1971 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 851 ]

FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): (Tape not turned

on)…Premier answered questions 171, 172 and 200. I paid particular

attention to the manner in which the questions were brought to the

House. The Premier stated, "Answers to Questions." Yet, I find, in

those three questions, on the "Votes and Proceedings," the following

statement: "The Honourable the Premier and President of the Council

stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a

Return and that he has no objection to laying such Return upon the

table of the House, and thereupon presented that part of the Return

that had been completed to this date." In view of the manner in which

it was presented, as I say, the Premier simply stated, "Answers to

Questions," I had expected the full answers to appear in the "Votes and

Proceedings." They are not there, today. I discover, in fact, that they

were handled as if the Premier had asked it to be filed as a return.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the honourable Member was kind enough to

mention to the Clerk of the House the apparent deficiency in the "Votes

and Proceedings" and, as a result, I very briefly had an opportunity to

examine our Standing Orders at

section 47, subsection 3, with which I'm

sure the honourable Member is familiar. "If a question is of such a

nature that, in the opinion of the Minister who is to furnish the

reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, and the Minister

states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the table of

the House, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House,

be deemed an order of the House to that effect, and the same shall be

entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such."

I agree with the honourable Member that the Honourable the Premier

did not make such a statement at the time that he filed it but my

understanding from the Clerk of the House is that the

preamble to the

answer which was laid upon the table did include the fact that it was

being filed as a return. As a result, since the House had adjourned

last evening, we had no alternative, of course, but to include it that

way in the Votes and Proceedings for today. Nevertheless, if

the honourable Member has an objection, then, it would seem to me that,

unless otherwise ordered by the House it would be possible for him,

now, to otherwise move. Otherwise, it would seem that the question has

been answered by way of return.

MR. STRACHAN: I have no objection to that procedure, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted it clear that this was not as it happened.

MR. SPEAKER: I just wanted to say that I appreciated very

much having some advance notice of the problem because I wasn't aware

of it until a short time ago (interruption)… Order please! I think

the matter has been satisfied.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Report on Bill 107, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Report on Bill 107, Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971 .

Bill 107 read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill 37, Air Space Titles Act .

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Can it be read a third time, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, no. I'll just refer the honourable Member

to our Standing Order 81, I think it is. "Every Bill shall receive

three several readings on different days, previously to being passed."

That's our general rule. "After the second reading it shall be ordered

for committal on a subsequent day," which is mandatory and, therefore,

not debatable. "On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be

read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day." I

think today is an extraordinary occasion and, for that reason, I would

permit it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing Order 85 concerning …

MR. SPEAKER: …not leave, because it may be advanced more

than one stage in one day. It may be for the House to decide whether or

not this is an extraordinary occasion (interruption). Because an

announcement was made in the House yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MR. SPEAKER: To the effect that it was hopeful that we prorogue this afternoon.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in all due respect, this is an

amended bill and to carry it forward I notice that in other years…85

says, "All amendments made in committee shall be reported by the

Chairman to the House, which shall receive the same forthwith. After

report the Bill shall be open to debate and amendment, on a subsequent

day, before it is ordered for third reading. But when a bill is

reported without amendment it is forthwith ordered to be read a third

time, at such time as may be appointed by the House. Whenever any Bill

shall be presented to the Lieutenant-Governor for his assent thereto,

he may return the same by Message for the reconsideration of the

Assembly, with such amendments as he may think fitting." I don't see

anything in there that says anything about an extraordinary…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable Member read

section 81, not 85.

MR. NIMSICK: "Every Bill shall receive three several

readings, on different days, previously to being passed. After the

second reading it shall be ordered for committal on a subsequent day.

On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or

thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day." Then it goes to 73

and what does 73 say? "Petitions to the House may be presented by a

member in his place in the House during routine proceedings and before

the introduction of Bills."

[ Page 852 ]

MR. SPEAKER: We're not dealing with petitions, now,

honourable Member. We're dealing with the advancement of a bill more

than one stage in one day, which is covered by

section 81 of the

Standing Orders.

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, well, it is and I understood. I know that

we had a bill passed here in the last day of the House, as it was put

by a private Member, and they had to get permission from the House to

go to third reading or to go to committee (interruption). Well, he

asked for leave. You've got to ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I think what the House has to decide is whether

or not an extraordinary occasion exists today. My understanding is that

it does, but this is for the House to decide, not me.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, do we have a motion in front of us proclaiming this an extraordinary day?

MR. SPEAKER: No. I think the motion would be from the Attorney-General to the effect that this bill…

MR. BARRETT: We don't see the motion. We've had no notice of

motion that this is an extraordinary day. There's no motion on the

Order Paper. The Speaker hasn't made a ruling. The House instructs the

Speaker, not the Speaker instructs the House. That's what he's asking

for — instruction — and there's no motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest that the Honourable the

Attorney-General move that the bill be advanced to the third reading,

now, which in effect he has done, in accordance with Standing Order 81.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): That's the motion that I made.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, please.

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

on a Point of Order. I can recall in previous years when we have come

to the final day and have been debating public bills in the hands of

private Members, those bills have failed, not as a consequence of

having failed to pass second reading but because they could not be

advanced more than one stage in a single day, despite Standing Order

81. Now, on this particular occasion, we're moving the bill more than

one stage in a day and quoting Standing Order 81 as the reason for

doing that.

I submit that, if we're going to do that today with this bill, then,

there should be nothing to prevent private Members' bills being

advanced to third reading today.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there is nothing to prevent a private

Member's bill from being advanced more than one stage on one day, once

the House has decided that this is an extraordinary occasion and the

honourable Member is prepared to move that the bill be read a third

time, now.

MR. McGEER: Then that would apply to private Members' bills, as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, of course. It would apply to all bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the past, that's been refused.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been refused but I doubt that there has been a motion to the effect.

MR. BARRETT: On a Point of Order. How does the House determine instruction to the Chair that it's an extraordinary day?

MR. SPEAKER: I simply gathered from an announcement that was

made by the Leader of the House last evening at the time that the House

adjourned that it was the hope to prorogue this afternoon. For that

reason, I felt that today was an extraordinary day and I accepted the

motion on that basis. Now, if the House feels otherwise, then, it's up

to the House to decide whether or not this is an extraordinary day, not

myself.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Since we

have received no official word that this is an extraordinary day, I'd

like the Attorney-General to make a motion declaring that and so

instruct the House. We can't interpret on the basis of, "…It appears

that so and so is going to happen." That's sloppy legislation. You have

a House Leader in the House and we ask the House Leader to indicate

formally if the House is going to prorogue so that the Speaker can make

the ruling.

MR. BENNETT: And I reaffirm it today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: I think on the basis that the House will agree,

all that it would seem that I can do is to rule that it is an

extraordinary day and put the matter to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't like to be put in a position of

correcting the Speaker on a Point of Order. I don't like to be placed

in the position of questioning the Speaker's ruling. That's unfair to

the House. I would rather have instruction from the Government rather

than questioning the Speaker's ruling. It's sloppy, Mr. Premier, it's

sloppy. It's difficult enough to maintain the system without that kind

of sloppy approach.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour to a Point of Order.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker,

speaking to the Point of Order, I must support the Leader of the

Opposition. I would draw to the Speaker's attention that last evening

we advanced much business and as each item of business was dealt with

the Premier introduced a motion that the rules be suspended. If that

was done last night, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it should also be done,

today.

MR. SPEAKER: Because the procedure of last evening was handled in the way that it was, I cannot control the

[ Page 853 ]

motions that are made by Members on their feet,

whether they ask for leave or not. I still insist that there is

permission, within

section 81 of the Standing Orders, to advance a bill

more than one stage in one day.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, just on a Point of Order, to clarify

where we stand. I recall, a few years ago, on the final day, when a

Member of the Opposition's bill passed second reading and consent was

asked for so it could be advanced to the third stage, it was the

Premier who refused that permission. If we're going to have this bill

advanced as a matter of extraordinary concession, then, I think there

should be a motion to that effect so that it applies to all Members'

bills.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, now. The Member is leaving an impression that different bills are being treated differently.

MR. McGEER: Precisely, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then, I think, the Member ought to pay a little

more attention to what's being said from the Chair. What I am saying is

that, if a motion is made from the Floor, I have no control over what

the content of that motion may be. In the instance that the Member

cites, and I think he is referring to the Fireworks Bill, no motion was

made but leave was asked for and leave was denied (interruption). No,

but leave was asked for.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate exactly the position

you're in. I'm following it very closely. I agree with what you're

saying, except that you're being placed to form an opinion that the

House may or may not have. I suggest that when the Speaker is placed in

a position of forming an opinion that the House may or may not have,

we're treading on dangerous ground. If this is an extraordinary day,

let it be said so in motion by the Government. The Government must tell

the House, in motion, it must be formally placed, seconded and voted

on. I don't anticipate a great deal of difficulty over that. All the

Government has to do is to declare in writing that this is an

extraordinary day by motion form. Let's stick to procedure. A lot of

other people are going to come well after we're dead. At least, we can

stick to procedure while we're here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: I remember that particular time. I was here when

that bill went through second reading. We were informed, the mover of

that bill was informed that if she wanted to go to third reading she

would have to ask leave of the House. Then, she asked leave of the

House and it was turned down by the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): The original Point of

Order that started this…There are two kinds of bills that come before

us on third reading. One is the bill that has got to that stage,

without amendment. The other is the bill that has got to third reading,

after amendment, and it has always been the practice for those that

have been amended in committee to be put over to a subsequent day for

the very reason that they have been amended in committee. For that

reason, the rule that we have, Standing Order 85, deals with cases,

first, about bills that have been amended. It says, "All amendments

made in committee shall be reported by the Chairman to the House, which

shall receive the same forthwith. After report the bill shall be open

to debate and amendment, on a subsequent day…" and before it is

ordered for third reading. Now, that's mandatory, as I read it. It

says, to me, that it is the exception that isn't covered where bills

are unamended. On that basis, I'd say you must have leave of the House

to proceed to this stage of third reading, where a bill has been

amended, as it was by the Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that what the honourable Member has said

would by-pass the intent of our Standing Order 81, in my respectful

view. I think the only way that we can bring this matter to a head

sensibly is for the Speaker to rule, now, that, not only was it stated

yesterday but reaffirmed today, that it is the intention of the House

to prorogue today and that I must treat this as an extraordinary

occasion and rule that today is an extraordinary day and that the bill

may be proceeded more than one stage today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order. I do not like

us setting that kind of precedent where future Speakers may be told by

a House Leader that there may be a prorogation, without anything on the

record…Look…let me finish my point…without the Government

committing itself, formally, by way of motion that, indeed, it is an

extraordinary day. What we're doing is voting on a Speaker's ruling on

an inference that you've said this. We have no record in writing that

this, indeed, is what's happening today. Mr. Speaker, supposing, once

this ruling is made, there's no record and, then, we say we intend to

do something but we didn't get the motion ready for it, then, we force

it into a Speaker's ruling. The House, then, becomes led by Speaker's

rulings rather than the House Leader properly giving direction.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. STRACHAN: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that, since

opening day, the Premier has been making up the rules as he went along.

He's finishing up the Session the way he started.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Just to clear up that one point

raised by the Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds, I'd refer him to

page 596 in the 16th edition of May, top of page, "For example, bills

which have been amended in committee are sometimes considered forthwith

on report and read the third time." So, it's not without precedent. I

must, therefore, rule in accordance with the speeches I've been making

to the House and ask whether or not the Speaker's ruling shall be

sustained?

Ruling sustained.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you had a vote on your ruling before anyone had a chance to challenge it (interruption). Well, now, just a minute. No one got up and

[ Page 854 ]

said, "I challenge your ruling."

MR. SPEAKER: The Member is quite right. I went too quickly

just presuming it challenged on the subject. I'm ruling, therefore,

that all bills on the Order Paper may be advanced more than one stage

today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to make any comment on this ruling. It's completely out of order.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37, Air Space Titles Act .

Bill 37 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 39, Synthetic Food Products Act .

Bill 39 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 74,

An Act to Amend the Attachment of Debts Act .

Bill 74 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 75,

An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act .

Bill 75 was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 88,

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act .

Bill 88 was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 100, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 100, A n Act to Amend the Municipal Act .

Bill 100 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 102, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 102, Greater Vancouver Regional Water and Sewer District Act .

Bill 102 was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 104, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 104, A n Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Ac t.

Bill 104 was committed and reported with amendments.

The Committee further reported that in consideration of

section 5,

Mr. G.B. Gardom moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. P.L. McGeer, "That

clause 193 of

section 5 of Bill (No. 104) be deleted."

The Committee divided.

The Committee recommended that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

By leave of the House, on the motion of Mr. Gardom, the Rules were

suspended and it was Ordered that the division in Committee on

section

5 be recorded in the Journals of the House as follows:

YEAS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

NAYS — 33

Messieurs

Wallace

Tisdalle

Wolfe

Ney

McCarthy, Mrs.

Smith

Marshall

Jordan, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Capozzi

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Skillings

Mussallem

Williston

Chant

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Jefcoat

Campbell, B.

Richter

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: On a Point of Order. This bill is a message bill

and, during the committee, it was amended by an ordinary Member of the

House. I was always given to understand that an amendment to a message

bill must come from one of the Ministers by message. I feel it was

absolutely out of order in amending this bill.

Bill 104 was read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: I may just make the observation that the Speaker cannot rule on Points of Order that take place in the committee.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 73, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 73,

An Act to Amend the Wives' and

[ Page 855 ]

Children's Maintenance Act .

Bill 73 was committed and the committee reported progress.

The House proceeded to the Order "Private Bills."

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50,

An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology.

Bill 50 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 51,

An Act Respecting Central City Mission .

Bill 51 was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 54,

An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953 .

Bill 54 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

The House reverted to the Order "Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions."

MR. BENNETT: Resolution No. 35, Mr. Speaker.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Nelson-Creston): Resolution 35, Mr. Speaker,

standing to my name in the Order Paper. Before moving it, I think

perhaps I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Merilees has been in

contact with the people in the Buildings here. He's progressing nicely.

He is at home. He knows that he has a tough row to hoe and he wanted

me, through you, Mr. Speaker, to thank all honourable Members of this

House for the good wishes that have been extended to him during his

illness and during his convalescence.

I move Resolution 35, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's just that I talked to Mr.

Merilees on the telephone today and I was very pleased with the

conversation, his voice and so forth. I know the House would like to

know that.

The Honourable W.D. Black moved, seconded by the Honourable L.R. Peterson:

Whereas Harold James Merilees, Esquire, member for

Vancouver-Burrard, has been unable to attend all the meetings of the

present Session owing to illness:

And

whereas it is just and reasonable that Harold James Merilees, Esquire, should be paid the full sessional allowance:

Therefore

be it Resolved, That pursuant to

section 68 of the Constitution Act

and all other powers thereunto enabling, the full sessional allowance,

expenses, and other allowances payable to a member of the Legislative

Assembly for the current Session be paid to Harold James Merilees,

Esquire, without any deduction by reason of any non-attendance of the

said Harold James Merilees, Esquire, during the Session.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Resolution No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 36. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BLACK: Likewise, Mr. Speaker, through you, I'd like to

inform the House that Mr. Little is out of the intensive care ward. He

has some exercising privileges in the ward. He has lost 60 pounds and

he's feeling much better and he feels he's on his way back. I have

pleasure in moving this resolution.

The Honourable W.D. Black moved, seconded by the Honourable L.R. Peterson:

Whereas Dudley George Little, Esquire, member for Skeena, has been

unable to attend all the meetings of the present Session owing to

illness:

And where it is just and reasonable that Dudley George Little, Esquire, should be paid the full sessional allowance:

Therefore

be it Resolved, That pursuant to

section 68 of the Constitution Act

and all other powers thereunto enabling, the full sessional allowance,

expenses, and other allowances payable to a member of the Legislative

Assembly for the current Session be paid to Dudley George Little,

Esquire, without any deduction by reason of any non-attendance of the

said Dudley George Little, Esquire, during the Session.

Motion agreed to.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills in the Hands of Private Members."

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 91, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 91,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act . The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill

attempts to rectify a problem which we find in the rapidly growing

areas of the Province, particularly south of the river in the lower

mainland. The pressure is on the municipalities from a number of

directions — the need for housing, the need for shopping centres, the

need for high-rise apartments and a general developing area which could

be loosely described as the burgeoning area south of the river,

including Delta, Surrey and, of course, on the north side of the river,

too, when you get into Coquitlam and down that way.

One of the problems the municipalities have had to grapple with, Mr.

Speaker, is the fact that they're not given the kind of muscle in the Municipal Act

that would enable them to stand up to some of the very intense

pressures put upon them by developers. What we see is the land assembly

patterns in the municipalities, like my own, Surrey, taking no account

of the public needs of the area.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, there's fairly genuine conversation regarding putting a development of some 7,500 people

[ Page 856 ]

in on the comer of one street in the Guildford

area. If that's done, it's obvious that you need a school, you probably

need a fire hall and you need some recreational area. What the

municipalities have wanted, and they've expressed themselves at the

conventions from time to time, is some legislative, back-up material

for them to demand the developer to convey to them some part of their

land for public purposes.

The Province of Ontario did this some years ago in its Planning Act . Its Planning Act

specifically states that the municipalities may insist that any

developer, before he gets the development rights, give up his land to

the extent of some percentage or give up the money that roughly equals

the value. Municipality after municipality voted for this at the UBCM.

I am more particularly concerned as far as the schools are

concerned. In my area, Mr. Speaker, in the next six years, we may have

to build 50 schools. The Minister of Education was out in our area just

about seven or eight months ago and I know how shocked and surprised he

was to realize that if our sewer programme goes through the way it's

planned, we might be talking about the acquisition of 50 school sites.

This links in because, unless you make developers provide some land for

these public purposes, then really the councils so frequently don't

feel in that tough bargaining position that they could be if this bill

was passed.

What is required, of course, is really for the municipalities to be

able to take into account their needs that would flow from the

development going in their area. As I say, when you're talking about

the developments today, when you can see 7,000 people move into an area

which isn't much bigger than this building, not much bigger than this

building, you'll realize the pressures that are put on the current

public services, such as parks, recreation and schools.

I should, I think, at this time, Mr. Speaker, point out that there

has been in this Session of the Legislature amendments to the Municipal Act that

will enable the municipalities to do a little bit more than they could

before, but I would still think that this legislation, as proposed in

Bill 91, would arm the municipalities with enough strength to bargain

successfully and make sure that the public services required by large

developments are met in some way by the developers themselves. I,

therefore, move second reading.

Motion negatived.

Bill 91 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 92, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 92,

An Act Respecting the Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia . The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the fifth time of asking and I'm

never losing faith. Mr. Speaker, it had been my hope that, as in many

other areas where this Legislature has led the way in Canada in reform,

in relation to the broadcasting of the debates in this Chamber, we

would also be at the forefront. It is with some regret, Mr. Speaker,

that I must report to you that we no longer can be in the vanguard of

this reform because the Legislature in the Province of Nova Scotia,

this year, introduced television to its debates. Ottawa also has a

committee studying it right at this moment. There is every possibility

it will come in in Ottawa, as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the radio station that I work for celebrated

its 48th birthday. We have had radio broadcasting in this Province for

48 years and, yet, the radio stations are still denied access to this

Chamber. I hardly think that that is in keeping with the modern

advances in communications.

Mr. Speaker, I have always considered that really it is not up to

this Chamber to question this right. That is my position. I believe it

is the right of every citizen to be able to watch his Assembly, listen

to his Assembly. Really all that we should be deciding, Mr. Speaker, is

how we should go about providing that accommodation. So, Mr. Speaker,

for the fifth time, and you have ruled my bill in order in the past, I

again ask the House to consider letting a bit of fresh air into the

Chamber, letting the people of this Province see what we do not do, and

that is something the Government must face. Even more important, Mr.

Speaker, and if I do nothing else, may I leave this message with the

Government? By passing this bill, you would allow the citizens of this

Province to see what we do do in this Chamber and we do a lot of good.

We discuss a lot of the key issues of the Province and by passing this

bill you would let people realize that we do and, I think, calm a lot

of the discontent that is building up in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to give this bill consideration and I, therefore, move second reading.

Motion negatived.

Bill 92 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 93, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 93,

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act . The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Speaking to Bill 93, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the way we changed the Taxation Act ,

and moved the taxation from October 31 to July 31, would have been OK

if we were living south of the equator so that the farmers were

marketing their crops in the spring. As we are in the northern

section

of the world, north of the equator, most of our farm produce, whether

it's beef, hay, potatoes, crops of all kinds, the bulk of them are

harvested after July, after August, beef particularly, September and

November. The strawberries in the Fraser Valley, the soft fruits in the

Okanagan, but particularly, the apples, they're not marketing until

well along in the fall. When this Government, under this Minister of

Finance, Mr. Speaker, moved the due date of land taxation from October

31 …

MR. BENNETT: The apple pools close on June 30.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on my apple juice friend. The apple juice that is being…

MR. BENNETT: I said the pools. Don't you know anything about marketing of the industry?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Allow the Member to proceed with his speech.

MR. HARTLEY: The apples that go into the juice pool is part of the crop that is substandard and left over. This is one

[ Page 857 ]

more reason, Mr. Premier, Mr. Minister of Finance,

that you should move the due taxation date back to October 31. This is

the time of the year when the farmer expects to sell his crop and get

paid and even in the soft fruits that are marketed, say, in August,

very often they're not paid until just before Christmas. The dairy

farmers are a little different, because they have a cheque coming in

every month but most of the major agricultural producers, producers of

agricultural products in this Province, are one-crop production. In the

case of apples, beef, hay, potatoes, these crops are not marketed until

well along in the fall. I think it's very, very bad for the

agricultural economy of our Province to force the primary producers to

have to go to the loaning houses and borrow money and pay money for

several months before they have received the return on that year's

crop. This is something that was changed two or three years ago and

this amendment would take quite a financial strain off the farmers. So,

on behalf of the landowners and farmers of this Province, I would like

to move adoption of this and ask the Minister of Finance to support us.

I now move second reading of Bill 93, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: A Point of Order, Mr. Speaker. It's obvious

from the honourable Member's remarks on second reading that, if he's

taking the financial strain off someone, he's adding it elsewhere.

Certainly the amendments as proposed in this bill would affect Crown

revenue. Therefore, I invite Your Honour to rule the bill out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I would sustain the Point of Order. The

deferment of the revenues of the Crown from July until October, of

course, in terms of interest, would be a charge against the public of

the Province and, as such, would not be in order in the hands of a

private member.

Bill 93 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 96, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 96,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Act . The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, Bill 96 will

take the Government out of a rather bad position. The Government right

now, Mr. Speaker, is in a position where they're fall guys for the

insurance industry. If the insurance industry, Mr. Speaker, wish to tie

a noose around the neck of their agents, and I'm talking about the life

insurance industry, let that be on their head, let them do it

themselves. Mr. Speaker, this industry has hidden behind a cloak of the

law of our Province and, unfortunately, other Provinces, not all

Provinces, but they've let the Province enact a law that ties an agent

to his company.

Mr. Speaker, the agents, under those circumstances, cannot really

give impartial advice to their clientele and instead it's being

recognized, Mr. Speaker, by the Government and by the insurance

department, that, under certain circumstances a person should be free

to provide consultation. They began issuing letters of authorization or

single case agreements. Mr. Speaker, with a single case agreement,

they're becoming like confetti, now. They're flying across the Province

and all I'm suggesting to the Government is to straighten out their act

in such a way as to make it possible for the Province to let the

insurer take his own responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, the insurance industry is a great big industry and I'm

suggesting that they can look after themselves. On that basis, Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill introduces a new concept into the Insurance Act .

To amend

section 282, as suggested, would in effect, make the person

who sells insurance, a broker. Now, at the present time, under the law,

the life insurance agent is an agent and it's built up, the whole act

is premised on this agency relationship. So the brokerage concept could

not be introduced, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, until further study is given

to the effects both on legislation, other than this particular

section

which this amendment purports to deal with, but also as well not on the

whole legislation but the administration. Therefore, the bill in its

present form is not acceptable at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for New Westminster will close the debate.

MR. COCKE: In closing the debate last year the

Attorney-General informed the House that this very matter was being

studied. He said that the superintendents were meeting and I'm

suggesting that the superintendents will go on meeting and meeting,

until such time as the Government comes in and says, "We'll have no

more of this, we'll have no more of this." I was 20 years in that

industry virtually and I've recognized this to be something that the

Government should not be doing on behalf of the insurers.

Motion negatived.

Bill 96 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 99, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 99,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Act . The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, with the

hope that the pattern of rejection may slightly change with this bill,

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention to the honourable Members that the

intent and the object of the amendment is to end the double standard

which still continues to exist in the Province of B.C. concerning the

qualification of an insurance adjuster. We have two sets of rules in

B.C. and I've advance this bill before. My recollection, and I may be

incorrect in this, is that it was adjourned last year. I think it was

going to be looked into. I've not received any response to the effect

that it has been.

I cannot see, Mr. Speaker, why we cannot have one set of rules

dealing with the licensing of insurance adjusters. There are now a

number of sections under the Insurance Act

of this Province dealing with the licensing of insurance adjusters,

with the exams that they have to take and the specific requirements

that they must meet. But, and this is the troublesome part, and this is

the object of the amendment, these provisions do not apply to an

adjuster who happens to be a salaried employee of an insurance company.

If a doctor happens to be a salaried employee of a hospital, or whatever

[ Page 858 ]

it may be, or working for another doctor, he has to

pass the necessary tests and meet the necessary qualifications. We

don't have a different standard, just because the individual happens to

be employed by the organization, or the group, or the business or the

profession concerned, but the person who is a salaried employee of an

insurance company does not have to meet any standards at all. He's

accepted.

Maybe, as a matter of practice within the industry, some companies

may insist upon some standards yet, again, they may not. They have the

option to pick up lesser trained personnel, pay them a great deal less

and quite frankly I'm very fearful that the public are the ones who

could be most affected from inexperience in this regard. I think that

the public, Mr. Speaker, should only deal with insurance adjusters who

are trained, who are qualified and who are licensed. Just because an

insurance company happens to be an insurance company, there's no reason

for it to have the right to hire an adjuster, to pay him as an

adjuster, and this man does not have to meet any specific kind of

qualifications.

You may well ask me, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not an

independent insurance adjuster has to meet certain standards and the

answer is definitely, it's in the affirmative, he does. If an

independent adjuster is sent out to run an office, or become a senior

nominee and so forth, he has to have a couple of years' experience.

But, first, he has got to write and pass a pretty stiff Government

examination. They first have to apply for their independent adjuster's

license and they don't receive that license unless they're able to

qualify and pass the Government examination.

Now, the insurance companies have all sorts of resources. They can

hire any person they like. They can put them out the very next day as

an adjuster. He does not have to take the course. He does not have to

pass an examination and he does not have to have a license.

It seems to me that we definitely have two standards. I say there

should be one and only one for insurance adjusters in the Province of

B.C. It is quite frankly, absolutely beyond me why we've not got a

single set of standards. I've never heard anybody in the industry or

anybody in the House advance good reasons as to why all insurance

adjusters do not have to be similarly qualified and have to pass the

Government exam and obtain the Government license. I say, in the final

analysis, it's the people who are the ones who are affected, the

general public, and I think they should have the benefit of dealing

with people who are similarly trained and pass similar examinations and

are all licensed.

I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, move second reading of Bill 99 which is

to give the very specific thing that I've been talking about — make it

universal that there be one set of standards.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill has

been under consideration as the honourable Member has indicated — or

under study. I'm advised that the principle is not acceptable at this

time, the reason being that the employee of an insurer is exempted from

the licensing requirements for adjusters because he acts in the

capacity of an employee only for the company by which he's engaged. As

such, he's subject to discipline by his employer or by the

superintendent through the licensing provisions of the act. It's in

respect of the latter power that the superintendent has that I presume

is the primary reason why the bill is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey will close the debate.

MR. GARDOM: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say

that the man is not subject to qualification. That's the object of the

thing. I cannot see for the life of me why we turn out insurance

adjusters in the Province of B.C. — some of them pass Government exams,

they receive their licenses and, then, the companies have carte blanche

to deal with anyone they wish to. You say, "OK, it could be regulated

another way." Well, if you want to regulate the whole thing another

way, let's do it the other way. But let's have some consistency.

Motion negatived.

Bill 99 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 101, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 101, The Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 1971 . The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, this is Bill 101, Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 1971 .

The

preamble sets out the basic intent of the act, which is to ensure

for the people of the Province clean air, pure water, freedom from

excessive noise, enjoyment of scenic, historic, natural and aesthetic

values.

It is a new concept and perhaps a revolutionary concept so far as

British Columbian and Canadian law is concerned, Mr. Speaker.

Nevertheless, such

an act has been introduced in the State of

California and almost went to a referendum of all of the people in that

State but failed, I think, in their Upper Chamber to be put in that

form to the people. The State of Washington has these constitutional

rights to our immediate south. I say it's a revolutionary new approach

to the problem of pollution, to the rights of the individual to be free

from annoyance, whether it be by excessive sound or smell or poison or

things of that kind. It is a new weapon in the armoury of man in the

battle to preserve his environment and in the fight against pollution.

In a word, we're saying here that among our defences, among the

defences of embattled mankind, who is going under in a sea of pollution

and congestion and excessive noise, at the present time, should be the

Courts, that the Courts can be one of the shields, a principle shield

of defence for mankind in a world where overpopulation and congestion

and poisons of one kind or another are threatening its very existence.

We introduce this new concept, we think and I would hope, on a

non-partisan basis as a matter for a free vote of this House. Let the

Courts, when there is excessive interference with man or woman from

this kind of thing, let the Courts have the right, where necessary, to

give injunctions or damages and, thus, we add one new weapon in the

armoury of freedom and privacy and dignity for the individual. I move

second reading, Mr. Speaker (applause).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think one of the basic

prerogatives of the Crown, the fact that the Queen may not be impleaded

in her own Courts, is a Crown prerogative that the honourable Member is

well able to judge from both

section 3 and

section 5 of the bill in

that he names it to be a

[ Page 859 ]

tort, action without proof or damage for any person

and, then, goes on, "…to a Department of Government or Agency of the

Crown wilfully to violate the environmental rights of any person."

Then, the final

section of the bill enables the Supreme Court of

British Columbia, "…with power to grant relief by way of injunction

or damages or both." The action, of course, would be taken against the

Crown. It seems to me that this is an interference with Crown

prerogatives and would not be in order in the hands of a private Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, when Alan McFarlane, who is now a

judge, sat in this House, he thought that the Crown should be subject

to suit of this sort.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think many have expressed that viewpoint

but, still, it's not something that can be moved by way of a bill by a

private Member.

Bill 101 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 106, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 106,

An Act to Incorporate the Land Bank of British Columbia . The Honourable the First Member from Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill

106, the Land Bank of British Columbia Bill. I've had a kind of

threatening letter here from a lawyer who I believe is one of the

directors of the Bank of B.C., and I won't name him. He tells me that

the name of the proposed land bank is so close to the name of the Bank

of B.C. that he's afraid there might be some confusion. Then he goes on

to suggest, and I'm sure I don't know where he took his law training,

but he suggest that because this is a bill to incorporate a land bank

it might infringe on the Federal banking power. Now, as I say, he

doesn't give his law school, when he offers these gratuitous opinions

and they're in kind of a threatening letter to me.

But basically, this bill is to enable the Crown…(interruption).

Well, he threatened to. No lawyer specifies. They say, "Things will be

done, they never…" I remember my father telling me when he practised

law many, many years ago, and he had to collect a debt for a client,

that he would send out a letter like this that, "…if you do not pay

within so many days proceedings will be taken that will amaze you."

That's the way to get the money in.

This Bill is, and I won't repeat the debate in this House…It's

partly to prevent the profits that go to land speculators, created as a

result of the use of a tax dollar, allow them to go to the people and,

secondly, we've seen, through tax sales and in other ways, so much of

our Province placed in the hands, the titles placed in the hands of

absentee foreign owners whatever their nationality may be. This is a

bill with a revolving fund which will pay dividends to the people to

enable them to reclaim for themselves some of the domain of this

Province and I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that

section 2.3, 2.4,

2.5, all of which involve substantial expenditure of public funds,

would make the bill out of order in the hands of a private Member.

Bill 106 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

The House reverted to the Order "Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions."

MR. BENNETT: Resolution No. 28, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Price moved-

That Report No. 5 of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, relative to Bill (No. 53) intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter , be adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: I left the other night, Mr. Speaker, at a couple of

minutes to six. I knew the House was impatient to try the special and

I'm glad to resume that debate.

The Private Bills Committee, Mr. Speaker, was faced with a bill to

amend the Vancouver Charter. Its report is really the subject that

we're debating. In the bill, there were two particular

sections…(interruption).

By leave of the House it was agreed that the motion not be proceeded with.

MR. BENNETT: Resolution No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hall moved, seconded by Mr. Dowding-

That this House expresses to the Federal Government, their deep

misgivings over the ecological disaster which will engulf the coast of

British Columbia following drilling, or exploratory drilling, for oil

in our coastal waters and urge the prohibition of any such drilling by

the appropriate authorities.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: On this, Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with the

unanimous support that the resolution of the Member from Alberni

received in this House and the support that it received in all parts of

Canada. I was distressed at some of the events that happened since that

resolution but I felt that, just as the Member of Alberni expressed

deep misgivings over the conveyance of oil along our coastline, I

should express misgivings on the drilling for oil. I think the House

will share with me the obvious conclusion that if it's unsafe to ship

oil, it's unsafe to drill for it. In fact, it could be argued that it's

more unsafe, more unsafe.

I think we could do no less than tell the world, Mr. Speaker, that,

as far as our coastline is concerned, we want it pollution free and we

want it oil free. I debated some two years ago the question of leases

and licenses with the various Ministers of Mines we've had over this

last two or three years. I'm not satisfied that it's quietened down.

I'm not satisfied that there simply is not going to be any oil drilling

as it's been evidenced by some of the speeches that some of the Members

opposite…. because as fast as you read one, one way, you read

another, another way. I'd like just to get a clear-cut opinion

expressed by all Members of this House, as far as our attitude towards

oil drilling, both productive an exploratory is concerned.

When the Member of Alberni moved his motion regarding the conveyance of oil, he expressed his misgivings and we

[ Page 860 ]

agreed with him that misgivings were to be

expressed forcibly, unanimously, strongly, quickly, clearly, to all the

authorities we could think of. I think we can do no less than to

express the same misgivings over the possible ecological disaster which

could engulf the coast of B.C. in this question of drilling for oil. I,

therefore, Mr. Speaker, move the motion No. 7 on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the wording of this motion is

somewhat similar to an earlier motion passed during this Session. There

is an assumption here that exploratory drilling for oil on coastal

waters would cause an ecological disaster and that has not certainly

been substantiated by any evidence brought before the House. More

fundamentally, I think, too, that the resolution proceeds on the

assumption when it commences to express to the Federal Government the

deep misgivings, proceeds on the assumption that we're dealing with a

That is certainly not the point of view of this administration

particularly where we're dealing with inland waters. There's been a lot

of confusion as a result of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

on this subject, Mr. Speaker. I won't go into it at length today,

except to say that there is no acknowledgement on the part of this

Province that all of these areas fall within the purview of the

to the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 11, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 11. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable

the Member from Oak Bay, that the Select Standing Committee on Labour

be authorized to investigate the labour dispute presently existing at

the Sandringham Private Hospital with full power to call witnesses,

examine hospital staff, financial records, employee records, trade

union officers concerned, the National Nursing Homes Limited

management, personnel and directors, and to make recommendations

respecting the said dispute and the future of the said hospital to the

Minister of Labour and, if need be, to the Minister of Health Services

and Hospital Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, this motion has been on the Order Paper since very

early in the Session. Today is the sixth anniversary of the strike,

six-months' anniversary, of the strike at that hospital. Unlike major

labour disputes in this Province that incur the participation both

verbally and by legislation of politicians in this Province, this is a

relatively minor dispute but the principles in this dispute are of

major importance. The principles of the dispute not only include good

working conditions for the people who are employed at that hospital but

the principles of the dispute also include the type and nature of care

that we wish to provide for our older people who need these facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I find it personally abhorrent that private enterprise

is allowed to participate in the field of private health care to people

who need hospital attention. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, that

private hospital care is now existing throughout the Province of

British Columbia. This particular home has been shown to make a large

profit, profits that substantiate the increase in wages that these

working people want. Minimum wages are being paid at this hospital and

the workers, because they wanted to avoid going on welfare…because,

in effect, when you work for minimum wages you are the working poor and

you're confronted with a choice would it be better to continue to work

or would it be better to go on welfare? These workers were faced with

that problem, too, and they decided that rather than go on welfare they

would come together as employees in the free trade union movement and

attempt to negotiate better working conditions and better wages at this

hospital.

Mr. Speaker, up to that point nothing was wrong. None of us would

disagree with the basic struggle of management versus union but, in

this instance, Mr. Speaker, the management of this hospital refused to

even meet and negotiate with these employees, while the employees had

complied with every aspect of the labour laws of this Province.

Normally, Mr. Speaker, a labour dispute stays within the confines of

those people who happen to be interested on the financial pages or, as

I said earlier, the politicians. But, in this instance, the social

justice involved in this particular labour dispute brought in the

Victoria Council of Churches and a particular Monseigneur O'Connell and

other leading clergymen in this particular city. These clergymen, Mr.

Speaker, none of whom has a monetary interest in this dispute but, on

the basis of social concern, have stated that they cannot appreciate or

accept the position of the National Nursing Homes Limited. Clergymen

have very actively appeared on the picket line, Mr. Speaker. Can you

imagine clergymen directly involved in a labour dispute on a basis of

social conscience, on a basis of deep feeling of concern for the

rightness of the strikers' cause? It's been a long time, Mr. Speaker,

in this Province, since we've seen such a labour dispute where

clear-cut division of social justice versus almost tyrannical,

backward, eighteenth-century employer attitudes. But there it is. It

exists at that hospital.

In moving this motion, Mr. Speaker, my very good friend the Member

from Oak Bay and I did not decide to take, we decided not to take a

position although I have a very strong position in favour of the

strikers. You will notice, on the front page of the newspaper, the

Victoria Times , I walked on

the picket line with those working people and I was proud to do it. I'd

be proud to walk with Monseigneur O'Connell or any member of the

Victoria Council of Churches on that picket line, as well.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Member from Oak

Bay and I, and I don't intend to speak for him in terms of his personal

view on this matter, but our shared concern was that the dispute was

dragging on and on and on without any attempt to resolve the basic

differences between the parties.

The Attorney-General and the Minister of Labour, the

Attorney-General serving as the Minister of Labour, has had the

opportunity to use the House committee in a most constructive way. He

could have brought the disputants together, which would have been the

first time that, in this dispute, management and labour actually were

able to come together over a table.

That is all that I wish to obtain with this motion and I'm sure the

same for the Member from Oak Bay. The mutual concern that we had was to

get these parties face to face and talking. If management has been

reluctant to do this, and I have opinions about that, that's the way it

is. If someone wishes to blame labour, which I don't, that's where it

is. The

[ Page 861 ]

intent of this motion was not pro-management or

pro-labour but pro-solution and I regret that the Minister of Labour

has left this motion sit on the Order Paper all these weeks while the

dispute has flared up and caused great concern, not only to the

citizens of Victoria but to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Attorney-General the lead he knows of

how the thing will be out of order. The motion will be out of order

because the House is going to prorogue and it will cost money to keep

the committee going after the House. OK. I accept that and I appreciate

it, Mr. Speaker. If we were Government and we wished to kill a motion,

that's how we'd kill it. If we were faced with a technical dilemma,

we'd use the technical devices. I accept that in politics because

that's the reality of the nature of the arena we're in. I'm not going

to dispute that but I make this plea, Mr. Speaker, to the

Attorney-General. Would he please indicate to the Members of this

House, to the people of this Province, the citizens of Victoria and to

the disputant parties that his office is available and he'd like to see

representatives of both sides in his office within the next two weeks?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to second

this motion in that it has two very serious implications. There is the

local implication in that we have citizens of Victoria, employees of

the hospital, who are, in my opinion, completely justified in seeking

to improve their working conditions and their payment at the particular

hospital concerned. I could talk about this at great length but I'll

try to be brief.

The fact is that the workers are seeking little more than minimum

wage for a job which is very demanding physically and mentally and

which, I think, is grossly underpaid at the moment. That's an opinion.

The local situation, important as it is in that it affects seriously

these workers, unfortunately, must redound to the disadvantage of the

patients with all the unpleasant arguments and actions that have taken

place. So that we have both groups of people being disadvantaged and we

have society wondering just whether or not we do have social justice in

our midst. But, beyond the local issue, there is a much larger

Provincial issue and this is the whole matter of provision of care to

people in this category who are accommodated and looked after in a

hospital. In other words, the intermediate care level. Since the cost

of providing care to this type of patient who is in hospital

necessarily over a long period of time, since this becomes such a

financial burden to the patient, it is inevitable and I feel mandatory

almost, on Government's part, to provide financial assistance. If that

is the basic premise, and this is certainly my basic premise and I've

said it many times and I'll repeat it until the end and the goal is

achieved, namely, that all sick people should be treated alike, as far

as financial assistance is concerned. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, since

I thoroughly am convinced that every patient at every level of care

does require financial assistance in our present society, it, then,

becomes impractical for such hospitals to operate under private

ownership, where financial gain would be made from Government subsidy.

There is a far-reaching, wider implication involved in the strike at

Sandringham, important as it is for us to remember the interest of the

workers and the concern for the patients.

If this financial subsidy is required, it is obviously unacceptable

that private interest should be gaining financial gain from Government

subsidy. I was hoping that if this motion were referred to a committee

of the House that, perhaps, we could bring some accurate, factual

information regarding the cost of operation of such hospitals, to get

accurate financial details, so that we could, in fact, find out

precisely the way in which such a hospital operates under private

ownership, the individual cost per patient, and we could equate the

level of care to the money being paid by individual patients.

There has been much public dispute about this and the attitude

presented on both sides of the fence is that Government does not pay

enough for welfare patients and that the private owners charge rates to

the non-welfare patients to subsidize the welfare patients.

I'm not taking either side on this. I'm simply saying that the time

has long gone when we should have grasped every opportunity to get to

the heart of the matter and find out what the true facts and figures

really are.

In seconding this motion, Mr. Speaker, I have but two main goals.

One, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, to attempt to bring some

neutral party into the middle, between the two opposing factions and

bring a solution, for the very fundamental reason that the workers, I

believe, are entitled to some job security and to something better than

the minimum wage for the work they are doing. Of course, as I said, the

patients are suffering, no matter which way you look at it. Secondly,

out of this discussion in committee surely Government could obtain some

of the valid facts and figures on which I hope, it would base its

further planning for the complete coverage of intermediate care in this

Province and could in fact I hope plan to construct the necessary

facilities to provide adequate intermediate care for all those who need

it under the same umbrella of Government subsidy as applies to acute

and extended care patients. It gives me great pleasure to second this

motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Just a clarification. I

think that everyone in the House agrees on the seriousness of this

particular motion and is sympathetic with both the mover and the

seconder. I rise really though for a clarification though of the

present position of the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the recent

changes of their views on labour, as has recently come out of

Saskatchewan, would the Leader of the Opposition be prepared to

recommend the use of binding arbitration in this particular case? There

has been a change in the NDP policy and I'm sure our support….

MR. SPEAKER: The Member is not speaking to the motion.

MR. CAPOZZI: I am concerned whether he would be willing to go far enough in his resolution…

MR. SPEAKER: I think your concern must be associated with the motion.

MR. CAPOZZI: The NDP now has determined that when the best

interests of the public…In other words, as it was recently stated,

that the fundamental right to strike but, in some cases, that right….

[ Page 862 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Member will not come back

to the motion, he has finished his speech. The Honourable the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add the voice of the

Liberal Party in support of this particular motion and to say how

deeply I regret, too, that the Government has done so little to help

out in this particular problem and in the general problem of seeing

that people who work in chronic hospitals get a wage appropriate to the

task that they undertake.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Member is not

speaking to the motion. The motion is to refer to a committee for study

of a matter of labour that's in dispute. You must restrict these

remarks.

MR. McGEER: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I wish there

were a way that this Legislature could consider, at some leisure and in

some depth, the problem raised by this Sandringham Hospital dispute.

Because, like many Members of the House, I have the greatest regret

that the patients of that hospital are not getting the care that they

should because of the stresses that have been placed on them through

this dispute. Certainly the people that were doing the best at that

hospital, prior to the time of the attempted negotiations, were working

for less than what they deserved to have. I think that there is no case

at all that can be made for the management of that particular hospital.

I publicly condemn it. I support this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the basic dispute in this hospital, of

course, reflects a problem that I think is not covered, in some ways,

by our labour laws. The dispute in many, many ways can be summarized,

Mr. Speaker, as a first contract and recognition dispute. I think that,

in supporting this motion, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the application of

the wisdom of the committee would mean that we would grapple with the

problems that are always around in the Province, in terms of a first

contract and the simple question of recognition. That's why I urge

every Member of the House to support this motion because, from this

one, single incident in this city could come some meaningful

legislation that deals with that very simple problem of the first

contract and the question of recognition. If we do nothing else in

terms of labour legislation but solve that one problem, we will have

taken a giant step forward as far as the labour legislation in this

Province is concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few

words. I think that this is a case where the Government has not taken

the proper interest in the little people. This strike involves very few

people. If it had involved a large number of people and affected the

economy of the Province, it would have been probably turned over to a

committee immediately. But, here, it affects only a few people. To the

economy of those people who are on strike, it's a very serious problem.

To me, it should have been turned over a long time ago. The Government,

the Attorney-General, the Minister of Labour would have, if it had of

been a larger strike, would have brought them together to discuss

things long ago. It only affects a few workers and is not a threat to

the economy in any way. We let them go ahead and suffer. It's a sad

situation when you go up there and watch those people who have got to

parade back and forth as pickets to try to emphasize their case. It's

in these kind of cases where people get so frustrated that they do

things that are not in keeping with what we would like to see. I say

that the Government has fallen short of their responsibility to the

small people of the land, when they didn't turn this over to a

committee long ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this dispute, to which this

resolution makes reference, has been a very difficult one. I,

personally, have been in communication with representatives of both

sides over a period of time. There just hasn't been any way in which

this dispute could be resolved, at least, with the agreement of the

parties. I can assure the House that as far as the Government is

concerned the facilities of the Department of Labour will continue to

be available to the parties, in any way that we can be of assistance in

resolving this dispute.

This resolution makes reference to, I suggest, a more important

principle that we have to consider in voting on the resolution. I was

interested to learn that the Leader of the Opposition's approach would

be that if he were in Government to have the resolution ruled out of

order. I'm not going to attempt to do so, Mr. Speaker, I won't attempt

to do that. I do think there is an important principle, here, in that

we have established certain procedures to obtain in respect of

collective bargaining. These procedures are set out under the Labour Relations Act and the Mediation Commission Act

and, while there are certain provisions compelling parties to bargain,

etc., in the final analysis, there isn't any compulsion upon the

parties to enter into collective agreement, except under the provisions

of one particular

section of the Mediation Commission Act ,

with which the Members are very familiar,

section 18. So the question

is this, now that you are asking the House to consider this policy of

bringing individual labour disputes before a select standing committee

of this House giving the power as you do to compel attendance — this is

part of the resolution, compel attendance, to compel all statements

etcetra to be submitted — this is something that, while we have certain

features in our legislation, this is not something to which we have

subscribed thus far in labour matters. I think this is an interesting

point, if you are actually giving consideration to this. This is

precisely what is referred to in the resolution, the compulsion — compelling attendance.

The honourable Members know that we have many disputes in the

Province. We have references made where we refer the dispute to the

Mediation Commission. Certain labout bodies have taken the position

that they will not appear before the Mediation Commission. We have

nothing compelling them to attend. If we can compel them to attend

before one body, if that's the wish of this House, then, certainly we

should give consideration to compulsion for them to attend in another

respect. So, Mr. Speaker, that, I suggest, is the important principle

involved. The position that I take on this matter is, while as far as

the dispute is concerned we are prepared to do everything possible and

have been, and have been in communication with the representatives, and

many others not directly involved in the dispute, but indirectly

involved whether it's the local district

[ Page 863 ]

labour council or representatives of the clergy,

but, while we are prepared to do that, the fact is that we do have

legislation, now, on the Statute Books to deal with the situation

adequately. This new departure and this new principle, that is being

brought into play in this resolution is not acceptable to the

Government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in the remarks of the Honourable

Member from Oak Bay, earlier in the Session, he said that the

proprietor of Sandringham, Mr. Cook, I think it was, would, under no

circumstances, enter into an agreement with this union. Our labour laws

make it clear that the parties have a duty to bargain with the

certified bargaining agency, with a view to concluding a collective

agreement. In other words, what the honourable Member was saying

constituted a criminal offence on the part of Sandringham because they

are not bargaining in good faith. They should have been prosecuted ere

this while by the Department of Labour. We have this anomalous

situation — the Attorney-General is there, on the one hand as an

Attorney-General, and, on the other hand, as Minister of Labour. I say

a committee should investigate this thing. It says, right here, "…to

make recommendations concerning this dispute to the Minister of

Labour." I say that that should be done because I think the Honourable

Member from Columbia is going to need all the help he can get

(interruption). Well, we should be allowed some speculation on this

side of the House, too (laughter). But, in all seriousness, this is not

the normal condition of collective bargaining. This is a condition,

where one of the parties has adamantly said that they will not bargain

in good faith. There's a breach of your Labour Relations Act , Mr. Minister. They should be prosecuted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one short comment and that comment is

that we weren't talking about compulsory arbitration. Let's not smoke

up the words, let's not get muddy waters with that kind of stuff. What

we were talking about in this motion, Mr. Speaker, is compulsory

negotiations and there is nothing wrong with compulsory negotiations.

It's when you come in with the club and enforce settlement

(interruption). Nothing here, Mr. Speaker, despite that poor little

fellow from Vancouver Centre who has to do most of his speaking from

his seat. Mr. Speaker, that's my comment. This Sandringham situation is

deplorable. It should have come before the House long before this. Had

the Labour Committee sat on the situation, I believe it now would have

been resolved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, although this matter has been on

the Order Paper all this length of time, the Attorney-General, or the

Government, saw fit to leave it there without considering the merits of

it, despite the fact that it had bipartisan support in being moved and

seconded.

I point out, also, that this Government was prepared, on another

resolution, to have the House rule on a matter of the Teamsters and on

Hydro, without the Members knowing the facts, the backgrounds, without

going to a committee, or finding out what they were voting on. That's

the difference between our position on this matter and that of the

Government. We believe it should go to a committee, before the House is

asked to rule, in any way, on a matter that is involved between labour

and management.

Had that been done, in this case, and if this motion passes, I would

be prepared to stay around here to sit on such a committee and do

something about a dispute that should be resolved. I point out to you

that the people who are running this particular hospital were granted

preferment by this Government, above all others. They are a group that

run a number of hospitals in British Columbia, when other private

groups have been denied the right to have a license to build one.

The House divided.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Messieurs

Wallace

Hall

Macdonald

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

NAYS — 33

Messieurs

Ney

Bruch

Wolfe

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

Smith

Wenman

Jordan, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Kripps, Mrs.

Dawson, Mrs.

Capozzi

Mussallem

Kiernan

Skillings

Price

Williston

Chant

Vogel

Bennett

Gaglardi

LeCours

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

Chabot

Black

Brothers

Jefcoat

Fraser

Shelford

Tisdalle

Campbell, B.

Richter

The Honourable L.R. Peterson (Attorney-General) presented the Law

Reform Commission Report on Debtor-Creditor Relationships (Project No.

2),

Part 1, Debt Collection and Collection Agents.

The Honourable C.M. Shelford. (Minister of Agriculture) presented

the Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture for the year 1970.

MR. BENNETT: I expect His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to

arrive at a quarter to six. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, the House be in

recess so that the necessary work can be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: I would like to protest the disregard for private Members in this House. In all good faith, we placed

[ Page 864 ]

resolutions on the Order Paper during the Session.

They're never called. We very seldom hear of a Private Members' Day.

These resolutions could very easily be called during the Session. I

agree that the Honourable the Minister wants to set a certain time for

prorogation and this may be all right, but I think he should see that

the private Members get the respect that they deserve, during the

Session, and not leave it up 'til the last few minutes. When you look

at the number of resolutions, Mr. Speaker, that are being left to die

on the Order Paper, I don't think it's fair representation to the

people of British Columbia (applause).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, the House will be recessed until the call of the bell, approximately 5:45 p.m.

The House recessed at 5:30 p.m.

The House met at 5:45 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor having entered the House, and

being seated in the chair, G.H. Cross, Esquire, Acting Clerk Assistant

of the House, read the titles of the following Bills:

An Act to Amend the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act .

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act, 1961 .

An Act to Amend the School District and Regional Colleges (Pensions) Act .

An Act to Amend the Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act .

An Act to Amend the Public Service Group Insurance Act .

Special Funds Appropriation Act .

Accelerated Park Development Act .

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act .

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1948 .

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958 .

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act .

An Act to Amend the Motive Fuel Use Tax Act .

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Act .

Hotel and Motel Room Tax Act.

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act .

An Act to Amend the Assessment Equalization Act .

An Act to Amend the Trespass Act .

An Act to Amend the Fur-farm Act .

An Act to Amend the Animals Act .

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act .

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act .

An Act to Amend the Settled Estates Act .

An Act to Amend the Variation of Trusts Act .

An Act to Amend the Testator's Family Maintenance Act .

An Act to Amend the Infants Act .

An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act .

Hearing-aid Regulation Act .

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966.

Air Space Titles Act .

Mortgage Brokers Act .

Synthetic Food Products Act .

An Act to Amend the Mines Regulation Act .

An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965 .

An Act to Amend the Marriage Act .

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act .

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act .

An Act to Amend the Principal Home Acquisition Act .

An Act to Amend the Department of Highways Act .

An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology .

An Act Respecting Central City Mission .

An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953

An Act to Amend the Soldiers' Land Act .

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act .

All-terrain Vehicles Act .

An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act .

An Act to Amend the Forest Act .

An Act to Amend the Jury Act .

An Act to Amend the Police and Prisons Regulation Act .

An Act to Amend the Controlled Access Highways Act .

An Act to Amend the Land Act .

An Act to Amend the Attachment of Debts Act .

An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act .

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act .

An Act to Amend the Provincial Court Act.

Mobile Home Park Fee Act .

Ecological Reserves Act .

Environment and Land Use Act .

An Act to Amend the Water Act .

An Act to Amend the Sale of Goods Act.

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act.

An Act to Amend the

Summary Convictions Act .

An Act to Amend the Health Act .

Hospital Corporations Act .

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act .

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

Greater Vancouver Regional Water and Sewer District Act .

Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act, 1961.

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971 .

His Honour was pleased in Her Majesty's name to give assent to the said Bills.

The said assent was announced by E.K. DeBeck, Esquire, Clerk of the House, in the following words;

"In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these Bills."

Then Mr. Speaker addressed the Lieutenant-Governor as follows:

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative

Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, in Session assembled,

approach Your Honour at the close of our labours with sentiments of

unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and Government

and humbly beg to present for Your Honour's acceptance Bill (No. 108)

intituled

An Act for Granting Certain Sums of Money for the

[ Page 865 ]

Public Service of the Province of British Columbia .

To this Bill the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, by His Honour's command, did thereupon say:

"In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence, and assent to this Bill."

Then His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to deliver the following gracious Speech:

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly:

In closing this, the Second Session of the Twenty-ninth Parliament

of British Columbia, I desire to express my appreciation for the care

and sincerity which have characterized your deliberations. I am

grateful that legislation has been enacted which will be of benefit to

the citizens of this Province.

Your deliberations in this Parliament have resulted in an

unprecedented number of enactments at this Session; twenty-five (or 50

per cent) more enactments at this Session than in each of the last two

Sessions, and twenty more enactments than in any Session in the last

seven years. This is a substantial achievement in this our Centennial

year, as each enactment represents the culmination of detailed

consideration and of sound decisions made by this Assembly for the

lasting benefit of the Province and all our citizens.

Financial benefits have been extended under a Special Funds Appropriation Act

to enlarge the capital in the Crop Insurance Stabilization Fund and in

the Home Acquisition Fund, with the result that these Funds are now

soundly funded to meet the demands upon them in the coming year.

Furthermore, this Act establishes a special Fund, known as the "Drug,

Alcohol, and Cigarette Education, Prevention, and Rehabilitation Fund,"

for the purpose of education, rehabilitation, and prevention of the use

of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes.

Under the Accelerated Park Development Act

a sum of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) has been allocated for

the purpose of park development and the creation of additional

employment thereby.

The Provincial Home Acquisition Act has been amended to extend the grants and loans provisions on older homes until March 31, 1972.

The P rovincial Home-owner Grant Act has provided for an increase from $160 to $170 per home.

In order to further benefit the home-owners in the Province, the Assessment Equalization Act

has been amended to prevent an increase in assessment greater than 10

percent in any year. In order to provide the financial resources to

carry out these increased benefits and ensure the continuing economic

development of the Province, taxes were imposed on cigarettes and

tobacco, and on hotel and motel accommodation, and slight increases in

taxes were imposed for gasoline and motive-fuel.

A number of enactments were passed at this Session effecting

sizeable increases in pensions and improvements in the pension schemes

of civil servants, municipal employees, teachers, college personnel,

and the Members.

Great strides forward were made in the field of the administration

of justice. A total of twenty-three enactments were passed, covering a

wide range of subjects in this area. A number of enactments are amended

to protect and safeguard the estates and interests of minors and

mentally disordered persons in our society. The Consumer Protection Act was amended to give further protection to purchasers in conditional sale transactions. The Sale of Goods Act was amended to prevent the waiver of warranties and conditions. A Mortgage Brokers Act was enacted to regulate and control the mortgage business and to require full disclosure to a person borrowing money. An Air Space Titles Act was enacted, which represents a bold concept of title to air space for the future development of our cities. The J ury Act, Police Act, and Land Registry Act

have been amended to deal in an effective way with new problems arising

in those areas. Difficult problems in our Province arising in the field

of maintenance and support of families has led to the enactment of

strong new provisions in the W ives' and Children's Maintenance Act , bolstered by changes in the Attachment of Debts and Small Claims Act s.

Under this legislation the Provincial Court for the first time may now

deal with custody of and access to children. A new enactment also

provides for the prohibition of all cigarette and tobacco advertising.

A new enactment is the Hearing-aid Regulation Act , which is designed to control and regulate the traffic in hearing-aids for the benefit of our citizens who require them.

In the field of agriculture a new enactment is the Synthetic Food Products Act ,

prohibiting those synthetic products which are designed to represent

natural products. This will safeguard the health of the citizens and

assist the agricultural industry. Amendments were also made to the Animals Act to deal with the problems of fierce dogs in unorganized territory.

The attention of this Assembly has been directed to and resulted in the passage of substantial amendments to the Public Schools Act

to modernize the structure of the educational system in this Province

and provide for new methodology in the field of education.

The Health Act and the Marriage Act

have been amended to incorporate a number of significant changes in

these Acts. The Acts of incorporation of the Vancouver General

Hospital, the Royal Columbian Hospital, and the Royal Inland Hospital

have been consolidated in a new Hospital Corporations Act to give uniformity in their administration.

Amendments to the Department of Highways Act and the Controlled Access Highways Act are designed to regulate the orderly development and control of lands adjoining new or relocated highways.

Great emphasis has been placed by the Assembly in its deliberations

on the problems of the natural environment. Out of these deliberations

this Assembly has enacted a new Ecological Reserves Act for the establishment of 100 ecological reserves in the Province before 1975. Similarly, a new Environment and Land Use Act

has been enacted to protect the natural environment and control the

optimum use of land for the greatest benefit of all our citizens.

Likewise, the Land Act and the Forest Act have been amended and a new Water Resources Act has been introduced to regulate and control the use of water for all purposes.

Both the Mines Regulation Act and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965 have been amended to provide for clarification and improvement in those Acts.

In the area of municipal affairs, a new Act provided for the

assumption by the Greater Vancouver Regional District of some of the

powers and functions of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage

District and the Greater Vancouver Water District. The Municipal Act has been amended in a number of particulars, one of which is the

[ Page 866 ]

establishment of a land-use control system, and

another is the establishment of National Building Code standards in

municipalities.

The problem of snowmobiles and like vehicles has had the attention of this Assembly and resulted in the All-terrain Vehicles Act , which should be of great benefit to those citizens most seriously affected by the operation of such vehicles. The Wildlife Act has been amended to provide, among other changes, for a license to carry firearms. The Regional Parks Act was also amended.

Your approval of Supply in the record sum of one billion three

hundred million six hundred and ninety-two thousand six hundred dollars

($1,3,00,692,600) is particularly significant in the development and

growth of this Province.

These and other measures which you have carefully considered and

authorized will redound to the benefit of this Province in its

Centennial year and in the years to come.

Members of the Legislative Assembly, I thank you for your earnest

deliberations and labours and for the supply granted for the public

service. Honourable Members, I now relieve you of your legislative

duties, and I trust that the blessing of Divine Providence will

accompany you to your respective homes.

The Hon. W.D. Black (Provincial Secretary) then said:

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly:

It is His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's will and pleasure that

the Legislative Assembly be prorogued until it shall please the

Lieutenant-Governor to summon the same for dispatch of business, and

this Provincial Legislative Assembly is hereby prorogued accordingly.