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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 743 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

On the motion of Mr. A.B. Macdonald, Bill (No. 101) intituled The Environmental Bill of Rights Act ,

1971, was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on

the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

The Honourable W.K. Kiernan presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of Mr. Kiernan, Amendments to Bill (No. 67) intituled

An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act were introduced, read a first time and Ordered to be referred to the Committee having in charge Bill (No. 67).

The Honourable D.R.J. Campbell presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of Mr. Campbell, Bill (No. 78) intituled Mobile Home Park Fee Act ,

was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the

Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

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

The following Bills were read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 27) intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act .

Bill (No. 32) intituled

An Act to Amend the Infants Act .

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 48) intituled

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act .

Bill (No. 69) intituled

An Act to Amend the Jury Act .

Bill (No. 72) intituled

An Act to Amend the Land Act .

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Second reading of Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 74,

An Act to Amend the Attachment of Debts Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a number of important amendments to the Attachment of Debts Act .

Under the present legislative provisions, the exemptions to a person

who has his wages garnisheed are $150 in the case of a person with

dependents, and $75 in the case of a person without dependents. This

bill will increase those exemptions so that 70 per cent of the wages

will be exempt. Further, Mr. Speaker, the minimum exemption in each

case will be $200 for a person who has one or more dependents, and $100

for a person without dependents.

I think it's been some seven years since we've had a look at these exemption provisions in the Attachment of Debts Act .

The bill before us not only increases the exemptions, which is

appropriate I suggest at this period, but also incorporates a new

principle in putting it on a percentage of earnings basis,

nevertheless, with the basic exemptions still remaining. There are

separate provisions that apply in terms of exemptions for those in

matrimonial and other family situations. The bill spells out the nature

of that exemption as well. We're also proposing in this bill to empower

a judge or registrar to order the release of a garnishing order and to

substitute payment of the judgement by installments. Heretofore, the

practice has been every pay period to issue a new garnishing order and

garnishee the person's wages. This creates additional expense and

inconvenience both for the debtor and for all parties, as a matter of

fact. Now, it will be open for the debtor to apply to the Court and

have, in lieu of future garnishing orders, a monthly payment stipulated.

Another problem that has been the subject of some comment, not only

in this House but in the House of Commons, as well, is the fact that

the collection of money, under these circumstances, can be frustrated

by the dismissal of the employee once the garnishing order is served on

the employer. We're providing now that, in future, an employer cannot

terminate the employment of a person solely for that reason — that a

garnishing order has been served.

The last point I want to make mention of on this bill, Mr. Speaker,

is bringing the scope of the act to apply in respect to employees of

boards or commissions which are agents of the Crown, such as employees

of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, because there has been some

doubt in that instance. Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a

second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, it looks as though

I've been scooped on this bill. You know, it's a little difficult, I

suppose, for the Honourable the Attorney-General to give credit,

sometimes, where credit might be due. It's exactly — one clause in

there dealing with dismissals — it's almost word for word…. When you

went on to that subject, you wouldn't give the credit to the Opposition

Member for having brought this to the Floor, but you said it was

debated in the Federal House or some other place. You didn't say

anything and I think that the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now that the Member has the credit, will he now proceed to the principle of the bill?

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Honourable the Minister in accepting this, this one point that I brought in Bill 64….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Member must proceed now with the discussion of the principle of this bill.

MR. NIMSICK: I'm thinking of this point of no dismissal.

MR. SPEAKER: I've read the bill carefully and haven't found

that revealed in the contents of the bill. Now would you get down to

the principle that's in the bill, please.

MR. NIMSICK: It's in the bill. You haven't read the bill, then, in regards to the dismissal of an employee, because he just said it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that you're referring to your own….

MR. NIMSICK: No, I'm referring to the

section that he put in the bill.

[ Page 744 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Very well. Can we get on to the principle of it then?

MR. NIMSICK: Yes. I want to thank the Honourable the

Attorney-General for his generosity. The first part of the bill and

many parts of the bill are good, I think. I think it's time that the

exemptions were increased (interruption) .

No, I think it's time that the exemptions were increased. I understand

that this bill is going to committee. I don't know whether it is or

not, but that's the understanding I've been given.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to move it to the committee?

MR. NIMSICK: If it isn't going into committee, I have no real objection to the bill. I think that the bill is updating the Attachment of Debts Act

and it gives the person that's a victim many times a little bit better

break than what he had before. I accept this and endorse the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in regard to the principle of the bill. I feel that it's application to the Wive's and Childrens' Maintenance Act

that was spelled out last night in second reading is particularly

important. I'm certain many Members in this House have had the

experience that I have had in very many of our communities, where we

have a break-up of a marriage and we have a maintenance order made for

a wife and children. Very often the husband reneges on payment. There

has to be a garnishee order made and attachment to his wages. The

present system, when his wages are taken, garnisheed, we are now, under

the present act prior to this change, taking too much of his wage and

leaving him in a position, not only of being angry and vindictive over

the situation that he finds himself in, where someone is garnisheeing

his wages, but he is also having so much of his wages taken that he

then throws up his hands and says, "It is better for me to go on

welfare than it is to remain at my job." Therefore, the present act

really pushes people into the welfare situation and the State, then,

not only takes care of the husband but is also forced to take care of

the wife and children who, of course, are really the people who we are

trying to take care of in the first instance.

The act itself will fix up that particular situation as it stands

now and it updates the situation where the man is left with sufficient

to live on — or the woman. Again, as I said last night, it's a two-way

street and it applies both ways. Can I just reiterate what I said last

night, that there are very few cases where the woman leaves the man

with the children under that situation? When it does, it is applicable

both ways. It's a very good act and I think all people in the House

should support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

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

would like to rise on a Point of Order here, so that I would not lose

my place in this debate, and seek your guidance. The Attorney-General

indicated last night that this bill would be referred to committee and,

as you know, we ended up in some discussion regarding procedure at this

point. Could you clarify what procedure the House will follow?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, if the bill is being referred to committee,

our Standing Order No. 81 defines that a bill having been read a second

time must be referred to a Committee at a future time whether it is the

Committee of the Whole or to a select standing committee. The House

shall, in the words of our Standing Order, "be ordered for

committal"…. Under these circumstances, the onus is on the person who

is piloting the bill, to refer it to committee at that time.

Last evening, and the Member rises on a well thought-out Point of

Order, the Speaker, in error, refused to allow discussion on the matter

of whether or not a bill should be referred to a committee during the

second reading of the bill and said that that was not within the

principle of the bill. Upon reviewing the circumstances, at the

instigation of the Member, it appears to me that it's the only

opportunity the Members have to discuss whether or not a bill should be

referred to committee. Today, and in the future, the Chair will permit

Members to discuss whether or not a bill should or should not be

referred to a select standing committee or the Committee of the Whole.

Members should recall that there is no debate nor no amendment to the

referral of a bill to the committee. The Honourable Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, speaking then, to second reading of

the bill, and I appreciate your explanation, I wish only to make a very

small point which I have made privately to the Attorney-General. I

would like to make it in the House, as well.

In referring bills to committees, I fully support the principle here

to make such referrals, but I make a suggestion, which I hope the

Government will take as being constructive. If, earlier in the Session,

bills such as this, where the intention was to refer them to committee,

if there had been some indication given to us before the committees

were struck as to what the business of any particular committee might

be, it would be possible for all the caucuses to give consideration to

the membership of those committees, based on the material that will be

placed before them. Now, the committee the Attorney-General has

indicated this particular bill will go to is a committee that I think

is functioning very well, under the terms of reference it now has. But

I, as one member of that committee, feel somewhat inadequate, when

being confronted with these specific bills, which are very legalistic

in nature. I would point out that this is a committee where there is

only one lawyer assigned and that lawyer is a Minister of the Crown,

very busy with other business currently before the committee.

I make this suggestion in a positive sense. I, as one member of this

committee, will be happy to tackle this but, in future, if we had some

indication of such business, I think the committees would be better

structured. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): I welcome your ruling since, last

night, I was attempting to make part of the same point made by the

Member from North Vancouver–Seymour.

[ Page 745 ]

Beyond this, the question of actually having refreshed minds dealing

with this matter in the Welfare Committee, at this point, is very

likely not possible, because it appears that the Government does have a

closing date in mind for the Session. This bill will go to committee

and we've been sitting and will be sitting probably every evening. The

Members won't have that kind of time or energy to do good service to

the bill.

The second point raised by the Member is really interesting. I

wonder if he's actually asking for a ruling from the Speaker, rather

than for some courtesy from the Government leader because, in the past,

when we've been faced with situations of naming committee members, such

as you are asking in this instance, we have asked to change members and

we've been refused that. We've had to name committee members in the

blind. So, the Member's asking…. I would prefer to ask for a ruling

from the Speaker on this matter, rather than asking for courtesy of the

House. That courtesy has not been extended in the past and I wonder if

the Speaker could take under advisement whether or not, at this late

date, we have the right to change committee members, in light of the

business being presented to the committees.

MR. SPEAKER: The standing rule, of course, is that Members

who wish to change any member on a committee places a motion before the

House for consideration of the House and the House will, at its

leisure, discuss the motion and take the necessary action. I think

there is, indeed, such notice on the Order Paper during this current

Session.

MR. BARRETT: If I may, Mr. Speaker, it's reduced to a matter of Government majority, rather than courtesy of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself

to one of the principles of the bill, namely, the prevention of

dismissal by an employer of an employee by reason of the service of a

garnishing order. The principle is well founded and the Member for

Kootenay has taken the House through a short course of history.

