ...

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've already read it.

MS. BROWN: ... the only thing that the amendment does is to put into correct grammar what he has tried to do in a very clumsy way in this particular section which leaves it open to all kinds of contradictions. According to the section, he uses the word "and" and he says that you have to both practise psychology and represent yourself as a psychologist. Well, the amendment says the same thing but in better grammar. It says you cannot practise psychology while representing yourself as a psychologist unless you're registered under this Act, and that is very clear. The way it's presently written here is not clear, and this is the reason why it's causing so much confusion in so many people's minds.

It's not correct that the people out there know that they are not covered, Mr. Minister. They have been phoning in and there has been concern about whether this Act would apply to them or not. There is confusion out there and there is concern.

This particular section needs to be redrafted properly. It may be a simple case of bad grammar. That's all it may be, because the way you have explained it makes good sense, but that's not the way it's written. I don't know whether this is supposed to be legally correct grammar. It may be, but it's certainly not good English. This amendment writes it in clear and terse terms that everyone can understand.

Amendment negatived.

Section 16 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 28

[ Page 2561 ]

NAYS - 18

On section 17.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I would assume that these injunctions, should they be issued by the supreme court, would not be ex parte. But could the minister advise us on that?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, regardless of the nature of the injunction, I'm just interested in the first sentence in this section, which says: "In the event of a threatened breach by a person of this Act. . . ." I'm always very nervous when we give authority to people to anticipate events. It's hard enough in debating this bill to determine how accurately it can be applied where people are not conforming to the provisions of the bill, but we have a phrase here which talks about a "threatened breach" of the Act, and the board under these circumstances may apply to the supreme court for an injunction. I wonder if the minister could tell us the kind of circumstances under which the board would function to seek an injunction because of a threatened breach of the Act.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that probably the injunction could be an ex parte injunction under the terms of the bill. Secondly, I can't think of a specific instance in which a threatened breach might be taking place except in the case of a confrontation by someone who is obstinately opposed, who says: "I don't care – I’m going to continue. I'm going to practise psychology." There is the opportunity to have an interim injunction to ensure that that doesn't happen. I would think it would only be in the case of a confrontative situation.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I feel that since we're not dealing with life-threatening situations, as might be the case under the Medical Act, where indeed a surgeon, for example, who threatens to breach the Medical Act to the risk of life and limb.... While I think I could go along with that, I think in this bill the words "threatened breach"

represent a very substantial amount of authority to the board. I wonder if, in the light of the minister's difficulty in citing the kind of example that might occur, it would not again add a measure of reassurance to the motives behind this legislation to delete the word "threatened"

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not sure that I agree that the situation would not be a life-threatening situation. We might be making a distinction here between physical health and mental health. The mental health of the person involved in this instance could be seriously threatened. So I don't make that distinction, and I believe that the Act will cover for what might be life-threatening situations.

MR. LEVI: I just want to be a little more clear about this section. I can understand where there has been a breach, and presumably if there is a breach there will follow some legal proceedings. Then when those legal proceedings are complete, if the individual is being found to be in breach of the Act, then I presume that there is some sanction taken. If the individual starts to do it again, then presumably the procedure is to again bring the individual before the courts.

I think that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned the issue of the threatened breach. I'm not really looking for an example so much as a definition of what a threatened breach is. This is somebody who says: "I'm going to do this despite the fact that I just paid $500 for the last three days."

I'm not quite sure what this really means - a threatened breach. How does one evaluate it? Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member said it so well. You're right, that's exactly the situation.

MR. LEVI: That's what it is?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. LEVI: Are you satisfied?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in these cases where an injunction would be granted, I take it that during the period of awaiting the hearing this person has no appeal whatever under the terms of an injunction.

In that case, I just wonder how long it could be before the person is subject to the provisions, let us say, of an interim injunction, because the second part of the section makes it very clear that pending the trial the court may grant an interim injunction. What kind of period of time might we be talking about?

