1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 943 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to welcome to the House today my father.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is with a

great deal of pleasure that I join for one occasion the Leader of the

Opposition in welcoming his father here in this House today. Mr.

Barrett senior is known in Vancouver and throughout our province as a

wonderful citizen and I want to congratulate him on the spirit in which

he enters life, and continues with life.

I had a wonderful chat with him in the corridor. I'm not going to

let the Members in on our secret, only to say that I wish him well and

I ask all the Members to join again in a hearty welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

galleries today a group of 65 students from the Sir Winston Churchill

Secondary School, in the Vancouver South constituency. They're here

with their teacher Mrs. Duncan, and Mrs. Schmuck. Amongst them are my

two daughters Julie, and Stephanie. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in the

galleries today we have from the great Secondary School of Templeton,

50 students from the Templeton Titons along with their teacher Mr. Bob

King. With them is an exchange teacher from England Mr. Mohan Waugh and

I'd ask you to welcome them to the chamber today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Lands and Forests.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands and Forests): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Murray) I'd like to make a statement of interest to the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: This morning I was phoned from the office

of the Honourable Don Jamieson in Ottawa, who is the Federal Minister

of Transport. He informed me that the passage of property which had

been made by the Government of British Columbia to the national

government in Prince Rupert to form the basis for the establishment of

a national harbour had proved out, had been accepted, and as of this

morning, passage had been made of the tenth national harbour in Canada

which will be the new national harbour in Prince Rupert.

One or two interesting points about it the Honourable Member for

Prince Rupert asked me to emphasize since I have, along with the

Premier and my colleagues, been subject to some harassment over the

years about this matter — just mild, may I say. But the Minister from

Ottawa reported today that there is an immediate programme in Rupert,

an immediate development programme there of $5 million going forth.

They are setting up a new headquarters to govern the shipment of

grain from Canada. It will be set up at Winnipeg and will handle

Churchill, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Thunder Bay. They will be

handled from this new office in Winnipeg and immediate consideration is

being given to the development of Prince Rupert as a major port for the

export of grain from the Canadian Prairies.

Introduction of bills.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

COMPANIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a

bill intituled Companies Act and recommends the same to the legislative

assembly. Dated at Government House, March 23, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 66.

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 66, Companies Act, introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, to permit informed discussion

on the bill, I do not propose that the bill should go beyond first

reading, but so that it may remain on orders of the day, I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply. The committee rose, reported resolutions and asked leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to install seat belts on the chairs in the rear row opposite. (Laughter).

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Reports of committees, Mr. Speaker.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Tisdalle from the select standing committee on social welfare

and education presented the committee's first report, which was taken

as read and received:

(Your select standing committee on social welfare and education begs leave to report as follows:

On February 11, 1972, on the motion of the Hon. D.L. Brothers, seconded by the Hon. Grace McCarthy, it was ordered —

[ Page 944 ]

That the select standing committee on social welfare and education

report on the definition of the tenure of office of the members of the

teaching staffs in the universities and on procedures followed by the

universities relating to this matter, and to make such recommendations

as the committee considers necessary.

Since that date the following people have appeared before the committee:

Dean Ian McTaggart-Cowan, Vice-President William Armstrong, and Dean

Phillip White, representing the University of British Columbia.

Mr. Robert V. Kubicek, Dr. Richard A. Spencer, and Dr. Peter Pearse,

representing the Faculty Association of the University of British

Columbia.

Mr. Robert McDiarmid, past Vice-President of the Alma Mater Society,

University of British Columbia, representing a private point of view.

Mr. Douglas Aldridge, President of the Alma Mater Society, University of British Columbia, representing the Alma Mater Society.

Dr. D.J. MacLaurin, Dr. Izzud-Din Pal, and Dr. E. Horne, representing the University of Victoria.

Dr. B.G. Wilson and Dr. B.P. Beirne, representing Simon Fraser University.

Dr. Dorothy Smith and Miss S. Day, representing, the Women's Action Group of the University of British Columbia.