I wish to address myself to what I think is a failing in this bill,

insofar as there is no provision, in my mind, for the employer to have

to pay back wages owed during the period of the dismissal. I realize

we're getting somewhat particular, Mr. Speaker, and I know that we're

going to committee so I won't take a long time on this. But it seems to

me, that having got the penalty in of no more than $500 or imprisonment

for a term of no more than three months, that another salutary,

preventional method could be, simply to say that if an employer does

discharge an employee because of the garnishee order, then, that

employee, when reinstated, gets back all the money that he would have

got had he been on his job. I think it's important that that be done,

because what happens is that the situation that normally exists with

people who are garnisheed is usually a situation that can best be

described as at the bottom end of the totem pole, in terms of money,

ability to cope, problems, both marital and others. I think, to put

that person, knowing how crowded the Courts are and what lengths of

time it's taking to deal with these matters, that person could well be

without any money whatsoever, other than the public purse in terms of

welfare, until he gets his day in Court and proves his case. I think we

should certainly add that missing principle, Mr. Speaker, that the

employer be responsible for full back money — full back wages.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I feel this

legislation, while it is good, is certainly long overdue. When we're

living in this day and age of credit, Chargex, finance companies and

the whole bit, particularly the young couples are encouraged to charge

up as much as they can when they're first married. Whether they buy a

home or not, they're probably buying a car, furniture and everything

else. Our former legislation that would reduce a man's earnings to $150

if his wage were garnisheed, all that was saved for him, his wife and

his family was $150 and was, as the second Member for Little Mountain

mentioned, one of the reasons that the welfare rolls in this Province

have continued to grow over the past several years. Just this past

winter, a party from Kamloops came in. They'd worked for the Provincial

Government. They'd been garnisheed for a total sum of approximately

$300, but they just couldn't subsist on the basis of $150 a month for

the two months while that was being paid off, or for the better part of

two months. So they had to quit their job and try to find work

elsewhere. It was during the winter and the man and family wound up on

welfare. I believe this legislation is good. I think we should

certainly take into consideration the matter the Member for Surrey

raised in guaranteeing that, if the man does go before Court, loses his

job, comes before Court, then, proper restitution should be made of his

job and wages that he has lost.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, the

Attorney-General, in introducing this very worthwhile amendment about

not being fired, or it not being a ground for dismissal, if you've been

garnisheed, said that it would help the creditor because the man

couldn't be fired on receipt of the garnishing order and, therefore, no

money paid into Court. But its real benefit is the protection of the

working man because, in many of the industries of British Columbia

today there's a company rule that two garnishees and you're fired. It's

a very unfair rule but it's been upheld by arbitration boards in labour

disputes. This suggestion, which came from the Member for Kootenay and

been adopted by the Government, and has been passed in the Province of

Ontario, is a very worthwhile one because it's a very genuine

protection for the working people of the Province, even when they're

under union contract and get fired under company regulations today

simply because two garnishing orders have been issued against them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): I would like to mention,

before this matter is referred to a committee of the House, that the

section that deals with the maintenance orders, that the Honourable the

lady Member referred to…one of the problems that has to be taken into

account and I hope the committee, whatever committee is charged with

the responsibility of studying it, realizes that one of the great

[ Page 746 ]

problems in the field of maintenance orders is that

there's often a period of long unemployment by a father or husband,

during which the meter is still running and he ends up with thousands

of dollars owing to his wife for the support of her and the children.

It becomes such an insuperable obstacle, either psychologically to him,

or otherwise financially, and certainly when he gets back to work,

again to be faced with garnishing orders of the magnitude that could

result, would be a very serious handicap to his continuing in his

occupation.

I hope the committee will give a lot of thought to that particular

aspect of it. I don't know whether the lady Minister is on that

committee and, if she isn't, I think she should be. I'm going to

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that, when I presume the Attorney-General

finishes, he will say a word, he will have to make a motion, to refer

this to a committee. I note in May's

rules of the House, at page 640, where it deals with the addition to

committees of members or discharge of members from select standing

committees that, in later years, in the House of Commons in England,

they've made a practice of adding members to a committee or

substituting members to a committee without bringing it before the

House and without notice. In other words, the committee meets and makes

the changes by agreement, presumably of the committee, it appears from

a note that I have of something that happened in 1938-39 in the Journals

of the British House. It seems to me that, without the protraction of

the business of the House, the committee of selection that we appointed

in this House, could well make a few substitutions, when it is the

subject of such technical interest to certain people in this House.

Some have the competence in the field and are not on this committee — Members, like the lady Minister from Little Mountain, who should be on

this committee, because of the work she's been doing in this field. I

know, on our side of the House, a number of people, as the Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano pointed out, who really should be on that

committee or else there should be a committee of those people who are

particularly informed particularly informed on this subject or

interested in it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

we certainly will support this bill and, as a necessary companion to

the previous bill which is being referred to committee, I can

understand the reason for the changes which are being made in the

attachment of debts procedure because, if anything, it's worked a

terrible hardship, our present law, upon those people who are entitled

to benefits under other Statutes. I'm shocked and disturbed to hear the

Member from Vancouver East praising the

section which relieves the

working man from being fired because, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker,

in my experience, the working man pays his bills. The trouble you have

is with the sort of fly-by-night and the workers in… (interruption) .

Well, yes, you're right. There are some there. The responsible working

man in our communities is not the one who gives us the difficulty. I

think it behooves the members of the commercial community to take note

of the changes which are being made in this legislation because what is

happening with regard to many people who have credit extended to them

the old law is shifting from "Let the buyer beware," to "Let the seller

beware." I think that this is very appropriate legislation in this

regard because, it seems to me, that sometimes credit is too freely

granted. It is the responsibility of the person who grants the credit

to make certain that the proper collection of the indebtedness will be

forthcoming in the proper way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before the Attorney-General

closes the debate, may I call the honourable Members' attention to

Standing Order No. 69, which has to do with the composition of

committees? "… in the case of members proposed to be added or

substituted, after the first appointment of the committee, a new notice

shall be given including the names of the members proposed to be added

or substituted." Under the circumstances, of course, a notice of motion

would be required without the necessity of consent by the House.

The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, there are two points that have

been raised in the course of this debate, which I would like to reply

to. First, the Honourable Member for Kootenay — I want to assure him

that I'm never reluctant to give him credit and I've done so on a

number of occasions in this House because I feel he needs all the

credit he can get in this respect. I want to tell him this, Mr. Speaker

(interruption) . I want to tell

him this that the reason for such a difference between his provision on

this question and the provision that you find in this bill, which is

now the subject of debate, is the fact that, when we drafted this

provision, this bill was not even printed. We hadn't seen it. That's

why. I've just checked, as well, with legislative counsel on this

point, so let's be very clear about it. That's the reason why our

provision is so different from yours in terms of making it an offense,

etc. So, as I say, I'm never reluctant to give the honourable Member

credit when he deserves it.

Now, on the question of committees, Mr. Speaker (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PETERSON: There are many other points in this bill,

which, I think the honourable Members will agree, are major changes. It

hasn't been easy to shift to the percentage basis, in terms of

determining what the percentage should be in each case and, therefore,

we weren't in a position to bring it in any earlier. I can assure you

there were no intentional delays in bringing this bill in. If the

Members feel that it's impossible to do justice to it, at this Session

before the committee, then, that's a matter for the committee to

determine. I feel that it would be useful to have this bill dealt with

by the same committee that is dealing with the other bills on the

Family Courts, but that will be a matter for the committee to determine.

I can assure the honourable Members that, at the time the committees

were established, it was not known by anyone, including myself, that we

would have this bill completed for this Session and going before this

committee. So, we weren't keeping any information from the other

Members of the House, Mr. Speaker. I move the bill be now read a second

time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 74 read a second time and Ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education.

[ Page 747 ]

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 75,

An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 75, is

An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act .

I think the explanatory notes are sufficient in explanation of the

sections, most of which have resulted from recommendations of the

judges of the Small Claims Court and persons involved in practise

before those Courts. The other provision, of course, is the removal of

the garnishee proceedings, that were included in this special act, and

that the garnishee proceedings, in the future, would be governed by the

Attachment of Debts Act . I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, we certainly

approve the bill in principle. We rather wish, along with the other

bills, that it had been sent to that committee a little earlier. I am

on that committee and we do hope that these three bills will establish

something new in this House.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'm very

happy to see that these two specific amendments dealing with service

ex-jurists and also dealing with third party proceedings have come into

the Small Claims Courts. For the life of me, I can't really understand

why they haven't come in years ago because there hasn't been legal

consistency with the jurisdiction of that Court insofar as these two

points are concerned.

There is one item, Mr. Speaker, that gives me some degree of worry about this bill. I still don't quite think that the Small Claims Act

goes far enough. When I first was elected to this House, I advocated an

increase in the jurisdiction to $200 and I think that came in and, now,

it's up to $500. It started with your predecessor and, I believe, you,

Mr. Attorney-General, had one kick at the can insofar as increasing the

dollar jurisdiction of the Court, but I don't think for one minute that

today a jurisdiction of $1,000 for the Small Claims Court would be

untoward. The value of the dollar has very much diminished and I think

the general public has exhibited a far greater desire over the past few

years for what I'd call "legal independence." I think the Small Claims

Court provides a procedure that is simple and is quick and there's next

to no red tape. The people aren't burdened with the time and problems

of the exchange of pleadings. There is not any need for examinations

for discovery, which is the question and answer period before an

official Court reporter, prior to the trial. No end of cases…and the

Attorney-General would probably have some figure on this. I don't…or

his Department would. I would assume that the majority of cases that

come before the Small Claims Courts are no-contest cases. Picking a

figure out of thin air, I guess that about 70 or 80 per cent are

no-contest cases and end up being default judgements. I'm probably not

too far out in that figure. So it would seem to me that this would

provide, once again, a less expensive and a less troublesome vehicle

for the general public if they could go to this Court by themselves,

without the necessity for legal or professional intervention, with the

type of do-it-yourself law to provide exactly the same kind of remedy

which they can receive through default provisions in the Supreme Court

or in the County Court. I would put my hands on the crystal ball, to an

extent, Mr. Speaker, and I would guess that we will see an amendment

coming in next year to increase the jurisdiction of this Court. I

rather believe that you'll find the jurisdiction of the Small Claims

Courts in the Province increases, year after year up, to say a figure

of $3 or $4 or $5,000 because, if the general public are capable of

handling and wish, shall I say, to take the risk of handling their own

claims, perhaps they should be entitled to do it. We do know that they

do have the opportunity to proceed by themselves in the Superior Courts

of the land but, on the whole, it's a very unwise procedure usually for

them to take, by virtue of the complexities of the rules of evidence. I

do feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Small Debts Court essentially covers

itself with liquidated claims with not any contest. Let's open the door

wider than it is open, and I would say, at least, by 100 per cent, and

increase the jurisdiction to $1,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary minded, no. The motion is carried.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: …on the advisability….

MR. SPEAKER: There's no debate nor amendments to that motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the advisability of reference to that Committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion has been made that the bill be

referred to committee. The debate must take place during the second

reading, as I tried to explain earlier. The question is that the bill

be referred.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 75 read a second time and Ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 76,

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act . The Honourable the Minister of Commercial Transport.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, the

purpose of this bill is to set out more clearly the guidelines in

relation to the overloading and the oversize loads on commercial

trucks. It also sets out the maximum fine, plus a penalty, which can be

imposed depending on the excess of weight which is carried over the

allowable amount.

