[ Page 5847 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 65) . Second reading

Mr. Barrett –– 5847

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5851

Division on second reading –– 5855

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 4) (Bill 83) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 5856

Mr. Lockstead –– 5857

Mr. Wallace –– 5857

Mr. Macdonald –– 5857

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5858

Committee stage and third reading –– 5859

Labour Code of British Columbia

Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 89) .

Division on third reading –– 5859

Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 65) . Committee stage

On section 1.

Mr. Barnes –– 5860

Division on Section 1 –– 5860

On section 2.

Mr. Barnes –– 5860

Division on section 2 –– 5860

On section 3.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5860

On section 3 as amended.

Mr. Barnes –– 5860

Division on section 3 as amended –– 5860

On section 4.

Mr. Wallace –– 5861

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5861

Mr. Barrett –– 5861

Mr. Barnes –– 5861

Division on section 4 –– 5862

On the title.

Ms. Brown –– 5862

Division on the title –– 5862

Division on third reading –– 5862

Royal assent to bills –– 5863

Appendix –– 5864

The House met at 10 a.m.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a class that's going to be here later today from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Doug McCrae. I would like the House to make them welcome now.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the Lieutenant-Governor appears before 2 o'clock, it might be appropriate that the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) would say prayers now.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm certainly agreeable to that, hon. members. It was a matter that in the past when we sat at 10 o'clock in the morning, we deferred prayers until 2 o'clock, but that's a possibility.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 65.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be long on this debate. I have a few comments to make. I have not said too much about the resource board bill during the weeks after the minister introduced the legislation.

I was searching for an opening this morning that would be appropriate, not only to temper my feelings about the principle of the bill but my attitude toward the government and the minister. I found those words in the prayer from my good friend, the member for Chilliwack, who said: "Let us have charity; let us show charity." I'm sure the member means that not in the classic sense of charity to people in need but charity of spirit to each other in the moments when we have basic disagreements.

And it is more than a moment of disagreement that we've had with this government and certainly with this minister, but I will try to be as charitable as possible and also avoid being condescending. And I will try to be as broad-minded and understanding and as open in my remarks as I can muster in the midst of some personal feelings against the government and against the minister for taking this step.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Eighty more shopping days till Christmas.

MR. BARRETT: Eighty shopping days till Christmas. Well, I would gladly give the minister a gift.

Mr. Speaker, what is absent from the debate is any concrete reason from a philosophical point of view -separate that from administration - as to why the minister and the government wish to pursue this course. And if we can separate it very quickly and talk about philosophy, we understand that this government, contrary to all of its promises during the election campaign, is saying to local people at the local level that they do not trust them enough to take into their own hands the administration and responsibility of the direction of social services at the local level. Now let's get that very clear. It was Social Credit that campaigned throughout this province saying that they believed that big government was a curse today, big government was heavy-handed in people's lives, big government was making decisions remote from people's input at the local level. During the election campaign, one of the themes by Social Credit was that they wanted to restore participation by the citizens in their own lives at the local level.

What a farce that has turned out to be ' let alone the Municipal Act, which I will not comment on because I would be out of order if I spoke of section 28 of the Municipal Act. That's where they took away the ultimate right of locally elected officials at the municipal level to make decisions affecting their friends and neighbours.

Now we go to this particular bill and what we're dealing with in parallel, Mr. Speaker, is this: this bill must be understood, in terms of philosophy, as being exactly the same as Social Credit coming in with legislation doing away with school boards. That's true. It's exactly what it is. The whole idea of school boards was to allow parents, teachers and, hopefully, some day in the future if not now, trusting enough, to allow students to participate in the direction of their educational experience.

Now this government would never do away with school boards. They might believe that in terms of administration, but philosophically they know very well that they could never sell the argument that we must do away with local input in education.

What we're dealing with here is something far more than local input in education. Education is a learning experience of picking up tools in the mechanics of surviving in the kind of society we live in. But no one can make use of education unless their social health is first of all established, because those children who come into an educational process from families that do not have a stable social environment will not be able to participate fully in the educational experience. So on the scale of importance in terms of community development, tranquillity of society and

[ Page 5848 ]

the importance of setting a foundation for children and families to survive in, with any government, human resources rank higher on the scale of priorities than education or any other department, overlapping - indeed, passing - health. If one becomes familiar with the kinds of problems developed in a complex society, health delivery services become less important.

I'm sure the minister does extensive reading. I would recommend to him a quick look at Illich's latest book, The Expropriation of Health Care, which shows clearly that state medical plans and state educational plans are only adjuncts to the development of the total human being, but personal input and personal participation and community involvement in social services are paramount if any society is to grow and to stabilize and to avoid violence and alienation.

Not one word has the minister addressed himself to in that philosophical area. Every attack that has been made on the resources board has been made from a narrow frame of reference that serves the minister's purpose. Because I want to show charity today, I will not say that the minister's purpose is purely political on a redneck basis, as my colleague from Burrard (Mr. Levi) says. Although that happens to be my opinion, I won't say it. I'm hoping that the minister today will get up and show a dimension he has not touched on to this day, on -radio, on television or in this House, and that is philosophical reasons why local control should be taken away in the most important human service area and given back to a centralized bureaucracy that he has in Victoria. In the election campaign you said over and over again that you wanted ordinary people to participate in the direction of their lives.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard said it was purely political motivation.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Where is he?

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Premier, if you're worried about absences, I'd say turn around rather than look'straight ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Premier is listening because he was the greatest exponent of the idea of local community participation. He was the greatest exponent of the argument that people at the local level should be against big government. That's his line all over the place - we should not have big government running everything. But in this one issue the Premier has been sandbagged by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , who is catering - in my opinion, as charitable as I can be -to the extreme right-wing fringe of that group over there. The Premier has got a hot potato on his hands, and the only action to the hot potato is to talk about absences without looking at his own cabinet. The Premier has never once said one word. Does he support this bill philosophically that destroys local participation in human service? There he is. Let it be noted that it was nervous yacking that was all we got from the Premier. Nervous yacking, yack, yack, yack. There he is.

MR. BARRETT: Well, at least one thing, the Premier has a gentle voice when he does his yacking.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Rosemary has more support than you've got.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, just a couple more comments on the philosophical role. It is a major mistake that this government is making in eliminating the resource board. It also is a major mistake in cutting off the last avenue for citizens at the local level to participate in providing services. More important and the last point that I wish to make in philosophy it is important that citizens be available with authority and responsibility to respond to growing or brand-new problems at the local level.