Dr. Francis E. Murray, Professor of Mechanical Engineering,

University of British Columbia, representing a private point of view.

Simply stated, the objectives of the committee were to examine the

meaning of the word "tenure" as it applies to the faculties of

universities, to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the

practice, and to study the procedures followed by the universities in

granting tenure to their teachers.

In the course of the hearings, the committee has had access to the

following documents: University of Oregon review by President Clark;

Brief submitted by the Alma Mater Society, University of Victoria;

Briefs presented by the three public universities and by individual

groups and persons; A bibliography prepared by the Association of

Universities and Colleges of Canada, listing publications respecting

academic freedom on tenure; An extensive survey made by the Canadian

Association of University Teachers of tenure in institutions of higher

education in Canada in December 1970; An extract from the Chronicle of

Higher Education dated November 15, 1971 — State-College Association's

statement on academic freedom; a statement by the commission on the

government of the University of Toronto on tenure; "Guidelines on

Appointment and Tenure, the C.A.U.T.'s or the A.U.C.S.'s," by Bruce

Dunlop; "A Price on Academic Freedom," by Harold Greer; "Tenure:

Protection for Academic Freedom or Academic Sloth," by Doris Hopper;

"Tenure: It's Impossible to Fire Incompetents," by Leonard Taylor; "In

Defence of Academic Tenure," by Fritz Machlup; an extract from Faculty

Handbook, UBC; a general statement of faculty responsibilities and

criteria for appointment, promotion, renewal of contract, appointment

without term and salary review, Simon Fraser University; extracts from

An Academic Guide Book — a sample of questions compiled by students of

the University of Victoria relevant to the assessment of teaching;

tenure document, University of British Columbia.

There appeared to be substantial agreement among those representing

the official point of view of the three public universities that the

granting of "tenure" to a faculty member is the provision in the

employment contract between the university and the faculty member of a

term that the duration of the contract is for an indefinite period or

in other words an "appointment without term." There was also common

understanding among the three groups that a faculty member may

terminate a tenured appointment by resignation, repudiation, or

retirement.

There seemed less certainty about the power of the university to

terminate such an appointment. Most representatives agreed that there

are "ways" that a university can find to end the tenure of

unsatisfactory faculty members but, with the exception of "dismissal

for cause," these are not explicitly stated in the faculty handbooks.

In defence of the tenure system, three basic arguments are made: It

protects freedom in teaching and research; it provides security of

employment; and it is a means of recognising long and valued service.

In addition, the university representatives point out that the

lengthy and involved selection procedures used in granting tenure gave

some protection to the university from unproductive and unsatisfactory

faculty members. They also agreed that the selection procedures were a

major source of the controversy surrounding the tenure system and each

informed the committee that these procedures were under review.

Finally, the university representatives advised the committee that,

in order to remain competitive in attracting good teachers and

scholars, no single university could afford to abandon the tenure

system.

Those who oppose tenure generally do so on the grounds that, once

gained, there is often a slacking-off of effort on the part of the

faculty member, resulting in an increase of "dead wood" in departments.

Moreover, they point out that the granting of tenure is not reciprocal,

since a tenured person is free to move and is not committed in any way

to the university which gave him tenure.

Most witnesses appearing before the committee to present opposing

points of view did not appear to oppose tenure per se. They opposed the

method by which tenure is granted. Representatives of students, for

example, felt that a more formal structure should be established to

ensure that the student point of view is heard. The representatives of

the Women's Action Group felt that women were discriminated against in

the ratio of tenured appointments between men and women. One individual

protested the fact that universities did not in their tenure documents

specify the means of discontinuing a tenure appointment.

In making the following observations, which university authorities

may wish to consider, the committee wishes to reaffirm its belief in

the principles of university autonomy and academic freedom and to state

its understanding of them. The committee believes that institutions of

higher education are conducted for the common good, which depends upon

the free search for, and the exposition of, truth and understanding.