[ Page 2562 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We couldn't put that into the mouths of the court, for instance. It would be up to the court to decide what the interim period would be. The court would take into consideration all the aspects of the application for the injunction and, I would expect, would set the period of the interim injunction on the basis of all of those aspects. I could be corrected by people in the legal fraternity, but I believe that the injunction can be appealed as well.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, section 18 provides exclusions, and it seems to me this is the proper section to move an exclusion for one category of person that I'm very concerned about, again because of my concern about the wording of section 16. Therefore I would wish to make it crystal clear that nothing in this Act shall inhibit a minister or clergyman, as defined in the Marriage Act, from practising their profession.

I have such an amendment on the order paper, and I so move.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I'm speaking in support of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because it's precisely because the minister did not accept the amendment on section 16 that it's so important that this amendment under section 18 be accepted. There is concern out there. The Act is not clear. It has been poorly drafted. If the minister is willing to put under section 18 that certain people are excluded, such as those who are teaching, lecturing or whatever in universities, this is the ideal spot to put in members of the church, ministers of the church. It's a very important amendment in view of the fact that he did not accept the amendment under section 16.

If he had accepted the amendment under section 16, then this amendment would have been redundant and it would have been okay then not to accept it.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The, section would have been redundant - that's right,

Amendment negatived on the following division:

NAYS - 29

YEAS - 18

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

MR. D'ARCY: My other point of order, Mr. Chairman, was that a member was admitted to the chamber while the vote was being taken. While I don't think it made a difference to the vote, I think it's a dangerous precedent to set, and I think that we should police that sort of thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was unaware of that,

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: George Mussallem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mussallem? Shame!

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, on section 18, I am a bit concerned about subsection (c) . Perhaps the minister could tell us: does this apply to just people working directly for government or government agencies? What about community associations funded by the government? It seems to me they're prescribed in this, and certainly there are private agencies, private.... What about the John Howard Society? What about completely private agencies - does this apply to them? Perhaps the minister could give us some idea of what "qualifications in psychology" means. Does it mean a BA, an MA, a PhD, or one year at a community college? What does it mean? Again, I think it's something that I'd be very curious to have defined in this House.

RON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it would depend on what qualifications were listed when the job was advertised. It could be one year in a community college, it could be an MA, or it could be a BA. It would depend strictly on the advertisement for the job, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, the minister heard

[ Page 2563 ]

my second question, but not the first one.

The first one was: how does this apply to outside agencies that are funded by the government or agencies that are only partly funded? Or they may be completely private, but they are certainly doing a legitimate job in the community. Certainly if these organizations weren't doing the job, some of the services which they were doing would probably have to be picked up by the government at a greater cost to the taxpayer.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't apply. Those agencies are considered to be private agencies.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask two questions. I wonder what discussions the minister had with the psychologists in determining that the grandfather clause should be a three-year clause.

The second question concerns subsection (a) , where the association would accept a member in good standing if he had been in the province of British Columbia for one year prior to the date of application and holds a Master's degree with special emphasis in psychology. Why the three-year period after proclamation of the bill, and why, if someone does apply under this bill, will they have to have been a resident of British Columbia for one year prior?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I really can't answer your question. It was an arbitrary choice that was made, Mr. Chairman - three years, or four years, or two years. In discussions, three years was chosen. The answer is the same in the other question as well.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, this really disturbs me because there are many professional people who come into British Columbia and qualify on the basis of their training and expertise. There's no residential requirement for doctors, dentists, lawyers or whatever, if they qualify on the basis of their training and expertise. Since we're talking about a united Canada all the time, I can think of no logical reason why simple residency should, in any way, govern the qualification of a person to be given their professional approval. It's quite clearly stated here that the association can only grant registration without examination if the person was here for one year prior to the date of application and holds a Master's degree from a recognized university with emphasis in psychology.

I would just like to find some reason to introduce this one-year residency qualification because I don't think it applies in any other profession that I'm aware of in British Columbia. It used to apply in Quebec, because I know when I looked into the question of emigrating to Canada one of the rules that applied in Quebec was that you could not apply for registration in the College of Physicians and Surgeons until you had been a resident in Quebec for I think it was three years. I'm not aware that we apply this residential qualification to any other profession. I wonder, since this again is a new bill that could quite well be modelled on the bills applying to other professions, why this specific residential qualification was put in towards the end of this bill regarding people whose qualifications would enable them to be registered without writing an examination. It just seems to me an additional hazard, or an additional obstacle, that they have to have lived in the province for one year.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it's the "without examination" that's important here. It's to allow for the automatic registration of people who have been around in British Columbia and will know what the laws of the province are and what requirements for practice are because they have been here. For those reasons, I think other professions do require examination of one kind or another of people who come into British Columbia. This won't exclude anyone from taking the examination and becoming a registered psychologist under this Act, but it does give us the opportunity to allow both those people who are already registered members in good standing and that second classification to become licensed simply without examination.

MR. WALLACE: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I really have to correct the record. There was no way that I had to write any examination in the medical profession to come into British Columbia. You come in here, you submit your qualifications, you get your licence, and you start your practice. I just don't see that if you're living in the country, or out of the country, that that should be a limit or an obstacle if you have the expertise, the training and the accepted qualifications. Why a one-year residency? I just don't see any point in that at all.

The minister's answer suggests that because somebody comes from Manitoba, or Newfoundland, or Scotland ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: ... that even although they have all the professional training and the degrees and the expertise, somehow or other they've got to serve a sentence of one year in British Columbia before they can get registered.

Interjections.

[ Page 2564 ]

MR. WALLACE: I just feel that this is unfair, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister in reconsideration wouldn't realize that it's just another obstacle to a qualified professional person who meets the standards - and that's what we're really all concerned about, that people meet certain standards. This person, under the very subsection we're talking about, holds a master's degree from a recognized university with special emphasis in psychology. He meets the profession qualifications and training standards, but until he's lived here one year he can't be registered unless he chooses to write the examination. Why should he have to go through one more examination, and presumably pay a fee to write the examination, simply because of this arbitrary one-year residential condition? It just seems to me thoroughly unfair.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to agree with the member for Oak Bay and say I'm even more concerned because I know the minister has an example of a letter he received and I received, where this particular person had, I think, a master's in psychology from the university in Rome. Yet when he applied he was turned down. I certainly hope that for certification to the present association.... Or he just asked that they would accept him. I know it's not legal now until the bill passes, but I certainly hope that the new board is going to give far better consideration to what has happened up to date. I think the minister would notice, if he read the letter that was sent to him, that this has happened.

The other point I want to make is that I do think there is a lot of ambiguity in the wording in subsection (a) . I think we all know what it means, but it could be misinterpreted. It says: " . . . resident of the province and holds a master's degree from a recognized university with special emphasis in psychology." It could read that the university has to have special emphasis in psychology, not the person. I just think the reading is very, very poor. As most of this bill, it leaves so much up for misinterpretation. That is why we find it so difficult to support it.

MR. COCKE: Just one word, Mr. Chairman. One of the reasons that we were concerned about this kind of legislation when we were government was the fact that there tends to develop an exclusive nature within groups. We saw problems with other groups such as the podiatrists and others who have been recently licensed and had legislation in their favour. We felt that umbrella legislation would circumvent all this kind of debate that's logical debate when you consider what's really happening here.

So, Mr. Chairman, is it any wonder that we've had to take the position that we have? This section again shows that it was absolutely necessary that we did.

Sections 19 to 22 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that if the intention of the minister had been to curtail the practices of quacks under this piece of legislation, he has certainly gone about it the wrong way. In fact, what he should have done was to introduce an Act which says that no person shall engage in or carry on the practice of quackery and represent himself as a quack unless he's registered under this Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Then the bill should have been called the Quack Act, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's trivial, hon. member. Please take your seat.

MS. BROWN: No! I'm trying to say that ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is trivial. I cited an example the other day when I was in the chair from May on exactly the same sort of situation.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Thank you for giving my microphone back. I'm saying that the bill is failing to do what the minister is trying to get it to do. If he really wanted to curtail the practices of quacks, he should have introduced a Quack Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman_ when you previously indicated that an amendment was not acceptable based on language, that was one thing. But when persons are indicating a particular persuasion in debate, then I think that you're running pretty close to that thin edge of disaster, or whatever it was the Speaker was talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the minister should chicken out. He's having a big quack attack!

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 2565 ]

Bill 16, Psychologists Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

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

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

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

Bill 16, Psychologists Act, reported complete with amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 29

NAYS - 16

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (No. 1)

The House in committee on Bill 7-1 Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we recognize the first speaker, hon. members, on the order paper, you will notice that there are three amendments listed for Bill 7. Two of the amendments - the second one and the third one - essentially deal with the same section. Therefore, by authorities listed for us in May, it is permissible that we shall debate both amendments at the same time. Is it agreed that we do that? So ordered.

On section 1.

MR. GIBSON: I don't propose to address myself to either amendment at the moment. Is that the order that will be acceptable to the committee? I'll proceed on that basis.

Mr. Chairman, I want to question the minister on the mandatory aspect of this bill, because it disturbs me and I'm against it. I hope that some of the members in this House.... The hon. member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) voted on second reading; I hope he might stand up and ask some questions on this, too.

What we have not had any justification of are the real benefits of the mandatory route over the voluntary route.-We have not had the minister quantify for-us the difference between this and the compliance with the wearing of seatbelts, which I support. Would it be achieved by a voluntary campaign and a strong advertising campaign, as opposed to this coercive route, which I oppose?

We have seen that in the province of Ontario, where the law is clear and mandatory, compliance is something on the order of SO per cent. Mr. Chairman, surely in the province of British Columbia, with an adequate advertising campaign and with the general moral support of this Legislature in a non-mandatory way, we could achieve compliance of something in the order of at least 50 per cent. If we could do that, then all of the need for the mandatory aspect to the bill disappears.

You can talk about the physical protection of the individual, and that's a proper objective. But it’s a different kind of objective when you come to seatbelts than in things like traffic lights or the Hazardous Products Act or fire escapes being properly marked and so on. These -ire all dangers and protections to the individual that come to him in a public sort of way and which he cannot voluntarily avoid.

When you talk about seatbelts it's an individual protection that he can voluntarily avoid. So that to me is not an argument for it being mandatory. The risk is personal and voluntary.

The idea that the other persons in the car are endangered by a lethal object, namely an unbelted passenger, is another kind of theory as to why it should be made mandatory. I can't buy the lethal object argument because you can simply refuse to ride in a car with another unbuckled occupant, if

[ Page 2566 ]

that's the way you feel. So I don't see that as supporting the minister's contention that this has to be made mandatory.

I see a little glimmer of reason in the suggestion that in certain accidents you might better retain control after the accident if you buckled up. I don't see that as being operative in a high enough proportion of cases to justify this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the minister based a great deal of his case for the mandatory aspect on the thought that the public purse was directly affected. But I want him to bring some consistency to that argument. The member for Shuswap might want to speak on this one too. If there is a genuine concern that it be made mandatory because of that, then wouldn't it be a prior cause to attack the cost to the taxpayer occasioned by the smoking of cigarettes, which lead to approximately the same number of deaths as not wearing seatbelts?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Not in any mandatory way, Madam Member. That's the question - mandatory versus voluntary. The Minister of Health has taken the right course in the case of cigarette smoking and entered into exactly this kind of voluntary campaign. And in seatbelts, it's mandatory.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: No, it says you must.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. Minister of ...

MR. GIBSON: It should say it's a good idea; that's what it should say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) not interrupt the member who has the floor?

MR. GIBSON: That minister, Mr. Chairman, has no trust in individual responsibility. He claims to be from a party that's for individual enterprise but he has no trust in individual responsibility. He wants this Legislature to be legislating all facets of our life.

I asked him about smoking. That's what the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said about smoking. He didn't say you must not smoke; he said it's a good idea if you don't smoke. The same thing relates to the control of alcohol abuse, which by any standard of medical measurement and cost to the public of British Columbia has to be 10 times anything that might be saved on the seatbelt side. So I ask the minister to attack that question of quantification and tell us in the committee where his figures are, where the difference is between the compliance that could be obtained in a voluntary means through a strong advertising campaign and the compliance on the mandatory side which in Ontario has only given 50 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I don't know, Mr. Member. I'll look forward to your intervention in this questioning of the minister.

But I want to know to what extent be believes the government should regulate individuals for their own good when the end result is not directly and adversely of effect to other persons in our society. I don't think he has made the case for that. I don't think he has made the case for mandatory regulation of seatbelts saving that much more to the public purse than would voluntary wearing of seatbelts through a massive advertising campaign.

Let me make it clear again: I support the wearing of seatbelts. I support it very strongly and I think that this Legislature ought to express its opinion on that, but the mandatory aspect I oppose.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Why?

MR. GIBSON: Why? Because discipline and control in some things in our society have to be internal. We can't put a policeman around to watch what you eat. You can't put a policeman around to watch the way we raise our children, which can do a lot more damage in our society than whether you wear a seatbelt or not.

MR. KAHL: You don't do those on the public highway.

MR. GIBSON: You just can't do those kinds of things. On the public highway with the seatbelt you're endangering yourself, Mr. Member. You're endangering yourself. As a general rule, Mr. Chairman, in my view the state should never intervene in questions of individual responsibility unless an overwhelming case can be made for the necessity to do so. I say again, with the option of the voluntary route - and I want the minister to defend this - that overwhelming case cannot be made.

I want him to address a couple of other points on the mandatory question. We will have airbags very shortly as regular optional equipment on cars.

MR. KAHL: No, you won't.

[ Page 2567 ]

MR. GIBSON: Yes. As you may know, General Motors is fitting out thousands of cars with airbags.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. GIBSON: As a matter of fact, you can buy one if you want. You can go into the market, Mr. Chairman, and you can buy a car fitted out with airbags by General Motors, if that's the way you feel about it, and that will certainly change the situation. I would like the minister to address that question as to the timing, because airbags are just down the road.

MR. KING: No, they're across the House.

MR. GIBSON: They're available now if you want to pay for them.

Then I want him to address this question, which is one of the most important of all and one that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) should address himself to: the consequences for the general respect for the law when a Legislature passes a law which is admitted by the minister himself, in statements outside this House, as being unenforceable. He proposes to move an amendment in this very debate which would slack off the enforcement even further. I have no doubt that the government will oppose other amendments in this debate which would put some real teeth in the enforcement in terms of points on the driver's licence. That would scare people, but the government is going to back off on that one.

So we're being asked to give committee approval here to a bill which is very, very difficult of enforcement and which the government itself has admitted it does not intend to enforce. Where does that leave the general regard for law in our society? I ask the Attorney-General that. Is it meet and proper that a Legislature should pass that kind of rule? Unenforceable laws bring this place into contempt and they bring the general body of law into contempt. I think the Attorney-General has had enough difficulties with the enforcement of some of our laws relating, for example, to soft drugs and so on to know exactly the kind of corrosive influence that that can have on people's general approach to the law. Enforceability is a terribly important thing and the government has admitted that this particular bill is not enforceable.

So the long-term social consequences of that kind of thing are pretty incalculable. I look at the balance of the public interest on this and I see on the one hand the claim that the making of seatbelt use mandatory brings a certain public advantage. I ask the minister to address himself to the question of what that net advantage is in terms of compliance and reduction of accidents by the mandatory route versus the voluntary route. My opinion is that the net advantage is negligible.

Then I ask him to address himself to the cost of making it mandatory. I suggest that in terms of the erosion of individual responsibility - and God knows that government is getting far enough into our lives in different areas - in terms of that social cost and in terms of the social cost of the general opinion for the law when you pass an unenforceable law, I ask him to balance off those very clear costs against, in my opinion, some very minor net benefits when you consider the question of the compliance on a mandatory basis as compared to a voluntary basis.

I tell you, Mr. Minister, we in British Columbia can do through a voluntary programme at least as well as Ontario has done through their mandatory programme. I think we can do it just about as quickly, I think that we can avoid the attack on the responsibility of the individual, which is, as I say, something that we must always foster, and I think we can avoid the attack on the plausibility of this Legislature in passing laws which are inherently unenforceable.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano argues that the use of seatbelts should remain voluntary. He asks why we introduce legislation to make the use of seatbelts mandatory.

The main reason is that the number of people using seatbelts will double or treble as a result of a law being in place. This has certainly been the experience in other administrations. It's been the case, for example, in Ontario and in countries in Europe in which, first of all, and for some considerable period, there had been an advertising campaign and an attempt to convince people that wearing seatbelts was not only for their own good but for the good of others, including passengers, including pedestrians, including others in other vehicles with which collisions take place.

Driving on the highway is a privilege essentially; it's not a right. It's not one of the rights which we as individuals normally enjoy in a free society. It's a privilege, and it's a privilege which is circumscribed by such things as drivers' licences and by requirements, for example, that we drive on the right-hand side of the road, that we stop at all stop signs, at red lights, and so on. Many of those rules, those laws, are unenforceable in the sense that they cannot be enforced on each and every occasion. Occasionally they're enforced, but the fact that they exist - that the law requires that one drives on the right-hand side of the road - causes many more people to develop a habit of driving on the right-hand side of the road, stopping at stop signs, and stopping at red lights.

The hon. member mentioned air bags. The main

[ Page 2568 ]

problem with air bags is that although they work reasonably well, if they happen to inflate unexpectedly they can obliterate the vision of the driver and they themselves can result in very serious accidents. This is the basic reason why air bags have never been approved as a safety device. In any case, to date, even the vehicles which are being produced on an experimental basis by General Motors, and which include air bags, also include the provision of lap belts as well.

The hon. member asks about the cost of not making seatbelts mandatory - of not causing twice as many people, three times as many people, to use seatbelts. The cost is more accidents. The costs relate to accidents not only involving the driver but passengers, innocent people in other vehicles, innocent people who may be in the area of the loss of control of the vehicle or of the failure of the vehicle - whichever the cause of its behaving in an abnormal way.

But there are other ways of referring to the cost, and I'm certainly not one to recite again the dollar figures. I would simply repeat what I said the other day in introducing the legislation. More than one-third of the people - and an even higher proportion of young people - in the G.F. Strong institution are paraplegics, quadriplegics, who have been damaged irrevocably, damaged very seriously for the rest of their lifetime.

In almost all cases, had they been wearing seatbelts, they wouldn't have been crippled. They wouldn't have been damaged in such a serious way had they been wearing seatbelts or been required by the law to wear seatbelts. The law, in other words, will cause far more people to wear belts. It will reduce by a very substantial number the people in the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre, for example. It will reduce the amount of human suffering and the frustration experienced not only by those who have been damaged as a result of accident but also their close relatives, loved ones and dependents as well. Mr. Chairman, I think the case is strong for this legislation.

I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Davis tables two documents that relate to the northwest rail agreement: one an amending agreement to the agreement in principle of 1973, relative to northwest rail development; the other a financial agreement which also relates, to the northwest rail agreement of 1973.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf files answer to question 81 standing in his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

APPENDIX

81 Mr. Gibson asked the Hon. the Minister of Recreation and Conservation the following question:

To date, how much money has been spent by the Provincial Government in the search for humane trap alternatives, so the leg-hold trap may be banned?

The Hon. Sam Bawlf replied as follows:

"A total of $36,000 made up of $21,000 in the current fiscal (1976/77) year and $15,000 in previous years.

"Because of a carry-over from the last two years, the budget for the F.P.C.H.T. is adequate this year. However, in the next year or two they will be needing larger funding as the number of testing projects increase."