By the time the bureaucrats respond to a local problem the thing that may have started out as a small infection becomes a raging epidemic. If there is no local process of handling the epidemic of a new social problem and the mechanism is geared entirely to Victoria, then the possibility of new services is stopped.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make this point again. The minister has to tell us what, in his opinion, the difference is between the resources boards and the school boards. We have to know that because unless we know that, we can honestly say the valid reasons for eliminating the resources boards will be used again on the school boards because they are exactly the same. They are exactly the same 'in philosophy, exactly the same in concept. There's no question in terms of concept and philosophy. The school boards and the resources boards are an extension of the democratic process that says to people in a free society: "You have a right to say what is happening in your family and to your children from the tax money you pay - not that politicians bring to Victoria; that you send to Victoria - and you have a direct right to participate in how you want your own tax money spent for school purposes and for human resources purposes. " You cannot separate philosophically the delivery of school board services from a human resources board service - in no way whatsoever.

Now let's talk about administration, because that's where the minister believes he scores the most points. The minister has brought to the attention of the public a number of administrative errors by the resources boards, all of them presumably correct. I'm

[ Page 5849 ]

not going to quibble on whether or not they're correct.

The minister has, in the past, allowed questions in the public mind as to his figures. When he was first minister he was so exuberant, he said: "I've saved $40 million on this project. I've saved $40 million!" When the press asked him about it, he said: "Well, maybe I was wrong." I've looked in public accounts this year and I haven't seen where you've saved $100 million. You have still spent more money than a year ago on human resources and human services. Now the simple thing.... That's true, and you nod your head. I don't want the press to take this down, but the simple way for anyone to save $100 million is to do this: project the cost to be $500 million, then put in your budget that you're going to spend $600 million, but keep your expenditures to exactly the $500 million that you knew you were going to spend and you save $100 million on paper.

It's good, but the facts are in your own accounts that you haven't released. The minister has yet to release his annual report, but in the economic review released by the Minister of Finance, lo and behold, what do we find? More money was spent on welfare and human resources in the first year of administration under Social Credit than the year before in the last year of the NDP. Now how you can spend more money and still save $100 million is a matter of accounting. What you do is overestimate your costs, and you deliberately do that so you can go out and say: "We guessed it was going to be $600 million but we only spent $500 million and we saved $100 million." It's good politics, because there are some people in the press gallery who are still naive enough not to go looking beyond the figures given by the minister, and they'll report that guff that he saved $100 million. I know there are people on the editorial pages who like to perpetuate that myth.

What about his statements that he flung around that this cost $25,000 a day to run this place? I'm not going to argue with you about the figures. You want to sit there and yell across the floor: "$25,000 a day to hear a lecture on socialism." We sit here and hear lectures on what the heck Social Credit is. Even if it was $50,000 a day, it would be worth it if we ever got a straight answer on what you stand for.

What you're really saying behind that accusation that when the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) was talking in this House, it's wasting money talking in this House.... I tell you, it's not a question of money. People have paid for it by giving their lives so that this system of talking and debate could take place. Mr. Minister, you had better do some serious thinking about that kind of nonsense. That's okay for ignorant backbenchers to throw across about how much it costs per day, and I forgive them their ignorance. They made their first evidence of that by the party they joined. But I'm telling you that as a responsible minister of the Crown, don't you go around perpetuating the idea that you could save $25,000 a day if we closed shop here. I'm telling you that a centralized dictator could save an awful lot of money, but it's the question of human freedom and human values that are far more important in the British parliamentary system.

So we go now to an agreement that I have, although I only say it for the sake of argument and charity today, that the catalogue of errors that the minister says of the resources board are correct. What we must presume, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister says that once he takes control in Victoria, all of these mistakes will. not happen anymore. Now let's get that straight. There has been no philosophical argument about the elimination of the resources board - none whatsoever - because he does not dare get up in this House and say: "I do not believe in local participation and local control." He doesn't dare say that. All right. Then the only area left open to him is a catalogue of mistakes and personal attacks on the staff of the resources board.

Let us accept that the minister is actually factually correct in those statements, and the reason why he is doing away -with the resources board is because they are making mistakes administratively and he cannot tolerate those mistakes, and as a consequence the board must be eliminated. Then this challenge goes: one year from now, when we demonstrate that in the process of delivering human services exactly the same mistakes will be made by his ministry time after time and time again, will he stand up and resign, not only as a minister, but as an MLA, because he didn't clean up the mess?

He said he's going to clean up the mess in the resources board. That means that when we come back with a catalogue of the same mistakes made in overpayments, in frauds, in non-delivery of service, every single thing he's listed that has gone on since the 1930s and will go on for another 50 years in delivery of service.... He says he's eliminating that by getting rid of the resources board. If he believes that, he's got to give a pledge today that if he doesn't clean up that "mess, " he'll quit in a year's time.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he threatened to quit for political purposes. If I may make just a quick observation on that, threats by children should always be met head on. Anytime you give in to threats in dealing with children, you lose to that child; anytime you give in to threats by politicians, you lose to that child politician whose own personal ambition exceeds the need for working as a group.

What did we see over there, Mr. Speaker? We saw the minister use threats to become No. 2. Gracie was No. 2. He said: "I quit if I don't get my bill." We saw

[ Page 5850 ]

the fight; we know about it. Everybody else saw it too. What was really being said there was: "If you don't call my bill, I quit." Who was supporting the minister? Omineca, Coquitlam, Esquimalt and North Okanagan. Lord knows why North Okanagan would support the minister, because the lady minister for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was against Bill 65. Would that be the motivation for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) being;for Bill 65? Lord knows. Why is the member for North Okanagan not in the cabinet? Lord knows. What is her best chance of getting in the cabinet? If No. 2 now becomes No. 1, what's the best way of doing that? Butter up No. 2 because No. I has already shoved you down the tube. There's a human drama going on here, Mr. Speaker, known as power politics, just below the surface.

If you've ever seen a herring ball out there when the fish are running and eating, you see all the gulls coming down and picking off the loose ones - slurp, slurp! And who is the chief gull today? None other than the member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . And what is it that he wants? He wants to be the chief gull, and he's picking off all the little anchovies and sardines off the edge: the three Ks - not the Ku Klux Klan but Kempf, Kerster and Kahl - along with the member for North Okanagan. She has her own score to settle. She sweated it here in opposition, screaming against socialists. She got her reward over there and she didn't make it to the cabinet. Her only hope now is to endorse that minister in his power drive.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Billy Anchovy.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, no philosophical reasons whatsoever. Political reasons, yes. He threatened to quit; Gracie backed down. If she had accepted his reasons to quit, she would have won on either score. If he'd resigned, she would have won. If he'd backed off Bill 65, she'd have won. She caved in. He became No. 2 and he must commit himself now to the continuation of this bill.

However, if there is a continuation of the same mistakes that he says the VRB made, then he owes it to his colleagues and the people of this province to resign. He's saying he can run a perfect department. That's what you're saying. You're saying that you will never make those mistakes and you'll never allow those mistakes to happen. Well, you're going to be surprised. There are going to be more mistakes made simply by centralizing, more money wasted simply by centralizing, more time wasted simply by centralizing.

I want to tell you something, and I suggest another book for you beyond Illich's. It's by a good friend of mine, Lawrie Peter. Lawrie Peter, wrote a book after leaving the bureaucracy of the civil service and he developed a theme called Parkinson's Law. That will come to work in your department as soon as the resources boards are over. You will have more bureaucrats 18 months from now, more mistakes 18 months from now and less control over the money 18 months from now simply because you're heck bent for leather - I won't use the words "hell bent for leather" - to gain power for your own political purposes with no philosophical base whatsoever.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by reciting to you a couple of experiences I had that led me to come to this House. When I first started working as a social worker, I earned $210 a month working for the Protestant Children's Aid Society. Alongside me were workers who worked with the Catholic Children's Aid Society. We had the Catholic Family Service, we had the Protestant Family Service, we had the Jewish Family Service and we had all religions still participating in the delivery of public service.

Many years passed when that service should have been provided by religious-oriented agencies. No government had the guts to sit down with the United Appeal and with those religious bodies and talk about updating their services. There is a tremendous role for the religious community to play in the maintenance of family life.

Our government came to power and we challenged those religious communities with the fact that even though the Protestant Children's Aid Society and the Catholic Children's Aid Society were still functioning on the traditional religious line, that was no longer the prevailing service outside of the metropolitan area. So what stood as a matter of principle on religious divisions was long ago done away with by the provincial government outside of the lower mainland. We said to the religious communities and to the United Appeal that the traditional role of private agencies is to break new ground where governments don't have the political clout, the moxie or the daring to do it. The community had long ago accepted child welfare services and family welfare services and could easily have absorbed those religious community services into what was already being delivered by the province.

The Social Credit government before us didn't have the guts to deal with that. We did, and the solution was amiable. Even the minister's opening remarks admitted that the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) had indeed done a good service to the people of this province by amalgamating those services under the provincial Human Resources department.

But instead of bringing it over to Victoria, he went one step further. He said: "Back to the community, the religious communities included; you help us maintain those services reflecting the daily needs of the community through democratic participation in

[ Page 5851 ]

the resources boards." That's what happened.

Then my colleague called in the leaders of the religious communities of this province, ranging from evangelical to orthodox to Catholic to Protestant. For the first time in the history of this province, an informal conference was called among myself and my colleague, the minister, and all the major religious community leaders in this province, quietly, without fanfare, in private meetings that could have been open. Nothing secret was being discussed, but private meetings were held with these religious community leaders.

We spelled out to them exactly what we hoped to do in a new delivery of service. Our primary focus through the resources board and amalgamating these services was to do one thing that has been terribly neglected in North America, and that was to make a major effort to strengthen family life. Without family life, there is no society. It doesn't matter whether you are a capitalist or a socialist, if there is no family life and a basis of developing good human relationships, all the other philosophies become meaningless. People become dehumanized without any good human services based on good family life.

We set up the family life council and quietly funded it. We had people in the religious community who had never ever spoken to politicians before, coming openly to the government and negotiating with us about the development of new services through the church organizations, through public organizations on a whole community basis without fear or favour to any political party or any religious community. We had evangelicals meeting with Salvation Army and Presbyterians and Catholics in this building. We had an ecumenical family life conference based on one purpose: to maintain and strengthen to the best of our ability - government and the church - better family life.

After the amalgamation through the resources boards, they eliminated themselves from the role of delivering basic services that were provided by the governments in every other community and then went on to develop family-life counselling, breaking new ground, providing new hope to single-parent families, providing new hope to deserted children, providing new hope to broken lives that had crashed in the competitive society that you subscribe to on the basis of the myth of free enterprise. Then strengthen that participation by saying: "You must now take a role in your own decision-making; you cannot rely on the state - that is, Victoria - to make all the decisions for you. You have a responsibility as church and community to make some of the decisions yourself. No paternalistic, big government should centralize authority around establishing services to people through family fife."

Who was it that did that? Why, it was the socialists. The Archbishop of Canterbury wrote a letter commending this programme, saying that it was the only one Re it in the whole Commonwealth. The Archbishop of Canterbury went on record, saying that he was personally keeping a watching eye on this new, wonderful experiment in the province of British Columbia. And who initiated it with the church? It was the socialists. Who is destroying it with the people and with the church? It is none other than those free-enterprisers who have no philosophy but an administrative fixation based on personal power and personal ambition.

Yes, Mr. Member, let it be recorded that you're the centralizers. Let it be recorded that you have no philosophy. Let it be recorded that you destroyed this little spark of democratic, human participation for Lord knows what reason other than the little fun I've had with you about your political ambitions. But if there is nothing more, then your own ambitions are hardly worth the destruction of the development of democratic, human services, Mr. Minister, and you're making a terrible mistake.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, a good number of questions have been posed and certainly a lot of assertions have been made during these last eight or ten days with respect to the VRB. I think perhaps I'll try to answer as many of these as possible, though some of them may be difficult to answer in that perhaps the question wasn't as direct as it might have been. Possibly they'll be posed again.

But the overshadowing thing throughout the debate, particularly when we heard from the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , was that the VRB was or stood for all of the social services and in fact equated itself with social services in Vancouver particularly. I want to make it very clear, if that's what is required right now, that we have many excellent programmes throughout the province to help the poor, the elderly, the handicapped. Those programmes over the last 20 months have been considerably improved upon, and we will continue to improve upon those programmes for the whole of British Columbia as we've done during the last 20 months.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Name one!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The question is posed by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) as to what these improvements might have been. I want to just briefly run through a few of these particular improvements to indicate once again that we are attempting to create a better programme for Human Resources in British Columbia.

We were the first to increase the rates paid to

[ Page 5852 ]

people in receipt of welfare at all levels after two years of no increase at all. We provided those increases and they were very necessary. The previous administration had not provided that increase for that two-year period. We increased those rights at considerable expense but it was very necessary. Certainly all of us supported that particular move.

We provided ongoing health benefits to single-parent families and to the handicapped people if they wished to go out and seek employment because it was of benefit to them socially. They feared the loss of those health benefits for themselves and their children. -That was a change which would have been made at any time during the past X number of years, but nothing was done. We made that change in 1976.

We provided new moneys for handicapped achievement centres. Again, this was something that had received the support of all members but the moneys had not been forthcoming. We provided those particular increases.

We also increased the daycare rates, and the daycare rates had not been increased in over two years. It was the first increase in the daycare rates in that two-year period.

Mr. Speaker, We provided a 26 per cent increase for personal-care, intermediate-care and nursing-home facilities in the province which had been suffering and which certainly had been lacking in service to the people in need of those services. We now, of course, have a tremendously impressive programme proposed by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) which, I think, will be the greatest in all of North America - our new long-term care proposal for all British Columbians.

We extended the benefits of Pharmacare to all people in British Columbia, particularly to the chronically ill children who had suffered from diabetes, from epilepsy and from other illnesses which created costly annual bills. We extended Pharmacare to provide benefits to all of those people. For the first time, we made Pharmacare a good, credible programme from which all British Columbians could benefit.

I could go on and on because the list is long. As a matter of fact, we saw more benefits provided during the 20-month period than we have seen anytime in the last five years. We will continue to provide those benefits. We will not only continue to provide them, but we will continue to improve upon those benefits for all people everywhere in British Columbia.

The suggestion was also made during the debate that somehow we were out to kill volunteerism; that volunteerism again equated with VRB and volunteerism was non-existent elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, again I must assure you that many, many programmes exist in all parts of the province run by good societies and by dedicated people who want to do a job for those in need. We are funding those societies to improve upon those programmes and we will continue to do so.

The message about volunteerism being dead or dying was pushed throughout Vancouver for the past several months. Even the people who stood out there with the petition were unfortunately presenting that false message. Even our people in the offices had their stickers on government reception desks saying "Kill Bill 65" and what a nasty thing we were doing for volunteerism. in the province. Mr. Speaker, those programmes are effective in all parts of British Columbia. They will continue to be effective and they will be improved upon for Vancouver.

The first member for Vancouver-Burrard also argued that there was considerable volunteerism in Vancouver over and above what existed in other areas, and that in fact those programmes would once .more be diminished or cut back on. I would like to just bring back her own argument with respect to the higher staff ratios that existed in Vancouver. We have many programmes in other parts of the province that are carried out through volunteer- societies, programmes We fund which involve a good many volunteers, which is probably one of the reasons why in 'Vancouver you have a higher staff ratio. We encourage volunteerism; we don't assimilate it. We do not put the volunteers on the payroll, as has happened to many of the child welfare programmes that you referred to, hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Yet I don't think that the question of staff and the numbers should be argued as much as I think we ought to consider a more appropriate deployment of these staffs. If the figures Mr. Fenwick presented in his letter are somewhat correct - and we must assume they are - then in fact 40 per cent of the workers in Vancouver are involved in field services and 60 per cent of the total staff complement is involved in support services. I believe that perhaps this too explains why administrative costs in Vancouver are more than twice what they are in other parts of the province. There is too large a support complement and not enough people actually working out in the field. That is according to Mr. Fenwick's own figures presented in the brief immediately after presentation of Bill 65.

The explanation by the VRB that various MHR programmes are being charged to them does not hold, as the usual practice is for such costs to be charged back to the appropriate journal entry with the Ministry of Human Resources. There could be some argument about a few of the staff people involved doing MHR work within the VRB. But on the other hand, too, we have many people within the Ministry of Human Resources who are carrying out VRB functions, if you wish to delineate between them, such as daycare services, information services for

[ Page 5853 ]

daycare, homemakers, et cetera. Once more, that argument is not a valid one;

The hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) raised a question about the union status, and I think perhaps we should just dwell on that for a moment. We've met with the various union groups on numerous occasions. I certainly have had at least three or four meetings with different people representing the different unions in the VRB. As I've said to them, and I say again, no one with union certification will lose it as a result of Bill 65. The right to bargain of course remains, and the suggestion that this would somehow be changed is absolutely ludicrous. As a matter of fact, the approach which is being used here is identical to that used by the former government when the Victoria takeover occurred. There's no difference, no change; it's identical. All the talk about the ills and the wrongs aimed at the union is certainly incorrect.

MS. SANFORD: They're not aware of that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, they're aware of it, hon. member. We've discussed it with them, and certainly you will have noted that there has been considerable agreement since our meetings.

MS. SANFORD: What happens to seniority?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We don't intend to, as was suggested, throw out the affirmative action programme. As a matter of fact, I would like to see how we might take the best of the affirmative action programme and see it implemented in all parts of the province - see it have a greater provincial application. I'm hoping that there might be a good number of programmes from which We can learn and which could be of benefit to people elsewhere in British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: You destroy it first and then you can learn from it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's one really good affirmative action programme and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard makes it a habit of knocking the best affirmative action programme, which doesn't help just the Dutch or. the Greeks or the Italians, or whatever minority group the affirmative action programme in Vancouver might be aimed at; we have an affirmative action programme that helps people who otherwise do not have the opportunity of finding employment - namely, PREP. PREP is a great affirmative action plan. PREP will help people who do not get help otherwise. You know, they laugh about PREP.

Interject ions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly there are many members within the VRB who, unfortunately, have taken that attitude.

Interjections.

MR.- SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. members of the House please give the minister the same attention that he gave to the other hon. members when they participated in this debate?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the thousands of people who, unfortunately, have had to continue on income assistance year upon year, after having been helped by PREP, are extremely grateful, and their gratitude has been expressed to our office many a time. As a matter of fact, I would suggest those people are not only supportive of the programme, but also supportive of the total approach which has been developed in Human Resources, and they're giving this message throughout British Columbia as an expression of their thanks.

The VRB argues a great deal about their accountability. They say: "Well, we're accountable." I think certainly accountability is important, despite the remarks by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . I think perhaps we can talk about this for a moment, too. Hopefully this accountability can be enlarged upon tremendously in the change which will occur. But the VRB argues about their accountability to the ministry. In fact what has happened, unfortunately, is that the bureaucracy, time and time again, has used this very argument to attain their own bureaucratic ends.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Which bureaucracy are you talking about?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They present whatever argument happens to suit them at the time, but they have continually failed to follow policy. They have continually failed to follow the policies which we have implemented and brought forth during these last 20 months.

MR. BARBER: Be specific. Which bureaucracy -yours or theirs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They developed their own guidelines and they developed their own rules. The member says: "Be specific." I don't want to again go through the specifics. I don't want to again use the individual examples, because I think that tends to reflect on staff. Instead we should point the finger at the bureaucracy, at the management.

But yes, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, there are some real specifics which we've been extremely

[ Page 5854 ]

concerned about. I'm extremely concerned about the fact that they've not had home visits, that the home visit process that was demanded by Victoria as part of the service delivery system was simply ignored in Vancouver. In one particular instance, less than 15 per cent of those checked had been home-visited.

We found that files were sloppy. You know, I can't forget the file which gave the description of a particular income-assistance recipient. There were two sheets of paper in the file. One listed him as having blue eyes and the other listed him as having brown eyes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, gosh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!

MR. BARBER: What a reason for killing the resources board.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One gave his height one way and the other gave it differently, and his weight varied considerably from paper to paper. On the one sheet of paper, his contact was Michigan, and on the other piece of paper his contact was Alabama. But the kicker is that the file had been marked: "Checked with Immigration." When the workers in that particular office were asked as to whether there was a followup of files, they said: "Sometimes yes; sometimes no." That particular file had not been followed through. So not only did they not have home visiting, hon. members, but they had sloppy bookkeeping and sloppy files.

Since you ask for specifics, let me give you one more. We had a situation recently where the Vancouver Resources Board, on their own, because they make their own rules, broke every rule in the book. They had a client with three different surnames. Although she stated she had no legal spouse, this person had three different surnames and was granted welfare by the VRB, even though she was living and working 50 miles away from Vancouver. This person was working 50 miles from the city and she was granted welfare by Vancouver. When the management was asked why this was and could they give us a response, they said: "Well, you know, this person has a car and maintains two homes, one in the valley and one in Vancouver. Therefore this particular person had extraordinary expenses and for that reason we devised a rule to assure that there wouldn't be a hardship."

This is the type of thing we've run up against time and time again. Rules should be applied equally throughout the province. You can't have one little island with its own bureaucracy, creating its own rules, and destroying the credibility of the total programme in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The lady with the two homes - one in the valley and one in Vancouver, both of which we were paying the rent for, of course, through the VRB - eventually went back to school this fall. The latest is that she is still on welfare.

So you can see, hon. members, since you asked for specifics, what the problems are. There are many problems in the Vancouver Resources Board and while the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested that we could find similar faults in the provincial offices, I agree with the hon. member, we perhaps do. But we immediately move to correct such inequalities, such wrongs. We make sure that it doesn't continue.

We will again, I'm sure, a year from now, find faults in many of those same offices. But I can assure the hon. members that we will immediately move to correct them and we will not have some bureaucracy continually attempting to block our efforts to make corrections, simply so that they may have their own little empire, as in the case of Vancouver.

There's also the case, like many others, hon. member for Vancouver Centre, since you're concerned about this, where....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's a case, like so many others, where we picked up part of a $500 rent for a person with an income of more than $1,000 a month. But the argument presented by the Vancouver Resources Board bureaucracy was: "The rent was excessive." So they picked up a part of the $500 rent tab, even though that person earned more than $1,000 a month, because the rent was excessive. It's this type of thing which shows you what exists in Vancouver.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Resources Board has its own rules, but the people of Vancouver will have a direct voice in the provision of services.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The people of Vancouver presently have a non-elected group representing them on social services, a task that I know that 12 MLAs would gladly assume. I am sure the MLAs would gladly assume the task of assuring that matters which should be brought to the attention of the ministry or the minister will be brought forth.

[ Page 5855 ]

I hear this from other areas. I communicate regularly with many of the MLAs who bring forth particular problems and we immediately attend to them. That is what an elected MLA ought to be doing, and certainly Vancouver should be no exception in that particular instance. If there is a problem in the Vancouver-Burrard constituency with respect to the delivery of social services, I would expect those two MLAs to move immediately to assure that that particular wrong is corrected by bringing it to the attention of the minister or the ministry immediately. I think that's their responsibility.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): The problem is you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of our most important programmes is the families and children services division of this ministry.

MR. SPEAKER: Once again, may I bring to the attention of the members that all during the course of this debate the utmost courtesy was extended to those people participating. I expect the members of this House to extend that same courtesy to the minister in closing the debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the most important programmes in our ministry is the families and children services division. We are embarking on new and innovative approaches to help expand this further and help where possible in the hope of keeping the services to the home. I mention this also because while I could respond to each of the rebuttals given by Mr. Fenwick and presented by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard, I won't now enlarge upon those particular questions except to say that I took exception to the children-in-care figures presented by the hon. member on behalf of the VRB people, the bureaucracy which had prepared their presentation.

They state that they care for only 1,400 of the 9,700 children in care provincially. Firstly, the figures were erroneous in that the August report shows 7,648 children in care, 1,390 of which are in the VRB. So it's not 9,700 but 7,600, and 1,390 as opposed to 1,400. So one of the figures is reasonably correct. But also, they fail to state that the Vancouver children who are in long-term care are included in the provincial figures but not in the Vancouver figures. They also fail to state that the children from Vancouver who are now in institutions such as Woodlands and others are part of the provincial figure but not a part of the Vancouver figure. So once more the bureaucracy in Vancouver provided partial answers to those particular problems.

Instead of prolonging this debate further, Mr.Speaker, I would just like to wind up by again assuring the House that Vancouver is extremely important in the whole area of service delivery. We will work out many better approaches to ill, of the programmes that exist and we certainly will take the best of those that are there now and make sure that they are applied not only in Vancouver, but any other area where perhaps it will be of benefit, and we would be extremely pleased to work with the board or with the smaller groups that presently exist in Vancouver to assure that we develop a good advisory system which will be responsive to the people and which will provide immediate answers to the provincial ministry and to the minister.

We will strive to develop an excellent system and we will assure, too, that things of importance to the people are referred to them for opinions; that they will have a considerable input in promoting those programmes which are of greatest benefit to the people in Vancouver, as they presently have. I assure this same information for the balance of the province, but we will not turn over the responsibility of spending programmes for statutory purposes to an appointed body. I think that is a responsibility of the elected officials.

We are the people who collect the moneys; we should also be answerable for the spending of those moneys. And if, as we found, a system - and we did find one - which obviously is not accountable for those expenditures and which simply moves whichever way suits them best as a bureaucracy, then we have a responsibility on behalf of the people of British Columbia, which includes every person living in Vancouver, to move and to move effectively and quickly. We must be accountable to those people, but we will develop a very strong advisory system to ensure that opinions are continually obtained from the people who have the feel of what occurs locally' We will develop a system second to none. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a point of order to correct just one statement of the minister's, and that was his statement referring to the services for the families and children vote in his estimates. Vote 186 shows that there's a decrease of $5 million in that vote, and I'd just like to set the record straight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lies! Lies!

MS. BROWN: That's just one of the many errors.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 26

[ Page 5856 ]

NAYS - 15

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer the bill to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

Leave granted.

Bill 65, Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 83.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT

ACT, 1977 (No. 4)

HON. J. DAVIS (Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, Bill 83 can be divided editorially into two parts. The first part can be described as housekeeping. It improves the drafting. It does not change any of the powers in the existing Act but it makes it easier for our public servants and for our courts to administer the Motor-vehicle Act in British Columbia.

The second part of the bill, as covered in section 3, marks a change in policy. It makes it possible for a police officer to suspend a driver's licence for 24 hours when he believes the driver's blood-alcohol count is above the 0.05 level. The operative figure figure today is 0.08.

For six years British Columbia has used the higher figure - namely 0.08 - for roadside suspensions, the same figure as appears in the Criminal Code of Canada. We are now changing our figure to 0.05. In other words, federal legislation - namely the Criminal Code - will continue to specify 0.08 for court action. The Motor-vehicle Act of British

Columbia, on the other hand, will now specify 0.05 for 24-hr. roadside suspensions. Thus we are moving a link between the Motor-vehicle Act of British Columbia and the Criminal Code of Canada. The two pieces of legislation are distinct. One is national and the other is provincial.

For six years we have been using 0.08 for purposes of roadside suspensions. Once this bill becomes law, 0.05 will be the operative figure in British Columbia insofar as 24-hr. suspensions are concerned. The Criminal Code level of 0.08 is still there, but it relates to impairment of a more serious type. The penalties attached to a 0.08 level remain where they are now at much more than a 24-hr. suspension, in line with the seriousness of the charge. The procedures followed by a police officer intercepting traffic on a B.C. road or highway will be the same as they are now and have been for the last six years. Only a new and lower level of a driver's blood-alcohol count will be used for purposes of suspension. The time period, 24 hours, is unchanged.

There is considerable evidence, Mr. Speaker, that even at the lower 0.05 level the driver's judgment has deteriorated to the point where his driving habits are unsafe and he can be a hazard to others.

This legislation gives a peace officer more discretion. He has greater latitude in which to control the impaired-driver problem, to remove dangerous drivers from the highway and to prevent people from killing themselves and endangering the lives of others. No record will be kept of these 24-hr. suspensions in British Columbia. In other words, suspensions will continue to take place, but unless the driver is charged under the Criminal Code of Canada - this means a proven blood-alcohol level in excess of 0.08 - there will be no record in the motor-vehicle branch of a roadside suspension having occurred in his or her case.

This roadside suspension programme of ours, this new programme at the lower 0.05 blood alcohol level, allows the police to deal more effectively with the drinking driver problem without having to invoke the heavy penalties which flow from convictions under the Criminal Code of Canada. A conviction under the Criminal Code calls for a mandatory suspension of the driver's licence for at least three months on the first offence. It calls for a mandatory suspension of the driver's licence of at least six months on the second and subsequent offences. Heavy fines are also involved, and all Criminal Code offences are recorded on the driver's record at the motor-vehicle branch.

The message here should be clear: the government is concerned about the drinking and driving problem. It is taking this action in order to get those who have had a few drinks off the road for 24 hours. They won't face the heavy penalties laid out in the Criminal Code of Canada unless they are seriously impaired and proven to be so. Drivers can still

[ Page 5857 ]

demand a test. If they ask for a test, they are taking a chance. If they take a test and their blood alcohol content proves to be in excess of 0.08 they can be in trouble. They're liable to charges under the Criminal Code which, as I have said before, are very serious indeed.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General is concerned with the administration of the Act, and during the course of the debate I invite him also to respond to some of the questions. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): The official opposition will be supporting this bill. I guess it's one of those bills that is classified as a housekeeping bill. It should go on record that there has been a considerable amount of comment received on this proposed legislation from certain areas throughout the province. I know that a large number of agencies support this legislation - people concerned with health and traffic and this type of thing. I'm supporting this legislation. I do want to point out one fact to you, Mr. Speaker, on this type of legislation. It appears that during the course of this session of the Legislature we have seen to pass quite a bit of legislation that deals with increasing the powers of either governments, or certain arms of governments, or the police. This is the type of concern that was expressed to me on a number of occasions regarding this bill increasing police powers. I'm not opposed to the police. As a matter of fact, it's been my experience that in the overwhelming majority of instances where the police have to deal with the public, particularly in traffic matters, they are judicious in exercising their authority and usually are co-operative, but not always.

I'm a bit concerned that occasionally we have the examples where if you're driving a fairly good vehicle, you're dressed up, you have a tie on and your hair is, short, you're not bothered a great deal. But if you happen to be a young person with long hair and look a little bit like a hippie and that kind of thing, we do have unequal application of the law in some instances. Lam a bit concerned about this aspect. I can only express the, hope that the Attorney-General and the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications will see to it that the law is applied equally and judiciously in this instance.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the very useful and positive thrusts that this government has developed under the aegis of the

Attorney-General has been a very definite and effective attack on drinking and driving. I strongly support this bill that we have before us which introduces both a more stringent and a more flexible measure in the all-out attack on the drinking driver.

I won't take up the time of the House to describe the frightening statistics that we still have in regard to injury and mortality on the highway and the percentage of those cases that are related to drinking. It would seem to me that any authority which we can give our police force to exercise discretion by removing someone from the highway for 24 hours is a very reasonable, flexible step. If it could be criticized at all, it might be criticized on the basis that some countries have found that they should be even tougher than we would be under this legislation. As far as I'm concerned personally, Mr. Speaker, I would feel that this is a reasonable compromise step which surely can be increased or tightened in its severity in the light of experience.

Experience already suggests that the Attorney-General's Batmobiles, and other measures, are causing many citizens who would normally have one or two drinks and then get behind the wheel to think twice and perhaps get a taxi home or have a friend drive them or, as in the Wallace household, get my wife to drive me home. It doesn't really matter how you get home, as long as the person who is driving the vehicle is the one who is sober.

So while it represents just one more step in the whole battle against drinking and driving, I think it shows a great degree of awareness by this government that something has to be done but perhaps, at the same time, one has to make the restriction reasonable, flexible and something which any reasonable cross-section of society would accept as one of the~e essential restrictions on our freedom which have to be imposed for the greater benefit of the total community.

It is for that general line of reasoning that I strongly support this bill.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to show any trepidation about the bill, but I am concerned with the meaning in the new subsection (5) of section 3. Perhaps in winding up, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) or the minister could answer this question.

I understand that if you are 0.05 you can have a 24-hour suspension because you've taken a test on this roadside. But then you go on in section 5 and say that where the police officer simply informs you that you are going to be charged under the Criminal Code with 0.08 - impaired or drunk driving - your licence can then, merely from the fact that he's told you you're going to be charged, be suspended for the 24 hours. Now I don't see that ... just because you are going to charge somebody, you don't suspend.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but let's look at the wording. If the reading has been there and you are doing it anyway - and you've got the power to do it

[ Page 5858 ]

under provincial law - you shouldn't have that additional power to say that a police officer, after he informs a person that the information will be laid, may request that person.... He may request, it's true. Maybe that's your answer - that you're just requesting, because you certainly shouldn't pick up a licence, even for 24 hours, merely because a person is going to be charged.

Is that your answer - that the word "request" is all that you're saying there?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, and in this case, this section applies. Anyway, I think you should answer that question. It's one thing if you have the rest, eh? You're 0.05 and you've got the 24-hour suspension. It's another thing that because he says, "I'm going to charge you, " he takes your licence for 24 hours.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm rising not to prolong the debate but to indeed indicate my wholehearted support of this measure of my colleague, which is a traffic safety measure. It's a life-saving proposal. It w i 11 b e a n i n j u r y - r e d u c i n g a n d property-damage-reducing mechanism.

I would like to very clearly demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that in this bill we are not trying to legislate morality and we're not proposing to restrict choice or impose taste. We are merely shoring up some very basic and elementary principles of humanity: don't kill or injure yourself, or anyone else, or make it an increased possibility of doing that to your highway neighbour. The object of this measure, Mr. Speaker, is purely and simply to save lives and prevent injuries and property damage.

I think we will all agree that driving, by virtue of the complexity and the interdependency of society, is no longer a right but a privilege. To be able to enjoy that privilege, Mr. Speaker, one has to abide by the rules and regulations imposed upon a driver for the safety and protection of his fellow travelers and his fellow highway users - the pedestrians, his passengers, and, indeed, himself. Even the loss, if only unto oneself, in 95 per cent of the cases, Mr. Speaker, affects not only the victim but society as well, by broken homes, interrupted education, psychological injury, public cost and a taxpayer burden.

This is the area we are addressing ourselves to, and I'd like the hon. members to know why. It's because the number of impaired drivers in British Columbia far exceeds any other province in Canada. They have provided us with the highest alcohol-related accident rate in the country. In one year, they caused over 300 deaths, 8,000 hospitalizations, totalling over 40,000 days of bed space. The impaired driving offences, Mr. Speaker, have increased 22 per cent in two years. At the present time, about 28 per cent of all the cases before our courts result from drinking-driving charges. Fifty per cent of the traffic fatalities involve alcohol use.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the annual burden on B.C. taxpayers for property damage, hospitals, medical and legal costs will exceed $50 million per annum. This doesn't take into account the human resources expenditures or the social damage - the wrecked families, the disfigurements, the pain and, indeed, the suffering.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just like to observe a very interesting comment from a report from the United States Secretary of Transportation to Congress on alcohol and highway safety. It found, Mr. Speaker, that at levels of 0.05 or less, almost three-quarters of occasional drinkers, one-third of moderate drinkers, and one-fifth of heavy drinkers were adversely affected to an appreciable degree on one or more driving tasks'

I'd like to also illustrate the point that at blood-alcohol concentrations of less than 0.05, some drivers, particularly these occasional drinkers and young persons who are inexperienced with both drinking and driving, do show signs of impairment and indeed have an increased risk of accident involvement.

The amendment provides a safety initiative to police without involving the driver in criminal charges, criminal records or criminal penalty. It will certainly enhance and be complementary to the counterattack programme, which has received very good public response. I think it's been exceptionally well contributed to and assisted by the media throughout the province. I think that we are slowly seeing an attitudinal change. The statistics that are coming in are welcomed, and I think we're on the road to seeing a marked degree of improvement.

Before sitting down, I would like to respond to the one question that was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . He dealt with the situation of where an officer can request the licence of a person who has been informed that he's going to be charged. This was an amendment that was requested by the police throughout the province because they found that they were somewhat hampered in having a situation of an individual who was intoxicated, and indeed impaired, and facing a charge, with perhaps a very, very high reading, but being literally permitted, I suppose, according to the existing law, to receive his licence, get back on the road and do continuing damage. That's the reason for that, so it's a suspension under those circumstances for that individual, too.

But the thrust of this legislation is the 0.05 level. I indeed subscribe to the remarks that were volunteered by my colleague, the hon. minister, and will not repeat them.

[ Page 5859 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I really don't have anything more to add, other than to move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 83 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 83, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 4) , read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(NO. 4)

The House in committee on Bill 83; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman ' I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 83, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 4) , reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 83, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 4) , read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed further, I would like to just draw to your attention a report which I filed at the Clerks' table this morning on the British Columbia tour of the 23rd annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference hosted in British Columbia a week and a half ago. Copies of the report are available to any of the members who would like to see them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , I move that the Special Committee of Selection, appointed on January 13,1977, and the committee on Crown corporations, established by Chapter VIII, section 69 (l) of the standing orders, be empowered to sit during any adjournment of the House. I understand that this has been distributed to the opposition.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , I call report on Bill 89, which has been distributed.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Bill 89 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 13

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 65, by leave of the House.

Leave granted.

[ Page 5860 ]

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to inquire whether or not any MLAs from the government side in Vancouver will be speaking on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a proper question, except that it's rhetorical.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 13

Ms. Brown requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 2.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to inquire: are any of the Vancouver MLAs from the government side going to speak on this section?

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 14

On section 3.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 3 as amended.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I notice we have one member for Vancouver-Burrard and one member for Vancouver South. We don't have the member for Little Mountain or the member for Point Grey. Are there any other members from the Socred back bench or the government side that intend to speak on this section?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I would remind all hon. members that in committee debate must be strictly relevant, according to the standing orders.

Section 3 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 15

[ Page 5861 ]

On section 4.

MR. WALLACE: The last hurrah!

Mr. Chairman, this Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation. If there was one thing that the former Social Credit government was famous for, it was its capacity to take a second look. We've had a long and sometimes bitter debate on the contents of this bill, but it is still not law and need not become law until proclaimed, which is at the discretion of the cabinet.

I would just say very simply that I think if one looks at all the evidence that's been put before the House, there's still a great deal of evidence lacking for such a dramatic and radical dismantling of social services as they were provided prior to this bill. I just hope the government, even at this late stage in the history of Bill 65, will consider delaying proclamation.

I would just take this opportunity, since my own future is somewhat uncertain, to recall the words of our illustrious friend for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) that there is a time to be born and a time to die. I'm not about to die. It says: "To everything there is a season, " but the trouble with the Conservatives is that the season always seems to be winter.

Mr. Chairman, I just feel it would be appropriate for me, since it's possible I will not be here again, to express my appreciation to the House. I wish that Mr. Speaker were present for me to acknowledge my appreciation of all the courtesies which he and others have extended, and simply to express my pleasure at having served.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in following up on the remarks of the member for Oak Bay, let me express to him that his remarks about the possible termination of his services in this House. . , -. Let me convey to him the fact, not from my party, but from me personally, that he will be missed, not only by this House but by the people of British Columbia.

Many times we disagreed; many times we agreed. But one thing we can agree on together is that this assembly is perhaps a great opportunity, no matter how frustrating, for both sides of the House and for any British Columbian or citizen to serve their fellow man, and to serve the people of the province and our country.

The present member for Oak Bay, while in government and in opposition, has served his constituency, and this House, and the people of this province. In serving his province, he served his country. It matters not that we disagreed from time to time on issues of the day, but that we had the interests of the people of the country at heart and that we worked for their benefit in the way we know best. We will always follow that sense of purpose.

With that in mind that can be the greatest tribute to this member: he always followed his principles and stayed with his commitments. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of this province. I extend to him the fact that his leaving this assembly would be a loss to the people, but I recognize the tremendous service he has performed already on their behalf.

MR. BARRETT: Speaking on section 4, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to echo the Premier's words on this section and also echo the opening remarks of the member for Oak Bay, who said that proclamation isn't an immediate necessity.

The most exciting thing that the member for Oak Bay said was that this is possibly - not probably, possibly - his last speech in this House. I believe that the province of British Columbia at this time, regardless of all the sacrifices that member has made to public life for this province, cannot afford to lose that member's party voice and individual voice in this House,

I hope that the member has a good and welcome rest. I understand that he is returning to private practice, but we must expect and hope and request that he continue his sacrifice by remaining with us.

I understood the certain obvious comments of the member when he said that his party was always in the winter season. But, Mr. Member, I would like to say to you that a lion in the winter can turn into a tiger in the spring. That's what we need, because this province is going to face severe problems in Confederation aside from the political differences we have in managing this province's affairs. The contribution of every member in assisting to keep this country together on a level, sensible course representing all political points of view is absolutely essential.

I welcome the member's statements. I'm pleased with the Premier's comments, and I'm saying I hope the tiger shows up next spring.

MR. BARNES: Again, I'm attempting to do my duty on behalf of the city of Vancouver by inquiring as to the representatives for that city....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARNES: I think I'm in order. I have the right to discuss this section, and I can reflect on the members from the city of Vancouver in regard to the way they carry out their duties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I may assist you, the Chair cannot determine if the remarks are in order or out of order until the proposition has been made. As a result, I must listen to the member at least. I hear the calls to order, but I must make a determination.

[ Page 5862 ]

MR. BARNES: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your comments. There are only two members for the city of Vancouver absent on the government side - two Socred members - and the rest are here. I was wondering if they will use this last opportunity to comment on this bill because it does represent their constituents, and I'm sure they would like to stand for something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the member that remarks must be relevant to the section.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 14

Ms. Brown requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On the title.

MS. BROWN: This is just my last attempt to associate myself with the request made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and the member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that the government not proclaim this piece of legislation. I realize that they had to go through with it, but we're asking them at this time if they would please not proclaim this piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that may have better have been debated under section 4.

Ti He approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 14

Ms. Brown requests that leave be granted to record the division in the Journals of the House.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 65, Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 65, Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 26

[ Page 5863 ]

NAYS - 14

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, at this time, it being three months less two days until Christmas, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the 31st parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at a time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

MR. BARRETT: Just a few brief comments on this motion before we give our approval. It is not unusual for this motion to be presented to the House for an adjournment, and the members have all worked hard and diligently over many hours in a very, very long session. I intend to support this motion, but I am also concerned about a number of problems that confront the people of this province at this time.

I am suggesting to the government that we are, indeed, upon very difficult economic times in this province. I am also suggesting that this winter will bring high unemployment and great social insecurity because of that high unemployment. I commend to the government its responsibility to address itself to the problem of unemployment and the devastating effect the economy is having on small businesses and small investors in tis province.

I am suggesting to the government that even, indeed, we will be facing a new budget four or five months from now. It is imperative for them to address themselves to the very real problems of ordinary citizens in this province who do not wish to be pushed or pulled by government, but want the opportunity to survive in a highly competitive society.

A year has gone by, and yes, indeed we're going to adjourn, but very little productive work has taken place to help the ordinary citizen. People have a right to expect more from their government. If the adjournment time is to be used to plan positive programmes instead of continuing a political vendetta by a government that hasn't forgotten the last provincial election, we'll all be better off. I leave the government with those remarks.

Motion approved unanimously.

HON. MR. GARDOM: His Honour is in the precincts and perhaps we could have a short recess.

The House took recess at 12:33 p.m.

The House resumed at 12:44 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching. Would all members please rise?

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

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Evidence Amendment Act, 1977

Independent Schools Support Act Societies Act

Corrections Amendment Act, 1977 Soil Conservation Act

Medical Centre of British Columbia Repeal Act

Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977

Ministerial Titles Amendment Act, 1977

The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1977

Apprenticeship and Training Development Act

Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977

(No. 4) Public Schools Amendment Act, 1977

Land Commission Amendment Act, 1977

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977

Public Recreational Facilities Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977

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

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.

[ Page 5864 ]

APPENDIX

65 The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 65) intituled Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows: Section 3, line 1: By deleting "section 70" and substituting "section 64". Section 3, in proposed section 63: (a) by deleting "and" in line 3 of paragraph (c) , (b) by adding ", and" after "Board" in line 2 of paragraph (d) , and (c) by adding after paragraph (d) the following: (e) employees of the Vancouver Resources Board become employees of the Crown in right of the Province and cease to be employees of the Vancouver Resources Board." By deleting proposed sections 64 to 69.

83 The Hon. Jack Davis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 83) intituled Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 4) , to amend as follows:

By adding the following section at the end:

"4. This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by Proclamation."