[ Page 8017 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement re expenses of Finance minister.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8017

Mr. Howard –– 8018

Ministerial statement re hospital emergency services.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 8018

Mr. Cocke –– 8020

Oral Questions

Forest industry layoffs. Mr. King –– 8020

Mr. Lockstead

Expenses of Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Mr. Howard –– 8021

Ministers' expense accounts. Mr. Howard –– 8021

Orders of the Day

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 4). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

Mr. Lockstead –– 8022

Mr. Lauk –– 8024

Mr. Cocke –– 8025

Mr. Mitchell –– 8026

Mr. Nicolson –– 8028

Mr. Kempf –– 8030

Mr. Leggatt –– 8030

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 8031

Offence Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 3). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams).

Mr. Macdonald –– 8033

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8033

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 28: minister's office (continued) –– 8033

Mr. Barber

Speaker's Ruling — 8035

Royal Assent to Bills –– 8037

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: In the galleries today are friends from my home town of Quesnel, Mr. and Mrs. Ron Paull. Ron is deputy clerk for the city of Quesnel. I'd like the members to welcome them.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the gallery today is the winner of the recent Canadian squash championships in Ottawa, Joyce Maycock of Vancouver. With this exceptional athlete are her husband, Tony, and some special guests from England, Joyce's mother, Mrs. Butcher, and aunt, Miss Butcher. Both of these ladies are visiting British Columbia and are spending the day in Victoria –– I would ask members to join me in congratulating Joyce and in extending a warm welcome to her family visiting the House today.

MR. KEMPF: It is my great pleasure to introduce in the gallery a member of the staff of the Committee on Crown Corporations, Mr. Yves Larue. Accompanying Mr. Larne this afternoon is his mother, Mrs. Andre Larue, visiting from Ottawa. I'd like the House to make them both very welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a group of trade unionists from the B.C. Federation of Labour, visiting with us here today.

MR. NICOLSON: Also in our gallery today, visiting from Nelson, is Mr. Eric MacFarlane. I wish the House to make him welcome.

MR. HOWARD: In recent weeks the House has paid respects to the centennial of the Salvation Army. A goodly number of gentlemen from that organization are with us and I'd like the House to pay respects today to Captain Moulton of the Salvation Army for again leading us in prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today is my wife, Dorothy, visiting us from the city of Penticton. I'd ask the House to bid her welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: George Hewison of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union is visiting with us again today. He has with him a couple of guests, who will be meeting with me later on this afternoon.

MR. LEGGATT: In our precincts today is a group of students from Libya who are studying public administration and the role of the opposition in British Columbia. I hope you will all welcome them.

EXPENSES OF FINANCE MINISTER

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wish to make a ministerial statement.

Immediately upon learning last week that New York theatre tickets for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and his deputy had been paid for at public expense, without his knowledge, I requested the Ministry of Finance to determine if this practice had occurred in any other instance. Last Friday afternoon — June 4, 1982 — I was informed that another case involved me.

One of the first tasks I identified upon taking over the Finance portfolio in very late 1979 was to visit New York to seek to attain a triple-A credit rating for the province of British Columbia. This resulted in the visit to New York in the last part of February 1980, just prior to the opening of the legislative session on February 29. Several officials travelled with me for this purpose. leaving Victoria on Saturday, February 23, 1980. We returned on the 27th.

In addition to key meetings with representatives of the two rating agencies and the presentation of a detailed and exhaustive summary of provincial finances and the economy, I met with many representatives of major underwriting firms in order to determine those best qualified to work with us in forthcoming British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority borrowings. Further, because some considerable time had elapsed since the last visit of a British Columbia ca'o;net minister to New York City, I suggested and secured an opportunity for a dinner meeting at which news of British Columbia and its economy could be presented to very senior representatives of the New York financial community. A list of those who attended to hear that speech is readily available.

In all respects it was an extremely successful visit. One of the results was the granting of the triple-A credit rating by the two international review agencies: Moody's Investors Services, by a communication dated May 22, 1980, and Standard and Poor Corp. on July 15 of the same year. This action alone has resulted in interest savings to British Columbia Hydro, and therefore to the citizens of the province, of many millions of dollars. While difficult to quantify, it can reasonably be said that we effected a saving of at least one-quarter of one percent on every dollar borrowed by Hydro in the public market for capital purposes since that time. In addition, this visit and whose which followed ensured that prospective lenders would be fully familiar with the province of British Columbia, the Hydro Authority and other Crown corporations at a time when many other borrowers were having severe difficulty in accessing international or national bond markets.

Mr. Speaker, what I did not know about the trip until the end of last week was that among a number of legitimate expenses incurred in this major undertaking were included a charge-back of $1,200 for theatre tickets while my group was in New York City. The tickets were for a Sunday matinee performance of one Broadway musical, which I did not attend, as well as an evening performance of another play, on February 25. Attending in the group on those occasions were several individuals directly involved in our working activities in New York, along with some of their spouses. These persons, about half of the group, were being entertained as individuals who would be an integral part of our marketing activities in the months and years to follow.

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers should not be charged for theatre tickets used by provincial ministers or officials. This was and this is my strongly held view. In these cases, each of us will repay our ticket costs.

It is of considerable consolation to me that with respect to another occasion in New York some months later, but still in calendar year 1980, each of us from British Columbia in the public employ wrote personal cheques as soon as we learned

[ Page 8018 ]

that theatre ticket charges were included among legitimate expenses associated with the second trip. I and others in the party at that time have cancelled personal cheques — in my case, dated November 12, 1980 — to verify and support this statement.

Regarding the February 1980 trip, I should explain that all charges which were incurred on our behalf by the Canadian consulate were retained and forwarded to Victoria some weeks later. The payment authority in British Columbia was issued by an appropriate individual who was then in the Ministry of Finance.

I think that the people of British Columbia will be reassured to know that situations such as this cannot now occur. Through last year, in conjunction with passage of the Financial Administration Act, 1981, the Ministry of Finance implemented strict hospitality entertainment requirements. New forms, now in use, demand that any expenditure of this kind indicate the purpose of the hospitality and who was in attendance. Further, if it is found that even more stringent controls are required, then they will be put in place forthwith.

Finally, there are certain expenses which have been and will continue to be incurred in the establishment and maintenance of an access to world capital markets at terms which are as favourable or better than any other sovereign credit in the world.

I wish to table two documents. One is entitled Financial Administration Act Regulations R2, pages 1, 2 and 3. It is dated October 29, 1981, and is approved by Treasury Board. The second document is Budget and Administrative Policy, with an issue date of December 1, 1981, and an effective date of 1981. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of hon. members to the last page, which includes a newly introduced hospitality expenses form.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this filing in connection with a statement, or is this a statutory requirement?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm filing in connection with the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted for the filing?

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be said that very little, if any, of this would have come to light had it not been for the production of photocopies of the particular vouchers in question with respect to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Photocopies of those vouchers, even though the acting comptroller-general had indicated in a letter dated May 14 that they would be available the day following the request, have not yet been made available through that route.

What this also sadly discloses is that the government did not know that this was happening. It is worthwhile to question the period of time over which this was happening. What we need is not just the occasional minister standing in the House saying, "I have conducted an inquiry with respect to myself, and I have discovered this," but we need a full-scale, open and thorough public inquiry into what has been happening with the fiscal expenditure matters and the squandering of public funds ever since this government has been in office.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. As I understood the minister to say, on his second trip he discovered that some tickets were being paid for out of public funds and he issued his own cheque at that time having discovered that. That's commendable. I wonder, though, why he didn't go back at that time and review the past practice. Also, why did the government find it necessary to establish a formal relationship, with money paid for services rendered, with one Nicholas Coolidge — formerly of the firm of Kidder Peabody, bankers in New York, and who subsequently established his own firm — so that he could make the arrangements for cabinet whenever they visited New York or, presumably, elsewhere?

During the days when the late W.A.C. Bennett was Premier and during the time that my colleague the Leader of the Opposition was Premier, neither of those governments found it necessary to pay good public money to functionaries in New York City to make arrangements for them. I would commend this action to this government: get rid of Coolidge and start on a course of handling your own affairs.

We have attempted in another place to have photocopies of other vouchers. So far that has been blocked. So far we have not been able to attain access to photocopies of those vouchers. Secondly, I would point out that we attempted to have the documentation relating to public expenditures in the fiscal year 1981-82 referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs. Every single member of the government on that committee blocked that particular motion and denied that access. The public must have full access….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member understands that matters which take place in committee are not of interest of the House except through the Chairman of that committee.

MR. HOWARD: That may well be, according to the rules, but it is certainly of interest to the general public. I think the government owes it to itself — to its own integrity, whatever that might be — owes it to the general public, and owes it to the Legislature not to have this piecemeal approach to examining and baring one's breast and making declarations about wrongdoing in the past, but only through a full-scale open public inquiry into the accounts.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, following upon the speech by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), he said certain other documents would be made available. Because they refer to an important matter involving the public interest, I would ask him to table the cancelled cheques to which he referred and the other vouchers, so that the documentation supporting his statement could be made available to the House.

HOSPITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, late last week I sent a Telex to the chairman of the board of the Royal Columbian Hospital, the executive director, with copies to the president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the president of the B.C. Medical Association. The text of the Telex addressed to those officials is as follows:

"I have received a copy of the speaking notes of Dr. Ray March, past president of BCMA, June 2,

[ Page 8019 ]

1982. I also have a transcript of his taped speech. In part Dr. March said:

" 'We've had cases already, emergency surgery, that because an operating room was not available, had to be done in corridors and in the emergency room, and I am not talking about little lacerations; and somebody says, why don't you expose this? We don't expose this because we try do do our best. Our staff is a good staff, but they are afraid — they are afraid of getting sued, the legal complications; but I can tell you all these cases will be documented.'

"In addition, Dr. March said: 'I am an abdominal surgeon, and I do not understand — I guess I am an old Watson Jones, if I could remember that far back, but certainly with the new open procedures, orthopods have to have a lot of equipment and he has reported to us — he has reported that the equipment disintegrates in the middle of an operation, falling into the open wounds. This is all documented.'"

In my Telex, I asked:

"Please advise if these allegations are correct. Also please provide immediately details of these cases with respect to dates, times, attending physicians, and the written surgery report with respect to any procedures which may have taken place in a corridor, and any procedures which have resulted in equipment disintegrating and falling into open wounds.

"Dr. March is reported to have said this is all documented. Please provide such documentation immediately."

Mr. Speaker, I have received within this hour a letter addressed to me from the Royal Columbian Hospital.

"The following response is appropriate to the Telex of June 3, 1982, from the Minister of Health according to the investigation which was carried out on June 4 by hospital staff.

"We have not reviewed the text of Dr. March's speech, but are responding to the comments as directed by the minister.

"Dr. March provided us with minimal information on only two cases that he knew of. One case we have investigated. The second case, because Dr. March was unable to provide a name or a date, we have so far been unable to identify.

"The case investigated showed that an emergency procedure was carried out in the emergency department on a patient who had been transferred from another hospital by ambulance and who arrived unconscious and on a respirator. After initial examination and treatment was given, the patient had a CT head-scan. Because of the condition of the patient, 20 minutes after the return of the patient to Emergency from the CT scan, a procedure to relieve the pressure of fluid in the brain was carried out in a treatment area of the emergency department. There were six operating rooms in use at the time, and the surgeon was waiting for a vacant room to perform an operation on another urgent case.

"The workload at the time in the emergency department and in the operating rooms was normal for the hospital, and there has been no staff reduction in either area as part of the 1982-83 budget reduction.

"My opinion, therefore, on the first allegation by Dr. March is that the operation was an emergency procedure which was performed due to unavoidable circumstances and that such a situation could arise in any emergency hospital at any time and was not related to any budget restrictions.

"The second allegation relates to orthopedic power equipment.

"It is true that the emergency and elective operating load for orthopedic operations at RCH is very heavy and that the equipment is used very frequently. It is also correct in stating that the equipment purchased in 1978 prior to moving into the new health-care centre, provided $50,000 worth of new heavy-duty drill and saw equipment which was recommended by the orthopedic surgeons. Because of the workload it was reported that this equipment required frequent repairs. In agreement with the orthopedic surgeons in 1980, additional drill equipment of the same kind was purchased in order to reduce the workload on all of it. The orthopedic department submitted proposals in 1980 and 1981 for a complete change to a different make of power equipment with a cost in the order of $50,000 for the number of sets required. Because this new power equipment would not be used by other surgical services such as plastic surgery and neurosurgery, the former equipment would also have had to be kept up for use by services other than orthopedics."

Under the heading of selection of equipment.

"In the hospital the priority selection of equipment from the amount requested in relation to funds available is made by a committee that includes surgeons. In 1980 and 1981 the new make of equipment requested by the orthopedic surgeons was not recommended by the surgeons on the committee as having a high enough priority to be included in the equipment which could be purchased out of the funds.

"Following Dr. Harder's letter of November 6, 1981, I requested the medical director and the associate executive director to meet with Dr. Harder and a representative of the neurosurgeons in order to have them agree on equipment that both groups could use. Meanwhile I attempted to arrange additional funding from volunteer sources. In March 1982, I informed the orthopedic surgeons at a general medical staff meeting that some funding would be available for equipment from the RCH Charitable Foundation.

"I am now able to obtain $50,000 to be used on the recommendation of the operating-room committee for equipment for the operating rooms. This is available immediately from the RCH Charitable Foundation. and we anticipate that the Ministry of Health would also cost-share in the equipment.

"The power equipment which is at present in use at the Royal Columbian Hospital is still the most widely used in hospitals in the province. Despite regular maintenance and repair, it is likely that the emergency workload at the Royal Columbian Hospital makes breakdown a little more frequent than in other centres, but any power equipment is.subject to breakdown.

"My comment, therefore, on Dr. March's second allegation is that the hospital has expended available

[ Page 8020 ]

funds according to the recommendations of the medical staff members on the advisory committee. However, because of additional funds of $50,000 being made available by the Charitable Foundation the operating-room committee may obtain additional equipment immediately, as it advises.

"Specifically, we have not been able to find, nor have we had documented to us, specific cases of  'equipment disintegrating and falling into open wounds.' While we cannot document specific cases, it is reported that hoses on equipment have sometimes come off causing oil leakage, but that this may happen with any similar equipment.

"In summary, it is my opinion that the comments made recently in public by members of the medical staff are in response to a real concern by the doctors as to the problems that they feel will arise in the future because of the likely conflict between the volume of emergency patients this summer and the announced reduction of 109 beds at the Royal Columbian Hospital due to budget constraints. They are aware of the operational review being carried out in July, August and September, and are confident that it must reinforce their comments as to the need for more funding for emergency care at the hospital.

J.W.C. Biggs,
Chairman,
Board of Managers,
Royal Columbian Hospital"

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not comment on the obvious feud between Dr. March and the minister. However, I will say that what this says to me and, I think, probably to most people in our province is that this is symptomatic of what is going on across the province — that the government seems to be in a quarrel with virtually every section of society. Certainly the technical aspects are ones that the minister and the hospital have to decide among themselves. But looking at the overall context of where this came from, I would suggest that the minister must look much more carefully at health care, because it is in real trouble and chaos in the province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, by leave, may I table the documents to which I have just referred?

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests. Since May 14, when MacMillan Bloedel closed its Chemainus mill operations, laying off 450 workers, there's been conflicting information regarding the possibility of its reopening. Mac-Blo representatives indicated promises of an upgraded mill for Chemainus are still being considered, but MacMillan Bloedel's president, Mr. Knudsen, has not made such a commitment in his letters to both the North Cowichan municipal council and the Member of Parliament for the area. In the meantime, logs are being transported from the Chemainus harbour to MacMillan Bloedel's operations in Alberni and the lower mainland. Can the minister inform the House what, if anything, he has done to protect the jobs of the 540 laid-off mill workers in that area?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, regarding the Chemainus mill, as a result of the layoff that has taken place I have had discussions with the senior people in MacMillan Bloedel, namely the president and others, and they have termed the layoff indefinite, simply because they do not know when market conditions will allow them to reopen the mill. My particular concern was that the word "indefinite" might be another way of saying "permanent shutdown." However, I have been assured by Mr. Smith and others that that is not the intent at all and that as soon as market conditions do improve — and at this time they do not know when that will be — that mill will be reopened. They still have plans for a change in that mill, to modernize it to better suit the type of logs available during this day and age. However, they do not have a firm time schedule for when that work might be done.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, can the minister guarantee, then, that the fibre from that area will be utilized in that specified plant in that area, rather than being transferred on any permanent basis to any other processing facility?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The fibre that has been used in the past at Chemainus does not necessarily come from that area. It is transported from many other locations in the province. I cannot guarantee that exactly the same amount of wood or the same type of wood will be used there on a permanent basis. However, I feel that MacMillan Bloedel does have a responsibility to its employees and to the people of British Columbia to make the maximum and most efficient use of the fibre that is at its disposal for manufacturing in the province.

MR. KING: Again, to the Minister of Forests: with respect to the bridging program for temporary employment, which the federal and provincial government are attempting to make available, has the minister decided to extend the eligibility under that program'to sawmill workers as well as loggers?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It has always been the intention of that program to make those bridging employment jobs available to everyone in the forest sector who wishes to take part in it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Is the minister aware that last Friday morning the Powell River division of the MacMillan-Bloedel operation announced that 160 permanent jobs have been lost due to the shutdown of number nine paper machine at that operation at Powell River, and further that the Stillwater division of that same company is presently shut down with no apparent possibility of reopening for some time, with the loss of a further 300-plus jobs to employees and contractors?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member have a question?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Is the minister aware that 160 permanent jobs have been lost as of last Friday in my community? It's having a disastrous effect on that community. My question is very clear. I'm sure the minister understands.

MR. SPEAKER: On any question that has as a preamble "is the minister aware," the Chair has to caution the fact that it does sound like it's information being brought to the House. Perhaps a bona fide question should accompany that kind of information. The minister wishes to answer.

[ Page 8021 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sure the member is aware that the forest sector, as is the case with the mining sector in British Columbia, is having a very difficult time now because of the world markets into which these products are sold. The answer to the member's question is yes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Has the minister made any representation to the company to determine if these shutdowns are permanent?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, I have been in discussion with senior officials of the company. I'm assured that these shutdowns are not permanent and that as market conditions permit, people will return to work.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Has the minister decided to include these laid-off workers in the employment abridging assistance program?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that's the same question asked by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). Yes, the employment abridging assistance program, which will create 10,000 jobs for people in difficulty in the forest sector, is available to all those who may be temporarily laid off.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I want to make sure that we clearly understand the position of the minister with respect to a certain subject.

Is it the minister's position that he was unaware that the expenses of the New York visit of June 11 and June 12, 1980, would be borne by the provincial government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: If you accept the minister's story — and I do — that he didn't know that….

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I said that….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the question and then we'll hear the answer.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With respect, the member asked me if I was under the impression that the expenses for the New York trip would not be met by the government, and I said no. That was not my position. Obviously, the legitimate expenses of the trip would be met by the provincial government.

MR. HOWARD: Then "Sugar Babies" was on the agenda.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's have a question.

MR. HOWARD: What he is saying now is contrary to what he said the other day.

If his particular New York travel arrangements were made, as he said the other day, in a silent conspiracy involving B.C. government officials, Canadian consular officials and one Nicholas Coolidge, can the minister explain why none of the B.C. signing authorities, who must verify that the services were received, contacted the minister or his deputy to perform this normal audit function?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think I explained that matter very fully on several occasions in the last few days, and the way in which legitimate expenses were charged back to the government of British Columbia. Unfortunately, those expenses never came over my desk or my deputy's desk for approval. Some of the expenses which were paid for on that trip, as part of a package of what was considered to be legitimate expenses, I do not consider to be legitimate expenses. The moment it was discovered that those were paid for by the British Columbia government I made that position very clear.

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as there is a very clear and precise manual indicating what signing officers are supposed to do, I wonder if the minister has determined who it was in his ministry who was responsible for the serious breach of financial management policy in not drawing that matter to his attention.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I won't accept that there was anyone in my ministry who was responsible for what the member calls a "serious breach." There was no such manual at the time. I have explained that had this trip been in Canada, every expense incurred as a result of any trip I would make in Canada would have come across my desk for approval. However, since there was a different system in operation for trips outside of Canada, for one reason or another that never came across my desk. The member knows full well, having seen all of the vouchers involved, that the authority for payment was made by a junior member of the ministry who was doing what that junior member considered part of that junior member's job. There's no one to blame in this matter in terms of the staff of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and I won't have any member of this House attempting to lay blame on one of our public servants.

MR. HOWARD: That type of blaming and labelling was done by the minister the other day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is question period.

MR. HOWARD: If, as he said, whatever was done within his ministry is accurate and was performed properly and so on, and he accepts full responsibility for that blunder, why doesn't he act like a gentleman and resign, as he should do? It's simple. It's your responsibility. Pack it up.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that the question?

MINISTERS' EXPENSE ACCOUNTS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance then. On Friday last, the Premier announced that the Minister of Finance would review the rules governing the ministerial expense accounts for such items as travel, hospitality and entertainment.  Will that review include an examination of the cabinet decision in December 1978 to remove the test of reasonableness from ministerial expense accounts and replace it with the word "actual"? Will that be encompassed within the review?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not certain that the member's question is based on precisely what the Premier

[ Page 8022 ]

of the province did say. We would have to determine. I said at the outset that I'm not sure the premises on which the member's question were drawn are correct. Nonetheless, the test of the reasonableness still applies, although it may not apply to the extent that the public of British Columbia or this government would like.

In direct response to the member, I indicated in the statement earlier today that we have, on a regular and consistent basis since the early part of 1980, been reviewing a variety of manuals, requirements and processes which are required in order that the public purse be protected. Some of that work did not conclude until as recently as a few months ago. I think we may be in a position at some point to report that the system is fully in place and fully sufficient to avoid the difficulties described in this and previous governments' activities.

MR. HOWARD: I suppose it's easy to deal with matters once one has been caught out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No debate.

MR. HOWARD: I want to ask the Premier if he approved or authorized removing the word "reasonable" from expense guidelines in December 1978, as was stated in the House earlier by the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, because the first question the member asked the Minister of Finance wasn't directed at me, it wasn't possible for me to get up and say that the words, exactly as he attributed them to me, are not correct. I suggest the member be very clear on the statements on which he bases a question in the House, because he is once again incorrect.

Secondly, any regulatory change that has been made from year to year has the approval of the government. Therefore it has the approval of me as a member of the government.

MR. HOWARD: Am I correct, Mr. Speaker, in taking the Premier's answer to my question to mean that yes, he did approve removing "reasonableness"?

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILIAMS: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I defer to my colleague the member for Mackenzie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask those members who are moving to another location to do it as quietly as possible.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This bill came up quite unexpectedly in my absence. I had taken on commitments some months ago, and unfortunately I was absent from the House during the initial introduction of this bill. I want to thank my colleagues who spoke on the bill in my absence, and carried the bill over so I would have the opportunity to make a few comments on the principle of this bill during the course of second reading.

I read the minister's statement in regard to this bill with interest and quite carefully. There's no question in my mind that that government and the minister are making an attempt to tighten up the driving laws in British Columbia with a view to reducing the carnage on our highways — I think the minister used that statement. There's no question whatsoever that we will have to support that aspect of the bill. Every MLA in this House certainly is very familiar with the number of…. We have to deal with the matters in our constituencies where so many people are maimed, injured and actually killed. The ratio seems to go up year after year. Traffic laws are more and more difficult to enforce, for whatever reason. The laws do need tightening up. In fact, the official opposition will be introducing several amendments to tighten up the laws in some areas where we feel the bill has not gone far enough.

There are concerns in principle about this bill that have been expressed to us by a number of groups and organizations around British Columbia. I'm thinking specifically of the sections of this bill…. I have no intention of getting into section by section of this bill now. This bill is primarily a committee bill, and we agreed with that when the minister made that statement in his remarks.

However, there are some principles involved here. The Civil Liberties Association of British Columbia has made representation to the minister and the opposition; the IWA and other industrial people affected by this bill have made representation to the minister and ourselves; the Associated Driving Schools of British Columbia have made representation. One of our basic concerns as an opposition is that the bill goes to the very root of what we feel is the very precious relationship between the citizen and the state. We have done our research, and we have gone over the penalty section of this bill quite carefully.

If I may use a general example during the course of second reading, one thing that concerns us is that it is quite possible now — and it will continue under this bill — for a person to drive while under suspension, without knowing they're under suspension. It's quite possible for that to happen. We will be introducing an amendment to the particular part of the bill dealing with that. It deals with several sections; it is not one section. The principle of this is natural justice. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know all these legal terms, but "natural justice" is pretty self-explanatory. We referred to this many times in committee as a lawyer's bill, and many people involved in the legal profession will be speaking on this bill, I'm sure. So one of the things that can possibly happen under this bill now is that a person could be driving while under suspension and not know it. The new prescribed penalties for a person while driving under suspension are really stiffened up, and they perhaps should be.

However, the aspect I'm concerned about is this: a person is stopped for whatever infraction — going through a stop sign or for a tail light, whatever — and the officer who stops the driver finds that driver X is driving while under suspension, but the driver would have no knowledge of this. There are many ways in which a driver could be suspended without

[ Page 8023 ]

knowing immediately that he is in fact under suspension. He is almost immediately guilty, and there is no recourse that we can find under this bill; and believe me, Mr. Speaker, we have thoroughly scrutinized this bill to the best of our ability.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Try not to interupt the member who has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) requires some information for his own presentation, which I'll try to provide to him while I'm speaking with the minister. It's a bit complicated.

In any event, that's one of our many concerns. Another major concern is section 2 and section 5, which deal with the representation made to the minister by the IWA, amongst others, whereby people could actually lose their jobs.

I'll back up a bit. Here, Mr. Minister, you're combining the old Highway (Industrial) Act and this new Bill 4. Many of us have had representations, and I'm sure the opposition has too, about people who have actually lost their jobs and their livelihood under this Highways (Industrial) Act, chapter 168. Someone may be driving a logging truck on an industrial road. A front-end loader is defined as a mobile vehicle under other types of equipment, and while that person may have lost his licence on the public highways, an industrial road is something quite different. Under Bill 4, which was some 14 or 15 months in the making, based on the Motor Vehicle Task Force report commissioned by the ministry…. Part of this may be resolved under section 5 of the bill. I am not quite sure. I am not a lawyer. What can happen now is that if a worker's licence is suspended on a public highway, he will lose his licence and the right to operate a front-end loader or a logging truck on a purely industrial road or site, even though he is confined to those. We have some major concerns in that area. We have appropriate recommendations and will be putting them forward to the minister at the appropriate time in committee. I am raising these matters now so that the minister, hopefully, will have time to listen to these representations and go back and perhaps draft a few amendments to cover these concerns that have been expressed to us by these people.

There have been numerous articles in the press and letters to the editor, some in support of raising the driving age, some lowering it, some leaving it — and all these things. We really don't want to get into that, I am sure, because I think that some of these matters and concerns that have been expressed in those articles have been addressed under the act. I do want to speak briefly, though…. We had a long meeting — and I am sure the minister or his staff did as well — with the Associated Driving Schools of British Columbia. This is an association of people who operate driving schools. They have made 19 specific proposals to the ministry. I must tell you, quite frankly, that I don't agree with some of them, but some I do. I would think that perhaps the minister should consider some of these items under this bill. They have suggested, for example, certification of checklists for minor-age drivers by their parent, legal guardian or qualified driving instructor. We are all familiar with the problems that people under the age of 24 encounter. The percentages are usually higher than the general percentages in terms of accidents across the board.

I believe that somewhere near 42 percent of all vehicle accidents and deaths are attributed to alcohol. There is a severe tightening up of penalties in that regard. Once again, it is very difficult to oppose those sections of the bill that do tighten it up. We do know that in other countries of the world — Sweden comes to mind…. People often mention that country because they have some of the strictest and most severe driving regulations in the world. On the second offence of impaired driving it is possible to lose your licence for the rest of your life in that particular country.

The Associated Driving Schools of British Columbia also agree that there should be approved, rigorous road-testing standards for all new drivers. They mention here that particularly for new drivers — the 16-to-18-year-old age group…. But they go further and ask for rigorous testing standards for all new drivers. I know people who have not learned to operate a motor vehicle until they were in their sixties. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is much more difficult. I am 50. I hate to admit it, but I'm getting along. It is more difficult to pick things up than when you are young and confident and think you know it all. On the other hand, older people are generally much more cautious. What I am suggesting is that we should have rigorous road-testing standards as concurred with by the Associated Driving Schools of British Columbia.

We are concerned about other aspects of this bill — where ICBC, for example, for non-payment, a cancelled cheque or a mistake at the bank…. That happens to all of us from time to time; it's happened to most of us for various reasons. For non-payment of an account at ICBC, it's merely a matter of ICBC phoning over to the motor vehicle branch and saying Joe Schmo hasn't paid his bill here — or whatever happened; to check his balance for whatever reason — and his licence is cancelled. In fact, here's another case where it's possible to be driving on the highway with a suspended licence because you haven't received a notification. You may have moved and the letter may not have caught up with you — whatever reason. We've had cases along this line under the present act. But for non-payment of a bill, which should be for small debts court, or whatever legal people do in these circumstances…. Like any other bill, if you owe somebody a bill and you don't eventually pay, there are other legal avenues open to the government. But under this section you have arbitrary, so-called justice dispensed, without the person involved being present, and having the opportunity to tell his side of the story through the motor vehicle branch at the word of another bureaucrat sitting over here at ICBC. I think we lose something in terms of natural justice in this country if we start introducing this kind of legislation, whereby an arbitrary action can be taken to affect a person, sometimes without that person affected even knowing about it.

I've got a whole pile of other notes here, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going to leave it at this point and ask the minister in all seriousness to take some of these concerns back to the people who drafted the bill in the first place and to make sure that natural justice for all citizens in the relationship between the citizen and the state is observed. I can foresee — as we go through committee stage we will be discussing this — where some horrendous legal suits and court cases are going to arise out of this new bill. But more than that…. I don't want to sound too negative. I want to tell the minister and the government that we're certainly in agreement with the improvement of highway, road and driving standards in British Columbia. Let there be no doubt about that. As I said, we're a bit

[ Page 8024 ]

concerned that there are people driving on the highway today with in excess of 40 points. This is a situation that should not be able to occur in this province. In these situations, when somebody accumulates that many points, obviously there has to be something wrong. How the heck they pay their ICBC is beyond me. I've got a few points and I didn't like the extra increase I had to pay this year, believe me. The carnage on  our highways — we've all witnessed it. I drive a great deal around the province and a great deal up and down Vancouver Island, and I've seen some terrible accidents, like you would not believe. One last week was terrible — sheared off a pole, flattened the car. We're all familiar with this, so something has to be done. The government will receive no opposition from us in that regard. But we do want to protect, as much as possible, the legal rights of all of our citizens in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I want to canvass the process by which the government has apparently arrived at producing the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act in Bill 4. I'm glad the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) is here. I'm only going to take a couple of minutes, and I hope the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) also remains behind just for a second.

I want to deal with some of the glaring inconsistencies in the bill. I want to say at the outset that, substantially, I am supporting the provisions of this bill. I want to argue that it's long overdue, and we all realize it's long overdue. I think the government has been receiving a lot of pressure and a lot of representations from people who are fed up, particularly with drinking drivers getting away with murder on the highways in the province of British Columbia. I think we all accept, as modern citizens, that no one can have diminished responsibility for the results of his actions while he's impaired, when those actions do not require a specific intent, but require only a degree of responsibility and reasonableness, to know that if you are impaired or likely impaired you are endangering not only your own life but also the lives of innocent people walking on the sidewalks and driving on the highways of our province. It is for that reason that I look with a great deal of interest to the amendments to this bill, and congratulate the government for it. At least I would like to, except that, basically, I can see a sad and tragic and ridiculous contradiction in the government's actions. On the one hand they are taking what apparently is a sincere and bold move to control irresponsible driving; on the other hand the greatest offender — the person on the highways of this province who causes the most harm to life and property — is the impaired driver.

When I look at my own neighbourhood and my own constituency, in the city of Vancouver, I see that young people become involved in accidents, and in many cases have lost their lives — young people who haven't even started to live, who haven't yet taken the first step off the threshold, if you like. Quite often it's not their negligence that's involved; quite often it is due to the negligence of a driver who is impaired: the case of a car travelling across the median, for no apparent reason whatsoever, that flies into a motor vehicle travelling, within the law, on the other side of the road and killing the people in the car; cases involving innocent pedestrians who are killed instantly by a person who is completely incapable of driving a motor vehicle, because of alcohol. A lot of these people who are using alcohol and driving automobiles — certainly not all; I would even guess not the majority — are young people; some are in their teens. They are impressionable people. They are easily influenced, because they have not yet — in many cases, as I said — developed the maturity to resist influence which to a more mature person would be considered superficial.

I'm talking about those slick lifestyle ads advertising liquor and alcoholic beverages in our province: the ads that you can see in magazines and that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) now wants to put on television and on radio broadcasts. They advertise attractive lifestyles: good-looking people in smart clothes, in attractive surroundings, drinking booze. Mr. Speaker, to you and me perhaps that's not terribly attractive, because we know a little bit about life. We know that the real ads should show the poor rubbydubs, sitting underneath a bridge, drinking vanilla extract; that should be the ad for liquor in this province. The real ads shouldn't show healthy, good-looking people, doing wonderful things while they're drinking. The real ads should show the carnage on the highway, and say, "Drink Smirnoff," or whatever. Those are the real ads that you and I know about.

It is a travesty indeed, Mr. Speaker. Speaking for myself, I'm totally against expanding liquor advertising beyond the print media. The impressionable young people of this province, as well as other drivers, whom we are trying to restrict under Bill 4…. The actions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make Bill 4, in the hands of the Minister of Highways, a mockery. On the other hand, we're trying in Bill 4 to pick up the pieces after it happens, while the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, because of some sort of incredible unawareness — to appease a handful of broadcasters in this province, for purely political reasons — is allowing liquor and alcoholic beverages to be advertised on the air.

You know the influence of television on our young people, Mr. Speaker. I say to all members who are left in this House this afternoon: you know the influence on young people of that advertising on television. How unfair and stupid it is on the part of the government to expand that purview to include liquor advertising on the air. It's a travesty, and it's a betrayal of a trust that made us different in British Columbia, that made us proud in this province.

I'm certainly glad that the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is here. I remember her views on this subject. Unless they've changed, they were precisely the same as mine. I'm not asking her to stand up in this debate; I understand the problem of cabinet solidarity. For years now we've been picking up the wounded and the casualties of alcohol. This province has been paying dearly for it. And along comes a new minister, with no respect for the tradition and the possibilities of changing that policy, and he does so. And now they bring in this act, strong as it is, to close the barn door.

Yes, you know what the real ads are, Mr. Speaker. They're the photographs that were on the back of the driving manual until recently. I wonder if you remember that photograph on the back of the driving manual. There were six kids in a car that had been sheared away, and they were all killed. The accident took place in 1956, and the photograph was of six 16-year-old kids. I remember it vividly and clearly, because that was the night that my family went down to the Royal Columbian Hospital to look at the makeshift morgue to see if I was one of those kids, because all six were in my grade

[ Page 8025 ]

in my high school and were wiped out in one night because of alcohol.

Are we going to continue to see that? Can it be argued that putting ads for liquor on the airways will not increase consumption of alcohol? You know full well that that's why these liquor companies are going to put out that kind of money. We're fighting a losing battle here when one minister does one thing against the public interest and the other minister does something for the public interest. They've got to get their act together. I really do plead with the government to reconsider this action to expand ads for liquor to the airways. Take your political courage in hand. Is the mighty Legislature of this province or the public going to be ground to a halt because of a handful of broadcasters?

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Bill 4 is concerned, I have a grave concern about the one section that was mentioned by my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), section 94(1) of the proposed bill, and I'll deal with this when the committee sits. But I want to point out to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) that I have not seen a section that is more likely to offend either the old or the new constitution. First of all, it requires a minimum seven-day prison term for anyone convicted on a first offence of driving while under suspension. I agree with that; there's no problem with me in having an automatic jail term for somebody deliberately driving without a licence.

But here we have a phrase that we were taught since we were kiddies does not belong in criminal or quasi-criminal legislation, and that's the question of absolute liability. Under a free and democratic system under the British common law, no man or woman should be convicted unless they intended to commit the offence, and I think I find that offensive. I find it repugnant to the traditions of our law that says that subsection 1 creates an absolute liability offence. I suppose we could wink at something like that if it was a parking offence or if it was an automatic pollution-control type of thing where you know that the person who may be found guilty should be aware and should have taken steps to prevent the mischief, but in a situation where personal liberty is at stake and no automatic prison sentence is imposed, I don't know of any court in this land that's going to uphold this section.

I recognize that the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), eminently learned as he is, has not spent all of his time studying the law, as the Attorney-General has. It seems quite surprising to me that this section has missed the Attorney-General's attention or that the Attorney-General has agreed to it being part of this statute. I do find that very curious indeed and, as I said, I think the first person to dispute that section on that basis will win — that's my prediction — and I would hate to see him do so if he was guilty of an offence. I would hate to see him get out of this offence if he deliberately drove while he was under suspension, but as my colleague for Mackenzie points out, if a person doesn't know they're under suspension, that's a terrible travesty of justice. Even the traditions of habeas corpus would have that man out of jail in 15 minutes without even a constitutional challenge. So I would ask the government to really reconsider that section, because you're ruining the impact of what essentially is a bold and strong attempt to get control over those irresponsible people who are contributing to tragedy and grief in our society.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I could do no other than support the bill. However, I believe that somehow or other we're going to have to come to grips, beyond the measures in this bill, with drunk drivers. Everybody pays lip service to this situation. I think probably in the past I have as well. I think, however, as I live along and see incident after incident — some very recent — that I am more and more convinced that one of the biggest mistakes that we in our entire country are making is with respect to the civil liberties of a person who is the offender in a traffic violation. If one were to go into a pub or bar this afternoon, one of the conversations one might hear is: "Whatever you do, when you leave here drunk and you're in any kind of accident, make sure that you either appear to have a head injury or are sufficiently injured to wind up in the hospital." What happens then? At that point, this bill becomes nothing more than a fine piece of paper.

I will certainly commend the minister for bring it forward. I've congratulated him privately and I'll congratulate him publicly, but somehow we're going to have to get a handle on the situation where people can get on the road drunk, bump their head in an accident, and immediately be transported to a hospital where they can deny the hospital or practitioners access to their blood for a blood-alcohol. That's their civil liberty. If they're just found on the road, offending in terms of the way they're driving, and they decide they will not take a breathalyser, they can be charged. That's not what I'm really talking about. Let me give you an illustration of what could happen, and what does happen from time to time.

A drunk can cause the death of another person because of the driving situation. The victim has no civil liberties, rights or whatever. The victim's blood is taken to find out whether or not the victim had been drinking. If there's an autopsy there's access to check out that aspect, etc. The victim may have a blood-alcohol level. The offender, however, who may be blind drunk, does not have to — because he or she is living — submit to the blood test because of an injury, minor or major. Under those circumstances, who's victimized? Again, the victim's family and everyone else. On the other hand, oftentimes it turns out that the victim has absolutely no blood-alcohol. It makes the family feel great. It doesn't bring back the victim. Meanwhile, because another person can deny access to this diagnostic — call it what you will — procedure, then theoretically he can be scot-free.

I subscribe to the things my colleagues have been saying — that if we don't toughen up a lot, across the country and in our province, we will see the needless mayhem continue. Useful lives, lives of people who are loved, people who really play a part in our society, are wiped out because of a lethal weapon that we have on the roads called an automobile, a lethal weapon in the hands of an irresponsible person. That's precisely what it is — a lethal weapon.

Mr. Speaker, we haven't toughened up enough. Some areas, some countries in the world…. To me it's very interesting that one of the champion countries in terms of civil liberties is Sweden, and I believe Norway finds itself in a similar situation. But when it comes to this sort of thing, not on your life! I talked the other day to our MP, Pauline Jewett, about this bill and about civil liberties, and, because she's always been a champion of civil liberties, I asked her what she thought of persons in the position where, by virtue of protecting their civil liberties, they can deny access to blood-alcohol. She said: "That's one area where I am in total disagreement with the civil libertarians."

I don't know what our jurisdiction is going to do about this. I believe it to be federal, but this jurisdiction and every other jurisdiction in Canada should see to it that people are

[ Page 8026 ]

responsible for their actions. Nothing short of that will be good enough. Every year the carnage increases. From the time I was a kid until now it hasn't multiplied, it has geometrically progressed. It will continue to do so until somehow we are able to provide the laws that are going to make people suddenly come to terms with it. The awful part is that everybody believes "it can't happen to me." Everybody believes: "I'm a responsible person behind the wheel when I've been boozing it up. No one else is, but I'm okay."

In those Scandinavian countries where they toughened up a long time ago, when a group of people goes out partying, one person is designated non-drinker; either that or they take a taxi, because they know that a drinking offence is a major offence. They won't wind up just with their wrists slapped; they'll wind up working it off in a forest camp — businessman, clergyman, salesman or politician, they're all the same. I believe that's what we have to see here. I've talked at some length to my young brother; he's two and a half years younger, and I must call him young under those circumstances. He's a superintendent in the police force in Vancouver — many people know him — and has been watching this situation for years, with his hands tied, and he has seen others with their hands tied equally.

Again, I most certainly endorse what the minister is doing here, but we've got to go beyond that. I've read it over and over. I haven't been charged with studying every bill that comes across my desk, because I have specific interests as a legislator in this House, but I have certainly studied this one. The minister knows, and I believe he endorses what I have to say, which is that it does not go far enough. We cannot be too careful in seeing to it that people are protected. Driving is not a right, Mr. Speaker; it's a privilege. Health care and education are rights, but driving an automobile, truck or any other motor vehicle on a public highway is not a right but a privilege. Anybody who turns their back on that deserves the full weight of the law. We, as legislators, must provide as much weight in law as we possibly can to protect innocent people from people driving what I consider to be a lethal weapon.

I guess every one of us can go on forever on this bill. Every time we pick up the paper as legislators, let's remember that that name of some other victim that we read and gloss over may not mean a whole lot to us individually, but is very precious to someone, somewhere. I believe that it's up to every person to do all they can to educate and legislate a demand that we make our highways safer and safer. Nothing short of that will do. In the carnage, we've seen more people killed than we've seen in wars and more people lost emotionally — vacuums in their lives — as a result of the fact that we're just not doing a good enough job in terms of our legislating and educating people toward better driving habits. I hope that we do a much better job in the future. Time is running out. There are more and more vehicles. There will be more and more victims unless we can turn the corner in this important area.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly support the bill. I admonish the minister, the Attorney-General and anybody else to go after increased toughness in law, and a lot more education of drivers and potential drivers. It's important to every member of our society, whether they realize it or not.

MR. MITCHELL: I was expecting someone from the other side of the House to participate in this debate, because I believe, like the previous speaker, that the driving problems of British Columbia must be supported, debated and understood by members from both sides of this House. It's something that should be promoted and educated to all drivers and citizens of British Columbia.

If the government ever wanted to confuse this opposition, they sure did in bringing their amendments. In trying to follow the intent and reasoning behind this particular bill, not only did you have to refer to the Motor Vehicle Act, but to the practice of ICBC. What I'm finding — I'm saying this as someone who has a lot of experience dealing with this particular act — is that they're trying to do two things. They're trying to solve not only a social problem but also some of the financial collection problems of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

They're trying to bring into this act something that was never thought of in the past, I believe. When we had private insurance companies it wasn't quite as enforceable. They're trying to make the police departments and the superintendent of motor vehicles the collection agency of bad debts that the person may inadvertently or deliberately have set up with postdated cheques to purchase his licence plates and his insurance. They're also using this act, I think, in a very high-handed manner without first attempting to contact the person. I know from experience what happens. Someone may work in Prince George, and hand in four postdated cheques for his insurance, then move to Victoria and close out his account in Prince George. The cheques may be bounced after the first one goes through; then he is driving with insurance that he hasn't paid for. I understand that happens, and I understand the concern of ICBC and the massive debt that is developing through people avoiding their responsibilities to pay for what they're using.

I also realize something that the driving public haven't realized; that is, the amendments that have been brought in where ICBC will pay the victims of people who have been convicted of impaired driving, who have been convicted of dangerous driving, and who have been convicted of criminal negligence. What is coming out in this bill now is that they're using the right to drive as a collection agency to get back the money expended by ICBC. I believe that the minister and government know what they're doing, and I realize that there is a lot of merit to it. But the general public in the community…. I think a lot of the MLAs haven't realized the can of worms that this is going to open up. I'm hoping — and I say this not only to the minister who is piloting this bill through, but also to the minister in charge of ICBC — that they do set up some arrangement with those who have incurred this debt, or have incurred this cost, so that it can be paid back, and they can still maintain their licence.

I bring two examples of cases that have already come to my attention. I know that as this becomes more enforceable and becomes part of the act, more people are going to be caught in this pincer. This was one who did commit a serious offence, driving with criminal negligence, for which he pleaded guilty and served three months in jail. He had no hesitation in admitting that he was at fault in all cases. When he was released, and before he could get his licence back, he was advised that he would have to pay back $8,000, which was the cost of destroying two police cars when he tried to go through a roadblock. I agree he owed it, and the community shouldn't have to pay that cost. It took a little manipulation

[ Page 8027 ]

and phone calls, but eventually ICBC did agree to accept his agreement to pay that money over a period of time. They allowed him to have his licence back so he could continue working. In this particular case he would have lost his job, the ability to pay his mortgage on his home, so an arrangement was made and he is back into the work force. He is back into the community, and I think he learned his lesson.

Another case which came to me and is still before the courts on a second appeal concerned a young lad who had bought a four-wheel drive and he had made certain modifications to this car with a kit that he bought in a motor-vehicle supply shop that lifted the back end of the car up so that it had that rakish look that all the young people must have today. This person was travelling 30 miles an hour around a corner, and because of the way the car was constructed it rolled over and demolished a pickup truck and another sedan. In their wisdom, the police said that this was dangerous driving because he had made modifications to this particular vehicle, and he was convicted of that. He was notified by ICBC that he would have to pay the sum of $27,000, which was paid out on his behalf. The only problem is that the car was in his father's name. The father, who was not driving the car and was not making the payments, was given the bill. Under this particular act, until he paid the $27,000 he would be liable to lose his right to drive. In this particular case they did successfully appeal it, and the conviction of dangerous driving was thrown out of court. Since that date, through the Attorney-General and ICBC, they have appealed the second court case. It's still before the criminal people, but I think a lot of people are not aware of what's going to happen.

It's easy to stand up and scream and rant about impaired driving. As one who has spent 23 years of my life scraping people off the road and seeing the problems of drinking and driving and speed, I'm the first to admit that the major cause of the most serious accidents is a combination of speed and alcohol. But I also want to say, as one who has worked with it, that there is a difference between drunken drivers and people who get points for speeding. I think this is something that indicates that there must be a serious review of the point system. I believe that there should be a more flexible manner in the way they're interpreted. It's easy to say that you have so many points and that you're a hazard to the road. This is a simple answer, but in fact, in the facts of life out in the driving public, there are many degrees of getting points. I know that with a conviction of dangerous driving, high speed and a police chase through miles and miles and many stop signs, a person gets ten points when convicted, because it's criminal negligent driving. At the same time you can have a professional driver who's never been involved in an accident — granted that he is driving in excess of the posted speed limit, which, to be honest, not too many of us have never exceeded — and goes through the radar trap on a quiet day and he gets nailed and gets three points.

I think when you really review it and look at it in all sincerity, the three or four convictions of a professional driver, who has never been involved in an accident, but who is a certain number of miles over the posted speed limit, are not as serious as one high-speed chase of criminal negligence that endangers many lives. So I would ask the minister to give some consideration of reviewing the way points are issued and how they were acquired. From a serious point of view, the degree of the points can't be just blocked off; in very simple language, if you have three convictions of speeding, that is as serious as a criminal charge. Maybe they should raise the criminal negligence driving, maybe they should have a different point system for a lesser dangerous driving and maybe there should be some flexibility in the impaired driving.

I think all who have worked in the police have seen the office party where someone who is not a heavy drinker drinks too much. The reason he's picked up is that he's driving down the street at 15 or 20 miles per hour, heading home, and he's being very careful; he's going wide around the parked cars. He's really not that serious a danger to society, because he's driving slowly. He is a danger socially, but he is not as serious a danger when he's taking these precautions as someone who blindly drives down the street at high speed. If he was picked up, it was because he was obviously driving too slowly; he knew that he was drunk. Compare him to people who drive at high speeds, who sideswipe other cars and then take off, starting a high-speed chase. There is a difference of degree — in the way he got the conviction. I think there should be some flexibility; it could be by recommendations of the attending officers or by those within the motor vehicle branch who analyze the suspensions when they are given.

The right to drive is a serious part of our life. The one thing that all these amendments, all the changes to the act, have not covered is the really serious heavy drinker, the person who has a long record of points, who has an attitude towards his right to drive…. He drinks and drives, burning rubber, screaming around, as a full-time hobby. But as the previous speaker said, when he gets into an accident he goes to the hospital where he malingers along, holding up beds and nurses because of one thing: he won't take a breathalyser test.

We all talk about Sweden, where they lock people up if they are convicted of impaired driving. I talked to someone who just came back from Sweden, where there is a three-year waiting list to go to jail on convictions for impaired driving. I really don't think this is going to enforce it. I would like to direct you to the English method for dealing with impaired driving. They enforce blood samples. I don't advocate that policemen should be able to take blood samples from people. But being able to demand a blood sample, through either the hospital or a medical person, is the only way to get a true reading of the person's ability to drive. The reading from a blood sample, compared to a breathalyser, is far superior for enforcement — for the department to analyze what level we should have for impaired driving. It may have to come through consultation with the federal government, because I know all the civil liberties people will be screaming at me when I say that a blood sample must be taken because it's the best way of identifying impaired drivers.

As I say, there are so many who day after day…. Maybe they were injured in the accident, and maybe they were committed to hospital, but they have still caused the carnage on the highways because of their high speed and their heavy drinking. These are the real causes of the destruction on the highways. In so many cases, because they are in hospital, because they are hiding because of a lot of advice from a lot of other drunks, they are not being convicted of impaired driving. They are getting off with six points for careless driving. The police who attended know they were impaired. The doctors in the hospital know they were impaired. But no one can take a blood sample, unless you can convince the person in the hospital that he wants to give it and then find a doctor or a nurse who doesn't mind getting involved in attending court to give the evidence that she took

[ Page 8028 ]

this blood sample, and that it was taken under proper circumstances — that it was a clean phial, that it was sealed properly and that it was conveyed from the hospital to a police officer, who then conveyed it to Vancouver for analysis. This is the procedure under the present system that we have to go through for blood samples. I think that section should be tightened up; it should become mandatory. Maybe the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), when he gets into the debate, will tell us if it has to come with consultation with the federal government — if it would have to be an amendment to the Criminal Code or some other code. I feel that until we bring in that mandatory blood-test procedure that they have in England, we are going to continue to have the real serious offenders getting away.

I feel that the bill is very wide-sweeping. There are sections that I'm not sure are very practical to enforce. At the present time 40 percent of those who are under suspension are driving, and until you have some way of identifying those people — and I'm not sure of how you'd do it if they are not in their own car — people are going to drive, because they're forced to drive to survive, to pay for their family commitments, their mortgages, and various things, especially those from rural areas who don't have the effective transportation that they have in Sweden, where everyone lives in a city and there is better public transit. This is one of the ways it can be enforced.

But I would really like to stress to the minister that when this act comes in…. I know we on this side of the House have brought up time after time the waste of money that is used for advertising, but I think there should be a program to advertise just as effectively as they have done with the BATmobile: what the government intends to do; that when you do accumulate those points, you are going to be under suspension; when you don't pay your bills, you're going to be under suspension; you will be going to jail.

I believe that there was an amendment that went through last year where you get an automatic seven days if you're driving under suspension. There are a lot of people that…. The suspension was served on them, and someone in the family took it…. In the particular case that I am aware of, the daughter had moved out of the house. She didn't receive her suspension notice. She was put on the computer. She was stopped by a police officer; the police officer checked CPIC; she came up as being under suspension, and the next thing, she was in jail and her lawyer was down there to try to explain that there was an amendment through. In fact, the lawyer didn't realize at that particular moment that the amendment had gone through last year.

So I believe that the hard clout that these amendments are going to have on the driving community should be widely and properly promoted to the public so that they understand it. I know that we as MLAs may try to talk to a few people, and our discussions may be effective, but this is a large change in the Motor Vehicle Act. As I say, it's trying to solve the social problem. It's trying to hit heavy on the drinking driver, which we commend. It's trying to collect the money to keep ICBC in operation from those who are trying to beat their bills. But it's also now going to be the enforcement arm of the change. That money that's expended on behalf of the third party, because of a person having a conviction for impaired driving or dangerous driving, or having a conviction for criminal negligence, will now be recoverable from that person. I think these changes are manifold and should be sold to the public. They should be advised of the changes; the public must be aware of them.

There are sections that we would like to discuss; we will discuss them in committee. Again, I would like to say to the minister: you have a can of worms here; it's going to open up a lot of problems. Some good amendments were brought in on Friday. I think the attitude and how they are put together…. The government must give leadership. We who are dealing with the public must give some good input into it, because it's going to affect the driving habits…. For any of us who continue as MLAs the problems and the caseloads that we get will be enlarged because of these amendments.

MR. NICOLSON: This is a very important bill. It's a bipartisan bill. I don't think there is going to be any objection to the bill. For that reason, it is my personal opinion — it's certainly not the opinion of the NDP caucus; I'm not speaking on their behalf — that this bill would be better served if there were an opportunity to bring witnesses before a committee of the House — before the appropriate select standing committee, or even before the Crown corporations committee, perhaps, since they are involved with ICBC matters — to examine the subject matter of this bill, and to receive input from various interested parties to the implementation and consequences of this bill.

Our caucus sought to be enlightened on this very technical bill by requesting that the superintendent of motor vehicles come to us and help to explain to us some of the intricacies of the bill. We received notification…. It's my understanding that Mr. Whitlock was quite cooperative, but sought to clear this with the minister. We were denied the opportunity to have Mr. Whitlock's assistance in preparing for debate on this bill. I think that is very regrettable. I really would hope — and, as I said, this is my personal position…. While I realize that it might lead to a little bit of delay — and I don't think it really need lead to any delay — if this bill could be referred to a committee, we would have the opportunity of bringing in, maybe, the traffic superintendent of the Vancouver police force or a witness from the RCMP to testify to highway safety problems. We could bring in people from the courts; we could call witnesses from the ministry, or call in the superintendent of motor vehicles. We could get a better idea of just how practical this particular piece of legislation is, in terms of fulfilling the objective of all of us in this House, which is, of course, to increase highway safety, cut down on the needless deaths that occur, cut down on the needless maiming of people; then, after all human considerations, even cut down on the needless property loss, which goes on at a very alarming rate in this particular province.

I'm a member of the Crown corporations committee. I'm quite willing to accept the fact that British Columbians have the worst driving record in terms of fatalities, property loss and maiming accidents of any province in Canada. Our record in terms of impaired driving and various other things is certainly not one that we can be proud of as British Columbians. Something must be done. It is for that reason that I really feel that this bill might have been best put to an all-party committee. It is a bipartisan bill; there is no objection; there is no political philosophical division on this particular piece of legislation. The questions I have, in looking at the bill…. I confess some ignorance. People get up in the House…. Everybody, I suppose, would like to let on that they understand this bill completely. I, for one, don't pretend to understand this bill completely. I can say that I've read

[ Page 8029 ]

over the bill; I've read the amendments to the bill; I've inserted the amendments into the appropriate sections of the bill. Let's recall that this bill amends an existing act; it's not a new act. The bill itself is an amendment to existing legislation. Now we have before us amendments to those amendments, so it is a very complicated, very technical bill.

The minister, in his opening remarks, said there were 100,000 bad drivers on the road. Yet, according to information supplied to the Crown corporations by ICBC, there are 300,000 drivers paying the bonus insurance premium because they have six or more penalty points. I suppose the best indicator of a poor driver is one who can be shown to be at fault in an accident. I would like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that there are 300,000 drivers on the road with six or more penalty points.

One of the questions I have is: what is this bill going to do to improve the problems of retrieving data from the data bank of the motor vehicle branch? It's my understanding from police that while drivers are supposed to have their licences suspended if their penalty points get beyond a certain number, there are people driving without ever having had a suspension, not only with 20 or 30 points, but with as many as 60 or 70 points before the very slow process can catch up with them. It's my understanding from police that they cannot retrieve information on priors in the same way as one could receive information from the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit if it were criminal activities that one wanted information on. If the police want to know whether someone has a charge pending against them — for instance, for possession of drugs, dealing or something like that — they can pick up information from CLEU not only on that charge, but they can find out whether there's a warrant out for that person's arrest, even for a misdemeanor. It could even be for the nonpayment of a traffic fine, say in the city of Vancouver, which might be outstanding, and for which the person would be picked up by sheriffs if still in the city of Vancouver. Of course, if a person moves up to the Kootenays they don't bother to transport him back for that kind of an offence.

There's tremendous information retrieval in the case of CLEU, yet I've been informed that the police have sometimes handed out not 15 penalty points in a year, but 15 in a week, and have not been able to lift his licence simply because the information does not flow. That is one of the questions I would like to have the opportunity to ask, or at least have some of my colleagues on an appropriate committee ask of persons like Mr. Whitlock and representatives of the ministry.

I would also like to ask people in the courts what kind of load they anticipate this legislation is going to bring forward once we are setting the fines and possible imprisonment for any breaking of the law. Section 25 is my major concern in this bill. I believe it means that if a person does a California stop — a rolling infraction where he slows down on approaching a stop sign but does not come to a complete stop and goes through — he could get three points; or if a person was exceeding a speed limit or failed to stop at a crosswalk, perhaps when somebody had just stepped out on the far side, and then passed through the crosswalk. Maybe that doesn't really endanger the person, but still it's three points; it's against the law. Or a person may make a left-hand turn into a service station in the city across a solid yellow line. All of these could, I believe, get a person pretty quickly over three points. In fact, I think most of them would get a person over three point with one offence.

Then I see that if a person is convicted, he can be liable for a fine of not more than $2,000 — there's no minimum set in this particular category — or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or to both. So it would seem to me that a person could for the very first time create some kind of rolling infraction other than ones that are mentioned. There are a couple of exemptions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Possibly at this stage the member is beginning to canvass items that would be more appropriately brought forward in committee. I'm sure the member can see that when he's referring to a specific section, with specific examples, that might be the case.

MR. NICOLSON: It might, but it isn't, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I'm a fanatic about rules of the house of parliament, Sir Erskine May, Abraham and Hawtrey and all of those great, revered parliamentarians who have passed down the traditions of parliament to us.

I am trying to bring forward the principle that I'm speaking to in this, Mr. Speaker…. I'm not even saying that this is what this section says, or that sections of the bill say this. I'm saying that it appears to me that this is the tenor of parts of his act. I certainly have no debate with the principle of the bill, and no debate with the minister pointing out, as he did, that certain sections of this bill will create offences for persons who are driving in high speed chases, which is a specific reference in the bill. I certainly agree with that section that the minister pointed out. What I'm trying to get across to the minister is that I would hope he might get up and tell me, in summing up second reading of the debate, whether or not some of these impressions that I have are true. Certainly, whether I would perhaps propose or support further amendments to the bill in third reading would depend upon whether the minister, who has of course studied this bill very carefully, were to enlighten me and maybe show me where I may be right or wrong in these particular instances.

If things are as they appear to me, then it would mean that more than 300,000 people in this province would be liable if they were to continue…. I would expect the figure would be closer to 700,000 people in this province. Over half a million people, I'm quite certain, would have at least three penalty points at any given time in this province. Probably over half a million people would be in possession of more than three penalty points at any given time in this province, and could be liable for imprisonment for up to six months.

I hope the minister would reflect on the fact that if a person commits a murder, and then there's plea bargaining, and pleads guilty to manslaughter — I'm thinking of a very specific case, which for propriety's sake I would not name in this House — they're eligible for parole in two years. What really was a premeditated murder is reduced to manslaughter. What I'm thinking of is a rather grisly affair. Mr. Speaker, we're now proposing that the first time someone makes a rolling California-type stop, they would be liable to imprisonment for six months or to a fine of $2,000, or both. Obviously, minimum penalties have not been set in that particular section so that might not be the case. Whether I'm in the House or not, I certainly will read what the minister says in Hansard in closing this debate in second reading. I would be very appreciative if the minister could tell me whether my impression of section 25 — and I thank you for your forbearance, Mr. Speaker — is correct, and if that is so I

[ Page 8030 ]

would ask the minister whether or not the courts can deal with this. Are we going to have a piece of legislation on the book that is not enforced? Are we not to worry about it because it won't be enforced? If that is the case, then I would say that we should look at the amendments to that section. We should bring in representatives from some of the large metropolitan police forces and some people who represent highway safety. I think we could listen to the collective wisdom of a great number of people and we could make this a bill which does not pay lip service to the problem, really address this problem successfully, if that is possible.

I suppose there are many bills that come before this House that would best be put before a committee that can hear witnesses. I don't say this is the only one that has ever come before us, but surely this is one of those bills. In the case of the BATmobiles, I haven't spoken to a police corporal that has not said that the BATmobiles…. They are brought in and then they park them out in their parking lot. Sometimes they use them for educational things, but I have had policemen tell me that the best thing that could happen to the BATmobiles would be to take that very expensive, breath-analysis equipment out of them and put it into some of the police stations that are not equipped. Then the vans, which are very excellent vans, could be turned into much-needed ambulances to upgrade our ambulances in the province. The actual BATmobile does not stand up in court. A good lawyer can beat evidence collected in that drafty interior. The Attorney-General looks at me with surprise, but if we had the opportunity to bring police witnesses in front of a committee on that issue I think the Attorney-General may learn something.

In spite of having a few pounds of material on the bill, there are questions which I think all of us have that could best be answered by expert witnesses before a committee. I make that personal appeal to the minister. Failing that, I would ask the minister to particularly explain my interpretation of section 25 in the bill.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: I will be very brief. I really wasn't going to get up in the second reading of this bill, as I had a couple of things to say in committee stage, but I would just like to make a few remarks on the question of penalties. Firstly, I would like to commend the minister for bringing in the bill and for tightening up and making the laws more severe in regard to driving on our highways and, in particular, drinking and driving penalties.

I say this with some experience because, as some in this House may know, I served as a JP in this province for five years prior to getting into provincial politics. I would suggest to this House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that no matter how tough you make the laws or the regulations, unless a very tough stance is taken by the judiciary of this province, it doesn't matter what sort of law you bring in.

When I was justice of the peace I remember that the laws were pretty severe. I remember being told after bringing down some decisions and meting out some fines that I couldn't do that. I said to that district judge: "Yes I can. It is in the regulations and I can impose those kinds of fines." I remember imposing fines such as $500 under summary conviction for being convicted of drinking and driving and another $500 for failing to blow the breathalyser. I was told at that time by the district judge that I couldn't bring in those kinds of fines when it was quite clear in the law that I could have brought in fines twice that severe.

The point I am making is that it doesn't matter what the law is; if it's not carried out by the judges of this province, it's of no use to us at all. I would just like to make that point very clearly. I agree with the member who spoke to the problems that the law enforcement people have in this province. Time after time I have seen them spend an awful lot of time, effort and hard work bringing some of those offenders to trial only to see those cases thrown out on a very minor technicality, to their dismay, when it was very apparent that strong and very serious fines should have been meted out in those cases. I just say again, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter what we as legislators bring in as far as stiff penalties are concerned for offences on our highways, particular in the area of drinking and driving. Unless those are carried out to the limit of the law by the judiciary of this province, they're no good to us.

MR. LEGGATT: I have only a qualified congratulation to the minister on this bill. I think the provisions that he's brought in, particularly around the key question of drinking and driving, are useful. He's doubled the minimum penalty that's imposed from a three-month licence suspension to a six-month licence suspension. That is desirable. It certainly does have the support of this side of the House in trying to discourage people from consuming alcohol and driving, but it is passing strange that at the time they brought in this legislation to impose higher penalties on drinking, they're busy approving more advertising for the consumption of alcohol. There's a little inconsistency there, Mr. Speaker, just a little inconsistency. The question of drinking and driving is probably the key question in terms of trying to control that behaviour by the law.

At the moment we have a tradition — and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who just spoke, correctly suggested that judges, who are human, have perhaps been too light in their sentencing. One of the reasons they become light in their sentencing is that they have three areas to consider. The first is the rehabilitation of the offender, the second is a sentence which will deter others from doing the same thing, and the third is to remove the person completely from society so that he can't do it again and can't harm society. You have to remember that a judge sitting on these cases doesn't have the victim to look at; he has the offender to look at. He listens to the offender's lawyer telling about the terrible things that are going to happen.

The judge is obviously going to have to consider the offender he has before him, particularly on a first offence. That tends to be the rule: when someone is on a first offence, you don't throw the book at him. You try to consider what is best for the offender, and then secondly you look at what is best for society. What I think the minister has done right is to ask that in drinking-driving the public interest become paramount. That is a subject that, I think, Mr. Speaker, you'll find the official opposition to be in agreement with. In this particular instance it is now time to look at the public interest ahead of that of the specific offender in sentencing under impaired driving. Therefore, while we may argue that on tax matters there does not need to be a minimum, minimums under licence suspensions for impaired driving are useful and desirable. I think it's good that we've doubled it. I think the minister probably could have gone

[ Page 8031 ]

further and made an eight- or nine-month mandatory suspension of licence on impaired driving or a breathalyser conviction.

Some debate has gone on about reducing the impairment level — right now it's .08, which, in fact, is very rarely used. The courts need to make sure they've got a reading of over .10 before charges are laid. There is a discretion at .08 even at the present time; .08 is impaired. If you want to drop the .08 level — and I realize that's a federal matter — you're really saying that any drinking or driving is to be punished whether there is impairment involved or not. That may be a route to go; I don't know. If you really want to be hard on it, you'd have to drop that .08 down to a .05 or something like that; that is a decision.

I'm pleased about something else that's in the bill. It's very rare that we get up and start telling everybody that we're pleased about a piece of legislation, but there is something, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I think the minister has been very wise about. There is tremendous pressure to raise the age of driving from 16 to 18 years. The minister, it seems to me, has wisely decided to issue a one-year licence on that basis, if I read the section correctly. That is wisdom, in my view, because it is wrong to punish all the good 16-year-old drivers for the actions of a very few, very bad 16- to 18-year-old-drivers. If one were to follow the logic of raising the age, the other logic would be that no person over a certain age should drive, since there is a significant number of accidents caused by people who are losing their capacity to drive as a result of age. I think it's also wise that the probationary licence apply only to where a category appears to be coming into a high-risk area.

In those areas I find the bill good and wise, but I have very serious reservations that by doing more advertising of alcohol we're going to cut down on the consumption of alcohol or the amount of impaired driving we have in our society. That is something the government should perhaps have another look at. I'd like to hear their statistics in terms of advertising alcohol and its impact on impaired driving. If you do a lot of advertising around a sporting event where you see nothing but pictures of Molson's or whatever brand you want, that's going to encourage people to consume beer. It's also going to encourage them to drive after the game, because they've got to get home somehow. You can't have it both ways. It seems to me that if you're going to do something about impaired driving, we've got to be pretty tough about this advertising question.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation. Best of luck.

I would like to say that I've enjoyed the debate that has gone on here today. It's a very serious bill. It is going to change a lot of things as far as driving on our highways in British Columbia is concerned, and driving on other than highways as well. I certainly appreciate the observations that have been made. I'm going to try to deal from where the members who spoke today were, back to where we started on Friday, and try brief answers. This is debate in principle. Some good observations were made.

To the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), yes, you're right that the public interest is taking over from the individual. I think you made the observation that it's serious now and we have to come down with more difficult penalties. That's what is done in this bill, although we have the observation as well — as I think one of the members said — that we could be tougher. That certainly is a good observation that we'll argue about a lot.

Regarding young people driving, yes, we've had requests to get a lot tougher on the 16- to 18-year olds, but the facts of life are — I believe the member for Coquitlam-Moody made the observations correctly — that we have a lot of good drivers in this age category. We can't penalize them all. What this bill does is to give the discretion to the superintendent of motor vehicles. That's quite a change. Before he had no discretion; he had to issue a five-year driver's licence.

I appreciated the experience the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has had. Regarding his remarks, I hope these amendments give to courts more direction and clarity of what the Legislature feels.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) talked about this bill being put to committee. This has come up several times. The task force was set up quite a while ago. They had public meetings all over the province. That hasn't been mentioned. A lot of the task force recommendations have been brought ahead into this bill.

He made the point — I didn't appreciate it — that a meeting with the superintendent of motor vehicles was denied. I have not issued a denial of any kind. I will gladly arrange a meeting. I think maybe some of us who want to could attend that meeting with the superintendent of motor vehicles prior to third reading. I will try to arrange that. I don't know where he got the information that I denied a meeting to the superintendent of motor vehicles.

The member for Nelson-Creston wanted to know what load this will put on the justice system. I'd prefer that the Attorney-General answer that, and I think he will. I'll certainly make the observation that it will put an additional load on the justice system. There's no question about that.

Then he was concerned about section 25. I believe his concern was that somebody would go to jail as soon as he went through a stop sign. My interpretation of section 25 is that when you get more than nine points — that would have to be more than one infraction of the kind the member was speaking about — it then triggers the fine-and-imprisonment section of penalties. The point I am trying to make is that you have to have nine points and nine points from the previous year. That is not as simple as the member was trying to portray. I don't think he understood. It is my understanding that you don't get into any difficulties with fines or imprisonment until after nine points have been achieved, and then there are varying degrees. There is a definite change. That is moving away from the straight penalty-point system.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) brought up the cause of accidents. He is quite right. Speed and alcohol and a mixture of both are certainly the biggest reasons for the bad accidents we have. He mentioned high-speed police chases. This bill looks after that and provides a new penalty for that offence. He was one of the members who referred to blood tests. More than one member has referred to blood tests to prove impairment. I am not very clear on that, but my observation is that that is tied in with federal law. I think the Attorney-General will have something to say on that. The reason I say that is that he has the Offence Act, which is more or less a companion to this. I think that he will deal with some of that when that is under discussion.

I certainly appreciate the member for New Westminster's (Mr. Cocke's) remarks and convey our sympathy to him and his family. His family has just been a victim of what is going on in our system. He made some very good observations and

[ Page 8032 ]

we appreciate that. The bill is trying to overcome some of the problems that he pointed out and do a better job of getting at the poor driver.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) referred to impaired drivers, and there were other members who referred to liquor advertising. I would prefer that the answer to that be given…. It is government policy and has been announced but I think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) can show that what the government has just announced as policy is not all bad. I don't think the other side really felt that way, but I think he is the best one to explain it and it is certainly his responsibility.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I appreciate the support from the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — as the official spokesman for the opposition — but they will probably have amendments in third reading and this is a large bill. We also appreciate that, and we will deal with that when the time comes.

I could remind the House — some other member made the observations — that a driver's licence is a privilege, not a right. I think that has been raised several times. I think the whole House agrees on that principle.

One other observation that wasn't mentioned before was that the member for Mackenzie referred to the penalties applying on industrial roads. That is put in there for a very distinct reason and purpose. It is just a further tightening up of driving. I think the only thing a driver can do is decide not to drink and drive and not get into these difficulties. Even today we have people appealing to us to get their drivers' licences back because they have to have them to make a living. That process has been going on in the province for quite a while. It is just not a reason to give back the driver's licence anymore. Expanding the jurisdiction to industrial roads could well be a hardship but the main thing is to get the bad driver off the road, whether it be an industrial road of any other type.

You mentioned the association of driving schools. I met them myself and we are dealing with that group now. Our attitude in the ministry is that we think we can work something out between us so that they can be a distinct help to us. The superintendent of motor vehicles is dealing with them. As I said, I've met them myself. I think you'll see something come out of that where we can make use of their expertise.

A lot of members have spoken on this; I think I have covered most of them. Oh, no, I still have to deal with the big item brought out by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), which I want to comment on. He was talking about educating drivers and all that. Then he got into road design, which is a responsibility of this ministry. I want to read into the record what has been done in the last few years regarding analysis of accidents and what follows.

Approximately seven years ago a program for installing kilometre posts throughout the trunk highway system was started. With the installation of these kilometre posts, the RCMP accident reporting was changed to include a precise location for each accident relating to the kilometre post. A computer program has been developed which allows Highways engineers to obtain statistics on accident locations and types from the accident reports to the superintendent of motor vehicles. These accident statistics which include location can now be analysed to identify areas where there may be clusters of certain types of accidents. Locations where clusters of accidents are identified can be checked in the field for physical improvements which may improve safety conditions. Improvements such as clearing for more sight distance, more warning signs and installation of guardrails are then arranged.

I just comment, Mr. Speaker, that we know, as of today, where the worst accident points are, because of this good reporting. It does change, but it comes out very clearly, and our engineers have to be concerned about that area and whether it's just the road. But we have it all in place and are using it. The use of the computer analysis of accident locations has been developed over the last two or three years and is expected to increase in use as the system is refined and more years of data become available.

In closing on this item — and it's a big item — the present highway safety program each year includes the installation of approximately 30 new traffic signals to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety, at an approximate cost of $900,000. It also includes the installation of approximately 30 kilometres of new guardrail per year, based on a priority system to locate guardrails at locations of most need. The annual cost of that for the last five years has been approximately $1,650,000. A shoulder-widening and -paving program will eventually provide a six-foot paved shoulder on all major trunk highways. It's hard to estimate that, but we have started on that, where we repave a road or pave a new road. That's the new standard, a six-foot shoulder. Somebody gave me a figure — I wouldn't verify it — that to get it all done in the existing system would probably cost $150 million. But we are doing it now as the jobs come up and not on a special basis.

I was quite interested in the observations of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. He's the only one who brought up that point regarding safety, and it's an excellent point. Yes, our engineers do have good data to get something done about where there are problems, say, built into the system.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we've had a good hearing on this important bill in second reading. I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was the motion for second reading?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion was second reading of the bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think that Hansard will bear me out. The minister moved the second resolution before he moved the first.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 4, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 8033 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill could properly be discussed in committee. I am concerned about the absolute liability provision in Bill 4, which has been referred to in debate, whereby somebody driving while his licence is suspended goes to jail for seven days, whether or not he knew about the suspension. In this bill you have a section that says he doesn't have to be provided with notice. I think those things should be thoroughly explained by the Attorney-General, in order that all of the traditions and safeguards of our law are not swept away by this government of high-livers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll be very brief. I would like to assure the members, particularly the second member for Vancouver East, that we are not sweeping away any of the rights of citizens, as he would suggest.

Section 94, the absolute liability section, refers to convictions under other sections of that particular bill. I won't offend the rules of the House, but I would just indicate to the member that if he looks at them carefully he will know that the suspension in those cases can only be made if the person whose licence is being suspended is in fact in court when the suspension is being made, or if his agent or counsel is present. So there is an order made which is verbalized. The person hears it, and therefore there can't be any doubt in his mind; he is being suspended.

MR. MACDONALD: Unless he's hard of hearing.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I suppose that's a possibility. The second member for Vancouver East may have a defence under the charter of rights and freedoms: that it would be a discrimination against the hard of hearing.

I move second reading of Bill 3.

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Offence Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

MR. BARBER: There is an interesting document now in public circulation. I think it's of some interest to the committee because it reflects directly on the vote we are now debating, which is the office, personal, travel and other related expenditures of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Social Credit stands condemned for its incompetence and its coldheartedness, but in particular it now stands condemned for the selfishness and the waste of cabinet ministers when allegedly on public business outside of the province. The document I'm going briefly to refer to is a wonderfully vivid way of identifying the issue we have been trying to debate in this committee. Let me refer briefly to it. It is this wonderful poster, Mr. Chairman, that reads: "So That's the Socred Spirit." It's a charming picture of a pig….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The records of the House….

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, exhibits are not allowed in Committee of Supply, as the member well knows from last year. Not only does he abuse that ruling that he already knows about, he tends to flout it before the House, which I think is a discredit to a person in his position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, the hon. member is aware of the rules in committee regarding the production of "exhibits." We have canvassed this matter before, hon. member. I'm sure the member is now prepared to continue in his debate.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, if Your Honour reviews the rules with respect to bringing items into the House, he'll find that the origin of it was in the British House of Commons of Westminster when somebody in those early days of difficult times, of development of our parliamentary system, brought a pistol into the House, and that was ruled as inappropriate. Now, this poster is not a pistol. It may help to kill off politically some of the ministers opposite, but it is not a pistol.

In the House of Commons in Ottawa, which was cited on an earlier occasion, the reference in there, if one were to search Hansard, is that the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux — I believe it might have been he — related to a sack of grain that one of the prairie MPs brought into the House, and he ruled that that should not be brought in. But that has nothing to do with a poster or an exhibit of this nature — a poster to supplement the force of the debate now underway.

I think your Honour might well be advised to reserve a decision about that and come back at a later moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, before recognizing the member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order, I will quote from Beauchesne's Rules and Forms, fifth edition, page 117, section 333: "Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the chamber. Thus during the flag debate of 1964, the display of competing designs was prohibited. At other times boxes of cereal, detergent and milk power have been ruled of order."

Hon. members, I'm sure that if we take a few moments to reflect on proceedings of the committee, we will see that there need be no delay in bringing a decision forward in committee on the matter.

MR. NICOLSON: Firstly, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to standing order 1: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom of

[ Page 8034 ]

Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House."

I think that the practice in Westminster is quite applicable in this House, and I draw your attention to the nineteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 433: "Display of Articles to Illustrate Speeches. The rules of the House of Commons forbid bringing certain articles, notably weapons, into the chamber. Members have been permitted to display articles (but not weapons) to illustrate an argument in a speech."

I could point out that I have studied the citations in Erskine May and find that one of the exhibits found to be inadmissible in the House was on an occasion when Bernadette Devlin brought a pistol in the House as an example of the ease with which people in her strife-torn area could acquire weapons, and she was trying to illustrate how weapons could be found. Mr. Chairman, I know that on an occasion when rotten grain was brought into the House of Commons in Ottawa, it was ruled inadmissible. In reading these matters, one of the objections has been that if items are filed in the House, of course they must be kept. If they are deposited with the House, they must be kept by the Clerks. For that reason, it is not admissible.

I also draw your attention to Mr. Speaker's ruling in the House of Commons in Westminster on April 9, 1952. Mr. Speaker said: "It is governed by ancient usage of the House that there are certain articles for which it is out of order for hon. members to bring into the chamber. They are, quite briefly: weapons, decorations, sticks, umbrellas and dispatch cases." I am not going to read the entire ruling, but the Speaker's ruling sets the parameters, drawing once again on standing order 1, which says that we follow the practice in Westminster and not the practice in Ottawa — thank heaven! Certainly in keeping with Mr. Speaker's ruling of April 1952, and many others that I will not belabour the House with, posters do not fall into the classification of weapons, decorations, sticks, umbrellas, dispatch cases or, for that matter, rotten grain, which was brought into the House of Commons in Ottawa.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, I think the member for Nelson-Creston defeats his own argument. He mentioned that in the House of Commons in England they bring in certain documents, etc., to support their debate. The poster does not relate to debate; the poster is a public relations effort paid for by the NDP. It is in poor taste, and we have ruled exhibits out of order in the past which were also in poor taste. I suggest that it does not support the point that the first member for Victoria is attempting to make.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, if we are to accept the argument which has been made by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Waste, we would ban from this House the occasional Okanagan apple that is placed on every table. We would ban the Minister of Tourism's buttons that occasionally find their way onto the desks of various hon. members. These things have been here for years. We would even ban glossy-covered reports from various departments and Crown corporations. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Waste is extending an argument about exhibits that has no place, and never has had a place, in this chamber. We have always allowed such exhibits to be placed on the desks of hon. members. As a matter of fact, we have encouraged it.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, I think that very often we follow precedents that have been set in this chamber as well as precedents set in the Mother of Parliaments. I would remind the Chairman of an occasion not too long ago when I brought several very large chemical containers into this chamber. At that point there was no objection taken to them until I suggested that I was going to file them with the House. At that point the person in the Chair indicated that I could not file them with the House, but it would be quite satisfactory if I would be good enough to just send them across to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). Certainly that precedent has been set in these very chambers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members. There has been enough debate on this. The ruling of the Chair is as follows. Beauchesne states: "Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the chamber." Our standing orders and tradition in this House clearly support that and have supported it in the past. We have had this discussion in the past. The ruling of the Chair is in keeping with Beauchesne on page 117, which I just quoted. That is the ruling of the Chair, and that concludes the matter.

MR. BARBER: Speaking to your ruling to make sure that I understand it, this exhibit of a charming pig addressing a glass of wine and a bottle of Pouilly-Fuissé with the "So that's the Socred Spirit!" logo is not admissible as a public document or as a statement of the issue we are debating, that of government waste and mismanagement. Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

MR. BARBER: Is that your ruling? We cannot produce this pig poster. Even though it's on my desk, I can't show it. Respectfully, I must challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. BARBER: This is a conflict of interest.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

MR. NICOLSON: This is a mockery! You must report to the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those in favour say "aye."

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, unless I misunderstand it, it has always been the tradition that when the ruling of a Chairman has been challenged, the Chairman reports that to the Speaker, who is a different person and enters the chamber for the purpose of hearing the nature of the challenge and in an absolutely disinterested and impartial way puts the question as to whether or not the ruling of the Chair should be sustained. I don't think it's reasonable, Mr. Chairman, to ask us to challenge your ruling as the Chairman, and then ask you as the Speaker, to take a vote on the ruling you yourself made just moments earlier. Perhaps it would be better if the Speaker or his alternate designate were called to sit in the Chair for the purpose of taking this vote, upon which we will call a division when it's properly taken.

[ Page 8035 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order raised by the first member for Victoria has been considered by the Chair, and while the method of having a report to the Speaker can be taken by any member, in deference to the point of order raised by the first member for Victoria, that procedure that he outlined can be taken at this particular point.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: The House will come to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee the ruling of the Chair was challenged on a matter regarding the production of exhibits in committee.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 24

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: By virtue of the lateness of the hour, and anticipating a ruling from the Chair and the fact that His Honour will also very shortly be in the precincts, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct and is awaiting to attend the chamber, but before he comes I would like to bring this ruling.

It is evident that alleged matters of privilege are being raised in the House with ever-increasing frequency. While there exists an abundant source of parliamentary procedure available to members, I consider it appropriate to deal with the matter now before me more extensively than is perhaps usual in order that hon. members may be even better informed and not fall into procedural error which could well be avoided. I also seek the indulgence of the House to permit me to comment at some length on matters ancillary to my ruling, which itself is founded upon a long-established rule of this and other assemblies, as well as a previous ruling of the Chair in this assembly in a like case.

On last May 27 the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) rose on a matter of privilege arising from a statement made in committee by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), saying that he had in his possession a certain petition which asked that two projects — the Keenleyside dam and the Murphy Creek dam — be pushed ahead in order to create employment in the area. The hon. member then stated that, upon reading the preamble of the petition, he had noted that there was no mention of the Murphy Creek project made therein. The petition was tabled, by leave, in the House by the hon. minister. Also on last May 27, upon tabling, the document was identified by the minister as the petition to which he had referred in committee. The hon. member referred the Chair to page 138 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May and indicated that this authority held that "the House may treat a misstatement as a contempt." The hon. member's reference to the authority of Sir Erskine May clearly was not accurate but I conclude that his error was completely inadvertent.

The Chair then reserved a ruling and subsequently on last June 2, the hon. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources rose in the House on a matter of personal privilege. However, before the hon. minister's statement had been completed a point of order was taken: namely, that he was not entitled to be heard in relation to a matter of privilege which was then under advisement by the Chair. The Chair indicated that the hon. minister had the right to be heard, but thereafter asked if there was leave of the House for the hon. minister to proceed. Some hon. members objected and leave of the House was not granted.

It is important to comment on this issue, because I find that my first impression in the House, when reading the citation of Sir Erskine May's seventeenth edition at page 373, was erroneous. I am now satisfied, upon fuller consideration and examination of the authorities, that the question of leave ought not to have been put to the House. On closer reading of that citation, it is clear that the question of leave there referred to is by leave of Mr. Speaker and not by leave of the House. This is clarified at page 374, where the learned author states that "a member has been permitted by the Speaker to make, at a subsequent sitting, an explanation regarding alleged misrepresentation in debate." I pause here to say, as I did upon your electing me to the office of Speaker, that if at any time I fall into error, the fault be imputed to me and not to the assembly.

With reference to the additional point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, namely that the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ought not to be heard while a ruling was under advisement, I find no

[ Page 8036 ]

authority stating that a member may not be allowed by the Chair to make a personal statement on privilege solely on the ground that a ruling is pending. An involved member, of course, always has the right ot be heard before withdrawing while a motion of privilege is before the House. The reference is Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition at page 167.

In any event, I'm satisfied that my further consideration has led me to a correct interpretation of Sir Erskine May upon reading a remarkably similar occurrence disclosed in Hansard of November 5, 1973, at page 1281, where the hon. A.B. Macdonald moved, in part, as follows: "Resolved that this House hereby instruct a committee of selection, appointed on September 13 last, to name the committee on privileges to examine the statements made in the House."

At a later date one of the members involved was allowed by the Chair, on a matter of privilege, to make his statement without any call for leave of the House to do so. Hansard further shows that part of this statement clearly dealt with issues before the committee. Upon completion of the member's statement, the Chair declined to make any comment about the matter, as it was then before a committee. Significantly, leave of the House was not invoked or required on that occasion and, in fact, the matter had progressed even further than a deferred ruling and had actually reached a committee.

In any event, the rule as to leave, as I now perceive it, seems to make much sense. Surely the Chair ought, while considering a matter of importance, have before it all relevant information, including any statement from an involved member openly presented in the House. This is analogous to a court; upon application and with leave of the court, allowing new evidence to be brought forward even after the closing of the case, but before any decision has been reached.

In any event, the fact that the hon. member was denied leave for making his statement is not, in the result, material to my conclusions, as the matter is finally governed by other circumstances. It is important, however, for me to have dwelt at some length on this issue, lest at some future time a statement, possibly of material consequence, be incorrectly withheld from the House.

In the absence of the hon. minister's statement, which, if concluded, may or may not have affected the outcome, a conclusion must now be reached on material which may be allowed as properly before the House, and therefore before the Chair. That material is the statement of the matter of privilege by the hon. member for Alberni, and the tabling of the petition recorded in Votes and Proceedings on May 27 last, together with a motion sought to be moved by him. That motion is properly tendered as notice to the Chair of the motion intended to be moved, should a prima facie case of breach of privilege be found. As notice it is analogous to a notice of motion placed on the order paper as part of the material before the Chair, and its contents are examined. The motion reads, in part, as follows: "…that a special committee of privilege be appointed to consider the matter of a deliberate misleading of this House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources."

Hon. members will readily see that if sought to be moved, the motion could not be in order, as it purports to refer to a committee on privilege a fact assumed by its terms to have been already established — namely, a deliberate misleading of this House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In other words, the motion, if carried, would not enable the committee to make a decision as to whether or not there had been any deliberate "misleading." Surely that is the very issue to be decided. That is the very purpose for which the House might form a committee on privilege.

I refer again to the case of the motion — identical, except for the fact that the words were spoken in the House — by the Hon. A.B. Macdonald, as it provided that the committee was to "examine the statements." That was a correct form of reference, as quite clearly it did not purport to predetermine the essential issue, or present to the committee as a fait accompli that a contempt had in fact been committed.

The hon. member may, in preparing his motion, have referred to another form of motion adopted by the House on the issue of whether electronic surveillance was a contempt. The motion referred the matter of electronic surveillance to a committee as an established fact because it had already been admitted by the RCMP. The matter then went to a committee of privileges to determine if electronic surveillance was either a contempt of the House or a breach of privilege. However, as the hon. member may have felt he was on safe ground, but misled himself in using the form of an earlier motion, I would be reluctant to rule this matter out of order on this ground alone, and I do not do so. I need not therefore at this time make any final determination of the several questions of whether or not the tendered motion could be allowed to be moved at all in its present form, or whether at this stage it is open to be amended, or whether or not some other member could propose a new motion.

Hon. members, there is an undisputed principle of parliamentary law that the House cannot take cognizance of what takes place in committee except on the Chairman's report to the House upon previous order of the committee. All members know that almost daily the Committee of the Whole, either on bills or supply in reports to the House through the Chairman what has taken place in committee and asks leave to record the same in the Journals. This, again, recognizes the important and fundamental principle to which I have referred.

The substantive question arose in my mind as to whether proceedings in committee are likewise governed by this principle when it is alleged that there is a matter of privilege involved. The answer to this question is to be found in a Speaker's decision of the House, which is found in volume 1 of Speakers' Decisions at pages 122 and 123. This decision also was on a matter of privilege arising from allegations of misrepresentation occurring in committee, no report of which had been made to the House by the Chairman. The Chair ruled that the intended motion was out of order, and that the House could not take cognizance of what had occurred in committee with a report from the committee. As I've said, the fact that the Committee of the Whole House frequently reports to the House through the Chairman that divisions have taken place in committee recognizes this fundamental and important principle. This procedure is confirmed by the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May at pages 381 and 606, where it is stated that when matters of privilege arise in committee, the proper course is to make a report to the House on a motion that the Chairman report progress. If the matter is of a nature which requires immediate attention of the House, the committee reports forthwith, and presumably in other cases when the committee rises in the ordinary course of its business. Even further confirmation is to be found in the Journals of this House for 1981 at page 48, from which I quote as follows: "The committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again this day, and further reported that a matter of privilege had been raised in the committee on

[ Page 8037 ]

March 24 last. Mr. Speaker stated that he would consider the matter reported and declared a recess for that purpose."

It may happen that a member does not have all the pertinent information necessary for him to immediately raise a matter of privilege in committee with respect to which a report is required in the House, and in such a case the matter would be raised at the earliest opportunity at a later sitting of the committee for the purpose of the report to the House. In fact, there is authority which goes so far as to say that a later parliament may consider a matter of privilege alleged to have occurred during a previous parliament.

Under these circumstances, I cannot find any grounds upon which the previous ruling to which I have referred, frequently followed in practice, ought not to be followed by the House. I must rule, therefore, that upon the admissible material before the Chair, I am unable to find any prima facie case, based on the various authorities I have brought to your attention.

The Chair has previously observed that many points of order and matters of privilege are of great importance and may require lengthy deliberation, and all such decisions are considered in a careful and expeditious manner. As some hon. members have expressed concern that an earlier decision had not been given to this House, I must point out that the Chair was awaiting the possible tabling of additional documents which the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources indicated would be forthcoming. It was not until a few days ago, when the hon. minister was denied leave to make his statement, that it became apparent to the Chair that there could be no further material for examination.

MR. BARRETT: On the ruling….

MR. SPEAKER: There can be no debate on the ruling.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, it would be helpful to the House, in my opinion, to explain the difference, for myself as a member and maybe for others, between personal statements made when a matter is in front of committee versus a matter in front of the Chair. It appears to me that a distinction has to be made when a matter is before the Chair and expected documents are not delivered. If such a statement were made, the nature of the statement, if it is to be made without leave, should be a preliminary part of the statement itself. It would be helpful, then, if you would instruct the House that the nature of the statement to be made, when a statement is to be made without leave, would be advisable so that members of the House would know the direction the Chair was permitting the debate to go in, in terms of a matter still in front of the Chair and not yet passed from the Chair to a committee.

That is one point that I am confused about. A second is the delay in making the decision. I understand the taxing limitations of matters of privilege before the Chair. However, I would urge that if there is not enough staff to permit a decision to be made more quickly, then we should consider having such staff available immediately, because a delay in decision may be interpreted privately by some members as "justice delayed is justice denied," and I would regret that.

MR. SKELLY: On the same point of order as the Leader of the Opposition, in view of your ruling, a statement made in committee and believed by a member to be untrue or misleading cannot be shown to be untrue or misleading because the document cannot be tabled in committee. The document is then tabled in the House before Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, there is no way to bring the information from committee and the documents to Mr. Speaker at the earliest possible time — that is, after the document is tabled. Is Mr. Speaker saying that we must therefore go back to committee and raise the question of privilege in committee, that there is still an option available to the member to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: That point was covered in the ruling, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: I'm referring to the document now, Mr. Speaker. The document cannot be tabled in committee. Will the committee be aware of the document?

MR. SPEAKER: When the document is tabled, it is tabled in the House. Of course, as soon as the House is knowledgeable, certainly it can be transmitted from there to committee. It cannot be carried from committee to the House, but the member can take it with him to committee, I assume. However, one other avenue is always available: a private ruling of Mr. Speaker is always available to every hon. member.

Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

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

CLERK ASSISTANT:

Court of Appeal Act

Geothermal Resources Act

Assessment Amendment Act, 1982

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982

Municipal Amendment Act, 1982

Health Cost Stabilization Act

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1982

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982

Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1982

System Amendment Act, 1982

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1982

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1982

Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1982

Motive Fuel Use Tax Amendment Act, 1982

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1982

Ferry Corporation Amendment Act, 1982

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1982

Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982

Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982

Financial Statutes Amendment Act, 1982

Corporation Capital Tax (Bank Rate Increase) Amendment Act, 1982

Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982

Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982

Forest Amendment Act, 1982

Transpo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1982

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund Repeal Act

Limitation Amendment Act, 1982

[ Page 8038 ]

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.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are still a few minutes left before 6 o'clock, and I think it would be most appropriate if the government House Leader would call notice of Motion 21, which deals with an editorial in the Province that condemns Your Honour. I say again that so long as it stays there and the government refuses to call that motion, it means that the government is agreeing with the editorial and is placing a cloud of suspicion over Your Honour. I think you, Your Honour, should take some circuitous route to get the government to call this thing and get it off the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.