Academic freedom is indispensable to a democratic society. The academic

community must be free to participate in the democratic process of

government as citizens, to learn and to teach what scholarship suggests

is the truth, to question what is believed to have been the truth, and

to publish without fear of reprisal what scholarship has discovered.

The committee takes the position that academic freedom and responsibility are inseparable and must be considered

[ Page 945 ]

simultaneously. They are shared by members of the

academic community, including students. Tenure, on the other hand, is a

specific provision of employment accorded to those members of the

university who qualify for it.

In setting forth the following observations, the committee is in no

way purporting to abrogate the principles it believes in. In no way

would it attempt to impose these recommendations on any university. But

having listened objectively to a number of different points of view,

and after studying a number of pertinent documents, the committee feels

that it might be able to be helpful. It is in this spirit that it makes

the following observations:

(

a) That the practice followed by universities in granting "appointments without term" be continued;

(

b) That the three public

universities of the province work together to agree on a common

definition of "appointment without term";

(

c) That there be no discrimination, in terms of race, religion, sex, or politics.

I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Mr. Tisdalle from the select standing committee on social welfare

and education presented the committee's second report, which was taken

as read and received:

(Your select standing committee on social welfare and education begs leave to report as follows:

On February 28, 1972, on the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, it

was ordered that Bill No. 30 intituled Family Relations Act be referred

to the select standing committee on social welfare and education.

Since that date your committee has received and heard submissions by

many individuals and by such organizations as the family law subsection

of the Canadian Bar Association, the Status of Women Council, the

British Columbia Association of Social Workers, and the prosecutor for

the City of Vancouver. Your committee also consulted with solicitors

from the Department of the Attorney General.

Your committee recommends that Bill No. 30 the Family Relations Act proceed with the following amendments:

Subsection (1) of

section 5 should be struck out and the following

substituted: "

(1) Where a spouse applies for alimony, maintenance, or

judicial separation, the judge may, in his discretion, having regard to

the conduct of the spouses, refuse to grant all or part of the order

applied for."

The word "illegitimate" should be deleted in the first line of paragraph (iii) of clause (

a) of

section 15.

The words "and in addition may" should be inserted in the body of subsection (1) of

section 25 between clauses (

b) and (c).

The words "or, where special circumstances warrant, to such other

person or persons as the interests of the child require;" should be

added at the end of clause (

d) of subsection (1) of

section 25.

The following should be added as subsection (4) of

section 25:

"

(4) No person shall unlawfully interfere with the custody of, or access to, a child awarded to a person under subsection (1)."

The words "that may be subsequently varied to meet changed

circumstances," should be inserted after the word "order," in the

second line of subsection (3) of

section 35.

The following should be added as subsection (9) of

section 52:

"

(9) For the purposes of this part, a maintenance

order or a complaint made under reciprocal enforcement of support

legislation may be treated as a maintenance order made provisionally

where the respondent was neither served within the reciprocating state

nor present or represented at a hearing therein."

Your committee also recommends that the Law Clerk, pursuant to

standing order 94, delete the marginal notes opposite clauses (i),

(ii), (iii), (iv), and (

v) of clause (

a) of

section 15, and that he

change the marginal note opposite

section 59 to read "Where order made

I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. PRICE: I beg leave to submit report No. 5, No. 6. and No. 7 of the select standing committee on standing orders and Private bills.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may we have the reports presented separately?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, certainly. Would the Hon. Member present report No. 5 and proceed?

Mr. Price from the select standing committee on standing orders and

private bills presented the committee's fifth report which was read as

follows and received:

Your select standing committee on standing orders and private bills begs leave to report as follows:

With reference to Bill No. 47 intituled Sunshine Comstock Mines

Limited (Non-Personal Liability) Mineral Claims Act, it is the opinion

of your committee that the circumstances surrounding the subject matter

of the said bill warrant that the bill be proceeded with, and your

committee recommends accordingly.