[ Page 748 ]

Along with that, it prescribes a minimum fine and penalty and has to

do with the setting out, by way of regulation, the weight-to-horsepower

ratio for commercial vehicles and authorizes the Minister, with the

concurrence of the Minister of Highways, to enter into agreements where

companies are using roads which they have built and the public has

taken over and, in this way, sets a license fee accordingly.

It also extends the privileges to the regional districts on the same

basis of a municipality, in relation to licensing. I think that pretty

well covers the…. It's a proclamation bill and will come in

progressively, once passed. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, on this bill, where there are

penalties for overloading, and if there's damage done, we'll say to a

road, due to the overloading and that the Highways Department has got

to repair that road, is there any way of being able to recuperate the

losses that would be involved?

When you stated that it was giving the same authority to the

regional districts in licensing as to the municipalities, well, would

this mean that, in the regional districts where there are

municipalities, that it would be a double licensing set-up or does the

regional district cover the whole area and let the municipality out as

far as being able to license the vehicles? This is something because,

if it gives a double right, I mean, if the municipality has the right,

and the regional district has the right, and the Provincial Government

has the right, it gets pretty costly in this regard. I just wondered if

that is what you mean by it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

MR. RICHTER: In relation to the damage done, the penalty

section is a means of deterring people from excessively loading. There

is no provision within the Commercial Transport Act

to assess the damages that may be caused on the highway although I

believe there are some provisions within the Highways Department for

damage. This could be in any number of ways — cattle, vehicles with

hard tires and so on, going over the highways when it's excessively

warm or something like this and ridging them. I believe there is

provision within that act, but not within the Commercial Transport Act .

Now, in relation to licenses, we're talking about the $2 licenses

for municipal vehicles and, where a regional district has vehicles, the

$2 licensing factor… (interruption) .

No, no. If a regional district wishes to acquire a Provincial license

for their vehicle, then, they'd get it for $2. This provision wasn't

there before. A municipality can do this now. I move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 76 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 77, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 77,

An Act to Amend the Provincial Court Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: This bill, Mr. Speaker, contains certain

amendments to the Provincial Court Act . I think the explanatory notes

are sufficient to describe the changes that are being made, unless

there are specific questions from the honourable Members. I move the

Bill be now read a second time.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the bill is an improvement so

far as the Judicial Council is concerned, but it doesn't really say

that the Judicial Council's proceedings in respect to an infraction

alleged to have been committed by a judge, which might lead to his

resignation or retirement, should be in public. I still take the

position that these enquiries should be in public. At the moment, the

council would still have the powers to close the door to press or

public and I don't think that should be the case. I think it should be

spelled out in all of our Court proceedings that they shall be

conducted by the light of day, with the few exceptions which are known

to the law, such as the case of an infant, or the case of a

particularly sexual nature, where the judge has the discretion.

You have given the council now the power to subpoena witnesses and I

understand this was said to be the cause why the previous enquiry was

held in camera. But correcting that still means they can close the

doors, Mr. Attorney-General, and I say that's very bad practice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: I welcome the change here that permits this type

of action by a Judicial Council with the powers of the public enquiry

and I agree with the honourable Member who has just spoken. I point out

that one of the difficulties that appears to have occurred in one

previous experience relating to a judge was that the public has been

left with question marks as to what went on in that enquiry and

whether, indeed, the judge was properly before the Judicial Council and

whether its deliberations and its recommendations to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council were valid ones, in the light of a

statement made by the Attorney-General afterwards to the effect that

the judge, who was the subject of this hearing, had not been shown to

have done anything wrong in his judicial duties. It makes you wonder,

if you're a member of the public, what in the world went on in that

secret Star Chamber. It's… (interruption) . Well, it is a Star Chamber,

if it's in secret.

AN HON. MEMBER: But nothing went wrong.

MR. DOWDING: If nothing went wrong, so far as this man and

his conduct on the Bench, then, this is something the public has a

right to consider — that it was held in secret in the same fashion that

was abolished in England when Star Chamber was abolished. Now, another

serious aspect of it, I note, in one newspaper of the time, when this

matter was before the Judicial Council, statements to the effect that

there had been tape recordings made of conversations on the telephone

that amounted to eavesdropping on those conversations of this judge,

who was the subject of this enquiry.

[ Page 749 ]

There has never been any public statement as to whether this was

true or not and, of course, if you have a closed hearing, then, you are

indeed compounding the evil of the Star-Chamber method of trial by

using eavesdropping as a method of producing evidence, of not allowing

the public to know whether that evidence was accepted or acceptable, or

whether the procedure by which it was obtained was proper, and it casts

a cloud over the functions of the Attorney-General's office and the

functions of the Judicial Council to have this sort of hugger-mugger

proceedings, as one Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada called

a similar proceedings, relating to immigration, once. I suggest that

the Attorney-General, before this comes to committee stage, give some

thought to requiring that, in this bill, there also be a provision that

all proceedings be held in public, say, where the Judicial Council is

empowered, within its discretion, in a proper case, to hold proceedings

in camera. I would suggest that the examples of where cases should be

held in camera, in our law and under our Court system, are almost so

minute as to be almost nonexistent. I can think of cases in ordinary

Courts where, out of some sense of delicacy, a judge will not want to

subject a very young child or girl to the full glare of publicity

relating to some offense practised upon her. That I can understand. But

the idea that we practice these cases in private is dangerous under our

form of law. I think that the public is entitled to know because

sometimes the public can come forward and lend a little light to a

proceeding that is in Court, if they know about what's going on in

Court. To hold it behind closed doors, locked doors, without the press

and without members of the public being entitled to attend, would be

like holding the legislative Sessions in secrecy.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the honourable Member has gone well into

the matter. He's discussing a principle which is not contained in the

bill, in any instance. The Honourable the Attorney-General will close

the debate.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to reply to the

remarks of the two members of the legal profession who have addressed

themselves to the principle in this bill.

First of all, I want to disassociate myself completely with the

remarks of the honourable Member who has just taken his seat,

suggesting and alleging that the hearings of the Judicial Council are

Star Chamber proceedings. There is no foundation for such allegations

at all. I'm amazed that these two members of the legal profession, when

they're talking about public hearings, in this instance…. I wonder

whether they support public hearings when allegations of misconduct are

made against them and the matter comes up for determination under the

Law Society. I wonder whether they would call those Star Chamber

proceedings, when complaints are made against an individual member. You

say those should all be heard in public, as well?

I want to make it very clear that, as far as I am concerned, I would

hope that most of the proceedings… (interruption) . Well, they're not

at the present time, but I've never heard these honourable Members

speak on that subject before but, now, that we have a very competent

Judicial Council… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PETERSON: …strongly represented, on which we have

representatives of labour, laymen, as well as members of the judiciary

and, then, to come along and suggest that these are Star Chamber

proceedings, Mr. Speaker, there is no foundation in fact. I want to

repudiate these allegations completely.

Mr. Speaker, I might say this that I would hope that the Judicial

Council in the exercise of its discretion, a discretion which I submit

it should have, would hold the hearings in public, in most instances.

There are circumstances, I'm sure, without going into detail, which

could arise where it would not be in the interest to have all of the

proceedings in public. The reason why this last enquiry, the first

enquiry and last so far, was not in public was, simply, because of the

fact that the Judicial Council did not have the authority to subpoena

witnesses. They had decided, as a matter of fact, to hold the enquiry

in public but then counsel for the judge in question indicated that it

would not be possible to have certain witnesses attend, if this were

done, because there was no power in the Judicial Council to subpoena

witnesses. That's the intent of this particular amendment — to give

that authority to the Judicial Council so that it, therefore, would not

be met by this allegation when next it is called upon to enquire into

matters. I move the bill be read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 77 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 80, Ecological Reserves Act . The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, on two

occasions now, I have spoken about the fact that we are establishing

ecological reserves throughout the Province. This started as an

effective project to honour our Canadian Centennial in 1967, when it

was determined that the project across Canada was that ecological

reserves would be established in various parts of the Nation. The

actual enthusiasm for establishing these reserves and, of course, the

Province, which has the greatest range of conditions throughout its

length and breadth, is the Province of British Columbia and, therefore,

a greater number of these reserves are required to be established for

basic study purposes now, and into the future.

As I've indicated, in speaking to the Legislature before, it is our

hope to establish at least one hundred ecological reserves in the

Province. They are being handled, basically, as a study function with

the cooperation of the Lands Branch, but most of the study work is

being carried out by the University of British Columbia, at the present

time, and Dr. V. Krajina is the person who has been largely responsible

for developing the programme which we have at the moment.

I think the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, is self-explanatory and I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: We, in looking at this bill, realize in some ways

that it's a further step in terms of the actions first taken and I

think there were some 20-odd park reserves already established. We see

it, too, in terms of principle, Mr. Speaker, as perhaps the beginnings

of a living laboratory, I think

[ Page 750 ]

would be a useful expression to use, and that it should be tied, in

some way, to the whole question of land use and the environment and

indeed with pollution. If it's a laboratory as indeed I think it's fair

to say it is, a living laboratory, then, that information, of course,

has got to flow through to the other departments and to the committee

that is the subject of another bill.

I think, too, that it's time that the Government brought some of

these things together and for that reason I will be proposing, Mr.

Speaker, some amendments on this bill which perhaps would give it some

greater importance than that which I think it has received already in

the public eye. I want to suggest that, whilst this is the kind of

administrative bill that the Minister is famous for, and we

congratulate him for his efficiency in that regard, it's not really

doing very much in terms of promoting and exciting people about our

battle against pollution. We want, I think, on this side of the House

perhaps to help the Minister become somewhat more exciting, if not

excitable.

I think one of the ways we can do it is to look at what other

jurisdictions are doing. For instance, in Washington, I have photostats

from not only our library but also from the States themselves of the

way that they're enlisting aid and support on the principle of what

this bill is simply saying. When they set up an ecology commission and

environmental committee, they don't just leave it to those very

efficient but, somewhat faceless, technical people who I respect and

admire just as the Minister does but, instead, they give it some

political pizzazz, some meaningful swing, so the people know what's

going on and if there is one thing perhaps the Minister could learn it

is those techniques.

I notice, for instance, Mr. Speaker, that when the State of

Washington sets up one of these environmental control programmes, they

say, for instance, that there shall be one member who is a

representative of organized labour that has something to do with this

thing, that one member shall be a representative of the business

community, that there should be one member who is a representative of

the agricultural community and that there be four ordinary people

involved in the kind of decision-making that so often we find in these

Statutes are reserved simply and solely to the Minister. One thing

we've noticed is that the Minister has an incredible amount of

responsibility and I think that that responsibility can be shared. Not

only that, but they go further and they say that, true, there should be

technical people and they refer to a number of departments — agriculture, commerce and economic development, fisheries, game,

health, natural resources and the parks and recreation. They, too, have

a part to play in the formation of environmental and ecological

programmes and defenses and, in short, they have mounted, in the State

of Washington, the kind of environmental crusade that can well be

described…as an example, two of the parks. Now, that's not to

say, if I may perhaps anticipate the Minister's reply, that they're not

as polluted as we are, that they're not in either good or bad shape,

that they're not making mistakes. What it does mean is that, when they

want to get the people aroused, they seem to have an affinity and

ability to do it that somewhat escapes us here.

One of the reasons they're able to do that is that they make sure

that not only are the actions of their department in setting up these

boards and reserves and areas together with their pollution control

mechanisms, but they ensure that they're open to public scrutiny, to

public change, to public pressure. I think, in the estimates, we

canvassed that subject fairly thoroughly, in which we suggested that

the people should always have a right to challenge the decisions that

are made in terms of pollution control and so on by use of the Courts.

Here we're suggesting, if you like, the other side of the coin, that

the people in the Province should be concerned and involved in the

decision-making process.

Let's go on to the actual main principle of the bill which, simply,

as the Minister says is explained in the note, is to set up a minimum

of a hundred, hopefully, by 1975, ecological reserves which, as I say,

could well be described as living laboratories. The one thing that I

feel is missing in the act, Mr. Speaker, in closing the remarks on

second reading, is that we feel that these ecological reserves are so

important that, once established, they should only be changed by

an act

of the Legislature and not by ministerial decree.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, we

also support this bill and welcome it. I think it's formalizing what is

actually taking place already and we're very glad to see it. I would

also associate myself with some of the remarks of the speaker who has

just sat down and add, perhaps, two or three questions of my own.

The subject matter here is obviously very closely associated with

another department of the Government — Recreation and Conservation and

Parks — where there is a Minister who is specifically charged with the

responsibility for conservation. So it seems strange to me, Mr.

Speaker, that this particular subject is put into the responsibility of

the Minister of Lands and Forests, whose primary responsibility, which

he performs very well — I think everyone agrees with this — but he

performs the major responsibility of managing the forests and cutting

down the trees to the greatest profit of British Columbia. That is not

the purpose of this bill. It's an ecological reserve. It's to separate

certain specific areas from the forests and the other areas of the

Province. I would like to see very much the Minister responsible for

this whose major responsibility is conservation and that, I think, is

the great weakness of the principle of this bill. It would appear that

we have, in effect, another conflict of interest within this department.

Being a little more specific, if I may, at this point, Mr. Speaker,

I noticed in the

definitions that are given of the various types of

ecological reserves — the ecosystems and so on — virtually no reference

is made to water. It says a good deal about soil and climate and that

sort of thing but I can visualize perhaps some of the most important

ecosystems that might be found within the Province being almost

entirely consisting of water, or very largely. It seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, the bill could be improved perhaps by some specific reference

to water as a habitat. It certainly is a very important habitat in

British Columbia, as well as the land and the forests and the other

areas.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am agreeing with my predecessor in this

debate. I note with disappointment the ease with which an ecological

reserve can be destroyed just by a scratch of the pen. "The Lord giveth

and the Lord taketh away," with no reference to anyone else. I would

wish it were very difficult to cancel or destroy such a reserve once it

were established. Perhaps reference to the Legislative Assembly, at the

very least, to some sort of public hearing, a public board, perhaps, a

public hearing under the auspices of the Land Use and Environment

Committee, which is to be established…. I think all of us, knowing the

past record of the Government

[ Page 751 ]

and, particularly, of this department, would feel a great deal more confident if this kind of safeguard were included.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the problem that will be faced in

dealing with setting aside ecological reserves is that it's again put

in the hands of three or more Members of the Cabinet. I'm beginning to

wonder how these people could hold public enquiries around the Province

and take the detailed time that would be necessary to make sure that

they had obtained all the points of view on the subject from the

different activities that are involved in the use of land and the

setting aside of land. The three Members of the Cabinet, in effect,

become the committee — it may be three or more it says.

I think it would have been better perhaps to have considered a

committee made up of distinguished citizens. We appoint them when we're

on a Royal Commission or a public enquiry. Very often, they are three

distinguished citizens of the Province, who have the time, if they were

selected carefully, to do a real study throughout the Province and,

then, make their recommendations to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Instead of burdening the already overburdened Ministers of the Crown,

and I can imagine immediately who would be the Ministers on the spot — it would be the Minister piloting this bill; it would be the Minister

for Recreation, it would be the Minister, perhaps, for Mines. I can see

those three Ministers being burdened once more with another job. That

is the kind of overburdening we don't want to get if this job is to do

done properly.

I don't think that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be

consulted, so, don't look hopeful. There's not a chance but, so far as

the other Ministers are concerned, they'll be once again charged with

the problem of solving this along with all the other committees that

they serve on. I wish the Minister would give some thought to a

different way of bringing this matter before the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, a different way, once the decisions are made on these

reserves, of retaining them because the way this is worked out is just

the way this Government works everything out — on a political basis.

It's always the politicians who make these decisions that affect the

wellbeing of industries, of farmland, of farmers, of different areas of

the Province, of competing industries in the Province. All these are

settled by a bunch of politicians moving around us listening to

competing claims. It's the sort of thing that should have some

independent group, or an independent commission, doing. I think, before

any changes are, then, made from these reserves, that it should come

before a committee of this House for our determination.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, this bill is good, but it's not

good enough. We heard the Minister of Lands and Water Resources a year

or two ago, when the matter of the Skagit was being discussed say,

"Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that term, 'ecology."' Here we do

have a definition under lb: "ecology" means the study of the

inter-relations between man or other animals or plants and their

environment, and ecological has a similar meaning. At least, we've got

it down in the

definitions. But I agree with the previous speakers who

have said that, now, surely, changes of this nature should be referred

to this Assembly. I think that is only right.

I believe this bill should be expanded in

section 2, so that it

would read, "Section 2: the purpose of this act is to reserve Crown

land for ecological purposes," instead of including, "encompassing the

entire Province." Then, if this were the case, Mr. Speaker, situations

as many people now have great reason to regret — such as the flooding

of the Skagit Valley, the mistakes we made in the Columbia, the

building of Bennett Dam and the flooding of Williston Lake area — had

we had this type of legislation that would refer such changes in the

ecology of these areas I have referred to, then, these matters would

have come before this House. Not a single one of them came before this

Assembly. It was decided by the Cabinet, possibly, by one or two

Members of the Cabinet. They were allowed to amend treaties or go along

with treaties. When we have large valleys flooded as certainly is the

case, many valleys in the case of Williston Lake, it could change the

entire ecology of the whole northern part of British Columbia. For that

reason I say that this legislation is good. It's a start but it's too

little, too late. It's not good enough, not big enough.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): In my opinion, this bill will be

hailed as one of the great landmarks in environment and ecology of our

country. Everyone here knows that, and if we read our history, we know

that when the Magna Carta was established it was not considered of any

great importance. But as the years have moved on, it has now become

recognized as a great landmark for the common man in the law of all the

Western world. Such a thing is represented here in the ecologies of our

Province of British Columbia. I'm sure this bill will be a standard for

the rest of Canada and perhaps for the continent.

One thing that we have to consider, above all, as the years go on,

is the importance of maintaining the environment of our country for the

future. It was not long ago that, if we had mentioned the importance of

considering ecology and environment, people would have said, "How could

you destroy so great a thing as the whole world?" We came to the point

where this had become tragically within the realms of possibility and I

compliment the Minister and the Government on having the foresight

enough to meet this challenge, at a time long before it's necessary, to

lay the pattern, the framework and the architectural design for the

future of this very important matter which, to us, is life itself.

It would be very easy for us to say there is plenty of time, but I

congratulate the Government in moving at a time like this before we

recognize it as a demanding need. We have established this area and

have made the future safe for our Province and I think perhaps safe for

the world. We may not realize it, but there are few countries in the

world that recognize the question of environment and ecology. In the

Old World, it's practically unheard of. In the United States, they're

just talking about it but in British Columbia, I say, with pride, that

in British Columbia we're doing something about it. I… (interruption) . Yes, we all talk about other countries and we say they

are doing well, and they are. But I say that British Columbia is in the

vanguard of all these matters and British Columbia moves forward more

quickly in these matters than any other Province or State in this

country. Forever, we hear, as we've heard today the question

[ Page 752 ]

of the Skagit Valley, and this is not the time to debate it. But the

importance of the issues is not the little pinpricks you look for.

There are bound to be pinpricks everywhere. Nothing is perfect but, if

we ask for perfection, we have a design here that will create more

perfection for the future than has ever been done in matters of ecology

up to this time, in time. I congratulate the Minister for having the

foresight and the courage to come forward with a bill of this magnitude

— and of great magnitude it is. It seems so innocuous but matters of

great importance appear innocuous when they come, because they're too

big to be comprehended. I am honoured to be in this Legislature at a

time when a bill of this magnitude comes forward, when we can say that

we started on this day the future of the clean environment for this

Province and perhaps for the continent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the

previous speaker about the wonderful day we're starting but, no matter

how good a law you may put into effect, it's the will and the desire

and the determination to do something with the law that will count.

This is very important in the Province of British Columbia. I don't

know on this Ecological Reserves Act what it's doing in the Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources Department because it should be in the

Department of Recreation and Conservation. When you speak of

conservation, that's what it's all about. I don't know why we put it in

this act where the Minister has definitely got a conflict of interest

between one and the other. If you go around at public hearings, what is

this going to do? You're just going to balance one against the other

whereas, if somebody were dealing particularly with the ecological

values and the conservation values, then, they would be able to discuss

this problem from that angle. It seems to me that your department may

in this bill,…and that may need a lot of researchers and people who

are experts in regards to keeping our environment the way we would like

it to be kept. I take it that, with this bill, if somebody is going to

develop a mine, it would be the job to come under this act, when they

issue their plans, so that you would know beforehand what damage it's

going to do ecologically to the area where that mine's developed. We've

got many places today where they're stripping right and left, the

terrain and the ecology of the areas, and we do nothing about it. We

wait until they have got to the point of spending, maybe, millions of

dollars, and then we find out, all of a sudden, that it shouldn't have

been gone ahead with, for the simple reason that it's going to destroy

the area around it, and the lakes and the streams around it and, yet,

we do nothing about it.

We talked about the strip mining a few years ago in the same

category that we're talking about this Ecological Reserve Act today and

what a wonderful step it was. Yet, I get a letter today and I'd like to

just read this letter. To the Pollution Control. "Dear Sirs: I'm

writing to you to see if anything can be done about the terrible

pollution of the Elk River. It was very bad about a month ago but, at

that time, there was a very mild spell with considerable run-offs. It

might have been, at least, partly excusable; however, at present the

nights are very cold, there's very little thawing during the day and

run-off is negligible. For the last four days the river at Fernie had

been running thick with black slime with the shores coated with the

same material, being as much as one quarter of an inch thick on the

rocks in some places. I presume this pollution is coming from the

Kaiser operation as there's too much to come from anywhere else. Any

action you can take on this matter would be very much appreciated."

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with the principle of the bill?

MR. NIMSICK: It's got plenty to do with the principle of the

bill because, I say, these are the things…the ecological value….

What's the good of the bill if it's not going to look after the ecology

of the land? Knowing what damage is going to be done, there's no use

setting aside and reserving an area as an ecological area and, then,

right alongside it, you're destroying the stream that's going through

the ecological area with an industry above it. It's not going to do any

good unless you've got the will to see that the act is put into force

(interruption) . Well, he's talking about it in here, about these

conservancy areas. You wouldn't know…. If you'd like me to inform you,

I'll tell you.

I would like to ask the Minister, in this regard, when they talk

about conservancy areas and that, would that include the few wilderness

areas that have been set up in the Province? Are they considered in the

same light as conservancy areas or would they not come under this bill?

I hope the bill, when it's passed, that the Government actually makes

use of it and not just use it as a palliative to satisfy some of the

people on the outside who are crying for something to be done in

regards to our environmental control.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): One of the most

important commitments that was given to society, the human race, was to

subdue and to populate the earth. We're beginning to subdue it but we

want to unpopulate it apparently. Speaking of the bill, and I certainly

support it, this is not a sudden development. This Government's policy

from 1952 and on has been the emphasis of bring it into subjection to

the people's will. We have continually moved in this direction to

assure the people of play areas. Always, in the park and recreational

areas, focus was upon this area of development for the people, that the

areas would be attractive to them in their leisure time. Now, we are

moving from the exclusive park representation to the fact that all of

the areas should serve man in a natural form, if possible, but that we

shouldn't just identify our needs with parks and recreation. We should

identify the whole of the country in keeping with the desire to keep it

in relative appeasement with human beings and with man. This is the

attitude that we've taken. This is not just a sudden development. This

is an evolution of legislation, right from the park areas, right into

the general area and policy of the Government. I think, to be specific,

to try to write into recreation and conservation all of the ecological

and environmental controls that we want, would be very narrow, very

restricted. Here's an opportunity to move into the whole picture. It

will be most interesting to watch the development out of here, to see

the protection of the people, the population in general, not only in

the cities, but also around the outskirts and throughout the whole

community of British Columbia. This is legislation for the Province as

a whole and I'm very happy to see it.

[ Page 753 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

we, too, will be interested to see how this bill develops. It has a

very fine

preamble and one which we, on this side of the House, have

been urging on the Government for some time. I wonder, Mr. Speaker,

whether or not the Government shouldn't consider what the Honourable

Member for Kootenay has suggested — whether or not the conflict of the

Minister of Lands, as a head of a resource-oriented department, a

department which is specifically charged with the responsibility of the

exploitation of our natural resources, is really the one to charge with

the kind of responsibility which is set out in this art. The act speaks

of areas which are rare or in danger, areas which serve as outstanding

examples of ecosystems — and we applaud the Government in this regard — but, when you look at other sections of the act, you find that one of

the powers that is being given to the Cabinet, in respect of these

areas, is to control the dumping that may take place in these areas.

Already we have seen the rather tragic results of the dumping of waste

substances in areas where they don't belong.

I would rather have thought, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the

preamble to the legislation, that we would have seen provisions in this

act, specific provisions, which would have prohibited, for all times,

the dumping of waste substances into any area which is established as

an ecological area. We don't want to find that rare or endangered areas

in this Province, which should be preserved, being confronted with a

problem and having some equivocation about what should be done. It's

almost as if we were saying that we're interested in our environment

but we're prepared to make adjustments. It's the nature of those

adjustments that gives me concern. I must have this concern, because of

the Minister's other responsibilities. This is no criticism of the

Minister as an individual — and Members of this House are aware of his

concern in matters of this kind — but there is a conflict, a conflict

which can only be resolved by placing these responsibilities in the

hands of one whose sole responsibility is the preservation of our

environment.

The purpose of this, Mr. Speaker, is so that when decisions come

before the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as to how a particular area

may, should, or should not be affected, that we will have a Minister

sitting at the Cabinet table who stands up for the environment, not one

who, because of other responsibilities, is obliged to make some

decision, some choice between exploitation of a resource or

preservation of the environment.

It is noteworthy, as well, that the Minister has power to appoint

advisors under this act. I would have thought that, rather than have

him appointing advisors, we would have had established a committee

spelling out the qualifications of the people who will serve in this

advisory capacity. If the appointment were of a mining engineer or a

petroleum engineer, I would have grave concern as to the quality of the

advice that might be given to the Minister. I would hope that the

Minister, at least in this latter regard, when he closes this debate,

will give some indication of the calibre, the training and the

qualifications of the individual or individuals upon whom he will rely

for advice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I want to support

this bill and, unlike the last speaker, I don't see any conflict. All

of our Ministers have concern for the environment, and who has a

greater range of knowledge of the areas in this Province that need

preservation than the Minister concerned? There are three particular

areas that I think should be considered under this act, Mr. Speaker. We

have here on Vancouver Island the rain forests and we still have a few

stands of the big spruce and I think that should be one of the areas

that should be preserved. They are unique. The second is in parts of

the rain forests, like at Clo-oose, where you have the 18 inches of

moss… (interruption) on the west coast of Vancouver Island, where you

have the moss 18 to 20 inches deep. It's unique and I think it is

something that should be preserved. Thirdly, I believe, some of the

potholes on the west coast at Port Renfrew, that have been of such

interest to people from all over the continent, have not, in the past,

been preserved. I think this should be one of the areas that should be

looked at under this particular act when it comes into force. Certainly

we applaud the approach that is being taken by this particular act and

we're looking forward to these areas being selected and set aside in

perpetuity.

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

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

bill is a very nice piece of window dressing and I'm sure it's going to

reassure everyone who likes window dressing. We'll vote for window

dressing, too, but, Mr. Speaker, really I don't want to refer to the

specifics of the legislation. We've hardly done anything to preserve

ecological reserves when, with one breath, the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council can establish an ecological reserve and, in the next breath,

dismiss it or any portion thereof. Really I reread some of the sections

— three and four — several times because I, literally, couldn't believe

my eyes that a bill that had as little to offer as this would be

seriously brought forward by the Government and, Mr. Speaker,

particularly by the Minister concerned, who has a record of plunder

unmatched by any individual who's ever served the Government of British

Columbia. Places like Cypress Bowl, they undoubtedly would have been an

ecological reserve under this act and they'd have been cancelled and

plundered and perhaps part of it put back in again. I think the history

of Cypress Bowl would very neatly fit into the package of this

particular bill. Set up a reserve one minute, sign the Order-in-Council

deleting it the next, bring back part of it at some future time. This

is the kind of protection that we have in British Columbia, the

protection of that particular Minister, and that's why it leaves so

many of us on the Opposition side quaking in their boots.

Mr. Speaker, I would think, after all these years and the record of

Williston Lake and Duncan Lake and Cypress Bowl and Powder Mountain,

Skagit Valley, this long, sorry record of plunder that, if the

Government wished to reform and repent, that it would do so by bringing

in a bill with some teeth and some meaning.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 80 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 82.

[ Page 754 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 82, Environment and Land Use Act . The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, the ranging debate on the last

bill brought into consideration some of the matters that are contained

within this bill. I really think that there may have been a little bit

of confusion in some of the Members' minds between the two Statutes as

they were debating them here this afternoon.

The first one, and I'm indebted to the contributions that were made

by the Members, at least to the contributions that were positive and

gave some assistance…. One or two were of specific interest and, I

think possibly in the light of the act as it moves, might be widened

and even in the choice of terms, I think, this will become known likely

as the Living Laboratories Act. I'm particularly indebted for those

words to come out because I think that's exactly what it is. It's a

study area, a living laboratory, and once you've said that, I think,

you have made clear some of the other information that was debated.

This Environment and Land Use Act …both of these acts are designed

specifically to bring about public interest and a degree of public

involvement because, as already has been stated in the House, both of

them are matters of actual concern and actual operation at the present

time. To indicate the serious intention of the Government concerning

these matters, it was decided to codify them in Statutes and the

activities and the functions of the Environmental and Land Use

Committee are contained in the Environment and Land Use Act . Really,

Mr. Speaker, this spells out the basic philosophy that, it we are going

to have an environment in British Columbia of which we'll all be proud,

it's going to involve the act of participation of just about everyone

who lives in the Province of British Columbia.

At the present time, environment is something which we've tended to

put in an ivory tower and, then, thought about having a policeman in

the ivory tower to make sure that everybody, in fact, adhered to a

certain group of restrictions and developed a country of which we would

all be proud. We have taken the tack that everyone who is directly

associated with the development of resources, the development of the

physical nature of the country, should be involved as a member of the

Environment Committee and that the attitudes, the principles and,

actually, the activities of the various departments should reflect the

basic policies of environment and land use in their day-to-day

operation. Unless you do this and unless we, as individuals in British

Columbia, as a people and as individuals, make this a matter of our

everyday life, then, we're never going to have the type of environment

that we would wish in the future.

The main feature of this act is that before lands are alienated and

before projects are developed, they shall be subject to public scrutiny

to see if, in fact, they can be established without basic detriment to

the environment. For the first time, public hearings are called for

and, if you will notice, at those public hearings, prior to the public

hearing, an overall investigation of the effects of the proposed

development will have been the subject of study, and that expert

opinion…provision is made for providing expert opinion for carrying

out research in advance of the hearing to make that evidence available

at the public hearing, so the people will have, not only their own

opinions, but expert opinions, at the same time, by which they may

indicate whether they are in favour or not in favour of a development

proceeding and, if this development does proceed, of the basic

precautions which have to be taken by that development as it is carried

out.

In the structuring of the Environment and Land Use Committee, which

becomes the strongest committee of Government, it allows for a

breakdown in committee work from the Cabinet committees to the deputy

committees to the regional committees and, at any level, moving down,

outside representation may be brought into the deliberations of the

particular committees as they carry out their function. As I have

indicated, Mr. Speaker, we have had initial experience with this type

of an organization, now, for the last year, and, as a consequence,

people are talking one thing against the other but they will find that

the basic…the Federal Environmental Bill, that's coming through at

the present time is sitting also at the top…but underneath that is

the Forestry Act , the Water Act , the Fisheries Act and so on. All of

these people sit on this in future as deputy ministers. There is one

overall deputy minister, and assistant deputy ministers represent each

of these departments. So, from an administration point of view, the

groundwork that's been laid, here, administratively, in handling these

matters in an environmental manner, has been practically copied and, as

the Honourable Member from Surrey has said, with a lot more pizzazz

than I happen to possess in getting it out and having it copied from

here as to how it's carried out and how it happens to act. This has

actually been operational and has worked in the year and we think it

deserves codifying in Statute to indicate the seriousness with which we

view the whole matter of environmental development. Again, Mr. Speaker,

this is a simple act. It's self-explanatory and I take pleasure in

moving second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the first point I want to make on the

principle of the bill, of course, is that, in line with some of the

remarks that the Minister has just said, the significant fact is that,

in Bill 80, you provide us with a

preamble dealing with the setting up

of some ecological reserves and, yet, on this piece of legislation,

which could and should and, hopefully, will be the most important

committee, decision-making body and future-effect sort of situation

we've got in the Province, there is no

preamble. If ever a bill needed

a

preamble, it is this one. If ever a bill needed codifying, as the

Minister said, but also nailing down with a

preamble, it's Bill 82.

If you had a

preamble that said that we recognize and declare it to

be the policy of this Province that it's a fundamental and inalienable

right of the people to live in a healthful and pleasant environment and

to benefit from the proper development and use of natural resources, if

you had said that as an opening sentence, you would have put this bill

and your committee on page 1 instead of page 27. It is uppermost in the

minds of the people, instead of something that somehow is in the back

of their minds as to what they are doing. If we'd have said and spelled

out, as you did in Bill 80, in the

preamble thereto, that it is

considered to be highly desirable that we want to regulate this and we

want to look after our natural resources in some manner…. I've got a

number of

preambles that may be of interest to you from other

jurisdictions, which I can read from, but everybody can read anyway and

it is public information.

The fact is that this committee, as the Minister rightly

[ Page 755 ]

says, is going to have the responsibility of evaluating the

development in areas of the Province. When we look at

section 3 of the

bill and look at the duties of the committee, it says that they shall,

"ensure that all aspects of preservation and maintenance of the natural

environment are fully considered in the administration of land use and

resource development commensurate with a maximum beneficial land

use,…"

What I think we've got to look for in this bill and what we have to

look for on this committee is, as I said, last year, and every year

prior to that, to 1967, that what we have to have is a minister or a

committee who has the sheer, unmitigated gall to say no to somebody

every now and again. If we had that, then, I'd feel much more

comfortable. I know the Minister can stand up and say, "Well, it's not

enough to say no." He said it in a speech in October, I think it was,

in which he said that saying no isn't simply enough. I know that the

Minister is trying to be rational about this but, if ever there were a

point in time when, somehow, somewhere, this committee could do a

useful service, it's in simply saying to the developer, at this stage

of the game, "Mr. Developer, this committee says no, because the damage

you wreak, the substances you're going to use, or the social

accountancy that we are now embarked upon, means that we must say no."

I think, by that, that, in itself, you may only have to take one doing,

one instance, that, in itself, is going to make this committee the

muscular kind of committee that we are expecting. Unless this committee

does work in that way, unless it adopts as its credo the principle of

social cost accounting, Mr. Speaker, the living laboratories that we

talk about may become living lavatories and that's something I think we

all want to avoid.

I happen to represent a riding which has the largest sewer in the

world going past the north end of it — the Fraser River and, whilst I

know that we can ask for ecological reserves of trees and all the rest

of it, as soon as somebody comes along with a pick-axe and a shovel, or

whatever is the modern equivalent, and finds any of those precious

minerals, unfortunately, we seem to lose out sense of purpose and we

seem to lose the kind of language we found in Bill 80, which should be

in Bill 82.

Really what I'm saying is that it just simply isn't enough to have

the authority to manage, and that's what this committee's got — the

authority to manage — but they must discharge that authority on a much

more widely-based set of principles than I think we've seen this

Government use heretofore.

I'm impressed with the fact that the Minister, in his earnestness,

is saying that the committee is now the top committee of Government and

is working efficiently and doing the various things that the Minister

reports from time to time. I hope, when he closes the second reading of

this bill, that he will tell us that, on that Committee, he is sure

that there are people with enough intestinal fortitude to say no to one

of the major developers of this Province, one of the major exploiters

of this Province, so that the principle I'm asking for, where every

single cost to the Province is evaluated before the developer permits

are given, is taken into account. Until that happy day arrives, we

must, of course, perhaps only consider them as managers, rather than as

defenders of our environment.

Lastly, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that, whilst I appreciate the point

that the Minister made, that all the descending levels of

administration and decision-making that will underpin this

Environmental Land Use committee, there is access for outside people, I

still feel that, if we could get some outsiders on the committee, that

principle that I'm relating as social cost accounting, that desire I

have to see some real tough decisions made, will perhaps have a better

chance. When I see that other departments of Government, other

jurisdictions are prepared, even in the system they have below the

line, to give some decision-making prior to commissions, I feel that

it's an experiment we can usefully embark upon and an experiment that

should commend itself to the House. When you think of the other

important agencies of Government where there are outside people on them

making important decisions, I'd like the Minister to have a little

trust in some of the people outside his department, as well as the

well-placed trust he has in the people in his department and in other

departments of Government. If he would do that, try it, then, we would

all be the more confident that the dispute that other Members have

referred to, that must take place in the Minister's mind, as a

developer par excellence, by duty, and the conflict of interest that

must take place, when he's on this committee, then, I think that we

would all feel happier that he could discharge that rather

schizophrenic duty much more satisfactorily.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the priority and

urgency given environmental management by this bill. I think we must

regret the length of time that it has taken to produce this kind of

attitude as an official Government policy. Perhaps some of the pressure

from the Opposition and the pressure of public opinion is, finally,

winning a small victory in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the responsibilities and duties as they are spelled out

by this bill, as we read the words — we believe the words — sound very

wonderful. Under

section 3A it says, "…establish and recommend

programmes designed to foster increased public concern and

awareness…." I would say up to this point, Mr. Speaker, the public

awareness and concern has been greater than that of the Government. Now

that they are putting this in, as an official responsibility and

policy, perhaps the Minister will follow the suggestions I made in the

debate last week in his own estimates. Perhaps, the Pollution Control

Board or the Minister's department might, specifically, provide a

public information programme for the general public as to how each

person, individually, can make his contribution to the problem of

pollution and pollution control.

Reading on to the second part of

section 3 and this is, perhaps, the

real meat of the bill, "preservation and maintenance of the natural

environment." Mr. Speaker, it says only, "preserve and maintain." Those

words do not even consider the problems that we already have, the

programmes and the mistakes that are already underway. It doesn't say

anything about cleaning those up, or improving them, or restoring the

environment, it just says, "preserve and maintain." We've got a lot of

problems already. The Minister has already referred to, perhaps, the

mistakes of Utah. We've got the pulp mill problems around the Province.

We've got the problems of strip mining. They're already created and

were referred to earlier by the Member from Kootenay. We've got the

problems of the routing of the PGE in northern British Columbia going

through park reserves, going along the waterfront, destroying potential

future environment, recrea-

[ Page 756 ]

tional areas. All of these problems are with us now. Certainly this

machinery, theoretically, on paper, won't allow those problems to

happen again or I hope it won't.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister might include in the

words of this bill in the responsibility and the duties of this

committee, not only "…to preserve and maintain" but, also "…to

restore to original standards."

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia will be watching to see if these words are anything more than just words.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, again, I wish to say, in regards to

this bill, that I feel that it should have come under the Department of

Recreation and Conservation, not that the Minister has got, maybe, any

more ability but, at least, he is free from the influences of the

resource industries of the Province. This committee that you're setting

up — if it's the committee that you had before — you've got the

Minister of Mines, the Minister of Lands and Forests and the Minister

of Recreation and Conservation and, also, I believe, the Minister of

Health. To me it's a two-to-one committee almost before it starts

because it will depend on the strongest influence and, under the

economic system that we operate on, based on greed, I look for very

little out of such fine legislation — and I do think it's good

legislation (interruption) . I said the economic system that we operate

under. I've advocated for years that we change that from greed to

co-operation but nobody has got wind of it, yet, really, to realize the

situation that we're in.

It's easy to put these on the Statute books and placate the public

outside but, unless we have the determination to do something about

it…and don't forget when you get out there and you say that you're

going to have public hearings, who are going to be the strongest

voices? It will be the people who are in industry, who are doing the

polluting today. They are going to be the strongest voices. All they

need to say is, "Well, if you make us do this, we'll have to close

down." You'll have it right down to the worker crying, "Don't do this."

So, where do you end up? You end up right where you are today — doing

nothing and the Land Use Committee has been in force for a while

already.

In my area, alone, when I first moved into Kimberley, Mark Creek was

clear. Then the phosphate plant was put in. Then the steel plant was

put in. I used to take people, when I first came there, down to look at

the Mark Creek Falls. I was ashamed to take them down there after that

because there was nothing but a black mass coming over the Falls.

There's been nothing outside of it. They've controlled the gypsum, at

the present time. They've gone to the extent of pounding the gypsum but

the overflow is still there. Mark Creek is still contaminated. St.

Mary's River is a sick river. Then it goes into the Kootenay and

pollutes that. Now, we've got the pulp mill and it's polluting the

Kootenay River and, at the other end, we've got the coal mines. There's

a coal mine going to be developed down on the Flathead country. There's

been no effort made to find out what this is going to do to the

ecology, no effort at all to find out what it's going to do. They allow

them to go ahead and I say that this is wrong. If we're going to do the

job right, we've got to make these plants recycle the water that

they're polluting. That's the only way you're going to do it. This is

one of the first moves that we should make — the water that's being

dumped into the Elk River and dumped into the Mark Creek and dumped

into the Kootenay River should be recycled for further use because,

when you take millions of gallons of water and dump it into a small

creek like Mark Creek, and it goes in the St. Mary's River, it doesn't

take long to pollute it. If we are not going to use the recycling

system and, I know, "It's probably the company," you will say, "it's

too costly for them to do." But, it's got to be done if we are going to

bring back any of these areas. All those rivers and creeks that come

under these industries, are being polluted today, just since I came to

Kimberley. They were all clear before.

They have made an application to dump the tailings into the Slocan

Lake now. What have you done there? When you go from Salmo towards the

line and see that huge pile of tailings, when you go from Princeton and

see the pile of tailings that comes out of the Copper Mountain Mines

and just realize that, when you put that into a bottom of a lake, a

bottom of not-too-large a lake and realize what's going to happen to

that lake…. That's what's happening if you allow this permit. I don't

know whether you've allowed it yet or not — into the Slocan Lake, but

that's exactly what's going to happen there.

This bill here should be…if you're going to make use of it and

make it work, then, I say that we've got to put more teeth into it. One

of the questions that you've got to ask yourself is can you continue

using the water just once and dump it into the river or into the creek?

We've got to go to some sort of recycling of water, if we're going to

solve any of these problems at all because the more industries that are

set up along these lakes and along these rivers and creeks, the more

that are set up, they're using the water, the next one's using the

water and all the whole area. Mark Creek, itself, has no water running

down it in the summertime, because it's all being used by the city of

Kimberley and by the Cominco, the mine. They've even got to pump water

back from the St. Mary's River to have enough water. So it's all dumped

and only you….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we come to the principle of this bill?

MR. NIMSICK: I say that, in this Environment and Land Use

Act , if you're going to try to bring back the environment or even…I

don't agree that we can say that we're going to maintain the

environment. We've got to bring it back, if we're going to recuperate

any of our losses today. Unless this is just another, as I said before,

method of placating the public, I'm still dubious as to whether

anything really will be done. This Government has been in 17 years and

it took them until this time to do this. I don't expect them to get any

urgency now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen.

MR. NIMSICK: Oh, 19 years. I'm not looking for them to be any

more anxious and, probably less, because old people, old men, an old

Government, has less anxiety and less energy to put a bill like this

into force.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, this is a

relatively easy bill to speak about, for the simple reason that, when

you start talking about environment, everybody agrees that something

should be done. I don't care whether it's a

[ Page 757 ]

person putting too much oil in their car or whether they're throwing

away gum wrappers or tossing pop bottles away or beer cans or trying to

get rid of packing boxes, all these things are part of the environment

that individuals today seem to take for granted and feel that it's

quite all right to do anything with them.

It's rather a strange thing to me when I hear of people coming from

outside areas that only have a few hundred people talking about

pollution when in the city of Vancouver so much has been done with

regard to pollution. In Vancouver today we have less air pollution and

less water pollution by far than what we had 15 years ago. It's strange

for me to hear the Socialists talking about the Social Credit

Government being greedy and free enterprise being greedy because, if

you want to take the actual common everyday meaning of the word,

socialist, they want to take away everybody's value, anything they have

they want to share it with them. If that's not being greedy, I'd like

to know what is.

Mr. Speaker, in connection with this act, I feel that the most

important thing and the only real important thing in this act, that can

be done, is to foster public concern. Unless you do foster public

concern in the environment and in the land use, you're never going to

get anywhere. Land looks after itself, wilderness looks after itself

and it doesn't change. Instead of getting worse, it just becomes more

beautiful as far as the human being is concerned. It's the individual

that we have to change and the way we go about increasing our standard

of living because it appears that, as we improve our standard of

living, we use more material goods. They have to be processed in

various ways and the result is a lower-class environment and disturbing

the land use. I feel, myself, that, eventually, if we're going to

overcome what we call environmental control, the law will have to be

thoroughly ruthless. I don't see how you're going to overcome this with

public hearings, because public hearings, in the final analysis, always

reach a compromise and they reach the common ground of everybody's

opinion. That's not going to be good enough when it comes down to

changing or improving the environment.

If a committee is going to be lukewarm, it will be useless. I am of

the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we'll have to go back to the simple

things which most of us, at my age, learnt when we were children about

keeping streets clean and keeping their yards and their homes clean,

keeping your person clean. It's a funny thing, today, how people will

change their clothes every day of the week and yet they'll think

nothing about throwing a cigarette butt on the sidewalk. This sort of

thing to me is absolutely contrary to a proper way of living. I think

the Government is to be thoroughly commended on setting up this

Environment and Land Use Act . I hope that it will go a long way towards

improving the environment but, first of all, in order to do that, you

must improve the individual. I think we'll have to start in our schools

and, before that, start with our schoolteachers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard could get together with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. It seems to me, just a year ago, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs was up accusing the teachers of misrepresenting the amount of

pollution that existed in British Columbia. Of course, it's wonderful

to have an Environment and Land Use Act and to have this committee. I

must say, Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that the objectives are just a

little bit twisted around, though, because it says that the programme

should be designed, "…to foster increased public concern and awareness of

the environment." Mr. Speaker, in my experience, the public is aware

and the public is concerned. They're aware of the Minister and they're

concerned about him (interruption) .

Well, what, Mr. Speaker, would the Attorney-General have us do? Try

to educate the public against draining Divide Lake and making a strip

mine out of it in exchange for a couple of boat landings in Lac Le

Jeune? Do we need to get the public disturbed about that? I remember

the editorial in one of the newspapers that said, "Want to buy a lake?"

It was the Minister of Recreation and Conservation who was making the

deal. We don't need to establish public concern about Cypress Bowl. We

just need to get a little concerned about the Minister. As I see the

duty of this committee, if and when it's established, it has to

recommend programmes designed to foster and increase concern of the

Minister and of the Cabinet. They'd be doing a useful function, then,

but as far as the people are concerned, they've been wanting something

done about the environment for years.

I think back on the problems of strip mining. Did we need to stir up

public concern about strip mining, or did we need to stir up a little

concern on the part of the Minister of Mines? Did we need to work up

some public concern about Utah Mining, or some concern in the Cabinet,

that they allowed $35 million to be spent before they ever asked any

questions? Do we need to stir up concern in the Member from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound about Powder Mountain, when it is another logging

operation endorsed by the Minister of Lands and Forests? Do we need to

stir up public concern about Pennask Lake, when you are going to turn

that one to the use of Brenda Mines, Summit Lake for Valley Copper. In

Heaven's name, Mr. Speaker, example after example, we can quote, where

the public has not only been concerned but they've been outraged. A

committee to develop concern in them? How do we find a committee to

develop some concern in the Government? That's why, when a couple of

people out in Burnaby decided something had to be done and they decided

to form this little organization, SPEC, before they knew it they had

thousands and thousands of members in 28 branches. It sprung into life

immediately. What was their purpose? To develop some concern in the

Government! Political? Yes, yes, Mr. Speaker, it was political, because

all the decisions that are wrecking our environment are political

decisions.

I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that the implication of this bill

is, somehow, that the people are at fault for all these decisions — perhaps in being careless in returning a plundering Government to

office once more but I think that, in the public's mind, there are

reasons that over-ride the environment. I consider those even more

regrettable… (interruption) .

Oh, we're going to turf you out as Minister of Recreation and

Conservation because your department is Rec and Con. You would think it

was not possible for another escalation in arrogance but you people

manage it year by year.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister, when he closes the debate,

to give us some indication of how he and the Cabinet are going to be

educated by this committee because, surely, this is where the education

is most needed, where it should commence. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think

the public is aware. I can't recall a single instance of the Government

protecting

[ Page 758 ]

the environment — not one single instance of the Government

protecting the environment when the public has complained, not one.

But, Mr. Speaker, I can think of dozens and dozens and dozens of

examples where the public has complained because the Government has not

protected the environment and, surely, that's the issue. Who are the

ones that need educating — the public or the Government?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, the last thing that you need is a

speech from me, at this time. However, I must speak in this matter

because, to me, this is the most exciting day in the Legislature this

Session. When you have two bills…you see, the only reason you hear

laughing, Mr. Speaker, is because they lack foresight and they have

very poor hindsight. When you have that, that's akin to blindness and

that's exactly the trouble with the Opposition, today. All they're

looking for is for trouble. They never try to forecast the benefits of

these two acts which we are dealing with — Ecological Reserves Act and

Environment and Land Use Act . What the Opposition would have us do is

stop the world, they want to get off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, exactly. You said stop the mining, stop Cypress Bowl, stop dumping effluent in the Fraser River, stop, stop, stop.

The fact of the matter is that this Province is a leading light in

environmental control on the whole of the continent. They heckle me and

they say no. But, let me tell you something a friend of mine who is a

legislator in the State of Hawaii, whom I have known for many years,

asked me and he said, "Please, do it quietly. Send me everything that

you can that your Government is doing on pollution because we recognize

you as leader." I said, "Why don't you ask the Minister." "Well," he

said, "I don't want him to know about it because I want to take all the

credit for it." That's perfectly legitimate. I've been sending him

everything and I'll send him these two, as well.

We have pollution in the Fraser Valley. We have pollution in this

House. Pollution is everywhere, but pollution is life itself. Did you

ever stop to think of that? The Lord said He made the land. He saw the

land and it was good and He asked the people to use it. You know that,

Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Use the land but don't cover it up and

seal it under. There's a good way to stop pollution and that's for

everybody to die. But this right and proper matter is to use the land

properly, to use the rivers properly, to use all our great assets given

by nature properly and we are leading that in British Columbia. We are

in the lead in British Columbia, not backwards, not behind, but in the

lead. I'll tell you one thing. I was at a meeting a few months ago. It

was called by an organization called SPEC and they were having a

meeting to determine the results of their examination of the Fraser

River. They asked me to go. I did go but they never asked me to speak.

I found out it was not an examination of the Fraser River. It was a

beat-George-Mussallem-over-the-head meeting, that's all it was. It

didn't do them any good; it didn't do me any harm. But I want to tell

you the greatest danger to pollution we have in this land is the red

hot environmentalist who doesn't know what he's doing, the big hotshot

who doesn't understand the problems today. They are a danger to our

society and a danger to this country. But this Government is leading

(interruption) . They are wrong — because they don't know what they're

talking about, they're so red hot. The Skagit noise — I never heard so

much nonsense in my life as this trash, complete trash (interruption) .

I am in favour of the flooding of the Skagit, yes, because it's the

proper thing. You'll see, by the time the next Legislature sits, or

three more. You think, "Well, he'll lose a lot of votes on that." I'll

lose no votes on that because it's the truth and the truth never

condemns anyone.

We are for the proper environment of the country. If you people, you

great hotshots, who talk about the mighty Skagit Valley, this beautiful

pearl in the centre of British Columbia, if you'd only had been there

and knew anything about it, you would stop this drivel and nonsense.

The Skagit Valley, when it is flooded and if it is flooded, will be a

jewel in the British Columbia crown. It will be a park, it will be a

camping site, it will be roads, it will be a place where people can go

fishing, a place for life and a place to live.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition continues to tease me. He

said, "George, if you don't stop, I won't go up to your territory and

help you on the next election." But I know he will. He almost spent his

full time there helping me at the last election. Thanks very much.

I say that the ones we should fear the most are the ones who are so

red hot they cannot see for the fire in their face and their wild eyes.

But, for a Government like ours that stands up and faces the ridiculous

nonsense like this and goes on to progressively better legislation,

year by year, disregarding the little fleabites of the Opposition, I

say to you again this is a most exciting day in this Legislature for

me. It is on the level, I believe and you will see this, the level of

the Magna Carta — what could be a greater level? The Magna Carta of its

day was for the people. The Magna Carta of today is ecology — this bill

and the other bill before it (interruption) . They laughed the same way

about the Magna Carta.

Today, is a red-letter day in this Legislature and it's too close to

you for your vision to see because these two great acts…you think

they are small but they are the biggest things that have ever happened

in this Legislature to this date.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Chairman, one thing about

that backbencher, that colleague Member of mine from the north side of

the Fraser River, is that when he talks nonsense, it's humourous

nonsense. One thing about George, the Member from Dewdney, is that….

MR. MUSSALLEM: I don't need your help.

MR. BARRETT: I know you don't need my help and I don't intend

to give you any. But, Mr. Speaker, it's really remarkable the kind of

performance that we have. That's loyalty, that's the testimony of

loyalty. Anybody who could stand up in this House and say the

Government's never done anything wrong in the past and, if there have

been a few little mistakes, it will all…. He mentioned Cypress Bowl. He

mentioned Skagit Valley. He said, "We're going to flood it." Under this

particular bill, maybe, it would be a good thing if we flooded it

because, you know…. Look, Mr. Member, this Government has made a few

mistakes. Some of the blindest

[ Page 759 ]

people you can talk about are those two Members over there in the

Cabinet who, unfortunately, have been referred to as the Gold Dust

Twins. The kind of stature those two Cabinet Ministers have taken in

this House, when a poor, defenseless, little Member of the Opposition

came in and said, "Fellows, you're making a mistake." That Member was

here in the House at that time and he said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're

making a mistake." He went along blindly with it, too, and the

performance of the rest of those wonderful backbenchers, who have no

strings attached to them, because their minds are free when they vote,

they, too, went along with it. I remember the invective, the personal

insult… (interruption) .

Well, let's handle the debate as we have it. If the debate satisfies

you, you smile and applaud. If it doesn't satisfy you, then, you get

upset about it. But I remember the invective, I remember the personal

attacks, the calling down, the lectures and the nice performances by

the Cabinet saying, "Nothing like that could happen in British

Columbia. We're the watchdog of the people." The Member was casting

fairy tales. He's like a mountain goat leaping from mountain top to

mountain top. The two of them and, then, they had that incredible

performance by that backbencher, and those two Cabinet Ministers sit

there saying, "Yeah, yeah, that's right, man. We're with you. You're

cool, baby. You know what's happening."

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of loyalty…there

it is — look, he's back playing the banjo again. There he is. You know

what, Mr. Speaker, just to show you the loyalty of the Social Credit

backbenchers, they would call that a harp.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to the Environment and Land Use Act ?

MR. BARRETT: There's the banjo and it's part of the road

show, you bet your life, because this Land Act is needed. Mr. Speaker,

I'm glad you drew this to my attention because you certainly avoided it

with the previous speaker.

Anyway, let me point out to you that if this act is going to be of

any use, it should go beyond the role of the politician. I've seen the

performance of those two and every time issues were brought to them,

specifically, their answer back was, "That Member is being an

Opposition critic. He's being nasty to us in the Cabinet." "He has no

faith," was the line the former Attorney-General used — "he's lost

his faith. Doesn't he believe in the Ministers of the Crown, who are

here to defend every living tree, every living bug, every little

butterfly? Why, we sit in caucus and we go through this performance, we

count the little flies." The Member said, "It's just a little fleabite

from the Opposition," and $400,000 worth of trees head for the

Dominican Republic (interruption) . Yeah, — and as the trees float away

and as the sun sets in the west, this Government gets skinned again,

skinned again. Then, when the trouble comes back and we're presented

with this bill, we get the performance of that great thinking,

in-depth, perceptive, backbencher from Dewdney saying, "It's a

red-letter day, gang. It's the highlight of the Session, boy. We should

pack her up after this because it's now happened. Nirvana is here.

Hallelujah, brother." I want to tell you that that performance has to

be duplicated in front of television for the people of British

Columbia. And, then, the last bit that we're dealing with, in terms of

mind-expanding drug researches — how anybody, without using pot, could

come to the conclusion that the flooding of the Skagit Valley is to

create a new jewel in the crown is beyond comprehension.

I want to tell you this — it's kind of a delight to sort of

catalogue the experiences one has in this House, of the terrible

Opposition attacking the poor Ministers, of the terrible Opposition

fleabiting those hardworking Members in the Cabinet, of the nasty

Opposition saying, "Don't flood the Skagit Valley," of the nerve of

politicians making issues into political matters — shame! Shame that

someone should discuss the Skagit Valley on political terms, shame that

someone should discuss pollution on political terms, shame that anyone

should take these things out as election issues. Why don't you have

faith in the Social Credit Land Use Committee? They're going to do the

best. We don't have to listen to anybody here because guys might come

in from the Bahamas and give us their advice. We know that the further

away a man is from home he's an expert and, if they come flying in from

the Bahamas and the Residential Resorts Limited, with all their

gambling money and they say, "We're going to have a big development

here in British Columbia," we don't ask them where the money comes

from. We don't ask them to come in front of the Land Use Committee. We

say, "Hallelujah, it's a new dollar for British Columbia." So, rape the

land, cut the trees, flood the valleys, it's all Social Credit

progress. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that's the performance of

this Cabinet. This bill is no red-letter day. It's just another piece

of hunkum-bunkum, scare-them-up-in-the-outskirts,

let-them-think-we're-moving-ahead legislation, that means that this

stagnant Cabinet isn't going anywhere.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister will close the debate.

MR. WILLISTON: Now, Mr. Speaker, whatever bill it was that I

introduced here a while ago, I move that it be referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today

(laughter) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. We haven't had second reading yet.

MR. WILLISTON: I move second reading now.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 82 read a second time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 83,

An Act to Amend the Water Act . The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

MR. WILLISTON: I'm almost afraid to introduce this bill, Mr.

Speaker. You never know what's going to happen. Quite simply, before we

start and before somebody else starts, the bill is merely designed to

allow the improvement district to make a charge for fire protection to

mobile home parks for the service which they happen to provide. That

is, simply, all that's there. If this has some Shakespearean motive

behind it, I don't know what it is. I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for

[ Page 760 ]

Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: No explanation other than what we got from the

Minister…. Well, I just want to point out that more and more people in

British Columbia are beginning to live in this kind of accommodation

referred to in this bill. The Government is playing around with words

and somebody over there has got some kind of a book that gives him

substitute words and semantics seems to be the order of the day. You

know, there used to be an old-fashioned word they used in these. The

words they used such as "tax" now, it's called a toll and I always

understood this to be a toll-free Province. They used the word, in

another section, in the Municipal Act , dealing with taxing mobile homes

in mobile parks. They don't call it a tax, they call it a fee. These

people are buying $7,000 and $8,000 homes and you people in the

Cabinet, apparently, are going to keep imposing all the obligations of

a home-owner on these mobile homes that are settling down on a piece of

land (interruption) . Well, I can read it, but you call it a toll. You

know perfectly well it isn't a toll. A toll is where you stop somebody

on the road and demand payment before you let them proceed — that's a

toll. The robber barons knew what a toll was. On the Rhine, they used

to put chains across and they wouldn't let the barges or ships through

until they paid a toll. Now you're translating the Rhineland into

British Columbia where we're going to have tolls for mobile homes and

mobile home parks. I think it's time that this Government started to

readjust either the language or their philosophy in regard to those

people who get their homes built at place (

a) and settle down in place

(b). They don't want them to get the home-owner grant, that's pretty

obvious.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vote against it.

MR. DOWDING: Why should I vote against it? Why should I ever take that Minister's advice?

Motion agreed to.

Bill 83 read a second time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 85, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 85,

An Act to Amend the Sale of Goods Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Sale of Goods Act provides

that in every sales transaction there are supposed to be certain

implied warrantees and conditions that are a part of every sale.

Basically, there are four of these, the more important ones. One is

that there is an implied warrantee that the seller has title to the

goods that he's selling; secondly, an implied condition that the goods

sold, by sample or by description and, subsequently delivered, would

correspond with the sample or the description; thirdly, an implied

condition that, if the seller knows the purpose to which the buyer is

going to put the goods, to show the buyer relies on the seller's skill

or judgement, there's an implied condition that the goods he's selling

are fit for the purpose; and, fourthly, an implied condition that the

goods are of merchantable quality.

Over the years, the practice has grown up, which is now almost

universal, for a simple disclaimer clause to be included in every

contract which excludes these implied warrantees or conditions so that

they do, in fact, have, generally speaking, no operation at all. The

purpose of this legislation, of this bill, is to prevent these implied

conditions and implied warrantees from being negative or, in any way,

diminished in a contract of sale of goods to a consumer. The provision

relates only to the retail sale of goods, not to secondhand, not to

used goods. The reason for this is that, in the case of used articles,

it's not infrequent that articles are sold on an "as is, where-is" basis

and, if we were to have these conditions apply in such sales, it would

prevent that type of transaction from taking place. So this is, in

effect, Mr. Speaker, consumer protection legislation. I move the bill

be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 85 read a second time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 88,

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act . The Honourable the Minister of Re