[ Page 2685 ]

CONTENTS

Statements

Attire of members. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2686

Appointment of Lawrie Wallace as agent-general in London. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2686

Mr. Barrett –– 2687

Mr. Gibson –– 2687

Mr. Wallace –– 2687

Fight against organized crime. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2687

Mr. Macdonald –– 2688

Mr. Gibson –– 2688

Mr. Wallace –– 2689

Routine proceedings

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1977 (Bin 38) Hon.

Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 2689

Soil Conservation Act (Bill 57) Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 2689

Oral questions

Pharmacare benefits. Ms. Brown –– 2689

Benefits to senior citizens and handicapped. Ms. Brown –– 2690

Northern rail agreement funding. Mr. Stupich –– 2690

Status of Railwest operations. Mr. Lauk –– 2690

Status of BCR Fort Nelson extension. Mr. Lauk –– 2691

Supplementary budget. Mr. Wallace –– 2691

Coastal transportation subsidies. Mr. Lea –– 2692

Independent Schools Support Act (Bill 33) Second reading.

Mr. Wallace –– 2693 Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2698

Mr. Kahl –– 2697 Division on second reading –– 2701

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

On section 1. Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2704

Mr. Cocke –– 2701 On section I as amended.

On the amendment to section 1. Mrs. Dailly –– 2705

Mr.Cocke –– 2701 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2706

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2702 Ms. Sanford –– 2706

Mr. Gibson –– 2702 Mr. Gibson –– 2706

Division on the amendment –– 2703 Mr. Kerster –– 2707

On section 1. Mr. Cocke –– 2707

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2703 Mr. Rogers –– 2707

On the amendment to section 1. Mrs. Jordan –– 2707

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2703 Mr. Lockstead –– 2708

Mr. Wallace –– 2703 Division on section I –– 2708

Mr. Lloyd –– 2704

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson –– 2704 Mr. Cocke –– 2708

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2708

Report stage –– 2709

Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act (Bill 45) . Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2709 Mr. Levi –– 2711

Mrs. Dailly –– 2709 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2711

Mr. Gibson –– 2710 Second reading –– 2712

Mr. Barber –– 2710

Plant Protection Act (Bill 37) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2712 Second reading –– 2713

Mrs. Wallace –– 2712

Registered Nurses Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 26) Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 2713

Presenting reports

Ministry of. Recreation and Conservation annual report. Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 2713

B.C. Police Comm. report pertaining to Good Hope Lake. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2713

Appendix –– 2713

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House the Hon. John Roberts, who is the present Secretary of State for the federal government.

Since his appointment last September, Mr. Roberts has come to be seen as both a capable and likeable minister who carries a difficult portfolio with distinction. Mr. Roberts has been closely involved with federal politics since 1966, when he was appointed as the executive assistant to the then Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Mr. Roberts was first elected in 1968, and as a backbencher was appointed as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion. Prior to entering politics Mr. Roberts served with the Department of External Affairs from 1963 to 1966.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Roberts and wishing him well in his present duties as Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to introduce Mr. Gordon Robertson, who is with Mr. Roberts, and who has served as a secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations since January, 1975. Mr. Robertson is one of the better-known and most highly respected senior civil servants in Ottawa.

Prior to his present appointment, Mr. Robertson served as Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet from 1963 to 1975, in which capacity he was the senior government adviser to three separate Prime Ministers. Mr. Robertson has also served as the commissioner for the Northwest Territories, 1953-63, and as the Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, 1953-63, in addition to other previous positions with the Privy Council Office: the Prime Minister's office from 1945-49, and the Department of External Affairs from 1941-45.

In 1970 Mr. Robertson was awarded the Vanier Medal by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. The award was rightly deserved as Mr. Robertson's efforts and advice have been of benefit to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to make Mr. Robertson welcome, along with the Hon. Mr. Roberts.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would just very briefly like to associate myself with the generous words of the Premier in respect of two distinguished Canadian public servants. I take the liberty of so doing because I count both of them as good friends.

I was an executive assistant back with John Roberts in 1966. John has since gone on to become famous. (Laughter.)

Gordon Robertson, of course, has been the senior public servant of Canada for very many years and perhaps the public servant in Ottawa most charged with the subject of national unity, which concerns us all so much. I would commend to all of those who are interested in the relationships between the two founding cultures in Canada to examine Mr. Robertson's speech to Dartmouth University - I think it was a couple of months ago. It was one of the definitive statements on that subject and I welcome it as well.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I have a special guest in the gallery today, Dr. Abram Hoffer. Dr. Hoffer was born in Saskatchewan in 1917. He has a degree in agriculture, a PhD from the University of Minnesota in biochemistry and an MD from the University of Toronto. He was director of psychiatric research for the province of Saskatchewan from 1950 to 1967. He's been in private practice since 1967 and for the last half year has been in Victoria. He, with Dr. Osmond, produced the first comprehensive biochemical theory of schizophrenia. He was the discoverer of megavitamin therapy. He was the discoverer of vitamin B3. He discovered nicotinic acid, which is used to lower cholesterol in the blood. I would like the House to bid him a warm welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am especially impressed by the introduction of Dr. Hoffer to the House. There are only two questions that I have. I hope he's here purely on a pleasure visit. If not, what side of the House is he observing? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: The empty side.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we have two guests in the gallery today, Mrs. Millie Taipulas and her mother, Mrs. Mona Luknowski. In addition, we have 30 students from Errington School in Richmond. I would like to draw to the attention of the House that since the beginning of this year there has been a total of 1,434 students from Richmond visiting the parliament buildings. We hope it's an indication of their interest in the parliamentary system. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): There are two groups of people I should like to introduce to the House today: the first are from that group of people most concerned with Trident and with abolishing that menace from our own borders and from anyone else's borders. They are here in the gallery today

[ Page 2686 ]

representing the anti-Trident organization. They are Maude Anstey, a member of the federation executive of SPEC of British Columbia, and Madge Hughes, a member of the B.C. executive of the Victoria Voice of Women. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Secondly and lastly, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to bid welcome to President Walter Kitley and six members of the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association, who are here today for a very particular reason. We bid them welcome as well.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, other students in the gallery today to observe our deliberations for a few minutes are those from Parkland Senior Secondary School on the northern part of the Saanich Peninsula, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Harker. I would ask the House to welcome them as well.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I'd like leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

ATTIRE OF MEMBERS

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised the question of summer dress in the House. I think it was a very valuable suggestion on his part, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there has been improved air conditioning placed within the premises over the past short while. But notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, it would be greatly appreciated if the Whips of all of the parties perhaps could have a meeting with you, sir, to determine as to what can or cannot be appropriate dress for the summer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

APPOINTMENT OF LAWRIE WALLACE

AS AGENT-GENERAL IN LONDON

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the statement concerns the position of agent-general in London. I'd like to announce that Lawrence James (Lawrie) Wallace, British Columbia's Deputy Provincial Secretary since January 1,1959, is to become the province's agent-general for the United Kingdom and Europe at B.C. House.

Mr. Speaker, the appointment will cap a career of dedicated service to the people of the province dating back to his school-teaching days which began in 1933 at the Alberni Indian Residential School. After teaching at Duncan Secondary School and Victoria High School, with a break for war service as a lieutenant-commander with the RCNVR, Lawrie Wallace joined the provincial government as director of the community programmes branch and adult education in the Department of Education in 1953.

Born and educated in Victoria, Mr. Wallace got his BA at the University of British Columbia and his Master of Education at the University of Washington. He was named British Columbia's Man of the Year in 1958 for his work as general chairman of the British Columbia Centennial Committee, which that year organized the celebration of the centenary of the founding of the Crown colony of British Columbia. He served in the same position in centennials celebrated in 1966,1967 and 1971, becoming known as Mr. Centennial across the country. In this connection he attended more than 200 centennial board meetings held throughout the province.

It was in 1958 that he initiated the programme of jointly funded commemorative projects throughout the province, a programme which was repeated in the later centennial years, gaining federal recognition and support in later years. The system was adopted by Ottawa and used across Canada in 1967. In all, the four celebrations in British Columbia resulted in construction of 1,025 commemorative projects valued at over $25 million.

Lawrie Wallace is known by many as the founding father of Barkerville Historic Park, a restoration project which came about as a result of the 1958 centennial. He was also largely responsible for the establishment of Fort Steele Historic Park in the Kootenays. From 1969 to 1972, while earning his Deputy Provincial Secretary salary, he also filled the positions of deputy to the Premier and general chairman of the Centennial '71 Celebrations Committee. Currently he is chairman of the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation and the Queen Elizabeth 11 and Nancy Greene scholarship committees. He is also director or member of a number of boards, councils, commissions and committees, including the Purchasing Commission and the Capital Improvement District Commission. In 1975 he was appointed as a member of the commission of inquiry into redefinition of electoral districts.

A few of the honours he has been awarded attest to his wide-ranging interests and to the respect in which he is held. He is an officer of the Order of Canada; a life member of the B.C. Recreation Association and the B.C. High School Boys' Basketball Association; holder of the City of Victoria Citizenship Award of 1971; and greater Vancouver's Man of the Year for 1967. He is also an honorary chief of the Alberni, Guilford and Southern Vancouver Island Indian bands.

He will bring to the position of agent-general a

[ Page 2687 ]

wealth of knowledge and experience of life and activities in British Columbia and Canada, and also his great administrative ability.

Through his years of service, Mr. Wallace has had many close contacts with members of the Royal Family and government and business leaders in the United Kingdom and Europe. He will succeed Robert Strachan, whose two-year appointment to the position is coming to an end.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, while it is very unusual for an announcement like this to be made directly to the House, I appreciate the fact that in this instance it has been made to the House, because when it comes to Lawrie Wallace, I can't think of a more appropriate forum to announce this new role that he'll play for all British Columbians in Government House in London. I appreciate the two years of service that Robert Strachan has given to British Columbia House in London, and I deeply appreciate the commitment of the government to continue the concept of having someone with deep roots in this province in London House. No one could be more appropriate in that definition than Lawrie Wallace himself.

He will be missed as a public servant, but the fact that he will extend his services to represent all of us British Columbians in Government House is a great accomplishment for all of us.

Just on a personal note, I worked as a civil servant and encountered Lawrie Wallace when I was employed at the Haney Correctional Institute. At that time he was the man who was largely responsible for maintaining the remnants of that early progressive programme known as the community programmes branch, the old Pro-Rec, started by a Liberal administration. Lawrie had been part and parcel of establishing that recreation facility throughout the province and, as the Premier mentioned, he's been recognized in amateur athletics right from that day on.

Lawrie served many administrations: the one previous to ours, ours and the present administration. He is the epitome of what civil servants should be in terms of non-partisan dedication beyond this forum to all the citizens of this province. I applaud the Premier's announcement and the very wise selection of Lawrie Wallace in this new role.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, were one to be selfish, one would resist this excellent appointment because there's no one more helpful in getting things done around Victoria than Lawrie Wallace has been. He'll be very much missed here, but he'll bring an enormous capacity to the job as agent-general.

I'd just say to the Premier that when I hear the list of jobs that Lawrie Wallace is currently doing, Mr. Premier, you're going to have to bring in a supplementary estimate for the manpower to replace him. I'd like as well to join the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier in their tribute to the retiring agent-general, Robert Strachan.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I always knew that you couldn't keep a good Wallace down. (Laughter.) I take it as an honour that Lawrie Wallace always refers to me as "brother." I just wish to add my highest respect and admiration. The words the Leader of the Opposition used sum it up when he said that he epitomizes what every senior civil servant should be in terms of dedication and a non-partisan approach, not to mention the vigour, enthusiasm and intensity that he brings to his job.... I'm just delighted to see another Wallace do so well in the world and I wish him every success in London. He'll have trouble with the Scot!

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know that it is unusual, but I would ask that the Attorney-General confirm whether or not he is intending to make a statement to the House on organized crime in British Columbia, as he indicated yesterday he would do.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm happy to inform the House of the substance of a statement that I made to the press earlier this morning. That is to the effect that I have recently requested that there be developed additional mechanisms for the continuing fight against organized crime in the province. The CLEU research section already has underway in-depth studies of preventive strategies and it is expected to furnish recommendations based on its findings when the studies are complete. Now the strategies that will receive particular attention will be the advisability of a crime commission and, within that framework, consideration will be given to police participation, preparatory work, lead time, intelligence and resource implications, legal issues, plus an analysis - and I think this is a very important point - of existing and utilized mechanisms in other parts of this country and in the United States, including also the structure, the budget and the effectiveness of result.

When developing these initiatives, the policy analysis sector of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit will also be considering the dimension of the problem, existing legislation, requirements for amendment or shoring up the legislation and, further, the powers and the functions and the modus operandi of a variety of our regulatory agencies. They have also been requested to determine what would be the best method to develop a better public awareness of the problem.

This decision to scrutinize a number of avenues of attack, Mr. Member, followed an extensive briefing which I called for last month with the Royal

[ Page 2688 ]

Canadian Mounted Police, the Vancouver City Police and the Vancouver Integrated Intelligence Unit, on the state and the extent of organized crime in our province. I'm obviously not going to - nor am I able to - detail the data I received at that briefing, but I do wish to say that I'm concerned over the growing indications of movement by criminal elements from eastern Canada to the west, from the United States northward into B.C., and from the Orient.

The principal problems are narcotic trafficking, vice, gambling, loan sharking and laundered funds. The police pressure is continuing. Notwithstanding that, there are clear indications that attempts are being made for organized crime to develop a solid base. So efforts have got to be taken to halt those kinds of activities and ensure that they will not take firm root in our province.

So one additional tool that may be required to deal with what I am defining as a higher level of developed criminal activity is obviously a more aggressive attack. We have to do that, Mr. Member, to be certain that top-level crime figures won't be able to operate with impunity, nor set up a protective layer to maintain their anonymity while they gain enormous resources at society's expense.

While making this statement, I do wish to stress that the efforts and the energies of all of the police in our province are in no way lessening in their function. Indeed, they're increasing in momentum to bring these criminal figures to trial. We've already had a large measure of success with the joint forces operation of CLEU. There have been a number of heroin trafficking cases that have been brought to trial, and successfully. There are cases against counterfeiting and prostitute rings. Recently, of course, was the presentation - prepared by CLEU for the government for its approach to Ottawa, to the Minister of Justice, to the Solicitor-General and to the Minister of Health - concerning the heroin problem in B.C. It is a problem not unique to our province, but it certainly is the province of Canada where unfortunately it is most concentrated.

So we anticipate and expect to find additional tools which will enable our combined forces to strip back the criminals' insulation and prevent the victimization of the people.

I further plan to see that this topic will be one of considerable prominence at the next meeting with the provincial Attorneys-General. As we all know - and I think this again is a very important point - organized crime, per se, is rarely local in character and we require interprovincial and national, if not international, activities to do what we can to prevent it. That is what they, of course, require also on their side of the coin to see that they can survive. So I would very much like to see very fulsome co-ordination and co-operation between the federal government and all of the provincial governments in order that any attack or initiative not be fragmented or frustrated. There won't be too much point, say, in resolving a problem in province A to find out that it will be just inherited by province B. I'm most interested in discussing this particular aspect with my fellow colleagues, attorneys and also the Minister of Justice.

I've further instructed the Joint Forces Operation and all of our police force and regulatory agency support, which is part of that now within CLEU, to consider the intelligence that was contained in the CBC programme and interrelate it with the existing intelligence possessed by our own law enforcement authorities. That would, be part of the matters that they'll be considering. If any charges should be laid, they shall be laid. I'm certainly hopeful that the CBC will make all of its information in this regard totally available.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear the Attorney-General's statement. I always felt that the second stage of the CLEU operation in order to get at the kingpins of crime - particularly in the heroin trade, which is flourishing, and cocaine now - was a crime commission where the kingpins could be made to account in public for their activities and their wealth, be it licit or illicit wealth. I think we're at that stage now. I think it's overdue.

I would also hope that the Attorney-General and the government will give consideration to the Legislature on a continuing basis having an investigative arm in the form of a committee, so that the backbenchers and some cabinet ministers will be fully engaged. There's always the possibility of corruption, organized crime, public waste out there. Legislative members could be doing a useful task if we had a continuing investigative arm somewhat similar to the grand jury's thing in the United States, but sitting there with power to compel and summon witnesses and root out the kinds of things which can get deeply bitten into our society.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the Attorney-General correctly, he said he would consider a crime commission - that was one of the options. I would put it to him that some kind of a commission of inquiry is absolutely essential to roll back some of these rocks and see what's underneath. The regular process doesn't seem to be doing it. It's upsetting that it takes a CBC programme to sensitize at least the public to it, Mr. Attorney-General, and bring it into public focus. I do congratulate the CBC for what they've done in this case.

The Attorney-General talks about across the country, but just in our own province there are estimates of tens of thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars being caught up in this

[ Page 2689 ]

net. I suggest to the Attorney-General that a commission is not just something to be considered; it's a necessity to deal with this problem.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Attorney-General's statement. I found the CBC programme nothing less than devastating, not because of all the specific elements of crime that were revealed, but of the connections within many levels in our society, many of these levels concerned, in fact, specifically with the preservation of the law and order that we all cherish in society. Public awareness, I suggest, will have to be the No. I hope. I think the CBC performed an extremely vital public function in spending, I believe, two and a half years preparing the information and the film for that programme.

I would just say that the reason I found it so devastating is that one former policeman from Hong Kong who gave evidence stated that it's commonly understood that organized crime and the police in Vancouver are "all one happy family" - that was the phrase he used. Now that is a devastating allegation which may be without basis, but nevertheless this is a statement that one of the persons who is very familiar with criminal activity in Vancouver made publicly. He identified himself as a "Mr. Easy, " so he's not hiding behind a mask or making a statement irresponsibly.

Now I don't say that that has any validity, but when we sit and watch national television and find someone making that kind of statement, implying or alleging that, in fact, the criminal element finds it easy to function in Vancouver because there is some easygoing relationship with the police.... And it was suggested that the police just go after the small fry and every now and again arrest the lesser levels in the crime syndicate, without ever seriously attacking the problem.

I would like to support very strongly the comments of the other party leaders that some form of crime commission similar to that that was developed in Quebec, which perhaps hasn't met all of the success that we would have liked.... But the knowledge we have of the DuBois family is certainly something that we would never have had, had it not been for the extensive television coverage of the Quebec Crime Commission hearings. I'm sure that the problem is enormous and I, for one, will give the Attorney-General and this government every help that I can, but I do feel that we cannot possibly overstress letting the public know the dimension of the problem.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd very much like to express my thanks to all of the members who have spoken, and specifically for their expression of genuine concern and their constructive ideas that they've presented to me this afternoon. The viability and practicality of a crime commission, Mr. Speaker, is something that we definitely wish to test. I certainly do not wish - and I'm sure there's not a member in this House who would wish - that we would embark upon such a programme unless we were sure it was going to be effective and produce a desired result. I think that from the substance of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I've made that point abundantly clear. This is why we wish to be able to benefit from the experience, the good points or the errors, of other areas. This conceivably will not take too long to determine that, but we're requesting full information.

I also would like to respond to the final remarks of the member for Oak Bay and just reiterate the fact that I have requested the Joint Forces Operation to consider all ramifications of that programme and to see where it dovetails or does not dovetail with existing intelligence; and if it's appropriate, that action shall be taken, Mr. Member. I assure you it shall be taken.

Introduction of bills.

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND PETROLEUM

RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Chabot presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 38 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.

SOIL CONSERVATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Soil Conservation Act.

Bill 57 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.

PHARMACARE BENEFITS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. I wonder if the minister would tell us whether anyone presently in receipt of benefits under Pharmacare would be losing any of those benefits after June 30 when the $100-deductible plan takes effect?

[ Page 2690 ]

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

BENEFITS TO SENIOR

CITIZENS AND HANDICAPPED

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister. The federal government....

MR. SPEAKER: May I say, hon. member, it should be on a different subject matter then.

MS. BROWN: It's on a totally different subject altogether.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MS. BROWN: The federal government will be giving its increases to the senior citizens on July 1, as the minister knows. I am wondering whether the minister or whether the province will be giving a similar or an equivalent increase to those senior citizens between the ages of 60 and 64 and to the handicapped at that time. I'm willing to accept the minister taking this as notice too.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll take it as notice. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: Thank you!

NORTHERN RAIL AGREEMENT FUNDING

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier a question about whether or not the province had received any money under the northern railway agreement from the federal government, and he took it as notice. I believe he is ready to answer today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the province received $54 million the first week in April and as announced, the balance of the money is under negotiation. This is all for work completed to date.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of the Environment: in May of 1976, was the minister aware that the chemical Aqua-Kleen, which contains 20 per cent 2, 4-D, was being tested on a three-acre site in Okanagan Lake?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, there were tests conducted in 1976. Perhaps May was the correct month. Observations were made from May until July on that acreage of approximately three acres, yes.

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to ask the minister if he's aware that the chemical was being applied contrary to label instructions, and therefore in violation of the pest control products Act as it relates to application to drinking water supplies. I ask the minister if he was aware of that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the information from the persons responsible for the programme is that they are not acting contrary to any federal regulations or legislation. As the member would know, we are, at the moment, considering a programme for various lakes in the Okanagan area and it has been recommended by the commission members that some applications of 2, 4-D be applied. Anticipating that concern about label instructions, the federal government has been notified by the Ministry of the Environment, British Columbia, outlining the programme to them. The plant products division of Agriculture Canada has reviewed the programme and has advised us they have no objection to the programme provided certain precautions are taken, which indeed are being taken.

The understanding from the persons who are responsible for the programme, which includes some persons within the federal government who act in various capacities on committees, is that the federal government approves of the programme which we are about to embark upon and is not raising any objections relative to label instructions.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: while the federal government may not be raising any objections, there is still a matter of law to be taken care of. I would ask the minister if he's aware of any requests from his department to the manufacturers of Aqua-Kleen to change their label so that this problem would be overcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I know of no such request, no.

MR. GIBSON: Would the minister please inform the House as to when the 2, 4-D programme to clean up milfoil will begin this summer - a starting date?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm unable to give you the precise starting date now because it depends very much upon weather conditions and other.... It is anticipated to begin this month, but I'll be pleased to advise the House when I have a definite date supplied to me.

STATUS OF RAILWEST OPERATIONS

MR. LAUK: My question is to the hon. Minister of Economic Development, who, I understand, spent yesterday trying to mend his fences with the Japanese

[ Page 2691 ]

government.

Has the government received a request from the chairman of the McKenzie commission to continue the operation of Railwest, and has the government decided to comply with this request?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before the hon. minister starts to answer, I think that I should caution you as to the advisability of asking questions relating to matters which are presently before a commission of inquiry. The matter is amply covered in May at page 129.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. LAUK: A point of order. You're using up question period time.

MR. SPEAKER: Not at the moment. I am on a point that refers to the question period.

MR. LAUK: This has nothing to do with the terms of reference of the commission. It's a simple question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Any matter referred to a royal commission is not subject to a question on the floor of the House. Further, the same rule is applicable to a matter referred to a commission of inquiry. I'm just suggesting to the hon. member that questions which fall within the purview of the commission of inquiry are not admissible questions.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, that would certainly exclude the question I have just asked the hon. minister: has the government received a request from the chairman of the commission to continue the operation of Railwest, and has the government decided to comply with this request?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Answer your own question! Don't listen to the Premier every time! Be your own man!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, it's encouraging to see the first member for Vancouver Centre take such a great interest in the operation of the British Columbia Railway lately. He certainly didn't when he was a director. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

STATUS OF BCR

FORT NELSON EXTENSION

MR. LAUK: I have a question. Yesterday I asked the Premier a question relating specifically to the B.C. Rail line from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, Mr. Speaker. Having now checked the Blues, they confirm that his reply was totally unresponsive. He dealt with the Dease Lake extension, not the Fort Nelson line. I suppose he was more concerned with his repartee Ahan with the substance of the question. In view of this, I would ask the Premier this question: in view of the fact that the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Smith) made a public commitment on behalf of the government on June 2 that regardless of any decision by the McKenzie royal commission the government is firmly committed to maintaining and operating the B.C. Rail extension from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, can the Premier confirm that this is now government policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government has not changed its policy or announced any change in policy. The BCR is presently operating a line and we have neither announced nor contemplated any change, nor has any been recommended to us from the directors of B.C. Rail.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary to the Minister of Economic Development on the same subject. Would the hon. minister indicate - he being on the board - whether the board's policy is to recommend to the government that the maintenance and operation of the B.C. Rail extension from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson be continued?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we have an independent board running that railway. I might add that for the first three months of this year the railway had a cash surplus for the first time in a number of years. It's being very well run. They make recommendations from time to time to the government to which the government gives due consideration.

SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, in view of continuing high unemployment and the depressing effect on the economy of high provincial taxation in various forms, if the Premier is giving any consideration to having a supplementary budget introduced during the current sitting of the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member makes some statements in his question with which I disagree. He also must be aware that while from

[ Page 2692 ]

month to month it would be foolish indeed to talk doom and gloom or raise false expectation on the month-to-month unemployment figures, I think we should all be aware that the level of unemployment has fallen by 20,000 people to 89,000 in May and there's a significant rise in the annual growth in job-holding in British Columbia of 5.2 per cent, which has outstripped labour force growth of 3.4 per cent. I think the member should be aware that when we talk about employment, in May of this year there are 1,085, 000 people employed in British Columbia, which is 54,000 more than May of 1976. That's a significant rise in people employed and working in this province.

I do say that these figures are only for a month, and this government is concerned longer-range than just month to month because we realize this is a problem that is not yet solved in British Columbia or in Canada. We are having some difficulties with our economy. We are still concerned for the 89,000 British Columbians who are seeking work, who do not have employment. The government in their economic blueprint are attempting to provide a long-term economy, to provide even greater employment for our people. So while these monthly figures show some encouragement, different trends and people coming into the work force can change those figures dramatically from month to month. But I do say the significant thing in British Columbia is the number of people working. There are 54,000 more people working than were in May of last year, and while British Columbia cannot control the internal migration within the country, the number of people working reflects our ability to create employment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Premier's comments, but the fact is that the 7 per cent provincial sales tax restricts the purchase of goods and services by consumers. Is the government or the Premier giving consideration at this time to reducing the sales tax?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am not about to anticipate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in any tax proposals he has for the province.

COASTAL TRANSPORTATION SUBSIDIES

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. A few weeks ago there was an agreement signed between the Canadian government and the province of British Columbia in regard to subsidy dollars for coastal transportation. In that agreement it specifies, to my understanding on reading it, that freight subsidy and freight service will be assumed as a responsibility of the provincial government. The Premier, it is my understanding, since then has stated that he doesn't read the agreement that way and it seems that it was confirmed by the Hon. Ron Basford that he doesn't read the agreement that way either. Would the Minister of Transport tell me who at this moment is responsible for freight service on the coast of British Columbia - which government?

HON. J. DAVIS: (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, substantially the responsibility for the carriage of freight on the west coast of Canada is that of private enterprise. As the hon. member knows, however, B.C. Ferries does carry vehicles driven on and driven off across the Strait of Georgia on its ferries, and similar service will be provided on the rest of the coast.

MR. LEA: Is the minister at this point satisfied that private enterprise is doing an adequate job for the people of the coast in terms of freight service?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, several firms are making arrangements to improve their service on the coast of British Columbia and, together with B.C. Ferries, we expect that a much better service will be provided in the future.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I know that within the rules of this Legislature one cannot compel the ministers asked questions to be responsive to those questions in the answers that they give. But it should be pointed out that in any court, or before any commission, if they were so unresponsive on such a repeated basis, they'd be held in contempt of that court or commission.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: You haven't answered one question -not one!

MR. SPEAKER: Could I draw to the attention of the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre that when he rises to his feet on a point of order, which is not point of order, he's as much in abuse of the rules of this House as any other member at any other time?

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 33.

[ Page 2693 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, I'm not sure whether the opposition took the adjournment to mean there was an adjournment of the House or that there was an adjournment of the debate, because I see they've all left. Do you think we could have a recess while the terminology is made clear to them? I'm sure they'll want to be represented in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker is at the wishes and the commands of the members of the Legislature.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To clarify my point, the word "adjournment" may have meant to them that they felt the House was adjourned, and after their leader has publicly said that they - although the rest of us weren't - were on a two-month holiday, it may be that they're eager to continue that. I feel that the people who elected them would wish them represented in the House this afternoon on this bill. Perhaps their misunderstanding of the word "adjournment, " feeling they were free to return to the holidays that they said they've been enjoying for two months.... Perhaps we might have a recess while the word "adjournment" is made more clear to them.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. Premier, that it would be unnecessary to take a recess at this time, but I certainly would suggest that the Whip of the government party advise the Whip of the official opposition that we are, in fact, debating Bill 33 in second reading.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

(continued)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I notice that my friend the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) is on the other side of the House at this time too, and I feel dreadfully lonely over here. Yet that's not really true either because I believe, as the poet said, that I'm never less alone than when alone. And looking at these filled benches of government members, all eagerly waiting to hear every word, I feel that I'm fulfilling some useful purpose at the present time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't like to see the minister smiling so happily across at me because I'm not as happy with him as he appears to be with me. He said yesterday that this is a simple bill. That's always got to be the No. I danger signal, when a government minister comes before the House and says: "This is just a simple bill." Usually, they use the word "housekeeping" or they hold up finger and thumb an inch apart and say: "It's just a teeny-weeny little bill."

I would say that this is one of the most important bills that will come before this House this session, and I feel that the minister was either being somewhat facetious or he was showing some gross misunderstanding of the impact of this bill. I leave the House to determine which of these two attitudes he was adopting.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) talked about the lack of consistency by members of the official opposition. I'd have to say, Mr. Speaker, that for a Liberal member who sat for years on this side of the House and poured vitriol on the Social Credit Party and castigated all they stood for, but who now functions as a member of the cabinet of that party in a senior portfolio, his remarks are anything but consistent. I suggest that it makes his own credibility somewhat transparent. I think this particular debate could have done without the castigation by the Minister of Education of members of the opposition, particularly on the basis of lack of consistency, because if there was ever a case of a pot calling the kettle black, that was it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: This bill is a very complicated issue, Mr. Speaker. I can't see it in the clear either/or, pro-or-con terms which yesterday's debate seemed to indicate were the respective attitudes of the government and the official opposition. Perhaps this bill all too regrettably symbolizes the polarization on the political scene in British Columbia. This very either/or approach to the political needs of this province is them or us. If the government's strongly for it, then the official opposition must be strongly against it.

There has been a very substantial amount of public response on this bill and that is why it is obviously perceived by the public as having great impact and many ramifications. There has been concern expressed on both sides. It is certainly a bill where public feeling runs fairly high. I've tried to listen carefully to both sides of the argument, both inside and outside of the House.

As I mentioned yesterday, I couldn't readily quickly come to a decision, but I have decided that I will support this bill. All of my children go to public school. My Scottish background was very strongly biased against so-called private schools; we didn't call them independent schools. We were raised in the understanding that they were private schools for people with lots of money and who derived snob value from attending such schools in Scotland. So I'm in a position where my personal experience in family background and my own children is strongly to favour the public school system. I don't see that ever likely to change.

But the Progressive Conservative Party passed a motion at the 1976 convention which clearly expressed the majority of the delegates' opinion that

[ Page 2694 ]

there should be public funding for independent schools. But even that would not in itself persuade me to stand here today and support this bill for that reason alone. What is more important - and the clear aspect of this controversy which convinces me to support the bill - is the fundamental principle in a democratic society that there must be choices. Not only must there be choices and options, but there must be freedom to make a choice from the options that are available.

I think society down through the centuries has shown that the human condition inevitably is enhanced not only when there are choices but when there is both the freedom of choice and the diversity of choice. It enriches the human condition, whether we are talking about education or health or the environment or many of the other fundamental elements that determine what our quality of living will be.

I would have to say, Mr. Speaker, in fairness, that I find the public school system to be anything but a total success. This is no occasion to start into castigating the shortcomings of the public school system, but when I review all the pros and cons on this issue, point No. I is the intense importance of having choices and diversity.

The second point is that while I have made my decision to use the public school system, I see that it has many deficiencies which other parents feel are not present in the independent school system. Therefore. it seems to me just completely just and reasonable that parents should be able to choose a type of education for their children other than the public school system if they believe that the other system more appropriately meets the needs of their children.

But, of course, the situation today is that in making that choice those parents pay a financial penalty, and these same parents are compelled, through property taxation, to support the public school system. So there seems to me a clear series of basic reasons, first of all, why alternatives should be available and why, in a democratic system, those parents who exercise an option which a minority of parents exercise should not be financially penalized in the process. I don't say this simply for the financial reason, but for the fact that I very strongly believe in the importance of having diversity, of having choices and allowing different aspects and components of education to be widely available at the choice of the parents and the children.

To some extent within the public school system in Victoria we already have recognized the very vital requirement that there should be differences. We have the more-structured and the less-structured type of elementary school in Victoria, and I commend the Ministry of Education for already getting into the aspect of education of providing not just one homogeneous uniform type of education simply because it's all within one ministry, but trying to provide some of the diversity and choices within the public school system.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are the basic reasons I support the bill, because I believe in freedom of choice and I'm always very concerned about monopolies. But it would not be correct simply to support the bill without expressing some reservations about the way in which Bill 33 attempts to provide the other option.

The basic purpose of the bill is to remove discrimination against parents who choose to send their children to schools other than public schools. But what really worries me about Bill 33 is the fact that it appears possible that it is, in fact, making it possible for independent schools to practise discrimination in reverse. I'm talking about such things as student selection, such things as religious influence, or academic attainment, or wealth, or status, or many other completely non-valid criteria for accepting or rejecting a student to an independent school. I find Bill 33 inadequate and vague on what I consider to be this, the most important element in the bill other than the providing of public funding.

The bill states, Mr. Speaker, that where the inspector is satisfied that "no programme" - and then there's a very interesting phrase which says -" in theory or in practice encourages racial superiority, religious intolerance, social change through violent action. . . ." then funding will be provided.

Now it would seem to me that the minister has, in the best of good faith and with the best of motives, tried to make the bill fair and reasonable by emphasizing the government's strong wish to ensure that, in fact, none of these forms of discrimination will occur. But the distressing feature of the bill is the fact that it makes virtually no mention of how these vital judgments are to be made by the inspector. The word "inspector" appears all to frequently right through this bill, and I think it is a dangerous element in the bill. Again, I would say it's a surprising approach from a man who is liberal by conviction and political thinking. But it seems to me that this part of the bill is crucial to the disaster or the success that we may be embarking upon in trying to correct one injustice by creating another one. The language is fairly general, but it clearly gives the inspector - and that may be a woman - enormous power.

No one likes to get deeply involved in arguments which involve religion, but we have to face the fact that many independent schools exist to emphasize certain basic religious convictions and tenets and these very clearly underlie the teaching in these particular schools. There is nothing wrong with that; I want to make that very plain.

If a religious denomination wishes to operate a

[ Page 2695 ]

religious school I have no argument whatever with that, but, since this bill mentions that religious intolerance will exclude any school from obtaining funding, I just have to ask the minister this question, and I would like an answer. If I should choose to send my Protestant child to a Roman Catholic school and my child's application is refused, what is the mechanism or where are the safeguards in this bill to determine how that judgment shall be made as to whether the application was refused because of religious intolerance or refused because they didn't have room for that particular child for various other reasons? Is it semantics, religious intolerance, racial superiority or social action?

Mr. Speaker, this has to be the very difficult part of this bill. I'm not saying that it could be otherwise for any government trying to write this bill for the reasons that I've mentioned. What I'm saying is that I have some concern that this bill does not go into enough detail in trying to explain how some of these very difficult judgments will be made. They will have to be made because sooner or later - and maybe sooner rather than later, I fear - there will be challenges made by parents who wish to send their children to independent schools and who have their applications refused when, at least on the surface, the reason for that refusal might well appear to be religious intolerance or racial or ethnic superiority.

What happens if we have an independent school where there are all white children and one black child applies and is rejected? Would that be considered racial superiority or ethnic superiority, as defined in this bill, that was the cause for that rejection? As I read the bill, the inspector appears the one and only person who makes that immensely important value judgment. The phrase "in theory or in practice" really also seems to be leaving a tremendous amount of latitude to this one person, the inspector. If he is satisfied in theory or in practice that this type of discrimination did not occur, then the funding will be provided.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if we just look at the much less clear-cut problem of determining values, as some schools have determined to do.... For example, in Surrey they have had enormous difficulty in deciding what the definition of values are. In the same way, I suggest that the terms in this bill will lead to real difficulty in the implementation of the bill if, as I read it, this one person - the inspector - is going to be the referee, if that is the word, in situations where applicants are refused admission to independent schools.

Since it will become inevitably an issue from time to time, that is why I think there is some validity in the arguments that have been made in letters to the editor and letters to all of us as MLAs that this bill in a social sense is divisive. When these occasions arise that the inspector decides that either the bill was transgressed or the judgment about an applicant was not based on religious intolerance, there will be publicity. Presumably there may well be cases which go to court, or there will be at least the kind of publicity which presently surrounds cases which are brought to the human rights branch. I notice that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is listening very closely. I appreciate that because I think the Minister of Labour is one of the people who is going to suffer some of the impact of this particular bill.

The whole question of providing public taxpayers' money to independent schools means that the public taxpayer is entitled to a greater assurance, both visibly and otherwise, that in fact those students who now wish to go to independent schools under the terms of this legislation shall be able to do so.

I'm just very concerned in reading the bill that there are tremendous problems down the road for all of us in British Columbia when challenges arise in the kind of situations.... I've picked the most extreme situations, but I feel that the bulk of the problems may well arise where the situation is much less clear cut.

The whole business of value judgments, subjective judgments in this in the way I've mentioned, I think, runs the serious risk of deepening religious controversy and ethnic and racial controversies within British Columbia, thus creating discord in the community. 1, like all other MLAs, I'm sure, have had letters quoting the kinds of divisiveness in Ireland. I'm not suggesting for one moment that our situation by any means is a replica of Ireland, but there is no question that the separation of schools or groups or human beings in any capacity into more clearly defined religious entities never promotes social harmony or any greater amount of accord.

It's for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I say to the minister that the principle of this bill is good and the reasoning as to why parents should not be penalized for making choices is good. But this bill is fraught with some real difficulties which I've tried to outline. I would suggest that we must be immensely careful with the implementation of the bill simply because I do believe that it has the potential to widen and deepen religious, ethnic and racial differences right at a time when we're all trying as Canadians across the land to find reasons which bring us closer together, to understand each other better and bring about a truer form of unity, regardless of provincial boundaries on a map or constitutions or anything else. I just think that the great bulk of people in Canada do want to live more happily together, to understand each other better and to bring about more appreciation of each other's views.

If this bill can be implemented and made to work in that sense, so that you do in fact have people of many religious faiths - pupils, for example, going to a predominantly Catholic school - then that's good.

[ Page 2696 ]

That's what the bill should be trying to do. What concerns me is the lack of any kind of assurance that there is anything other than one person, the inspector, who may well be called upon to make value judgments when pupils are rejected in applying to schools. There's no mention in this bill of any kind of appeal mechanism in the case of parents who seek admission of their children to school X or Y or A or B. The only appeal that's mentioned in the whole bill, Mr. Speaker, is where a teacher's certification is rejected. In that case here again we have centralized power in the hands of one person, the minister. The appeal by the teacher who has been refused certification is to the minister. But there is no mention in the bill of appeal procedures by the student or the parents or anyone who is concerned to find that their child may meet academic standards and all other standards but is rejected as a student at a particular school. What about an appeal mechanism, or has the minister decided to be the sole arbiter on the advice of the inspector?

The minister gave very clear assurance by referring to the definition of qualifying pupils that of course no student from outside of Canada would benefit. You know, Mr. Speaker, that technically and directly is correct. But is it not reasonable to suggest that if an independent school receives X amount of dollars by virtue of the qualifying pupils, the school could readily decide to make additional fringe benefits available within that school and that indirectly, because of the public funding, those students who attend from outside of British Columbia or outside of Canada do in fact realize some benefit?

I understand from reading the definitions section with what concern the minister obviously wrote that section. There is every reason to accept that we should not be subsidizing students from other countries with the taxpayers' money in British Columbia. But I would submit that again there seems to be a limited amount of detail in the bill to ensure that when public funding becomes available, a school which steps up the amount or choice of its programmes does so to all the pupils, including those who come to that school from outside of Canada.

The other big concern I have about the bill - and it really relates to the centralized, authoritarian position of the inspector - is that there really seems to be little or no call for accountability by the independent school receiving the public money, other than to the inspector. I know from discussions with the representatives of the independent schools association that it was their strong desire there should be some elected body, somewhere in the structure, supervising and administering the independent school system.

I wonder, in closing second reading on the debate, if the minister would tell us whether consideration was given to some form of elected body. What has appeared in the bill is a very tight chain of command involving very few people. In fact, there are so few that it seems it really only involves the inspector and the minister, because the inspector is the person who makes many determinations, not the least of which is the determination regarding possible discrimination on religious grounds or otherwise. Then the inspector, in turn, is directly responsible to the minister.

I notice the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is listening very carefully. I wouldn't think there is any other government across Canada where the amount of direct power and authority over the provision of public spending is so tightly tied into two people -the minister and an inspector.

Perhaps the minister can allay some of these fears when he winds up debate by telling me that certain other principles will be provided in the regulations. It would seem to me that even some kind of appointed body ... not that I'm very keen on that. I'm saying that if I can't persuade the minister to have an elected body, much as I have reservations about appointed bodies, I would certainly prefer that as some vehicle between the schools and this one person - the inspector. It would be a poor second best but, frankly, I would much prefer to see that than to have what appears in the bill to be a very small group of individuals dealing with the schools directly through the inspector.

I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that there is concern on both sides of this question, and there are certainly concerns by teachers and principals in the public school system. For example, the principal at Oak Bay Junior High discussed this matter with me. He would like to know if independent schools are to continue to enjoy the autonomy within which they simply dismiss a student who is troublesome and that student then turns up seeking admission to Oak Bay Junior High. I'm sure this happens in other school districts. In other words, there has to be some uniform approach as between the independent school system and the public school system.

I raised this matter in the House, perhaps it was last year, because it appeared that the public schools could too readily dismiss a student. At least there are some very distinct requirements in the Public Schools Act whereby a principal cannot just arbitrarily, or otherwise, dismiss a student. Apparently that does happen in the independent school system and the public school system is left without any option whatever but to accept that pupil.

I think the teachers and principals are entitled to ask the minister this question: if the independent schools are now to receive public funding, should they not be under the same obligation to provide that kind of consideration and protection for the student who may be troublesome and difficult to discipline, for whatever reason? That same pupil may well be

[ Page 2697 ]

difficult to discipline in the public school system, but they just can't say one day, "you're through at this school, " and say to the parents. "take your child." You can't do that under our public school system, and I don't think that now we're putting public money into independent schools they should enjoy any other particular advantage. It's not really an advantage, but it's the opportunity to discriminate against the student.

One of the very sensible points in this bill is the right given to independent schools to opt out. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if I were a strong proponent of independent schools, I would be somewhat concerned at the degree to which this bill starts down that long road whereby the independent schools may one day lose all their independence. The one segment of the bill which would allay my fear, to some degree, is the very clear expression of the fact that schools can opt out. Of course, when you opt out you lose the funding and we're back to where we started, namely, that if a certain school feels it is being unduly interfered with or dictated to by government, the parents whose children attend that school are faced again with double jeopardy in paying twice.

On balance, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, simply because the overriding consideration is the right in any democratic society to have choices, to have the freedom to exercise that choice, and not to be unfairly penalized, financially or otherwise.

I also believe that education, like any other complicated human endeavour, is improved by diversity and differences, and in the long run this bill will bring about some of these improvements in our total education system.

I cannot, however, support the bill without expressing these deep concerns regarding, firstly, the manner in which judgment as to whether discrimination has occurred will take place, and, secondly, the highly centralized power in the hands of the inspector and the minister when there really should be some form of elected body as an important mechanism, both for the government and the independent school, between the independent schools and the minister.

I would hope that these critical comments I have made will be received objectively. They are not meant simply to castigate the bill or to be unfair to the minister. They simply seem to me to be two large areas in what is otherwise a well-motivated bill with a lot of basic reasoning and fair play underlying it.

MR. KAHL: I rise today to support Bill 33. I have a few concerns that I would like to relay through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: concerns that I have had the opportunity to talk about with the minister, and certainly concerns that have been answered to my satisfaction. However, I would like to relay those concerns at this time because the Greater

Victoria Teachers' Association has written to me asking me a number of questions and my stand on Bill 33. They have a number of concerns that I'm sure the minister can quickly deal with in closing debate on the bill. Their first concern in the letter was the kind of education that might be paid for by public funds that would promote divisiveness within the society, within our province.

I have taught, as perhaps you know, Mr. Speaker, for quite a number of years in three provinces. Also, I have observed the separate school system, the private school system, and I don't subscribe to the first concern of the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association, quite frankly. I can remember many enjoyable experiences with my class and classes from other independent schools, and I'm sure that will continue.

In the letter they say: "We believe that we must keep public funds for public education if we are to maintain a non-sectarian, non-elitist school system." Again, in talking with many people regarding this bill and the research that I have done in the library, I don't subscribe to those claims either.

Thirdly, the association has asked me if the government coffers for educational spending are indeed so well endowed that independent schools may also be given grants. "Perhaps the needs within the public school system could be re-examined to determine if more moneys are required to provide quality education for every child."

My reply to that is that it's my opinion that in the public schools system that's an ongoing process, and indeed the Ministry of Education has spent a great deal of funds in doing that very thing, in assessing the needs of children with the core curriculum programme that's presently underway. I think the Teachers' Association is, in the main, pleased with that programme and the results that will come from it.

Perhaps the concern that is shared by the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association and a number of people that I have spoken with is one that deals with the BNA Act. I believe that the minister spoke about it in his opening remarks. However, I would like to ask him again if he could run that past us once more.

I've taken a look at the section in the BNA Act that I believe the association is concerned with -section 93 (3) , which deals with and relates specifically to a system of education. It's my understanding that rather than treating the independent schools as a system, they will be looked at independently on an individual basis and I'm satisfied that we don't have any conflict with section 93 (3) of the BNA Act.

The last concern that the association has is, quite frankly, one which I had looked very much forward to in this House, and it was to urge me to demand a public debate on this issue and to table the bill before

[ Page 2698 ]

the House until such time as all citizens of this province have had the opportunity to speak on this vital issue. Well, Mr. Speaker, we campaigned on this issue in 1975. We introduced the bill almost three months ago and I think that the public, encouraged by the members of the opposition had they taken that opportunity to travel around the province and encourage debate, has had that opportunity. I'm very shocked, quite frankly, and very disappointed that the members of the official opposition are not in the House to debate this. I had looked forward to the debate that they might have put forth - in particular from the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , who I understand spent a great deal of time teaching school. I was looking forward to some of the debate that he might have brought forth to the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in Hawaii.

MR. KAHL: One of my colleagues says that the member is in Hawaii. Well, I hope he's enjoying himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's on a four-month vacation.

MR. KAHL: The ex-Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) - I looked forward to some of her debate. Certainly she could have provided us with some good comments regarding this bill, but she's not to be found in the House today either.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there's been a rumour around that many of the teachers are socialists and subscribe to the NDP. Indeed, I've heard it said among my teaching colleagues that perhaps funds would be made available to the NDP for the next election. After the disgraceful display by these members of the official opposition yesterday, I hardly think that a possibility. In perhaps the last opportunity that those people, who represent a great segment of the population, had to debate the bill on the floor of this House - a public debate, the highest in this province - they put on their running shoes and all left. No debate at all. I doubt very much if the members of the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association who've written to me would in any way support those individuals who don't have the intestinal fortitude to stay in the chamber and debate the issue on Bill 33.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, I'm sure that most of the concerns which I've relayed to you have been touched on before. But in view of the fact that I bring them up 'with particular reference to the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association, I would appreciate very much if you could, in closing debate on the bill, speak on them briefly again.

HON. P.L. McGEER: (Minister of Education):

Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, I'd just like to reassure some of the members who've asked questions about some of the fundamental principles behind the bill that don't emerge clearly from the language.

The first of these I'll deal with because they come from the Victoria Teachers' Association. First of all, what we're supporting with this bill, Mr. Speaker, in the way of instructional support, is the basic CORE programme which we expect to be taught in every school in British Columbia, public and private. We're not supporting anything else in the way of instructional support, and just as the public schools of this province are free to pursue, through part of their curriculum, courses of their choice - and they do pursue these courses under the direction of local school boards - so we would expect the independent schools to have a similar opportunity.

Again, the suggestion came up - I take it from the Victoria School Teachers' Association - that somehow the independent schools in British Columbia are elitist schools. I think this notion should be dispelled, Mr. Speaker. They're not elitist schools. These are places that are struggling for survival. They're taking youngsters from low-income and middle-income families. There are one or two schools in the Victoria and Vancouver areas that do cater to the elite, but they're very small compared with the 150 schools that are operating independently.

I don't think some of the members who have raised this question have any idea of the financial hardship that is placed on families of low income who have to make this choice of exercising their right, as expressed by the United Nations Charter, and cutting in to limited family income in a really enormous way. If you take a low-income family, and then add the tuition for private schools for perhaps two or three or four children, you're placing a fantastic burden on that family.

This $35 million to $40 million that is saved from the public treasury is taken disproportionately from the lower-income people of this province; it's not elitist at all, Mr. Member. And I'm disappointed, really, that the B.C. Teachers Federation have not been prepared to recognize this fact in their official campaign.

With respect to the constitution, Mr. Speaker, the constitution does provide guaranteed support for a separate school system. This bill does not support a system. We don't have an independent school system per se in British Columbia. You have a federation of independent schools, an association, a voluntary body which includes some religious schools of many different denominations. Some are not religious affiliates at all. Therefore, there isn't really a system as such. That's why we're supporting schools as schools because they're teaching children, not because they're part of any independent system.

[ Page 2699 ]

The former Minister of Education said yesterday that there was divided opinion on this. But there really isn't divided opinion; it's quite clear in the constitution. There's perhaps her own brother, who keeps on stubbornly insisting that somehow constitutional guarantees are provided by this bill to an independent system in British Columbia. That's clearly not the case. It's giving support to schools. Should it be the choice of a future government - and perhaps one day the NDP will come back in British Columbia; I can't conceive of it myself but it could take place - they would find there would be no constitutional bar to rescinding a bill of this sort.

Really I think all of the fears of the Victoria School Teachers' Association - and these have been expressed by teachers' associations all around British Columbia; it's been part of an organized campaign to present these doubts - deserve to be laid to rest.

Now the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) raised a number of points. Perhaps we can discuss these in more detail when the bill comes up for debate in Committee of the Whole House, but I'll just touch on two or three of them that the member raised, if I may now in closing the debate, Mr. Speaker.

We did consider very deeply for some months the possibility of having some kind of an elected council to act as a buffer between the ministry and the inspector. But it's a difficult thing to do, inasmuch as the independent schools represent so many different interests around British Columbia and are so thinly spread, with only 4 per cent of the population, and a school spotted here and a school spotted there. It's very difficult to devise any kind of an electoral system that would make a truly representative board that could sit in a capacity to advise the minister as the school trustees do. Perhaps, if the member can think of some suitable way in which an election could be brought about that would really represent them, then we could consider putting it in. But that was our dilemma on that.

Nevertheless we've made provision for advisory committees to the inspector of schools on the matter of all school policy on the matter of inspection. We would expect to have these particular interests served. For example, there's the Catholic School Federation and there are other religious and independent groups that quite properly should be giving advice where the ministry should be receiving advise. We're going to be very careful to set up the appropriate committees of this kind and work in co-operation with them.

The member mentioned that there really wasn't much accountability if an independent school decided to throw a youngster out while Oak Bay had to accept him. Well, yes, but we have that same problem perhaps even more in reverse. Oak Bay kicks the kid out and he winds up in Shawnigan. As a matter of fact, over the years the independent schools have been gathering up students from the public school system that were having adjustment problems. That's really been one of the great strengths of the independent school system. It's been their willingness to educate the misfits from the public school system.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, that's perfectly true, and yet we dismiss people from the public school system. We do have a process for that. I suppose it's conceivable that we could develop a similar process for the independent school. But the point about it is that no school should be forced to keep a youngster in that school who isn't performing properly. What we have to do in the ministry is provide backup services - whether it's for the independent schools or the public schools - for handling those youngsters who can't fit into a normal learning atmosphere. So we certainly intend to do that, not by forcing public or private schools to keep youngsters against their will, but by providing the correct kind of backup services for handling the misfits.

The problem of who should be permitted to go has been raised continually. I don't think there's an easy answer to this one. I can tell you how they go lo independent schools now: it's just be able to pay or be willing to pay. The independent schools are taking all the youngsters, really, who can get through their doors on that basis. But we have difficulties in many aspects of our public system of what you do when there are too many applicants for a given course. I can't tell you the criteria that are used for allowing students to get into medicine or aircraft mechanics or carpentry or indeed into our public universities, because these are all public bodies supported by public dollars. When the line-up is very long, you have to trust to the judgment of those who have to operate the particular school or faculty or institution to use their best judgment on how to do their job. We don't attempt in government to lay down criteria as to what should be appropriate for a youngster to get into medicine or teaching or law or any of these things. It's not an easy problem; you think about it!

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Certainly they are. I can tell you that if the Human Rights Commission can find wisdom in this thing, they will have done the greatest service for society that any group has done, because it hasn't been discovered anywhere in the world. I personally think that the Human Rights Commission is going to wind up with a. host of problems on their doorstep. Governments, in my view - perhaps the Human Rights Commission - can tell us what to do and how to do it, but I certainly don't think that governments should begin attempting to lay down for

[ Page 2700 ]

our public or private schools or universities or faculties or any of our institutions that may have more people apply at their doors than they can handle as to what criteria they should use. It's all very well to say that that youngster's going to be turned away for religious reasons or for any other reason.

We really have to remember that we've got a much greater problem on the doorstep of the public system with regard to our faculties, our vocational institutes and so on. It might be plumbing apprentices.... I would like the member, for example, Mr. Speaker, to explain to me how the Manpower people select their individuals to take the courses where they pay them $400 a month, or the Ministry of Labour, for that matter, $200 a month, or the poor kinds who can't get on either one of those lists and have to pay admission fees at $15 a month to sit in the same classes, or those who can't get in at all. We're a long way from justice in our public system.

Perhaps we can talk about some of these details when the bill comes before committee. I'm certainly open to the members' advice on how we deal with these questions, but not in isolation about the independent schools, because that's the tiniest part of it. By and large they're delighted to get anybody who will walk through their doors and pay the extra cost.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we have to deal in some fashion with the empty seats on the other side of the House. It's one of the most humiliating situations that elected members of a party have ever had to face with respect to their own paid-up members who support them at convention, because all of us who sit in this House are nominated by our parties, are voted in by the electorate and are expected to take our responsibilities on public issues. We're expected to represent the policies of our parties. We're expected to represent the legitimate arguments of those who may not be members of our party but who at the same time may not be in agreement with the policies of the government. The official opposition has that responsibility in the House, and as individual elected members they have the responsibility to have the courage of their convictions and vote on the important issues of the day.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's a strange day when the minister who is responsible for a bill has to present in closing the debate the arguments that the opposition should have presented. But how else can we get it on the record for those people who voted for them or nominated them at party conventions?

I have here, Mr. Speaker, so there can be put on the record for the New Democratic Party members the official position of their party, "Policies for People, " the publication of the New Democratic Party. This is the official position of the New Democratic Party. This is the official position of the New Democratic Party on independent schools. I read it into the record of Hansard because their elected members have neglected their responsibility to do so. This is the official position:

"Be it resolved that the NDP policy be clearly stated as follows:"

I'm happy to do that for these members.

"1) There be no government financial aid to independent schools.

"2) Independent schools be given access to public school facilities on the same basis as other community groups.

"3) Independent schools be treated fairly and equitably in academic matters such as course credits and transfers, et cetera.

"4) Independent schools which are adequately meeting the educational needs of their students be allowed to operate without harassment from local or provincial school authorities.

"5) The provincial government actively encourage with legal, moral, financial and other support the provision and development of genuine alternative learning arrangements within the public school system."

That was passed at the provincial convention in 1973. I'm happy, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, who weren't here to put that on the record, to state the position of their party. Therefore I take it, Mr. Speaker, that if the members of this party were here to vote on this particular bill, they would vote against it.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) , in saying a few words on this bill, made the assertion that this was the most important piece of educational legislation to appear before this House in a century. I think that's an overstatement, Mr. Speaker, because it doesn't involve the constitutional issue that her brother has been suggesting to the people of British Columbia that is involved.

But it is significant. Mr. Speaker, had the New Democratic Party and had this member believed that this statement is true, then why in the name of heaven did not that member or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) or the elected members of the New Democratic Party raise it at their party convention only three weeks ago? Surely, Mr. Speaker, if it was a matter of this moment.... The bill itself had been introduced to the House before we recessed. It was on the order paper, printed and distributed to the schools and available to all the members and to that party in convention.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): They were on vacation.

HON. MR. McGEER: So, Mr. Speaker, had it been a question of hammering out a position on the most

[ Page 2701 ]

important educational issue in a century, what better opportunity could this government have given to the opposition than to introduce the bill over a month before their convention, giving them adequate opportunity to debate it and consider it as a party, not only as a party but after fully canvassing their own constituencies with respect to public opinion on this matter?

Mr. Speaker, what happened? What happened is that that party in convention failed to deal with the issue at all. Instead, the elected members of the New Democratic Party ran away from the issue in their convention just as they are running away from the public and the House this afternoon. I say now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before: people who lack the courage to come in and stand up on a vote on any bill are unfit as individuals or as a party to sit in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 33, Independent Schools Support Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT

ACT, 1977 (NO. 1)

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

On section 1.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on the order paper submitted in the name of Rosemary Brown, the member for Burrard. Mr. Chairman, I'll send that amendment to you, but I think it's on the order paper.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: The amendment indicates that we should include children under the age of six as people who should be protected by seatbelts.

There are a number of problems in this area, Mr. Chairman. One problem I suggest is that a child, in the first place, oftentimes requires more protection than an adult. On the impact of a motor vehicle, a child is often thrown around the motor vehicle and can hit either the windshield or some sharp object within the car. Under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, that child is in real jeopardy, to a greater extent oftentimes than a parent or an adult in the car.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, the other aspect is that sometimes parents feel duty-bound to use the contemporary seatbelt for that child and, in so doing, if it's just a lapbelt, put the child's pelvic region in jeopardy. If, on the other hand, it's a shoulder harness, there's a chance that the child could be hurt on the throat or on the face at impact. Children are vulnerable in that they rattle around not only on impact, but on hard braking or swerving. Therefore we're suggesting, Mr. Chairman, with this particular amendment, that children should also be protected by Bill 7.

One other point that we would like to bring to your attention is the habit or the practice of some people of extending the seatbelt to take care of both the parent and the child in the one belt. That is probably the greatest jeopardy of all. Where a child and a parent are in the same belt, the forward impact in the case of a collision means the parent's weight is thrust against the child and the child takes up the whole force of the accident at the point of the seat belt. This, of course, can create a horror situation.

So, Mr. Chairman, a lot of research has been done. There are adequate facilities that can be provided within a motor vehicle for the protection of infants and for young children. So we're suggesting that the minister look very carefully at this amendment. We feel that it's one that deserves very serious consideration. We hope that the minister can give us his impression of how he feels about it.

Just one other thought: I'm sure that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has done some of the visitations that I did in the past and has found how many children there are in hospital facilities as a result of motor-vehicle accidents. There are many. Unfortunately there are also those who don't even get to the hospital other than on a dead-on-arrival basis. So we think this is a very important aspect. You'll find going through, as did my colleague the member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) , who served as a social worker in a hospital for some years - particularly in Montreal - the results of car collisions, so many cerebral palsy cases that were a direct result of this kind of situation, paraplegics created as a result of car accidents. Mr. Chairman, that moved her to move this resolution. Certainly the experience that I've had, while not so wide, has moved me to support this particular resolution. There should be some support within a motor vehicle to provide the kind of protection that our children deserve along with the rest of society. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would move this amendment to Bill 7, section 1.

[ Page 2702 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure all members in the House agree with the general intent of this amendment. We all have to be very concerned about children under age 6. Under this legislation they are the responsibility of the driver. Were suitable child-restraint systems or equipment available now, certainly they would have been identified and included in this legislation. I'm advised by our motor-vehicle people that at this moment, however, there is no thoroughly suitable system available, or systems are not available which meet accepted national standards of performance. It's mainly for that reason that specific provision is not included to cover child-restraint systems in the bill.

I should, however, indicate that it is possible by way of regulations when such child restraint systems are available that they be required by law to be either installed in the vehicle or used by those who are responsible for thy operation of the vehicle on the highway. So the answer in short is (1) acceptable child-restraint systems are not available; (2) when they are developed - and certainly there's a great interest in their development - they can be required to be used by regulations under the Motor-vehicle Act.

I might in conclusion add also that under this legislation there is no additional burden on the owner of the vehicle which is of a monetary character. Seatbelts have to be installed in all positions in cars currently manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada. Earlier in the 1960s they were only installed in the front seats. Depending on their age, belts do or do not have to be installed. But they come in the new vehicle now, and there is no additional expenditure required in order to meet this legislation.

MR. COCKE: I just want to further bring to the attention of the minister - and I recognize what he's saying about federal standards.... Consumers Research magazine of November, 1975, has done a good job of indicating the need for restraints and also indicating the type of restraints that are available. Consumer Reports goes further and names a number of types; that's in March, 1975, Consumer Reports. They're also critical, Mr. Chairman, of the federal authorities. Now mainly, I imagine, it's the federal authorities in the United States. They say, for instance: "Much Too Late - Back in 1972 and again last year the consumer union complained that federal safety standards for child restraints were inadequate. We're still complaining."

They're indicating that they have research facilities which they have used in order to produce what they consider to be a satisfactory standard. Now, Mr. Chairman, with that I would suggest to the minister that both he and other jurisdictions should be in touch with the federal authorities. Failing the federal authorities making the kinds of moves necessary in order to ascertain what's proper in this regard, then I believe it's up to the provincial authorities to make their own assessments. Certainly a lot of research has been done by these groups which I'm talking of. Mr. Chairman, you'll note the dates on these - both of them are 1975. So there had been, even up to that point, a good deal of research, and no doubt more research is going on. But no longer can we sit back and suggest that there is no way. I suggest that there is a way, and the way is here.

I don't want to go into great details on these reports. I've read into the record the dates. The material will certainly be available and I can make this little bit of material available if the minister wants it. But beyond that, it's all in the library and there's lots more.

This question has been thought out and it is a concern. It's a grave concern to highly motivated people such as consumers' unions and Consumer Reports and the Consumers Research people. So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if the federal authorities are going to be lax in this matter, then it's up to the provincial authorities to move the next step.

I would suggest that the Hon. Marc Lalonde, the Minister of Health and Welfare for Canada, has been leaning on the provinces for the last three or four years to get this legislation in place. Now that the legislation is proposed - and to a point it's good legislation and I supported it right at the outset, as the minister will recall - I think we have to go the next step and protect those of us who are the most defenceless, those of us who would have no defence whatsoever in a car without some kind of protection.

So, with that, I certainly hope that the minister will give this amendment his support so that we can, in due time - and you've got time, because don't forget this is a proclamation bill and you can proclaim whatever aspects of it I'm sure that you want.... But at least show that you're basically interested in moving in this direction.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that while I oppose this bill in principle, this amendment is one aspect of it which I do support and very strongly. As the member for New Westminster just said, if there's any portion of our population that needs protection and the protection of the law in this regard it's those that are under six years of age, those whom this amendment contemplates.

I was listening to the minister's reasons for rejecting the amendment. He said essentially, if I understood him rightly, that everybody in the House would no doubt go along with the intent of the amendment but it just wasn't practical because the necessary restraining apparatus at a reasonable price wasn't available. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't accept that argument. The hon. member for New Westminster explained some of the availabilities of

[ Page 2703 ]

devices, but beyond that I don't like that line of argument. It's what we've been getting on the leg-hold trap for years and years from the government of the day, whoever it's been - that because acceptable equipment isn't in place, this particular aspect of the law isn't practical.

Mr. Chairman, it's only through the pressure and prodding of this kind of law that the necessary equipment is going to be put in place and developed. As the member for New Westminster pointed out, this is a proclamation bill and it can be proclaimed at a time of the minister's choosing. But let us at least have the prod and the goad of the wording in the law saying that children under six must be protected by it. With regard to persons who have obtained the age of majority I have a completely different conclusion. I think the Act ought not to apply to them and I've spoken on that and will again. But this particular amendment I strongly support.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 26

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

On section 1.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to the bill which stands in my name which would add a section 10 and would be phrased as follows: "A person who contravenes this section commits an offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $100."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. DAVIS: As hon. members probably know, when the bill was first introduced there was no penalty section. The penalty, in other words, would be the penalty generally applicable under the Motor-vehicle Act. It is set at a maximum sum of $500, or three months in jail, or both, depending on the judge's opinion. Those are maximum.

This amendment would remove those maximum penalties, both as to financial penalty or term in jail, and replace them with a single penalty of not more than $100. The $100 figure is a maximum figure.

In Ontario, for example, where there is a higher maximum fine, the practice to date has resulted in penalties of the order of $15 or $25 for repeated offences. One might expect that kind of penalty to be levied in British Columbia, at least in the first instance. So substantially this adds a penalty which is definitive in the sense that it is a maximum of $100. The generality of the Act otherwise does not apply -namely, a maximum of $500, or three months in jail, or both.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps I could draw to the attention of the committee that the amendment standing in the name of the hon. minister and the amendment standing in the name of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) are at odds with each other. As a result, perhaps we could consider the content of both amendments in this one single debate. Is that the wish of the committee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tolerance of the House. I do believe it will simplify the debate. My amendment simply suggests that instead of fines, the penalty be in the form of points to really perpetuate a philosophy of the motor-vehicle branch which has already been well established. There are really two main reasons why I feel the point system would be more suitable.

In the first place, if the minister's amendment were to be followed where there is a fine of not more than $100, then I presume - in fact, I've checked it out - it would always involve the defendant going to court. The matter would have to be processed through the courts in order to decide what the fine would be. We all know that our courts are very much taken up with all kinds of offences and that now is not the time to put more work on the courts unless there is no reasonable alternative. In this case, I think that the application of points does, in fact, provide a very reasonable alternative to the imposition of fines.

Beyond that point, Mr. Chairman, the policy in awarding points is based on the belief that we should establish some ongoing responsibility on the part of drivers for all traffic offences within a certain period of time. You cannot really view, in isolation, the

[ Page 2704 ]

offence for not wearing seatbelts or speeding or whatever offence it might be. There should be some cumulative record over a stated period of time within which all the driving offences of that individual within, let us say, 12 months, should be clearly on the record. In other words, points would be a more effective method on a permanent basis of both making people aware of the purpose of the law in this regard - the compulsory wearing of seatbelts -and also on ensuring that this isn't, in an individual driver's case, part of a much wider pattern of blatant traffic abuse or driving abuse.

For example, Mr. Chairman, if someone was caught three times not wearing a seatbelt within, let's say, six months and could well afford to pay $25 each time, this really almost encourages disregard for the law, But if that person were awarded three points on three occasions within six months for not wearing a seatbelt, the nine points would mean that that person's licence was subject to review.

From the inquiries I've made of the motor-vehicle branch today, once a vehicle driver has 10 points, consideration is given to suspending the licence. There may well be many people who could pay a fine over and over again and not suffer any real penalty but who, in fact, are being encouraged, in the terms of this penalty that the minister is suggesting, to have disrespect for the law. Since it is not a real penalty by fining them in terms of money, it would be a much more effective penalty to apply the points system,

So I think, Mr. Chairman, for these two very basic reasons, that we should minimize court work and the appearance of policemen on relatively minor offences, as would be the case if you're trying to determine what the fine should be, and that the application of points would have the more meaningful and permanent effect in ensuring that it's the overall driving record of the individual that is most importance to society as a whole, and that if someone was simply paying a fine each time they didn't fasten the seatbelt.... That kind of person not only develops disrespect for the law but very often is found to be a person who breaks the law in other respects as well. That would be more readily and more quickly be recorded and an appropriate penalty applied if we dealt with the question of application of points.

The fact that three points are deleted from your record on the anniversary on which they were awarded means that it is not unduly severe. It means that any one of us within a 12-months' period can accumulate at least up to 10 points before any consideration is given to suspending a licence. It would seem to me that since this government, in my opinion quite rightly, supports the point system, the introduction of this seatbelt legislation would be just a very suitable and reasonable way in which penalties should be applied.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I would like to make a few comments on the two amendments that have been proposed. One of the things about the seatbelt legislation itself that disturbs a great number of people is the mandatory concept of it. But unfortunately, anywhere else it's been tried through publicity or through any other means to generate support for wearing seatbelts, it hasn't worked. It's been proven in Ontario and other areas where they've tried to bring it in. So it's been felt necessary that if it was going to be effective, it had to be made mandatory,

Now I believe the minister's amendment that lowering the penalty from $500 to $100 certainly is a way of softening the blow. I think it's going to take a while to get the usage up to the level we really desire, and certainly using the amendment suggested by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) I think would be particularly punitive at this stage. I think it would build up a greater resistance to wearing seatbelts. Points on a driver's licence are very hard to get off, and I think it's overly restrictive to do at this time. Certainly I'd be more in favour of a lighter sentence. All we're really trying to do is educate people to wear the seatbelts; we're not trying to impose a really stiff sentence on them.

MR. GIBSON: Following along on what the previous speaker just said, if all we're really trying to do is to educate people, then why are we having any penalties at all? I want to ask the minister, if he believes in this bill and the necessity of a mandatory application of this law to adults, which I happen to oppose, why he is taking the teeth out of the penalties. Could he give some explanation to that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised the question of points and why we've not suggested points as a penalty instead of a monetary penalty in this legislation. First and foremost, we're not dealing exclusively with the driver here. The point system applies to drivers and driving offences, and there may well be passengers in the automobile who are over 18 years of age who are not wearing their seatbelt and are committing an offence. It's not a driving offence to be found to not wear your seatbelts. So a different penalty has to apply.

Secondly, there are those who may be in a vehicle who don't possess a driver's licence whatsoever. Again, there is no way of enforcing the legislation through a point system. So those are the two main reasons why the point system is not being utilized.

The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked why we're imposing a penalty at all. Legislation of this kind was attempted in West Germany, for example, with no penalty involved, and the, response was nothing like as good as in

[ Page 2705 ]

neighbouring countries where there was a nominal penalty. So if our objective is basically to get more people to wear their seatbelts, if that is really the objective of this new law, then we should do what experience elsewhere has dictated: namely, pass legislation which has to do with the mandatory wearing of seatbelts and have a penalty, even though in some respects nominal, attached to that legislation.

MR. GIBSON: But, Mr. Chairman, the minister hasn't answered my question. I want to know why he doesn't follow his own logic along a little bit further and have a stiffer penalty. Why is he going to the trouble of introducing an amendment which we're now debating which would lower the penalty from the ordinary penalty terms of the Motor Vehicle Act? That just doesn't make logic with his line of thinking. Could he explain that, please?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, when the legislation was originally introduced, there was no specific penalty named, so the maximum penalty under the Motor-vehicle Act could apply, for example, to driving through a red light 10 times and being found guilty 10 times. That kind of extreme penalty shouldn't apply to not wearing a seatbelt in the first instance. The public conception of what is involved here is also important. I think, generally speaking, there was a belief abroad that there would be very high penalties attached to this legislation and it was in order to dispel that idea, at least at this stage, that penalties of the order of $500 or, indeed, three months in jail or both were possible for not wearing a seatbelt in the first instance or the second instance or the third. So essentially this limit, specifically applying to the wearing of seatbelts - and that's a maximum of $100; it's not naming the figure, which could be $10 or $20 in the opinion of the judge - is the appropriate course at this moment in time.

MR. GIBSON: I still don't think I've had an answer, Mr. Chairman. The minister's suggesting to us that it's terribly important that people in British Columbia should wear seatbelts and that that should be mandatory. So in that case I ask him why he does not have the stiffest penalties currently provided for a law under the Motor-vehicle Act applied, if it is as important as he says. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that he doesn't think the public isn't going to buy the whole programme and he's backed off on the penalty to try and make it a bit more politically palatable.

Amendment approved.

MR. GIBSON: Which amendment, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's only one amendment before the committee and that was the amendment that stands in the name of the hon. minister on the top of page 11 on the order paper.

MR. GIBSON: First of all, just on a point of order, what happens to the remaining amendment on the order paper, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendments were being considered together. However, the amendment before us was the amendment standing in the name of the hon. minister.

The amendments were at cross purposes and immediately the first amendment is considered, the second amendment becomes out of order and cannot be considered by committee. Therefore the amendment that was passed is the one that's standing in the name of the minister. I hope that clarifies the matter.

On section 1.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): There is vagueness in this section which is concerning a number of people. I'm particularly concerned on behalf of taxi drivers in this province, who have discussed their concerns over certain vagueness. I wonder if the minister could answer some specific questions with reference particularly to taxi drivers.

Does this bill apply to taxi drivers? Or are they going to have to go before cabinet for special exemptions? That's my first question. There's nothing specific in the bill which does say that people who have to get in and out of their vehicle at frequent intervals it does not apply to. But apparently there's also a speed limit listed there which, of course, would make it not fit in with the problems which taxi drivers face.

The other question on the taxi driver situation is: would the taxi driver be responsible for all the passengers in his or her cab who are not wearing their seatbelts? This is a concern of theirs. Are they going to be responsible? Are they going to be fined? And I think we all know the special problems which taxi drivers could incur with someone coming into their car who may be difficult and refuses to put it on. What is their responsibility here?

They, of course, are concerned that they are more or less going to have to be locked into their cabs. Sometimes they get into situations where it's going to be almost necessary for them to remove themselves very quickly.

I do feel that the taxi driver does have some very special concerns which are very valid here. The fact is that the bill doesn't specifically answer these concerns. I think it's most vital for the minister to clarify this for this group of concerned people.

[ Page 2706 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, specifically answering those questions: First, the taxi drivers in Ontario, for example, and more particularly the taxi drivers in Toronto area, were exempted by bringing the legislation back and altering it. They were concerned primarily with mugging and that kind of thing, and also getting in and out of their vehicle frequently.

It is our intention, having adopted in this instance the new and amended legislation in Ontario, to provide exemptions by way of regulations. Taxi drivers in the major metropolitan areas will be exempt for the same reasons that they're exempted in Ontario, and so will drivers of milk trucks and so on. So it will depend on the occupation and the particular circumstances. But there is room via regulation to exempt in this case a class or group of drivers, or as passengers, et cetera, in motor vehicles. So there is provision for exemption where it makes sense to exempt them.

As to the responsibility of a driver, including a taxi driver, the driver is responsible for passengers under the age of 16, but not responsible for other occupants of the vehicle over that age. They are responsible in their own right, so a taxi driver who takes on three or four young teenagers is responsible for them buckling up, but is not responsible if he takes one, two or three adults - that is, those over the age of 16 - into the taxi. They are then responsible for their own buckling up.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I have one brief question which relates to people who have a specific phobia about being buckled in. It's a phobia similar to claustrophobia, or some of the other fears that people have - an overwhelming fear of being somehow strapped in. I'm wondering if, for instance, section 7 (3) as it applies to passengers would be the section under which these people could be exempted. In other words, would they have to go to a doctor and obtain a medical certificate in order to be exempted from wearing a seatbelt assembly? Would that be covered there?

HON. MR. DAVIS: To the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that only by obtaining a medical certificate can a person be exempted from this legislation. Presumably, if they are affected in the manner suggested, I would hope that they would be able to get that kind of exemption from wearing seatbelts.

MS. SANFORD: But you don't know.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I don't know, no.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, when we last debated this section on April 5, I put on the record a number of arguments which I don't intend to repeat now but which basically made the case, as I see it, that the net public interest would not be served by the passage of this legislation, and that a massive programme to secure voluntary compliance would be better than seeing a massive ignoring or avoiding of a law which I do not believe people are going to respect. The minister, I believe, is aware that the compliance factor in Ontario at the most recent measurement, I think, was something like 50 per cent. The voluntary compliance factor in British Columbia is already 25 per cent, and I think we could get it up through a strong programme of advertising.

But as I say, I won't repeat those arguments. I do, however, want to say something about the minister's response on that occasion. He used the phrase: "Driving on the highway is a privilege, essentially; it is not a right." I want to dispute that point of view, Mr. Chairman, because that point of view by governments is the kind of logic that takes us down the line to an increasing regulation of our affairs.

Privilege in ordinary usage - not as we use it in this House, but in ordinary usage - is something that can be denied in an arbitrary fashion by the person granting the privilege. A right, on the other hand, is something that can only be denied by due process of law, as I generally understand the use of the word. To me the use of the public highways and roads, which are paid for by the taxes of those using them, are rights as long as you obey the rules. So I think that's an important point to establish. It's not a privilege; it's a right subject to the rule of law.

I want to say something about the experience in British Columbia as compared to Ontario and the impact of seatbelt usage on the reduction of fatalities. In British Columbia, speed limits were reduced in 1975 and there was a drop of over 15 per cent in fatalities in the first year and a drop of, again, over 15 per cent in the second year with no seatbelts. In Ontario the drop in fatalities between 1975 and 1976 was 16.1 per cent. There was really no significant difference from British Columbia and, again, that is the year that the speed limits were reduced in Ontario. There doesn't seem to be too much statistical evidence there. I merely raise that as a curiosity to the minister to rebut or not, as he chooses.

I want to point out to him that the trend in thinking in the North American context recently is going somewhat in the opposite direction of this bill. At least one state legislature, to my knowledge, in the last couple of months has eliminated laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets, at least above the age of 18. At least one other legislature - Oregon.... The Senate, at least, passed that bill; I have been unable to confirm whether the House or the Governor approved of it. But there are opposite currents at the moment.

[ Page 2707 ]

I agree with the concept of mandatory seatbelt requirements up to the age of majority. Again we come back to the amendment voted on earlier today standing in the name of the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

I agree with this concept that in the case of children under six - or children under majority in general - society has a right and a duty to provide the means for the acquisition of good habits as to safety. I would have no objection to the application of the requirements of this bill to that age group but, above that, I disapprove of it.

I want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I have a strong personal support for the wearing of seatbelts. I advocate it for everyone. I wear one myself and I support it in every way. But I believe, again, that it is not in the net public interest to pass this legislation, both because of We passage of yet another law that will be ignored and thereby bring contempt upon the general body of law in some degree, and because of the possibility of securing essentially the same results through voluntary means.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in this committee debate on Bill 7 with some turmoil. During the two-month recess I took the opportunity publicly to poll my constituents on two occasions for their input, their opinions, their representations on this seatbelt legislation. More than 60 per cent of a considerable response was opposed to Bill 7. I was elected to represent the views of my constituents and, more particularly, when legislation requiring more regulation on their lives is involved.

Just a year ago, I would have voted against the bill on the basis that it was almost impossible to enforce. I believe we have really too much bureaucratic interference in our lives already. But after seeing evidence on film and the results of accidents involving those wearing seatbelts as opposed to those not wearing them, I would support the principle that common sense should dictate the use and the wearing of seatbelts. It's common sense, too, from the standpoint of a taxpayer because undoubtedly the wearing of seatbelts and this legislation would save our taxpayers millions of dollars in wasted health care through needless injury.

I'll continue to press for educational and promotional programmes in favour of the wearing of seatbelts for the very reasons that lives undoubtedly will be saved and irreparable human damage will be prevented. Again, personally I believe we'd all be well served if we used common sense and just buckled up. However, I just simply cannot - as we've evidenced twice on two consecutive days in this assembly -abrogate my responsibility to my constituents and walk out of this room and not speak out and vote on this particular issue. I can't avoid that obligation. I represent my constituents' views. In that respect, I must vote against this particular legislation.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that if the member had asked the question, "would you be willing to pay for the damage done to others?", and put it into that kind of context, he might have got a different answer. Often we poll our constituents and we ask the wrong questions. People don't really understand the problem. That member should understand the problem. Instead he makes those pious statements about not walking out on votes and one thing and another. He's going to get his opportunity this time, I can tell you.

Mr. Chairman, to go a point further, I heard the Premier making the same kind of remarks and I remember him walking out on votes. Those pious statements just don't wash in this Legislature. Don't talk about principles! The fact of the matter is he'll get his opportunity. Mr. Chairman, we should think in the context of those of us who are not hurt paying for those who are, Just how far do we have to go in that regard? That member really didn't poll properly if he didn't ask that question: are we prepared to pay this fantastic amount that we are paying now for health care as a result of people not buckling up? All the educational services in the world are not going to change that.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, for about the past 20 years I've been involved in flying airplanes, and in 10 years I carried passengers as a crew member with a major airline for, I suppose, 8,000 or 9,000 hours of flying time. You can multiply that by about the average load of 250 passengers, and never once did anyone ever question the use of seatbelts. Never once did anyone even have to be told a second time to put on on. Strangely enough, in an aircraft you don't need them as badly as you do in car, but we wear them anyway.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I hadn't really intended to speak on this bill, but I think I will in light of some of the discussion that has taken place. I don't want to go into the details and the reasons of why we would be abrogating our responsibilities as people, not just as legislators, if we didn't examine factually the circumstances surrounding the use and non-use of seatbelts.

I would like to say that I believe many people in the North Okanagan really don't want to wear seatbelts. Many of them have put up the same arguments as some of the members in this Legislature and other members of the public at large. But I believe that when they examine the facts they will, Mr. Chairman, wear the belts and that they will

[ Page 2708 ]

recognize that as much as none of us wants any more bureaucracy in our lives, there are times when you simply have to take steps for the protection of ourselves.

I did poll my area as much as I could, and this is not an easy thing to do. I didn't do this on my own. I did it in a number of ways - through meetings, conversations and through assistance, for which I am grateful, from a number of local newspapers within the constituency who donated the space in order that we could not just say, "Do you wish to have seatbelt legislation, yes or no?", but to lay out the facts as they exist and then ask them how they would vote on the basis of the facts and the basis of their concern for their families and themselves.

The response, while it was not great in terms of the total population of the constituency, was very significant, and it ran very strongly in favour of seatbelt legislation. Many said: "I really don't like it, but go to it, Pat." I feel that is significant.

I also had an opportunity to discuss this matter with a number of students in the area and I found their point of view very interesting. They said, "Pat, we don't have a vote in this. We have a peer problem. It's around us all the time in terms of our conduct, in relation to our school activities, our personal lives and in relation to drinking and in relation to wearing seatbelts. We need help. We can't fight our peers on all these pressure points and it's most difficult in the areas of liquor and drug use. Help us get out of fighting this one in the area of seatbelts. We feel that our parents, the adults of this province, must stand up to their own convictions. Are they really concerned about health care costs? Are they really concerned about the safety of their children, if it means that they themselves have to undergo an inconvenience or a slight discomfort in the initial stages?" Eight out of 10 of these students, Mr. Chairman, said: "Please vote yes."

It's on that basis, Mr. Chairman, that I support this legislation. I want to put on the record my personal appreciation to The Lumby Logger, the Rutland Progress and the other papers in the area who donated their time and their dollars in this good cause. I also want to thank the many constituents of the North Okanagan who are going to buckle up, even though they don't like it, because they believe it is the safe thing and the right thing to do.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, I have just a word or two on this legislation. Basically, I'm going to be echoing the words of the Liberal member in this House (Mr. Gibson) , who is opposed to this legislation on principle. 1, too, am opposed to passing legislation in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, that cannot be enforced. It does breed contempt for this Legislature. I'm going to be voting for this bill for this reason only: I feel that if the life of one person in this province is saved because that person wore his seatbelt, then it will be worth it. But quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to passing legislation in this Legislature that cannot and will not be enforced, but only selectively.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 41

NAYS - 3

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

On section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister, having had two months' holiday according to the Premier, can tell us whether or not that will defer the time when the bill will be proclaimed? He indicated when we discussed this - on April 5, I believe it was - that it would likely be proclaimed in September. Is that still the minister's direction or am I incorrect on that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can proclaim this bill as soon as possible and get on with the public relations campaign that will be necessary to persuade more people to use seatbelts.

Section 2 approved,

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 2709 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 7, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No.1) , reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading on Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

CAPTAIN COOK

BI-CENTENNIAL COMMEMORATION ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act recognizes the voyage and discovery of one of the great discoverers of British Columbia's history. Captain James Cook was one of the world's greatest maritime explorers and navigators. His voyages of discovery in the latter half of the 18th century provided a wealth of new knowledge and experience to the world. Aboard HMS Resolution and accompanied by HMS Discovery, he landed at Nootka Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island in March 1778, staying for a month to refit his ships. He thus established the British claim to the territory which was to become British Columbia and initiated the lumber and fur trades which were to be so important to this part of the world. The government has decided that the 200th anniversary of this significant event should be commemorated in an appropriate manner.

The Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act will enable the occasion to be celebrated and remembered in the years ahead. But it is not only his contact with the west coast that we should recall. On early voyages from 1758 to 1767 Cook sailed the east coast. He was engaged in naval operations resulting in the fall of Louisbourg in 1758. He was with Wolfe at Quebec in 1759, surveyed the lower St. Lawrence River in 1760, Halifax Harbour in 1761 and 1762, and the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador from 1763 to 1767.

Cook, however, was much more than a sailor, navigator and mapmaker. His voyages resulted in important discoveries in the biological, zoological and medical sciences. He was a giant of his day.

The Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act will enable the formation of a committee to proceed with planning commemorative projects and programmes for the coming year. The committee will be established by the Lieutenant -Govern or-in-Council and empowered to plan, co-ordinate and organize the commemoration.

We have had informal discussions and some correspondence has taken place, clearing the way for definitive action once the Act is passed. While British Columbia will of course be the focus of the commemoration, we hope to involve the other provinces of Canada and the other nations around the Pacific which were visited by Captain Cook on his voyages. British Columbia in 1978 will be a happy, colourful centre of attraction and I anticipate thousands of additional visitors coming to take part in the ceremonies honouring this great man, Captain James Cook.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: We certainly are pleased with the idea of commemoration of Captain Cook. We hope, along with the Provincial Secretary, that it will create an understanding of our history and the tradition of this province. So we feel positive about that aspect of this bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: However....

MRS. DAILLY: However, we are concerned - the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) seems to agree with me - that the Provincial Secretary has made statements to the effect that it is hoped to increase tourism to this province. Of course, we all hope it will. But I must really point out again - as I have many times - to the Provincial Secretary that it's going to take more than this celebration to bring tourists in the numbers which we need to this island.

Recently, and I'm sure the Provincial Secretary must be aware of it, the mayor of Victoria was on the radio pointing out the seriousness still of the tourist situation in this province, and particularly in the Victoria area. It is so serious that they themselves have had to attempt to take some steps to improve the situation, which means they obviously are getting no assistance from the provincial government in the matter of the ferry rates and other areas.

ME. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sure you realize that you are straying quite far from the principle of the bill, and I would ask you to return to it.

MRS. DAILLY: I will be very careful to relate it to the principle. The point I'm making in reference to this is that the minister in discussing this bill, Mr. Speaker, herself made reference to the fact that tourism would improve. So I do feel that if she made the statement in discussing and introducing the bill, and in a press statement, then I should have the equal right to discuss the relationship of tourism to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I just suggest to the hon. member that I was listening when the minister introduced second reading and I heard no reference to tourism.

[ Page 2710 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I think you've missed the point I was making. She made this reference in a press article and when the bill was first made public. So I'm simply stating that although we agree with the positive idea behind this bill and what we hope will be an excitement and gathering together of our citizens in appreciating the history of our province, if one of the purposes is to increase tourism to the Island, I'm simply pointing out that there are many other things this government will have to do besides put on a bicentennial to increase the tourism to this island. It is of great concern. The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, is that the mayor of Victoria has actually stated that they are going to take steps themselves to do this without any reference to the bicentennial. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that is the main point I wish to make. But I also would like to ask a specific question of the hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is it about Captain Cook?

MRS. DAILLY: Captain Cook hasn't been in communication with me enough, hon. member, that I can really relate to him at this time and to you.

My specific question is with reference to the fact that the Provincial Secretary did refer, I believe, to the production of a film, which I think is an excellent idea. But she was also questioned at the time - in question period, I believe - by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , who expressed a concern which we share. That is that we think producing a film on Captain Cook is excellent, but our concern is that we have heard that the people who will be used for the production of the film will be from the east. Surely this is a marvellous opportunity to use the people of British Columbia who are suffering such severe unemployment in so many areas, Mr. Speaker.

Now I specifically would like to ask my question to the hon. Provincial Secretary: would she please give us an up-to-date report on the status of the film to which she referred, and would she inform the House who is being involved and is being used to produce this film? We're hopefully awaiting her answer, if the film is on its way to being produced, that it is going to be by B.C. people with B.C. citizens taking part in it. So we're very anxious to hear a reply to that question.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a nice little bill and I'm going to vote for it. There are many impressive things that Captain Cook did and we ought to remember them.

But something that bothers me a lot when I see this kind of celebration in British Columbia is that far too many people get the idea - and there's a danger that this kind of celebration can reinforce it - that there was nobody in British Columbia before the white man came to these shores.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I'm extremely concerned that the tenor of this celebration should be one which fully recognizes the contribution of the native people in British Columbia who were here at that time. I'd like to see as much fuss made some day about the native people of British Columbia as we see being made about Captain Cook in this particular bill. There has not been one word in the minister's opening statement and there's not one word in this bill with respect to the participation of native people in this in any way. There is no entitlement to membership on the committee which is setting it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. GIBSON: I'd ask the minister at least if she will guarantee today that there will be native membership on that committee that's superintending the development of these commemorations.

I don't say any of this unkindly. I know it's simply the intention of the government to have a good celebration about a fine event in our history. The reason I bring it up is because it's too easy for people to forget that there were British Columbians here who pre-dated the ancestors of most of us in this Legislature by many, many years. We should always remember that.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, along the same lines of the concern by the native Indian population of British Columbia for this particular celebration, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary might care to comment on the report which we've received that in the Alberni riding one or more native Indian bands in the Nootka Sound area are at the moment on record as refusing to participate in the Captain Cook celebrations because of their feeling, as it's been expressed to me, as it's been reported to us, that indeed, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has pointed out so well, no adequate or accurate representation of the fact the native Indians were here first has been made. Indeed, one further presumes that part of the concern expressed by the native Indians at Nootka Sound where indeed the captain did first land - they were there to greet him when he did - is that the special advice and participation, the excitement and the drama and the ideas which they might have have not been asked for nor indeed employed to date. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would comment about that general matter.

Secondly, my last question is: now that Lawrie Wallace has been promoted to London, who, if she would care to name that person today, will be responsible for the practical implementation of the

[ Page 2711 ]

work of this committee? It was information I had previously received that indeed, as usual, Lawrie Wallace would do an outstanding job in this as so many other matters. Now that he's not going to be here any longer, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary might care to tell us who personally as a public servant or as an appointee of this corporation, acting as it is under the terms of this bill when it's passed, will be responsible for the actual administration. We'd be grateful for answers that the Provincial Secretary might care to give us to date on these questions.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): I just wanted to add, Mr. Speaker, to what my colleague from Victoria said, and also the previous speaker. Perhaps the minister would tell us a little bit of the origin of the idea and what kind if discussions were had with the Nootka people, because they certainly played a very significant role in the Captain Cook landing, and we've often been told of their role.

Also I understand that a Mr. Sweeney has been appointed the man to make this thing go. Mr. Sweeney is a former alderman, I gather, from Vancouver. Also he was a former Social Credit candidate; that's true too, I think - the minister indicates yes, Mr. Speaker. That's okay; that's not.... He's a very capable man. I wish him well. He's going to have a heck of a time filling Lawrie Wallace's shoes. But perhaps the minister would be very specific that with the tourist season being the way it is they've got to come up with something, and they came up with Captain Cook. It seems to me that we have a number of very worthwhile B.C. heroes. We don't seem to do too much for Governor Douglas or Amor de Cosmos. Perhaps not in my time but sometime in the future we'll probably have....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're going to go down in history as the biggest spender of all time.

MR. LEVI: Yes, and by gosh, that won't be so bad. At least I never forgot what I've spent, Mr. Minister, I've a very good memory.

My colleague here says, Mr. Speaker, 14 hours. Now I wonder what she's referring to - 14 hours.

I think it is important for the minister to tell us something about the origins of the idea, because I would hope to see us take a closer look at our own history in terms of people that were from the province. You may be right. My colleague says perhaps she's having trouble recalling. I notice she read from a rather detailed prepared statement, which I hope....

But let me just go over it again: would you tell us very specifically, enlarging on what my colleague from Victoria said, about the discussions with the Nootka people? After all, I presume that some of this celebration has to pretty well start there. Then tell us perhaps about Mr. Sweeney's qualifications for this job. You might indicate in your closing remarks how much he's going to be paid and how long the job will last. I think that's important for us to know.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that you were a little touchy about the tourist aspect of this, but it is in the bill. It says that appropriate kinds of celebrations should take place. The minister has indicated that if we have a very colourful celebration, we'll get a lot of tourists here, providing her colleague, the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) , decides to cut the ferry rates. Then, of course, we'll get a lot of people here.

I would hope that the minister, in closing, would answer some of those questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member for Burnaby North asked about the production of a film, which was raised in the House earlier. The suggestion of a film was made by the pro tem committee, or the committee that was organized prior to the passage of this bill. At the present time, it is under study in a committee of the Captain Cook committee as to whether or not, in effect, it will be made and produced for the Captain Cook commemoration.

The suggestion has been within the committee that it should perhaps be left for the committee to come back for a report. The idea of perhaps not having a film is also under study. But let me say that if any film is made, it will be made in British Columbia. Let me assure you of that. That was one of the stipulations when the committee originally met to decide the various things that may take place, none of which have really been formalized as yet.

I would like to just respond to the suggestion that perhaps the commemoration, as I did say in my introductory remarks.... I suggested that I anticipate thousands of additional visitors coming to take part in the ceremonies honouring Captain Cook. The reason for that is, Mr. Speaker, that part of the celebrations are going to centre around our tremendous sea and vacation land.

The tall ships invitation has been extended. We think that the tall ships invitation, which is already gaining a great deal of interest in the northwest, will bring many thousands of visitors. In Rhode Island, when there was an economic impact study made as to how many dollars it brought into the little area of Newport, Rhode Island, they found that $5.5 million was the economic impact for a five-day stay of the tall ships.

I am optimistic. I will continue to be optimistic about the tourist industry in British Columbia because of the incredible four-season vacation land which is British Columbia.

To the response from the members who are concerned about the native Indian emphasis, let me say that we have already had consultation with

[ Page 2712 ]

several groups. I did meet with some members of the Nootka Indian organization, maybe a month and a half or two months ago, in my office. We have had members of our committee meet with them at Friendly Cove. We are not leaving them out of discussions but involving them completely in discussion. We feel we have a very good rapport and a very good start to the committee's work in this regard.

Mr. Ed Sweeney has been appointed as the executive director to take the responsibility for seeing that the administration of this committee is well taken care of. May I say that in the first 10 days or two weeks of his appointment he has had a great deal of assistance from my deputy minister, Mr. Wallace. I agree with those members who have explained and have said how very much missed Mr. Wallace will be in his role. May I just say, in response to that, that I will miss him very much in his role as Deputy Provincial Secretary. However, I do believe that Mr. Sweeney, with his experience with centennial committees on behalf of the city of Vancouver and his ability to have worked many times with UBCM and with different communities throughout British Columbia, will have a very great contribution to make on behalf of British Columbia. The length of the appointment will be, of course, until the Captain Cook commemoration activities are over next year.

MR. BARBER: Salary?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe the salary is $1,700 a month. I think it was printed in the paper a couple of days ago, as I recall. I can get the exact amount for you but I believe that was what it was.

The origin of the idea of commemorating Captain Cook has come to us from several historic organizations in the province. Simon Fraser University is planning a very large programme which will be educational. They had written to the government, I understand, some time ago - in fact, previous to our administration - to be sure that this remarkable anniversary was marked.

I hope that in the suggestion that all members who spoke were going to support the Act, they will do so with the enthusiasm with which the government brings this Act to this Legislature. We believe that it will be a very positive and a very good celebration for British Columbia in 1978. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading, Mr. Speaker, of Bill 37.

PLANT PROTECTION ACT

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to allow regulations to be made to prevent the spread of insects, pests or disease destructive to plants. The new Act will allow more flexibility in handling all the specific and detailed interpretations pertaining to the health and handling of plants and crops which will be covered by regulation. Under the existing Act, control measures such as the sale and licensing of nursery stock were contained in sections within the current Act. By covering such items in the regulations, we will accomplish more efficient and specific control of diseases and insects relating to nursery stock.

The new Act clearly spells out the authority for treating or confiscating plant material that would cause damage to the agricultural industry. It also spells out that such treatment, et cetera, may be charged against the owner of the land or the person who has interest in the plants.

Mr. Speaker, with those remarks, I would move that the bill be now read a second time.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I have some concerns about this Act. In fact, I'm a bit surprised to hear the minister indicating that the control measures are stronger in this Act than they are in the existing piece of legislation. If he will note the content of the old piece of legislation now in force, it specifies very clearly and makes mandatory the recovery of costs through taxation, simply being added on to the Taxation Act, added on to the assessment and to the tax bill, where this Act by its very words is permissive. It uses the word "may" rather than "shall." So I'm surprised to hear him basing an argument in support of this Act on that particular facet.

My other concern with this Act is a concern that is very general in relation to this particular government and its attitude towards the Legislature. Once again we have an Act that specifies specific terms and references for control of disease in plants and nursery stock - and it specifies what stock - as a part and parcel of the statutes of this province. What this Act is proposing to do by repealing the existing legislation and introducing this new bill - what it seems to do, to me - is to take unto cabinet by regulation the complete control of this particular facet of our lawmaking process.

It's something that concerns me and members on this side of the House very gravely because it is not in line with the democratic processes as we practise them in this House. It may have some advantages in tying the whole package together with the regulations as proposed in other areas by the Ministry of

[ Page 2713 ]

Agriculture, but I do have some very grave concerns in that particular area.

However, to me it does appear to be more or less a housekeeping bill without any very grave significance, and while I have these reservations, we on this side of the House are prepared to support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment regarding the section on taxation which was in the old Act. This new Act gives the ability to charge the land through land tax or to charge the person who has interest in the plants who may be a lessee and not the owner of the property. As a result, we can recover costs from the person who has probably created the problem and not put it against the land where the owner of the land may not have any part in causing that problem.

Mr. Speaker, with that comment I would move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 37, Plant Protection Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26.

REGISTERED NURSES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Registered Nurses Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf presents the annual report of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation for the year ended March 31,1976.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the report of the B.C. Police Commission of April 14,1977, pertaining to Good Hope Lake, B.C.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11o: 58 p.m.

APPENDIX

91 Mr. Gibson asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications the following question:

What is the cost of the preliminary engineering phase for the Hat Creek station, awarded to Integ-Ebasco?

The Hon. Jack Davis replied as follows: "The cost of the preliminary engineering phase for the Hat Creek project by Integ-Ebasco to March 16,1977, was $1,412, 624."