I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition

brings up an excellent point in my view. It has been the habit of the

various committees to move a double-barrelled motion (

a) that the rules

be suspended and (

b) that the reports be adopted when, as is said, the

notice should be filed for the adoption of a report so that the House

would have an opportunity to discuss it. Nevertheless the

well-established practice of the House has been to move this, as I

described it, double-barrelled motion, and I think exception is taken

quite properly.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, because of the matter that's before the House I ask that the two motions be separated and leave be asked.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's been the custom for all the years I've

been here to deal with it this way and that's been the rules in this

House by acceptance.

MR. BARRET'T: Well, it's a matter of asking leave….

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

[ Page 946 ]

MR. BARRETT: You must ask leave for the rules to be suspended.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): If there's any part of

the motion that includes asking that rules be suspended, it requires

unanimous consent. Any part of the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, the only reason that the

rules are being suspended here is that we're waiving the necessity of

notice. In other words the chairman of the committee by giving notice

would not have to ask for leave but simply move his motion on the order

paper. But I do say that it has been the established practice of the

House to do so in private bills committee and in other bills as well.

But I would suggest that the Member ask for leave and then proceed with

his motion.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, I move that report No. 6 be read and received.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we haven't disposed of report No. 5. I think what we require is to ask leave for the rules to be suspended.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Then notice will be required on the order paper for adoption of report No. 5.

Mr. Price from the select standing committee on standing orders and

private bills presented the committee's sixth report which was read as

follows and received:

Mr. Speaker, your standing select committee on standing orders and private bills begs leave to report as follows:

With reference to Bill No. 68, intituled

An Act to Amend the Legal

Professions Act, it is the opinion of your committee that the said bill

should be proceeded with, with amendment — namely by adding the

following to

section 8 of the said bill: by adding at the end of

subsection (1) (

c) the following words: "and (

d) two shall be members

of the society appointed by the Provincial Council of the British

Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association."

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to suspend the rules in order to move the adoption of the report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Price moves that report No. 6 be adopted.

Motion approved.

Mr. Price from the select standing committee on standing orders and

private bills presented the committee's seventh report which was read

as follows and received:

Your select standing committee on standing orders and private bills begs leave to report as follows:

With reference to Bill No. 29 intituled

An Act to Amend the

Chartered Accountants Act, it is the opinion of your committee that the

said bill should be proceeded with, with amendment — namely, by adding

the following at the end of

section 5: "or to practice as a chartered

accountant."

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the rules to be suspended to permit adoption of the report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Price moves that report No. 7 be adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, on reflecting on the point

of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) I think

technically that the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. I think

in practice that the House should give consideration to the continuance

of the practice that has been adopted.

It shouldn't be in the minds of Honourable Members that by denying

leave that the report will be in any way prevented from coming before

the House, that it simply requires notice. All it is doing really is

deferring the thing possibly unnecessarily from coming before the

consideration of the House.

I think nevertheless that technically the Leader of the Opposition

is correct. I wonder whether or not the House wants to continue this

technicality in the future of the presentation of committee reports.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that the necessity of delay or no delay is a matter of judgment by the individual Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, yes, I agree.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the Chair's opinion. However

individual Members have expressed desires to delay certain matters for

study or for whatever reason. On that basis I have no objection to the

old practice except in instances where technically it is correct for

the Member to use that option to delay.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate very much the comments of the

Leader of the Opposition. If I may just observe for a moment that this

is a practice that I would like to see the House adopt. That is to say

that a Member could ask for the rules to be suspended and the report

adopted, but if objection were taken then it would be dealt with by two

separate motions in order to facilitate the work of the House. If the

House would agree to that procedure I think it would be to its

advantage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I just

ask you to recall two previous occasions in this House where motions of

this kind have been brought forward where objection has been taken by a

single Member and where notice has therefore been required before that

report could be adopted. So that is a precedent procedure that we

followed today.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. Well, if the House would agree the Chair will adopt that procedure in the future. Next order.

[ Page 947 ]

Hon. Mr. Campbell presents the second annual report of the first

citizens' fund and advisory committee from April 1, 1971 to March 21,

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1972, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada