1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

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)

MONDAY, MAY 12, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2239 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Resignation from Liberal caucus. Mr. McGeer — 2239

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Stocking of Alberta beer by Liquor Administration

Branch. Mr. Chabot — 2239

Use of Communications Canada material in schools.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2239

Warning signs on Hope-Princeton highway. Mr.

Wallace — 2240

Surrey site for oil refinery. Mr. McClelland — 2240

Subsidizing B.C. medical students to University of

Calgary Medical School. Mr. McGeer — 2240

Alleged irregularities on Capilano College

construction. Mr. Curtis — 2241

Retail beef price increase. Mrs. Jordan — 2241

Rental value of South Okanagan land project. Hon.

R.A. Williams answers — 2241

Domestic price for natural gas. Mr. Gibson — 2242

Operating subsidy for Princess Marguerite. Mr.

Morrison — 2242

Privilege

Resignation from Liberal caucus. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2242

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture

estimates

On vote 9.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2242

Point of order

Appropriateness of motion that the committee rise and

report progress. Mr. Phillips — 2242

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2244

Point of order

Interpretation of standing order 45(3). Mr. McGeer —

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2247

Point of order

Procedure in Committee of the Whole House. Mr. McGeer

— 2249

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture

estimates

Division on motion that the committee rise and

report progress — 2250

Point of order

Interpretation of standing order 45(3). Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 2251

Point of order

Mr. Chairman's report to Mr. Speaker. Mr. L.A. Williams

— 2252

Routine proceedings

Perpetuities Act (Bill 1). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2253

Patients' Estates Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 2). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2254

Division on second reading — 2258

Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 3). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2258

Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 4).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2261

Administration Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 5). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2261

Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 6).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2262

Limitations Act (Bill 8). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2262

Division on second reading — 2266

Farmers' and Women's Institutes Amendment Act, 1975

(Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2267

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 9). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2268

Securities Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 20). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2268

MONDAY, MAY 12, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): This is the first time since I've

been in the Legislature that I've had the privilege of

introducing a class of students from my riding. Today there are

35 students from the secondary school in Fraser Lake, and

they're accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Joe and Mrs. Janet

Dunham. I would ask the Legislature to give them a very warm

welcome.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome the man

who represented Vancouver East in this House for 25 years, Mr. Arthur

Turner.

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

tell from the place where my chair is today that you have been

reading the press over the weekend.

However, I would like to announce officially to you and to

the Members of the Legislature that on Friday last I resigned

from the B.C. Liberal caucus and will now be sitting as an

independent in our Legislature.

I don't know whether this is a hint from the government side — my

placement here behind the Conservative leader (Mr.

Wallace). I want to assure him he has nothing to worry

about.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You're not going to join him?

Oral questions.

STOCKING OF ALBERTA BEER

BY LIQUOR ADMINISTRATION BRANCH

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the

Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General, who is in charge

of the liquor administration branch, advise why he refuses to

stock in B.C. liquor stores the product of Palliser Breweries

of Lethbridge, Alberta?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I will

take that as notice.

MR. CHABOT: Just a supplementary, as notice. Does the

Minister realize the Alberta government, in retaliation against

the non-stocking of Palliser Breweries products in British

Columbia, is starting to eliminate B.C. wines being stocked in

the stores, commencing with the Calona Wines products, and what does

the Minister propose to do regarding this

retaliation from the Alberta government?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are

conversations going on with the Province of Alberta and also

the Province of Manitoba with respect to reciprocal listings.

That is why I am not particularly anxious to say too much about

it at the present time.

MR. CHABOT: The delisting is taking place in Alberta right

now.

USE OF COMMUNICATIONS CANADA

MATERIAL IN SCHOOLS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Education,

Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister received representations from the

B.C. School Trustees Association urging an early decision on

the request by several school districts that they be permitted

to utilize the Communications Canada material in the

educational field?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Yes, I have. We've

had a meeting with them and we are trying to facilitate it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister

whether we can expect, then, some decision within the next

three or four weeks on this matter, which has been dragging out

now for a great number of months?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, a decision is almost made now. We

have agreed that this can be done, and we are just working it

out with them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask as a final supplementary

whether the Minister has investigated the allegations by the

former president of the school trustees' association that the

Education department officials have threatened to sue the B.C.

School Trustees Association for putting forward "false

information" on this matter?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I have had it investigated and I assured

the trustees' association that I would not condone that and in

no way would I accept that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Has the Minister taken any disciplinary

action to the members of the Department of Education who

threatened the suit?

MRS. DAILLY: I am still investigating it to find out if this

actually took place.

[ Page 2240 ]

WARNING SIGNS ON

HOPE-PRINCETON HIGHWAY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Highways with regard to the verdict of a coroner's jury

relating to a traffic death on March 31, 1975, on the

Hope-Princeton highway — that highway was badly in need of

repair and lacking in warning signs: has the Minister taken

immediate action to have that

section of the road repaired and

the warning signs installed?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Is this pertaining to

the same subject you mentioned in the question period earlier,

Mr. Member?

MR. WALLACE: No. This is a report of an inquest regarding a

death that occurred on March 31, 1975.

HON. MR. LEA: I'll take that as notice and report back.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Minister has

also had an incident of 200 feet of highway disappearing into

Shuswap Lake near Chase. I just wanted to know if his

department is really on the job at breakup time to monitor

these sections of the highway and try and prevent these serious

accidents. I am sure the Minister knows that this was a serious

one, that someone died and that the coroner's jury has made a

very definite statement that the road was in need of repair and

warning signs. I don't understand how you would have to take

that as notice.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am going to have it

checked out thoroughly within my department to see whether all

precautions that could have been taken were taken. In regard to

the slide near Chase, I am also having that looked at, but I am

fairly confident that as you look at soil structure throughout

the province, and different spring breakups, you cannot

prophecy where every slide is going to happen. All you can do

is take normal precautions. You can't take precautions against

acts of God all the time.

SURREY SITE FOR OIL REFINERY

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Economic Development. A recent letter from the

Petroleum Corp. general manager, George Lechner, to Surrey

council has asked Surrey council if it has changed its mind in

connection with its approval or non-approval of the area as a

site for an oil refinery. The letter suggests that if Surrey

has changed its mind, Surrey will be allowed to see the

environmental impact studies — the preliminary studies. However, if

Surrey still opposes

the refinery the studies will not be made available to Surrey,

which also suggests a difficulty for Surrey: how do they know

if they oppose or don't oppose until they see the studies? Is

that letter correct?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): With

respect, I don't know anything about that letter but I'll take

the question as notice.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary. Environment Canada has said

that it will take a minimum of two years, probably three years,

for them to do an environmental study into the oil refinery on

Sumas Mountain. Would the Minister tell us how British Columbia

might do an environment study in a matter of months, compared

to that information?

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't believe I am answerable for any

statements made by a federal bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker. In any

event, I haven't had an opportunity to look over their

estimations. Further, in any event this is a matter for the

B.C. Petroleum Corp. and the Minister in charge of energy

resources, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

SUBSIDIZING B.C. MEDICAL STUDENTS TO

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY MEDICAL SCHOOL

MR. McGEER: I can already see the disadvantages of being a

backbencher, Mr. Speaker — and I have done my best here to make

it easy to see me. I have a question for the Minister of

Health: is the Minister considering subsidizing medical

students from British Columbia to the University of Calgary

Medical School?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): At the present time

there are discussions going on between the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), my office and the Department of

Education in Calgary. We have to know exactly where we are

going and what the costs might be, but there are discussions

going on at the present time.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that

the Minister has for some considerable time had on his desk

requests from the University of British Columbia Medical School

for funds to expand the medical school so students could be

taken in right here in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the requests that are on my

desk, which the Member describes, are requests around upgrading

clinical facilities for the University of British Columbia.

They managed to find

[ Page 2241 ]

their way to my desk a week and a half ago. We

certainly

have the objective of 160 but that objective isn't going to be

met with the present facilities, as the Member knows. As time

goes on, those facilities will be upgraded to that extent. That

is our policy.

MR. McGEER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister

aware that minutes were tabled at the faculty executive meeting

of the school of medicine at UBC and that plans had been sent

forward to the Minister in April, 1974?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the

Member is talking about. I think he is probably talking about

the upgrading of the science facility at UBC, which is

something entirely different again. The upgrading of the

science facility at UBC is a matter that is being discussed

with other departments, including the Department of Education.

But that Member, I am sure, realizes that universities are

autonomous. They set their priorities.

However, we have had some more recent discussions with the

dean and also with the president of UBC; at least, I have. At

those discussions we were discussing possible utilization of

the health resources fund for these purposes. Mr. Speaker,

without the clinical facilities that have to be developed,

there isn't much percentage in developing facilities at UBC in

too much haste. I really don't think that we're behind on that

issue. As I say, getting back to the autonomy of universities,

we have to be most careful how we work.

ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES ON

CAPILANO COLLEGE CONSTRUCTION

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Education. During debate on her estimates May 2, the

official opposition brought to her attention a complaint

regarding alleged irregular bidding and contract-awarding

procedures with respect to a construction project at Capilano

College. As I recall, the Minister undertook to report back

when she had had an opportunity to investigate. I wonder if the

Minister could tell us if there is any substance to the

complaint?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I have a report from the chairman of the

Capilano College council which I will be pleased to give to

you. The essence of it is that they feel that it was handled

correctly; but I shall give you the full report.

RETAIL BEEF PRICE INCREASE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that there

has been an announced retail beef price increase today, with one store

raising the price to 20 cents per pound, another one to 10 cents per

pound, with more to come, the implication is that the reason for the

price increase is because the producers of cattle in B.C. have suddenly

gained a greater return for their product. Would the Minister advise

the House what increase has really been recorded to the producer over

the last 10 days and if these implications are true?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

have no knowledge of any increase that the producer has

received in the last 10 days. I think that the retailers have

never really been concerned about what the producers are

getting. They set their price at whatever the market will

bring, to my knowledge.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary. I just want to make it clear

that it is by 10 cents a pound and by 20 cents a pound. But in

light of the fact that negotiations are taking place today on

income assurance, is the Minister prepared to investigate these

implications and make clear to this House exactly what the

return has been to the producers over the last 10 days?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the implications have no

bearing at all on the income assurance discussions that I know

of. As far as the price is concerned, the price is quoted daily

in the papers. That information is widely disseminated to the

public.

RENTAL VALUE OF SOUTH

OKANAGAN LAND PROJECT

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Questions in the last week from the Hon.

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) included one regarding

Lot 106 in the South Okanagan land project in the South

Okanagan and the rental value of said lands. There was, in

fact, an analysis by the lands branch. The appraisal was

$150,520 for this site. The rental was valued at $7,526 per

annum. It has been on a year-to-year basis for grazing. It has

been determined that it has an agricultural value for both

alfalfa and vegetable production. On that basis, and with two

independent appraisals as well as the lands staff appraisals,

the conclusion was that that was a fair market price for that

land for that purpose. Regarding Silverstar Mountain, there has

been no change in policy to date.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the

Minister, referring to his statement on the land in the Myers

Flats area, would advise who the other two independent

appraisers were and who determined that the land's most

economic and

[ Page 2242 ]

highest use was alfalfa. Would the Minister advise

whether

there was consultation between the lands branch and the grazing

division of his department as well as the Department of

Agriculture?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There were numerous farmers in the

region interested in the land for purposes other than grazing.

On that basis the various advisers within the department deemed

it reasonable.

MRS. JORDAN: Were there consultations among the lands branch

and the Department of Agriculture and the grazing division on

this land?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I have no idea.

MRS. JORDAN: There were not? I wonder if the Minister would

like to confirm that, please.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I said I have no idea, Mr. Speaker.

DOMESTIC PRICE FOR NATURAL GAS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a

question for the Premier, who I welcome back from his

expedition to the mysterious east. I would ask him if he agrees

with the policy of the chairman of the B.C. Energy Commission,

who announced that domestic prices for natural gas should be

raised to full energy equivalent prices, substantially the same

as the export price?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't recall anyone under the Energy

Commission saying that, but this is not government policy.

Government policy is to ensure a constant supply first of all

to British Columbia consumers at a price a lot better than to

the Americans. Unlike the former administration, we think

British Columbians deserve a better price for their gas than

what we are selling it off for.

OPERATING SUBSIDY

FOR PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams). Has the provincial government approached the federal

government regarding an operating subsidy for the route of the

Princess Marguerite between Victoria and Seattle?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I understand the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is carrying on

discussions with respect to federal aid with respect to these

various programmes.

MR. MORRISON: Supplemental. Perhaps he could advise us when

the ferry will start and who, in future, we should ask questions to

concerning that particular ferry.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the House is fully aware with

respect to this specific operation.

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

on a matter of privilege, following the written advice I gave

you today, I would like to inform the House that on Friday last

I tendered my resignation to the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) from the Liberal caucus, and on

that day he accepted the same.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to ask leave of the House to move to public bills and

orders.

Leave not granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 9: Provincial Land Commission, $580,510.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the committee rise, report

resolution and ask leave to sit again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no, no!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, on a

point of order, when the House adjourned on Friday, we were

discussing vote 9, provincial Land Commission Act. No business

has adjourned in the intervening time, and no business has

taken place today. Therefore we should continue with the

discussion of vote 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, this is a new sitting;

therefore the motion is in order. We now have the motion before

the committee. The motion is that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman,

this House received clear instructions at the beginning of the

session that we would deal with supply until it was completed.

We want to continue debating the estimates, as was the

direction given to this committee by resolution in this

[ Page 2243 ]

House...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of

order.

MR. BENNETT: ...that we continue with supply. This reason

has been brought up many times by the government during....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Since we are in committee the

motion is in order.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of

clarification, Mr. Chairman, the government House Leader (Mrs.

Dailly) said "rise and report resolution." I'm not clear

exactly what resolution was reached.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Progress.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would like to clarify something here

myself. I called a meeting of the house leaders this morning to

discuss with them the possibility of moving into bills this

afternoon, and then a meeting would be called by me with the

house leaders to discuss the possibility of the estimates going

into committee outside the Whole House. The Liberal leader (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) and the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace)

appeared at the meeting, along with the representative from the

Social Credit Party — the official opposition. The Liberal and

Conservative leaders agreed to a meeting to discuss the

possibility of going into committee on estimates outside of the

Committee of the Whole House. The representative from the

official opposition was unable to concur or to give any answer

until he met with his leader. We have been awaiting some reply

from the Leader of the official Opposition. It has not come

before us, and that is why we are ready to proceed in this

way.

MR. BENNETT: On the same point of clarification as the House

Leader, we have a position that we took in this House in debate

last year that we would not agree to the limit of 135 hours.

Later this year when asked by the government, when they

realized the restrictions and closure techniques they brought

in were not meeting the needs of the House, we sent a letter to

the Premier saying that we would not accept any limit on the

debate of estimates in this House at any time and we were not

open to any derivation.

We were not prepared to meet unless the government would agree with

the position we took last year — that there be no limit on the people's

representatives' right to question the Ministers about departmental

spending in the coming year, especially when expenditure has reached a

point of over $3 billion. We will not accept any limit on the debate of

estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: We will not accept in light of the letter we

sent the Premier before, and in light of the position taken

last year. I find it unusual that at the last minute before

this session was called in today — and I mean the last minute — that

the House Leader would send a message through my secretary

at 11 o'clock this morning in desperation because their closure

techniques have not worked, will not work and will never work

in a democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order. Mr.

Chairman, a number of things have been said which deserve

comment. The first one is that you are totally out of order for

accepting that motion unless you first ask unanimous leave to

suspend rule 45 which gives you direct instructions and uses

the word "shall." Now I would like to ask for unanimous consent

of the House to suspend rule 45 for now and all time because

it's a rotten rule. Once you've done that, perhaps we can get

on to discussion of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule that this is not

necessary and therefore since the motion has been presented, I

will put the motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether you

have read rule 45(3) on page 18 which says: "...the

Chairman...shall forthwith..."? The effective word is

"shall". If you start accepting motions after the committee is

called, you are obviously in violation....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the

standing order does not preclude the committee rising and

reporting progress. It's a case of which has priority.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It precludes you calling any other motion

put by any Member of this House...

[ Page 2244 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The committee....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...if you carried out the instructions

of rule 45, which is the worst rule in the book.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order.

Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But you're not following the rules: is

this not a point of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has ruled that the motion is in

order. The motion is that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again. You've heard the motion.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order.

Considering the motion that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again, I suggest to you that a precedent

has been established in this House in past sessions and in past

sittings where it has been ruled by the Speaker of this House

that no business has taken place, and that there must be

business take place between the time that the committee goes

into Committee of Supply and you call a motion to adjourn or

rise and report progress. We've had it clearly established that

until there is discussion in committee and a vote is debated,

business has not taken place in committee. Therefore, the

motion that you have accepted — to rise and report progress — is

clearly out of order with the rules that we operate under in

this House. It has been ruled that way on many occasions

before, so it's not a new precedent. Business must take place...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: ...between the motion to go into Committee of

Supply and the motion to rise and report progress.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, I think

the Hon. Member is thinking of a second motion within the same

sitting. This is a different sitting and therefore I would rule

that the motion is in order, in accordance with the practice of

the House in previous years.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, a clarification: on Friday, as I understand, the question was

asked on the meaning of the word "forthwith" in rule 45. Regardless of

what's transpired this afternoon, and I don't have the Blues to confirm

this, but it was my understanding that the explanation was given that

"forthwith" meant immediately at the next most convenient moment, but

it need not be right at the end of the 45th sitting but would be the

first item of business at the following sitting, which is today. I

feel, with the greatest of respect, that if rule 45(3) has to mean

anything at all, it means that the question now be put on Committee of

Supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order raised by the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay, the Chair would rule that the intent of the

standing order is that there would be no more debate on the

votes at the end of the 45th sitting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, this does not preclude putting a

motion that the committee rise and report progress; nor does it

mean that the committee has to sit continuously. I would rule

that the motion is in order.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee a point of

order was raised that the 45th sitting having ended, a motion

that the committee rise and report progress would not be in

order until the votes had been put. The Chair ruled that the

fact that we had reached the end of the 45th sitting and that

we were now in Committee of Supply did not preclude putting a

further motion to report progress. My ruling was

challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: The question has to be put by the Speaker upon

the challenge of the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee of

the Whole House, therefore I can't really deal with points of

order because I would presume that to be my first duty.

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

a point of order on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: You, sir, gave an

interpretation of "forthwith"

on Friday last that "forthwith" was not at that moment because

it was beyond the normal sitting time of the House, and left

the clear implication with me that the only reason for

adjourning the House at that point was to give an opportunity

for the normal hours to occur, but that we would be going back

at the first opportunity to have those votes put forthwith. I

would like to have your stand clarified, regardless of the

Chairman's misinterpretation.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows

[ Page 2245 ]

that my first duty is to ask the House whether it

sustains

the ruling of the Chair in the Committee of the Whole House. I

must proceed with that duty as my primary concern. Any comments

that I make later on the matter are really off the rule itself

because that is being decided by the House now — on that very

question that you have raised. I must put the question

now.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the question must be

put, but surely you must understand, as Speaker of the House,

that to put the question and to have it ruled acceptable by the

majority of the government Members in this House does not

decide the most important issue we have before us right now,

and that is: if business has taken place where we go into

Committee of Supply and immediately rise and report

progress.

We have been told before, Mr. Speaker, by yourself that

business must take place before you can put the second

motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think....

MR. SMITH: A challenge — all that does is sustain...

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that for

many years in this House...

MR. SMITH: ...the ruling of the Chair, which may not have

been correct.

MR. SPEAKER: ...because of the priority motion, the House

Leader — in the terms of that time it was the Hon. W.A.C.

Bennett — would put the motion before the House in committee

merely to put it and then ask that the committee rise without

carrying on any business so that they could get on to other

matters of urgency to the House, such as bills.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out that some tender should be made. Of

course, I understand that tender was made — the vote of the

Committee of the Whole House. This has been the practice for

many years, because we have that priority motion every year,

and for the last 20 years we've had it. This challenge becomes

a judgment of the House on the definition or the question that

was decided by the Chair. If the House decides to support the

Chair on this matter, it becomes, in effect, a decision of the

House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of the government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on this point, if we vote to

sustain the Chair we are obviously voting down your decision of last

Friday afternoon when you....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is taking it further

than I did. I merely said that the House has the right to

adjourn its business to a subsequent date when it's not in

Committee of the Whole House. But when the committee is called,

a priority is there that it take up its business...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right...

MR. SPEAKER: ...which was set — standing order 45(a).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...priority, and you go to work

"forthwith," Mr. Speaker. So I just wanted it perfectly

clear.

MR. SPEAKER: It does not mean that the motion to go out of

committee is blocked by standing order 45, as I see it. But

this will be for this House to determine, not for me. You are

now presented with that decision to make.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as I raised this point at

the end of the session last Friday and you gave a decision at

that time, may I ask you what instructions or otherwise go from

the Chair to the Speaker in terms of interpreting rules? We on

the opposition side accepted on Friday your decision as to what

the word "forthwith" meant; we accepted your words. We sat

quietly there, as you can see from Hansard . We thought

that in due course the rules would be followed as you indicated

on Friday. Now it appears that your Deputy — the Deputy Speaker

as chairman of the committee — has gone off on a tangent of his

own which is in complete contradiction with what you told me on

Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish the Hon. Member would not try to tell me

what I said on Friday when it's clear in Hansard that

when we reached the hour of adjournment and were not in

Committee of the Whole House, the House had the right, the

privilege and the responsibility to adjourn the House on the

time set by the standing orders to the following sitting day,

which happened to, be Monday, unless otherwise ordered by the

House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: If you are suggesting that the House should go

back to committee at 1 o'clock on Friday and spend the weekend

on estimates, you are sadly mistaken.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, no, no, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2246 ]

That's just the point that you made then, and we

accepted

quite happily, that the time had come to 1 o'clock — I'm

quoting you here: "...it is after 1 o'clock — the usual

motion is that we designate the time of the next sitting as

ordered by the House. That would mean that that motion would

have to be put now."

We are now back in committee on a separate day, some 72

hours later — a little more than that. In accordance with what

you said there on the last page of Hansard

it would

appear to me that there is no way for a motion to come from any

Member of this chamber intervening in rule 45(3) as stated on

page 18.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member will have to know that the

House is not deciding that matter. Questions of order should be

put without debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: I have now the duty, as you know, under

standing orders to put the question to the House as a judgment

of the House whether or not the committee is powerless to

adjourn any time it chooses. If you are saying it is powerless,

let the House decide the question.

MR. DA. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I just hope that following

the vote you will outline for this chamber the faith that we

can put in your statements....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, I'd be glad to do so, but

at the moment....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I would like to put the question

now.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, we

are deciding a very serious motion now and one which, in fact,

in my point of view, is the destruction of democracy as we

recognize it in this parliament for some considerable time. The

challenge which is being put here is a challenge in futility

because if one looks at the numbers....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is making

comments rather than dealing with a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: What concerns me is the fact that we are voting

on the motion which is before us now.

MR. SPEAKER: It's the duty of the Chair to put it.

MR. CHAB0T: I am extremely concerned. All I am doing is

appealing to the Member who asked that the ruling be

challenged. I would like to see the Member withdraw it because

it's a serious direction in which we are going — a director

which frightens me, Mr. Speaker.

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

on a point of order, I presume.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On the point

of order, Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman advised you, he has made

a ruling, and the consequences of the House supporting his

ruling would be obviously that the committee would rise and

report progress, as the motion says, and ask leave to sit

again. That thrusts us back into the House. If we get back into

the House, Mr. Speaker, the government is again faced with the

priority order made earlier this session. We can go from the

House to committee and from committee back to the House all

afternoon as the orders presently stand.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that having gone

into committee and having risen, the House is then freed from

the priority motion to get on with other business. But the rule

is always that where the priority motion was before the House

on each day, you start by opening by calling on the committee,

and then if the House has other business it wishes to carry on

with, the committee would rise on the motion of the House

Leader. Now it's up to the House to determine whether or not

the Chairman's ruling is in order, and I wish to put the

question now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

certainly am aware of the consequences of the priority motion,

but then you have the standing rules of this House, and in

particular rule 45A(3), which interferes with your going on,

following the priority motion, to something else because it is

a mandatory order under the standing rules of this House that

we proceed in another way.

MR. SPEAKER: I would submit to the Hon. Member, when he

considers the question and reflects upon it, that the priority motion,

and any priority motion such as standing order 45A — the one that the

Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has referred to —

the question of "forthwith” is still subject to the power of the House

to order its business in terms of how long a committee sits. The

committee is subservient to the whole House. If the House decides to

send it back to committee, the committee would have to continue

sitting, But it need merely pay respect to the

[ Page 2247 ]

standing

order and to the requirement of the priority

motion. From there on it can go back to its other business or

of the House. Now I would like to put the question and get it

over with because that is my primary duty and we really should

get on with it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I admit what you say is correct — that the

committee is subservient to the House — but the point of order,

surely, Mr. Speaker, is that the motion which the Chairman

received was improperly received and ought not to have been

put.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Members know that a motion to

adjourn or a motion to terminate a committee's business is

always in order, providing the Chairman will accept it. The

Chairman must accept it.

MR. GIBSON: It's not in order if it conflicts with this new

standing order, Mr. Speaker, which it does, and which is more

specific.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): On a point of order, it's my

understanding that a challenge to the Chairman in committee is

not debatable.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I do not understand under what order we

are debating this.

MR. SPEAKER: The only reason that points of order have been

listened to is to clarify for the Hon. Members what they will

be voting on on the question of the Chairman's ruling as a

courtesy to all the Members.

MR. WALLACE: If I could just take a moment to explain my

motivation, I thought I was challenging this Chairman's

interpretation of the word "forthwith" but not challenging the

essence of the motion — whether the motion was correct or

incorrect. I was simply saying that it seemed to be in complete

contradiction to the

interpretation of the word "forthwith"

which we were given on Friday. I am challenging the Chairman's

interpretation of the word "forthwith," not the

correctness or otherwise of the House rising from committee to

go back into the House. If, by so doing, I've precluded further

debate, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly withdraw the challenge

to the Chair, if the reason for that challenge has been

misunderstood by the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I think that once that challenge

has been given to the House it can't be withdrawn without the

unanimous consent of the House. Therefore the question has been

called.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you get that?

MR. SPEAKER: A motion or any matter of procedure before the

House cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the House. It

becomes the property of the House. Isn't that true?

All those who agree with his request to withdraw the

challenge?

Leave not granted.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The Premier said no!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think democracy demands some silence

when a Member has the floor. Mr. Speaker, it is my

understanding that it's absolutely impossible to ask for leave

for something that took place in committee. It's clearly the

duty of this House to vote on the motion in front of us.

MR. SPEAKER: Quite right. If we are not in committee for the

point of the challenge to the Chair, we meet without a motion

as a House for the purpose of dealing with a matter that

occurred in committee. We have to decide whether to sustain or

reject the ruling of the Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Agreed.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said that the challenge

was a misunderstanding and that he meant no challenge to the

ruling. Surely we should offer him the courtesy of going back

into committee.

MR. SPEAKER: We are meeting as a House at the moment. I must

put the motion on the question of the challenge.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

[ Page 2248 ]

NAYS — 17

Gibson

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous leave of the

House, under standing order 49, to move a motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you give me an indication so the House

can know what it is giving leave to?

MR. BENNETT: Yes. I would like to move that the standing

orders with respect to Committee of Supply be suspended and the

following substituted therefore:

"The proceedings in Committee of Supply shall not be

limited

unless and until debate has been completed on each estimate by

the Members of the Legislative Assembly."

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): You've had four

months to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know we've run out of time.

MRS. JORDAN: More trickery!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BENNETT: Did somebody say no, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: What's that?

MR. BENNETT: Did somebody deny leave? Who denied leave?

MR. SPEAKER: I must say I heard a number of notes.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't hear any.

MR. BENNETT: I didn't hear any.

MR. SMITH: I didn't hear any.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We didn't hear any.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, public bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't have a division on that, because if

there is even one "no" it is sufficient to deny unanimous

leave.

MR. GIBSON: The government House Leader called public bills

and orders, but it seems we are still in committee, are we

not?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I thought that they had moved a motion

and the motion had been carried.

MR. GIBSON: No. The appeal was carried.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. The point of order was raised while the

question of determining the vote.... I understand. I apologize

to the House.

Mr. Chairman, will you please return? I sent him off to his

seat. I'm sorry about that.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even know what's going on!

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that the motion was declared in

order. There was a motion before the House. The motion has now

been put and carried.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. Member knows, I am sure, that

the House has just decided to question what he is now

complaining about, I presume. The Chairman of the committee put

the question, and in

[ Page 2249 ]

the middle of putting the question the Hon. Member is crying

"Point of order."

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker: the Chairman has gone temporarily

blind and deaf. He missed a call for a division, Mr. Speaker.

He ignored a point of order which I thought the Member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was making, and I thought it

would be very easy to spot that Member. Certainly he could have

heard the call for a division had he not leaped out of his seat

to report to you.

Mr. Speaker, there was a call for a division, and I insist

that we go back to committee and have a division on the matter

of adjournment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to further add that I think the Chairman

is partly bent.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid I can't deal with the question,

because if a call for division is made in the Committee of the

Whole House, certainly the House can't deal with that question.

All I can do is ask: when shall the committee sit again?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McGEER: (Mike not on.) ...may for a division. This was

clearly done, and the Chairman wilfully refused to recognize

me when I called for a division.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid I have no knowledge of it as far as

the House is concerned. The House doesn't, anyway.

MR. McGEER: What does one do, Mr. Speaker, when one calls

for a division and the Chairman refuses to acknowledge it?

MR. SPEAKER: All I can suggest to the Hon. Member is that

you move that the committee be reconstituted again. If you

don't get that motion supported, then we have to carry on with

the other business.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The House doesn't know of that occurrence;

consequently, we have to carry on the next order of

business.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would clarify for us

what happens in the event that the Chairman of committee refuses to

acknowledge a call for a division, wilfully ignores Members who are

standing in their places, leaves the Chair, runs to you to report, Sir,

and then insists that there was no call for a division. That is wilful

trampling on the rights of elected Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I can tell the Hon. Member, and

I think he knows as well as I do, that the business of the

committee and how it conducts itself is conducted on entirely

the same rules in our book insofar as challenging the Chair or

divisions are concerned and should be taken up in committee,

not in the House. Consequently, the only answer is that when

you are in committee you have to deal with it there. I cannot

deal with that point here.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, would you advise me to get up

from my place and run to the front and tackle the Chairman when

he does that? I'm in a more difficult position to do this kind

of thing than I was last week.

MR. SPEAKER: I would have thought that he would have been

attracted by your rising, I am sure; but we cannot deal with

that now. More than that, I think the Hon. Member knows that

the conduct of the Chairman in the Committee of the Whole House

really can't be canvassed in this fashion in the House.

MR. CHABOT: Point of order. The Members of this House

clearly asked the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House

for a division. It was clearly recorded. This wasn't recognized

when the Chairman resumed his seat. So, Mr. Speaker, in order

that we can have an opportunity of having that division, I

would like to move that we go back into committee for this

division.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The only problem I have at the moment is what

amounts to a motion, "When shall the committee sit again?"

which I have had to ask the House Leader. She has said: "Next

sitting."

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, if there

were a division called, it could not have been heard by any

Chairman by virtue of the yahooing that was going on in the

official opposition. Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no

reason to this whole question. We should go on with the

business of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I must go on with the business of the House,

which is: when shall the committee sit again?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2250 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Next sitting.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the division

wasn't requested. The Member was rising on a point of order in

the second sitting of the Chairman. It was in the original

instance that we asked for a division. Then, on a point of the

challenge to the ruling of the Chairman, that is where the

Chairman left the chair. But a division had been specifically

requested. Then, when the Chairman came back, he put the motion

without so much as "by your leave," without so much as

the opportunity for Members of the opposition to ask for a

division, not with so much as a sideways glance in this

assembly. The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was

on his feet.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a suggestion.

MR. CHABOT: We have a Chairman who has no respect for

parliamentary procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. Member is out of order.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who do we appeal to in this House if we

don't appeal to you?

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. Would the Hon. Members

please remember that you can't canvass the conduct of the Chair or the

Chairman in this instance, in this fashion? I am pointing that out. You

know the rules in regard to that. But I am making a further suggestion.

I will check the Blues. Any Members who objected can check the copies

and the tapes with me. If there is any indication of such a division,

possibly some method may be reached whereby it can be clarified by a

vote.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to proceed. What

you have clearly invited the Members of the opposition to do is to take

physical measures on the Chairman if he is going to ignore Members who

are on their feet. If you want to have a civilized House, you are going

to have to proceed in a civilized manner. It is quite clear that the

government can't govern and direct the House. But when you have the

Chairman leaping to his feet and running to you when there are Members

of the opposition on their feet, you are clearly inviting them at some

future time to tackle the Chairman.

MR, SPEAKER: Order, please. I think you know that I can only

go ahead with the business of the House, which is: when shall

the committee meet again?

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order. You suggest that we might

check the tapes of Hansard or the Blues or something

like that. Mr. Speaker, the microphones were shut off. I

suggest to you, Sir, that you have the word of an Hon. Member

that he was on his feet demanding a division. You have the word

of another Hon. Member who is prepared to say that he was on

his feet demanding a division. I say with respect to you, Sir,

that it is incumbent upon you under your general duty and order

to preserve order in this House that you should call a division

on that question.

MR. SPEAKER: My difficulty is that we are now in the House.

I also have to obey the rules just like anyone else..

MR. McGEER: Better call the Chairman back and give him some

instructions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask leave of the House to return to

committee to put forward the division.

Leave granted.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Gibson

McGeer

Williams. L.A.

Wallace

[ Page 2251 ]

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that divisions

took place in committee and asks that these divisions be

recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

I move the House proceed to public bills and orders. Second

reading of Bill 1.

Motion approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order.

Friday, in very similar circumstances, right after the vote

for the committee to rise, I asked you about the wording of

rule 45(3) on page 18. I specify on page 18 because there is

more than one rule 45(3). It seems to have been thoroughly

misnumbered.

In that rule it says:

"At the conclusion of the 45 sittings or the

conclusion of the 135 hours contemplated under this standing

order, whichever shall last occur, the Chairman of the

Committee of Supply shall forthwith put all questions necessary

to carry every vote and item of each estimate, such questions

not being subject to amendment or debate."

I asked you, Mr. Speaker, on Friday and I ask you again for

a definition of "shall forthwith put all questions." I ask you

this not to comment on what took place in committee, but simply

under the general heading of rule 9 of your duties whereby

you're charged with keeping order and directing the House

generally.

It appears, Mr. Speaker, that "shall forthwith put all

questions" precludes other motions coming from Members on the

floor, just as in this rule where it states that "the Chairman

shall then report" we cannot have points of order or

discussions or motions at that time. In every other rule, the

word "shall" indicated that the person charged will carry out

the duty indicated. It's obligatory on him.

We have gone into the 46th sitting, we have risen and reported to

you, and the requirements of 45(3) have not been filled. I would urge

you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the question that I put last Friday, which

is to ask the unanimous consent of the House to suspend the operations

of rule 45. Unless we do that, we are continuing in what I think is a

very regrettable

error; we are ignoring the wording of the rules of the House

and we are doing this without the unanimous consent of the

Members. If we continue to do this by majority votes of this

government, this entire rule book becomes totally redundant and

useless. The whole rules upon which we base our debate....

MR. SPEAKER: I wish the Hon. Member would confine himself to

the point of order and not tell us of the dire prospects until

we've looked at the question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the House will certainly agree that

when the hour of adjournment comes, that is a supervening rule

or order of the House at any time that that occurs. I think we

can all agree that much. Are you suggesting that the House goes

on indefinitely without stop?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Then your use of the word "forthwith" in the

election counting by returning officers doesn't seem to mean

that from

definitions of that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, you made that point

perfectly clear last Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: I get the point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point, however, is this: we have gone

back into committee. Although there is an intervening period of

some 76, 77 or 78 hours, nevertheless we are back in committee.

It was my understanding that the wording of rule 45, which is

not a good rule — it's a rule I oppose — states that the

Chairman of the Committee of Supply "shall forthwith put all

questions necessary to pass all the estimates." This has not

been done.

You are charged, Mr. Speaker, with the general overseeing of

what takes place in this House and the examination of the

rules. You are the final authority we have in terms of

interpretation. It appears to me that the time has come for you

to take up the question which I put to you on Friday at 1

o'clock and tell us precisely what this rule means. I'm sure

the government would be happy to ignore the rule.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would ask, too, that you take this under

advisement. I would appreciate your coming back to the House

with a written report as to the....

Interjections.

[ Page 2252 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't have it done in a recess. I

suggest....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting that I think

that the matter should be clarified. I think that I would ask

that you come back to the House with a written explanation of

it. I agree with the Member. But I don't wish that the House

continue being obstructed, and I'm sure that that's not the

intention of the Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In terms of what the Member is suggesting,

I would also support that the Speaker, indeed, take this under

advisement and report back to the House exactly the

interpretation of it.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that

standing order 62, which has been long standing in the history

of parliaments, makes it very clear that when the House is in

Committee of the Whole House, a motion for the Chairman to

leave the chair shall always be in order and shall take

precedence over any other motion and shall not be debatable.

This motion, if rejected, cannot be renewed unless some

intermediate proceeding has taken place. I realize that there

wasn't a motion but....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That wasn't the point.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying to point out the difficulties that

have to be considered by the Chair. It's not a thing that takes

a snap five-minute judgment. I think you must realize that

there are several things contesting here; one is the right of

the Committee of the Whole House to order its own affairs so

far as its rising and sitting is concerned; secondly, the

powers of the House to determine how long the committee shall

sit and rise and whether the only possibility is that the

meaning of 45(

a) is "forthwith without eating, drinking or

sleeping." Surely it doesn't mean that.

Therefore these questions should be canvassed with

considerable study and advice from my Clerks. I'd like to do

that, take time and report back to the House. In the meantime,

perhaps we can get on to other business till that is

settled.

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

while you're taking this important matter under consideration, may I

raise another similar matter which you might wish to address yourself

to at the same time?

During the recent few moments, it has been clear that there

is an omission in our rules. We have the situation where the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, perhaps acting in

error, ignores a call for a division or ignores a Member who is

rising on a point of order and then turns and reports to the

Speaker. You have indicated that once that has occurred, the

House has no power to deal with that matter. It seems to me

that when such an event shall occur, the House should be

afforded the opportunity when it is brought to the Speaker's

attention to address itself to that matter. If that is not the

case, Mr. Speaker, then a chairman in error or a chairman who

acts other than the impartial way in which the chairman is

always expected to act could, in fact, trample upon the rights

of the opposition; indeed, he could trample upon the rights of

the government. I think that that would be an inappropriate

omission from our rules. I think that if you would give

consideration to that and advise this House as to what steps we

must take to assure ourselves that the rules do not prevent us

from bringing forward to you, Sir, an obvious error on the part

of the Chairman and rectifying that forthwith....

MR. SPEAKER: I'll take a note of that but I....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in rising to ask that the

matter be considered, I would like to point out that it is my

understanding that when there is a question of the chairman of

the Committee of the Whole House not having acted properly or

having missed something in the committee, there are two

remedies.

One remedy is to ask by the House Leader or the government

side, or perhaps even by the Leader of the Opposition, in an

honourable fashion, that the rules of the House be suspended to

go back to committee — not by motion, but by asking leave. If,

however, that is not the course, then the one other time that

I recall in this House that the same matter was raised related

to the former Hon. Mr. Mathews who was a deputy chairman and

who, as I recall, issued the complaint to the point of a

substantive motion.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in that kind of issue there are

two approaches: one, through asking leave, not by motion;

secondly, if not satisfied, by substantive motion. However, I

do agree with the Member that there is a gap and I would ask,

too, that you give that serious consideration for the Members

of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that there

was a Speaker's decision some years ago which made it clear

that there is no right

[ Page 2253 ]

for the Committee of the Whole House to have reached

decisions recorded in the House or in the House Journals . It is

only done by the unanimous leave of the House, as you know,

when we put that request to the House. Therefore, it's not a

question of rights that have been established so much as

unanimous leave that is respected by all Members. I think it's

a good practice that we respect the right of the Committee of

the Whole House to record its position — not just for this

House but for the people of the country. I'll take both those

questions under consideration and report back to the House. May

we get on with the business, now?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 1, Mr. Speaker.

PERPETUITIES ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in

introducing for second reading Bill 1, Perpetuities Act. I wish

at once to assure Hon. Members that this is not a bill to

perpetuate the life of this government...

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank God for that!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...the people will do that. I have to say

that this bill is

an Act to protect the unborn widow...

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): What's an unborn widow?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...to give a new lease on life to the

fertile octogenarian and to clean up the decision in the Magic

gravel pit case.

Having given that explanation, further explanations ought to

wait until this bill receives clause-by-clause consideration by

Hon. Members in Committee of the Whole House. At that time the

opportunity for each of us to take a short law course in the

law of perpetuities will be unlimited. I therefore move second

reading of Bill 1.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks of

the Hon. Attorney-General in introducing this bill for second

reading, I am waiting in great suspense to hear what he has to

say when we start discussing it clause by clause in committee,

because, if I followed his remarks correctly, he didn't say a

thing in introducing second reading.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): He said it

well.

MR. SMITH: Oh yes, I agree, he said it very well. But he

really didn't introduce anything in the way of the principle of this

bill, and it had very little to do with anything we have before us.

However, I do agree with the Hon. Attorney-General that this type of

bill can best be discussed in committee stage. There are some clauses

on which we would certainly like a more adequate explanation than what

we received from the Minister when he introduced it for second reading.

But we do believe that the bill can best be discussed in the committee

stage when we deal with it clause by clause.

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

very cheered to see that the proposed legislation is based upon

a model Act of the Uniform Law Conference, and that there's a

possibility they could perhaps assist the Legislature and the

Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: That's where it comes from — the

interpretation

of the statute.

This is a branch of an extremely difficult and complicated

area of the law. I do feel very strongly that as an aid to this

Legislature, the Hon. Attorney-General should file with the

Legislature, and all interested Members, copies of the Uniform

Law Conference paper dealing with the topic, also the raison

d'etre for the legislation because that is not explained in the

explanatory note, is not explained by the Attorney-General.

So, in essence, anyone who will either vote for or against

this bill will be voting totally in the dark, and I don't think

that's the legitimate responsibility of an elected

representative.

There are very few practitioners who are aware of this

extremely complicated topic. The general public are totally

unaware of it. I think there has been one member of the

Attorney-General's staff, a member of the Attorney-General's

staff of this province for no end of years, who has become

considerably expert in this very unique and extremely small

field.

I think the Attorney-General would be best serving this

Legislature and all Members here if he would kindly furnish

some information. I don't think it's enough at this point just

to say, "Here's the bill; I don't know what it means. It's

bound to mean something for the good of some people, unborn

widows," and say, "Okay, we can intelligently make an

assessment at this point in time."

MR. WALLACE: I was much encouraged by the comments from the

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey because, first of all, I can't

understand what the bill's all about and, secondly, our caucus

is a little short on lawyers. (Laughter.) I do feel that the

language is very technical and the Attorney-General, whose

sense of humour is so often very much

[ Page 2254 ]

appreciated on this side of the House, I think today has

tended to go just beyond the mark, going from being humourous

to being a little...

AN HON. MEMBER: Facetious.

MR. WALLACE: ...well, even more than facetious, perhaps a

little conceited towards this House. This is a fairly lengthy

and complicated bill. I would like to encourage fertile

octogenarians, too — it's good for the medical profession — but

I don't see them defined in the bill. I just think, with the

greatest of respect, that the Attorney-General owes this House

just a little more in general terms for the layman like myself

to try and understand this bill and study it further. I would

hope we could have that before we have to vote either for or

against it on second reading.

MR. GIBSON: As a layman anxious to scuttle off to the

library and study the law, I would just ask the

Attorney-General, when he closes debate on second reading, if

he could be good enough to give us the place where the Magic

gravel pit case is reported.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I would like to go into this very deeply

on second reading. However, I will take my place very quickly

in breathless anticipation of hearing the Hon. Attorney-General

explain to us the uncommon law of perpetuities and how it will

be changed by this legislation.

MR. MORRISON: I would like the Attorney-General, in closing

the debate, to advise, since this is Bill 1 and traditionally

Bill 1 dies on the order paper, if he's just having a little

fun this afternoon in trying to bring the House back to order,

or if he's deadly serious — and I underline that word

"deadly."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In winding up the debate...

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member winds up the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...on this exciting bill...

MR. SPEAKER: I'm supposed to say that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...if I can give a little explanation of

the law of perpetuities, I will try.

If somebody leaves an estate or a property for other people,

to have that vested in them in the future, the courts will

strike down such a bequest, or such a trust, if it might vest

in somebody who is now unborn.... It has to vest in the

life of somebody who's now living, or 21 years thereafter.

The Magic gravel pit case is an example. The father left the

gravel pit to grandchildren to develop housing property thereon

when the gravel pit was exhausted. But in theory that gravel

pit could have perpetually, one pebble at a time, been

excavated. So the court, under a very technical and ancient

rule of law, struck down the entire gift.

In the case of the fertile octogenarian; everybody knows

that he can't have further life or lives in being. Isn't that

true...for the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) to agree

upon? We all know that octogenarians do not bear children; but

as they might be able to bear children, gifts of that kind have

been stricken down by the courts.

So what this bill is doing is creating some certainty in a

difficult field of law by saying that if the thing can vest

within 80 years, no further word. Then the other principle in

the bill is to eliminate, or rather to institute, the

wait-and-see rule, so that in the Magic gravel pit case the

court would say: "Yes, that might vest so far into the future

that the court will strike it down, but we're going to wait for

the occasion to see whether, in fact, that improbability has

occurred." So the court will not immediately strike it down; it

will wait and see.

That, basically, is the explanation of this bill which, as

the Hon. Member said, has come up through the throes of the

uniformity commissioners.

Bill 1, Perpetuities Act, read a second time and referred to

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Second reading of

Bill 2 intituled Patients' Estates Amendment Act.

PATIENTS' ESTATES

AMENDMENTS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill does add an

additional person who can certify that somebody is mentally incapable

or physically incapable, for that matter, after a serious accident —

somebody in a coma or something of that kind — of protecting their own

property. On proper notice to the public trustee, such a designated

person, who has to be a medical practitioner, can make an adjudication

without, as now is the case, the person either being confined to a

provincial mental institution, in which case the director is

automatically the trustee of that person's assets, or taking the other

road, having to undergo a court application with affidavits and some

delay and a great deal of expense when perhaps the estate is a very

small one and going to a judge to make that declaration. At the present

time, the public trustee has quite a few of these applications per

month and he's not a doctor.

[ Page 2255 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How many?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: About 30 or 40 a month. Most of them are

still automatic.

At the same time the bill enlarges the appeal procedure to

make it clear that in the three possible cases where a person

might be declared incapable of managing his affairs (the first,

of course, is because they have entered a provincial mental

institution; the second is that they have gone to court and

they have been so adjudged by a judge; and the third is if the

doctor acts under this provision) the opportunity for appeal of

that order is widened and all three cases can be appealed. That

appears in

section 5 of the Act. Under

section 2,

section 5,

which is the appeal section, is amended so that there is an

appeal in any of these three cases.

There are occasions, of course, where an elderly person

becomes mentally incompetent and their estate is in danger — sometimes

from relatives, sometimes from hucksters or salesmen — and the relatives, with the best will in the world, even

though it's a very small estate, must now take a very

circuitous and difficult route to protect that estate, but I

think we have broadened the appeal provisions.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to second reading of

this bill, I believe we will support the principle of this

particular Act, but there are a couple of questions which I'd

like the Attorney-General to address his thoughts to before

closing second reading of this bill.

The first is the fact that the explanatory notes attached to

the bill indicate, at least to me, that the office of the

public trustee is overworked — at least, this is the impression

that I get from reading the explanation — and that that is one

of the reasons you require an appointment of a designated

medical examiner under this particular Act. I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General what he contemplates in terms of appointments

of medical practitioners under this Act. Is it to be one person

who will work in harmony with the public trustee, or do you

contemplate the appointment of a number of medical

practitioners? I would also like to ask the Attorney-General

his definition of what constitutes a medical practitioner in

the Province of British Columbia. Is there any specific

certification that you are looking for other than the approval

of their own college of physicians and surgeons?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A member of that.

MR. SMITH: A member of that particular college, yes.

I hope he will give assurance to the House that this is not a means

of building up another bureaucracy outside of the office of the public

trustee in terms of medical practitioners who will be appointed by some

means to act on behalf of that particular office. It does seem that

it's a good idea to have medical advisers or practitioners available to

assist the public trustee in dealing with this type of work because

much of it is of a nature that a public trustee ordinarily, unless he

were a medically qualified and trained man in this particular area,

would not be that familiar with.

I think those are the only remarks I would like to make at

this time, and I would just like to have the assurance of the

Attorney-General as to what he has in mind with respect to the

appointment of medical practitioners to serve as part and

parcel of this Act — he has already explained how he determines

a medical practitioner — and the assurance that it is not to

build up another bureaucracy within a bureaucracy.

MR. GARDOM: Just an observation to the Hon.

Attorney-General. Under the Patients' Estates Act as it now

reads, a person may be certified following a certificate signed

by a director of a provincial mental health facility as defined

in the Mental Health Act...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Only if you are in there.

MR. GARDOM: That's right...or by the officer in charge of a

psychiatric unit so defined. That is correct. That deals with

people who happen to be hospitalized at the point of time. But

all of the expertise is within that facility in order to duly

inform the director or the officer in charge, so they have a

great deal of expertise to come to them.

The other provision under the Act, which is one which I

think has worked successfully over the years, is to have it as

a requirement that two duly qualified practitioners set forth

their opinion and affidavit.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And to court.

MR. GARDOM: That's right. And what you have substituted here

is that the third one is a medical practitioner as designated

by yourself. But it is peculiar to me, Mr. Attorney-General,

why we are going to have the double standard: it is necessary

to have the opinion of two qualified practitioners tested

judicially, yet under your proposed amendment here, one single

individual, providing that individual is designated by your

government, would be in a position to certify or decertify. I

fail to see the logic of that. I fail to see the logic of that

point.

I notice that you have expanded the right of appeal...and

my apologies for interjecting when you were speaking, but I

thought you were referring to

section 5 of your amendment and

you were referring, indeed, to

section 5 of the statute.

You

[ Page 2256 ]

have amended that to enlarge the right of appeal but I don't

really think that is enough. I can't understand why you are

proposing this inconsistency. I think there is a valid argument

for you to take the position that you can go the route other

than a court route via, say, a designated physician. But should

it not be via the opinions of two, the same as the court route?

In this one, we don't even have the opportunity for the

individual or his next of kin to challenge the matter

judicially, which one does have in — what will I say — the

"independent" certifications. To me, unless I am missing the

point, or perhaps unless you have not explained it to us to the

extent of the material that you have, it seems to me that you

have an inconsistency and an unnecessary inconsistency. It is

not improving anything in my view, save and except, perhaps,

making an easier route. But in making it an easier route are we

not at the same time depriving people of some of the checks and

balances that have existed heretofore in the law?

Of course, this can be an extremely serious thing. If we

happen to have the situation which can happen...doctors,

lawyers, like anyone else in society, can have their unbalanced

times. It would certainly be very unfortunate, in my view, if

we ever ran into the situation in which we were rubber-stamping

people into hospitals under these kinds of circumstances. I am

afraid that, with all respect, Mr. Attorney-General, enough

thought has not been given to this point.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has nothing to do with putting them

in hospitals.

MR. GARDOM: Well, certifying them. They end up in

hospitals.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They may or may not.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Attorney-General, your head note reads, "To

Certification and Decertification." You are granting that to a

single practitioner to make that choice and that decision.

The second point, Mr. Attorney-General, is that I commend

the amendment referred to in

section 4 of the proposed bill

before us today, that the public trustee is to have due notice

of all applications to a judge and of every appeal under the

Act, but I cannot see a similar protection being extended on

these single certification steps.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's for challenging.

MR. GARDOM: But, Mr. Attorney-General, the reason for you

putting in the notice

section is to provide notice. Court records are

public documents, at least. You are just saying that the court registry

shall phone the public trustee or there is a responsibility under your

amendment to serve the public trustee. I think that is fine and dandy.

I think it is certainly going to increase their workload.

Apropos of the question of the Member from Peace, the

workload of the public trustee in the City of Vancouver is

certainly very, very onerous indeed. I think something has got

to be done there to provide a great deal of assistance. They

are doing a first-class job, but they are understaffed and they

are certainly not going to have the mechanics to process the

procedure that you have encompassed here without some degree of

enrichment from your good office.

I would ask you to take a second look at this thing. I think

the concept is okay, but I think it should certainly be

parallel and similar to the provisions under the statute as

they now exist — not one doctor but two.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think there are few

responsibilities that fall upon a physician that can give him

or her more deep concern than the power to say, state and

commit in writing himself or herself to the opinion that a

person is incapable, either physically or mentally, of making

decisions, particularly in dealing with their own affairs.

You're not in practice very long as a general practitioner

before you run into cases where you have the most difficult

challenge in trying to determine the validity of the evidence

that's been presented to you by relatives. Many times evidence

is presented in utter good faith; they are completely genuine

in concern for their relatives. Yet as the physician, you often

go and talk to the patient who may have relatively clear

moments or clear days, and you just find it very difficult to

accept the evidence you have had second-hand from friends or

relatives.

[Mr. D'Arcy in the chair.]

So first of all, I don't think we can ever run the risk in this

House or in legislation of overlooking the tremendous deprivation of

individual rights that can result from a physician making a certain

statement about the physical or mental capacity of an individual.

The point made by the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) is absolutely right: each doctor has his good days and

his bad days and makes mistakes. Therefore, I personally don't

feel that it is right to give this much power, even with the

best intentions, to one physician.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if this bill becomes

law, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) will have some

considerable difficulty getting the number of volunteers or appointees

as physicians, because I know that there is no way that I would be

happy as a physician on my own, in certain

[ Page 2257 ]

cases, to be given that much authority to determine whether

or not a person is capable of making certain decisions

regarding their property or their assets. Time and time again

in medical practice I've been very grateful for the legislation

which now exists whereby there has to be a fellow practitioner

agreeing with the original physician's opinion.

In very specific terms, as the Minister knows, when

physicians certify a patient, what happens is not just some

bland general statement that they think the patient is mentally

disordered. One has to state in fairly specific terms the

evidence you have yourself witnessed or elicited from the

patient which leads you to believe that this patient is not

mentally capable of making responsible decisions.

In conjunction with

the reasons I have quoted would give me

concern, I am disturbed by the explanatory note which says:

"This is intended to relieve some of the load on the Public

Trustee who at present deals with many applications a month...."

If I have to be very blunt about it, Mr. Attorney-General, I

think it's much more important that individuals don't run the

risk of being wrongly certified than that we take sympathy for

the physical administrative load of the public trustee. If the

explanatory note applied to

section 1 is the primary motive for

bringing this bill into the House, then I have to say, with the

greatest respect, that it is completely unjustified in terms of

the risk you are creating in having that much authority placed

in the hands of one physician.

We've joked about octogenarians and so on this afternoon but

I must say that in practice these days dealing with very

elderly persons is more and more a problem facing physicians.

It is not by any means always clear-cut as to when a person has

lost the capacity to make responsible decisions in light of

their arteriosclerosis or other aging processes. If I could

just add to that, there have been times when I have decided

that certification would be justified, then asked a second

opinion. The second physician goes and sees the patient at a

time when he or she has one of these brighter moments and comes

back to the first physician and says that we can't certify this

patent. Yet perhaps 12 hours later or 24 hours later, a

re-examination would show a different set of circumstances.

I am very concerned at the suggestion in this bill that one

designated physician, with all the good will in the world, is

going to make, sooner or later, some very serious mistakes as

they affect the rights of certain individuals.

Now if there were some more pressing reason than the administrative

load on the public trustee, I might be willing to reconsider. But in

light of my own experience, not only in British Columbia but elsewhere,

and the very serious approach which physicians take to this very

unpleasant responsibility very often, I really have to ask the

Attorney-General, as did the Member for Vancouver-Point Grey, to

reconsider. Is the risk involved in giving this responsibility to one

physician justified if, in fact, it is being done to relieve the

administrative load on the public trustee? I think there are better

ways to do it.

I am never very happy, in fact I never will be happy, where

one physician is given this kind of authority, and I regret

that I have to oppose the reading in second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon.

Members. There are other reasons, of course, that are set out

in the explanatory note. If an estate were, say, $1,000, of an

elderly person, and they were not confined in a provincial

mental institution, then the relatives would have to directly,

or through the public trustee, apply to the court, in the

Supreme Court of British Columbia, in a very complicated and

expensive legal proceeding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it is expensive. It would use up

the $1,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Come on now!

MR. GARDOM: Oh, where have you been?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've been around looking at legal bills,

and I'm inclined to think that in many cases that kind of an

application would run very close to....

MR. GARDOM: About $150.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, well, some people will do that,

okay. But an awful lot.... Many times it is more expensive.

Even the service charges are very considerable. You've got to

serve a number of people. I think it would be more than that,

Mr. Member.

I make this other distinction: first, the expense in a small

estate; secondly, the delay, which would be — what, 10 days?

Possibly. All right. Then I'll come on to the other thing.

Secondly the delay — thirdly the suggestion that it should be

two doctors.

Unfortunately it is a pretty big province, and one of the

things about the public trustee's office is that he is kind of

available in the lower mainland. I would say, in answer to the

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), that the appointments

should be very

[ Page 2258 ]

limited, and they should be psychiatrists. They'd mostly be

in the public service, members of the College of Physicians and

Surgeons, psychiatric training, limited in appointment numbers — but to some extent dispersed through the province, because

that's part of the present problem.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Now you ask why it shouldn't be two. But

you are talking about two certifying a patient for compulsory

admission to a mental institution, and that's not what I'm

talking about. We're talking about an order that might

preserve, pending a court review if anybody wants it, the

patient's estate. Now both of them are an onerous kind of task

to put up to a doctor. But protecting the property for a short

period, particularly in small estates, without having to go

through the whole legal machinery, is something that I am

advised by the public trustee can be done with safety, can be

watched carefully and the appointments will be very limited in

number. But there are occasions when that estate can be bilked,

and I think we have all heard about them. You know, there are

cases of that kind; so I think we should be able to protect

these people as best we can, and this legislation is a proposal

in that direction.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Of course there are.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but I again make the point that

when you talk about the two doctors you are talking about the

committal proceeding to a mental institution.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not in this — in the original Act.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and when they're in there, the

director is the custodian of their property. But I'm talking

about somebody outside of a provincial mental institution whose

property may be in need of protection; and much as that Hon.

Member would like to see everything go to court, there are

people who should be protected who have neither the means nor

the time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In some circumstances, to undergo that

route. I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 27

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Brown

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Bill 2, Patients' Estates Amendment Act, 1975, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 3.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Public

Trustee Amendment Act, provides that the public trustee can be

named in a will as an executor. That's just a minor change, but

it's a useful change because there are estates where somebody wants to name a public body, and to go to a trust company is

not warranted by the size of the estate. This can now be

done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Okay. Now what's the second point

about this bill? And this one is absolutely hilarious.

MR. GARDOM: You missed the other one.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I missed the other one

[ Page 2259 ]

completely.

This one is that the public trustee — he does receive

complaints from time to time — can monitor an estate where an

infant or a mentally incompetent person is involved. At the

present time he has to wait, listen to the complaints and hope

the relatives might take the thing into court before it is too

late. But if he does receive a complaint of this kind, he

should be able to intervene at the earliest possible moment and

ask the executor or the trustee or whoever is administering

that estate on behalf of an infant or somebody not able to look

after their own affairs: "Will you please bring in the books

and show us that you are properly administering that estate,

that you have secured the necessary bonds, that your bonds are

in good shape, and that there is no danger that that estate

might be misused?" So, on that basis and with that explanation,

I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SMITH: It is perhaps a good thing to allow the public

trustee to now be named as an executor of an estate, rather

than having it the way it was before.

But the one part of this bill to which I think we take

strong exception is this matter of the public trustee

monitoring an estate on behalf of an infant or a mentally

disordered person, particularly this matter of a mentally

disordered person. I think that particular phrase is certainly

open to challenge, Mr. Attorney-General, because the phrase

"mentally disordered" is not defined. Hence, the government

could, I suppose, if they wanted, use this

section as a means

of directly investigating any kind of trust in British Columbia

simply by stating that, in its opinion, a person who may be a

beneficiary may be mentally disordered. I hardly think, or at

least I would hope that was not the Attorney-General's intent

in providing this section. Yet, unless you use some definitive

means of setting out the conditions which will apply before

someone is considered incompetent or mentally disordered, you

certainly leave it open to the suspicion by the public that

unilaterally the government could come to that decision and

investigate a trust under that guise for whatever reason they

themselves might have in mind.

I think the

section should be tightened so that the public

trustee could only launch such an investigation upon being

satisfied of a minimum set of circumstances, and those

circumstances should be spelled out within the statute. He

should have to show just cause before a judge of the courts,

and get an order before he was allowed to use the provisions of

this Act to investigate an estate on behalf of a so-called

mentally disordered person.

I do believe that you again have allowed yourself too much latitude,

or at least too much latitude in this respect to the public trustee

acting on behalf of the government in the right of the Crown. It would

leave itself open to abuse — if not actually, at least the type of

abuse that the public at large suspect may be the result of government

action.

I believe that this is the area you should have defined more

closely.

I am certainly going to listen with keen interest when the

Attorney-General closes second reading on this particular

bill.

MR. GARDOM: Nice to see you in the chair this afternoon.

The bill contains two principles, Mr. Speaker. The first is

one, as the Hon. Attorney-General has indicated, that enlarges

the powers of a public trustee. I think the Hon. Members have

got to remember that a public trustee can only act within the

legislative powers he is given. This is enlarging his powers

and giving him the opportunity, if people so choose, to

nominate him in a will, in an agreement or what-have-you, or

under a trust so that he can participate. This would be

according to the wishes of those people who would be making the

trust agreement, or the individual who would be preparing the

will. It similarly grants the court somewhat larger powers than

it had before to nominate the public trustee under the

circumstances mentioned. I think that is a valid measure. It is

one that is long overdue.

Dealing with his power to investigate and audit the affairs

and dealings of a trust involving infants or people who are

mentally disordered, it is a discretionary order. I don't

really envisage this as being an extension of the concept of

Big Brother, somewhat to the extent of the last speaker. I

think this again is a needful protection for individuals who

are infants and individuals who are suffering mental disorders — that there can be an independent check and balance of the

financial affairs. It could be initiated, I presume, by any

interested individual upon approaching the trustee, or the

public trustee could initiate it on his own volition — so that

doesn't distress me.

However, one thing has distressed me over the years, and

that is: what remedy is there for the general public against

the incompetence of a public trustee? In order to support this

premise, I would indicate to the Hon. Attorney-General a

specific instance. This was a public trustee in one of the

hinterland offices; the individual in question just did not do

his job. He was thoroughly incapable and I gather eventually

was dismissed from office. But in the intervening period he

took on an estate of a fair amount of dollars. I've forgotten

the precise amount; it doesn't make too much difference. He did

not choose to effectively administer that estate. The money

wasn't wasted, it wasn't taken away, but he just didn't do his

job. He sold the assets, he gathered them in and he let them

sit in his desk or in a bank account for the better part of a

year and a half.

[ Page 2260 ]

During the intervening period, one of the beneficiaries

died. As it happened, the beneficiaries in question were

individuals who were outside of the jurisdiction of this

province. They lived in a foreign country. One of the

beneficiaries died. This estate was hit by the tax gatherer — the first

estate that the public trustee was administering — and it paid its

provincial succession duties. At that point in

time it paid its federal estate tax too. So it did everything

it was supposed to do as far as the tax gatherer was

concerned.

Had the public trustee done his job and at that point

transmitted the funds to the beneficiaries, there wouldn't have

been a reason for a complaint. But there was. A beneficiary

died and then it was adjudicated right through to the federal

court of Canada that there had to be a second tax because of

the failure, in essence, of this public trustee for the

Province of British Columbia to administer. The beneficiaries

ended up with I think a $9,000 shortfall. That's just not

right.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, no. No, not the present trustee. I made that

point earlier. I said he was discharged — he's no longer a

public trustee. No, no, he's no longer a public trustee. He was

discharged, I believe, before your term of office commenced. I

may be wrong on that, but that's neither here nor there. The

point is that by virtue of the negligence and the

non-performance of this public servant, these people have

suffered a $9,000 loss and they are essentially without remedy.

I think the Act should be beefed up to provide protection for

people who have suffered that kind of a wrong. There would have

never ever been this double taxation had this man attended to

his P's and Q's and done his job. Instead he sat on his oars

for a year and a half and people died, then they were faced

with double taxation and an extra $9,000-odd. That's just not

fair. There is not any provision within existing legislation to

provide protection for those kinds of people. Maybe if the Hon.

Attorney-General would be prepared to look at it from an

order-in-council point of view, I'd be delighted to bring that

to the attention of the beneficiary.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I say from an order-in-council point of view for

assistance, because that would be the only remedy that would be

open to them now. It would have to be a discretionary matter on

the part of the cabinet.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I join with the two previous

speakers in congratulating the Attorney-General on expanding the powers of the public

trustee. Such powers have been granted to the public trustee in

the Province of Alberta for some years. As a consequence, it

has become quite prevalent practice in that jurisdiction for

people, when making their wills, to appoint the public trustee

in addition to some close friend or member of their family,

thereby avoiding what is sometimes a very large expense in

appointing some corporate trustee. I'm not criticizing the

corporate trustees, but it gives another avenue where some

accounting procedures or facilities are available.

However, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to

draw the attention of the Attorney-General to what appears to

be a change in the law to which he did not make specific

reference in opening this debate. It deals with the first

section of the legislation which now appears to give a majority

of the beneficiaries of a trust the power to appoint the public

trustee to act. That's a situation which does not exist in the

law today.

Under the present legislation of this province, the Trustee

Act, in the event that the trustee appointed dies or becomes

incapable of acting, if the instrument itself provides a method

for substituting a trustee, then that must be followed. If

there isn't such a method, then the Trustee Act goes on at some

length to provide the mechanism by which a new trustee is

substituted. But under the first

section of this bill —

section

2 — it would appear that now the beneficiary — a majority of

the beneficiaries — would be able to act in a limited way to

appoint the public trustee.

I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily an improper

change in the law. But I think it's one that needs to be looked

at very carefully, because if you have a number of

beneficiaries, all of them of age and all of them capable of

acting, it is possible that serious disputes can arise. I'm not

sure that the administration of a trust is necessarily best

served by the democratic principle so far as the beneficiaries

are concerned. Beneficiaries can be in varying degrees and it

is possible, on the basis of numbers alone, to interfere

seriously with the regulation of the trust. It seems implicit

section 1 that this is now open to beneficiaries to appoint

the public trustee. I'd like the Attorney-General to reassure

us if that's not the case.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In looking at the language, in answer to

the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, it would seem to

me that this is only if the testator or the settler of a trust

originally appointed the public trustee. I don't see it as

being an avenue whereby in the case of the death or

resignation of a trustee, at that later stage, the public

trustee could be substituted for one of the appointed

trustees.

Interjection.

[ Page 2261 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think the trustee's jurisdiction

here originates from the original appointment, under

section 8.

I'll check that before we get to committee.

The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) decried

the power to investigate here, and admittedly it's not too well

defined as to what a mentally disordered person is. It isn't

somebody necessarily committed to a provincial mental

institution; it isn't somebody necessarily so defined by two

doctors. It's somebody in trouble. All the

section is doing is

giving the public trustee not the power to administer that

estate, but to investigate it; to ask them questions; to ask

them to produce their books; to order an audit, if necessary.

If he's willing to do that — he's not apt to take on many cases

just for the heck of it; he's got enough to do — he's done no

harm.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I suppose he could, but all he does

is investigate the thing. You know, the whole estate is subject

to the court anyway. Finally it comes back to court and the

accounts are passed, but it's in that intermediate period where

somebody is complaining that there's been abuse and, say, the

minor or the other person doesn't have a lawyer that's acting

for them, and a pretty good case is being made out that that

person is being deceived; then the public trustee can ask for

information. Basically, that's all the

section is saying.

Bill 3, Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Second reading of Bill 4.

INVESTMENT CONTRACTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Bill 4 is another kind of

legal bill. I'm inclined to think we're beginning to lose our audience

on some of these bills. But it has a kind of an important principle. We

have established in this government an appeal tribunal known as the

Corporate and Financial Services Commission. We have part-time people

on there as well as people who are more fully engaged in governmental

work. Under this Act we now make available an appeal to that tribunal.

Really, that's all we're doing in the Act. We hope to be, and we will

be as we come to the Mortgage Brokers' Act, for example, making that

appeal avenue available to the same commission. It's kind of a good

thing that people with problems under this Act now have an avenue of

appeal.

I think it's working well. They've had quite a few cases.

They've given written reasons on occasion, and it's a competent

commission.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, they don't have to, I don't think,

give written reasons. I'd have to go back to the original Act.

I don't think so, but under the Securities Act they've been

fairly busy, and they should be busy under some of these other

statutes of the Legislature where heretofore people did not

have a proper recourse.

Bill 4, Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Second reading of Bill 5.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In support of this bill, generally

speaking, it is correcting some difficulties in wording, which

I'll explain in committee if pressed, and it is also providing

that in certain cases, namely that of infants and persons who

are incapable, the public trustee should receive all the court

documents as notice so that he can carefully vet and protect

the interests of those people. So it's basically improving the

service provisions that are in the present Act in respect to

the public trustee having notice and the beneficiaries having

notice, although that isn't changed from this Act.

In committee there will be an amendment to the last

section

of the bill because we think that isn't too well worded at the

present time and I think an amendment is on the order

paper.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, there's just one thing within this

particular bill that I would like to draw to the attention of

the Attorney-General. I presume he's as much aware of it as I

am, and that is this matter of sending out notices under this

particular

section by regular mail. They "must be mailed," as it says in some of these sections.

I wonder if the Attorney-General has given any thought to

the idea of all notices going out by registered mail. I think

this is particularly important today in the light of the

experience that most of us have had in receiving and mailing

letters and important documents by regular mail within the past

number of months. Quite often the service is less than adequate

and there seems to be an increasing ability by the postal

department to misplace or lose mail for

[ Page 2262 ]

extended periods of time. As a result of that, it might be

proper for the Attorney-General to consider notices under this

or anything that has to do with the implementation of these

sections of the Act, if he included that the notices must go be

registered mail rather than just by mail or regular mail.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to have

another look at that, although it will be a sad day for this

country if, by saying that something should not be served by

regular mail, our mail service has fallen into such disrepute

or into such a state of negligence that you can't count in the

ordinary way on that kind of a notice being delivered. That

would be a sad day. If we've arrived at that point perhaps the

answer is not to change this Act but to improve our postal

services.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, Administration Amendment Act, 1975, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 6.

CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this little bill, which I

think will probably be explained in relation to Bill 7 at more

length, perhaps, if Members desire, by the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), who is not in his place, is

complementary to Bill 7 and would allow the farmers' and

women's' institutes to become a cooperative. That's the

size of it. It is for various reasons, including the superior

kind of organization and even tax reasons on behalf of the

members of the institute.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: I agree with the Attorney-General that it's a

little unfortunate that we couldn't have heard the comments of the

Minister of Agriculture on Bill 7 before we dealt with Bill 6, really.

I realize that it's approval in principle, and the thing that runs

through my mind is the question as to who initiated the request for

this. Was it members of the Farmers' Institute themselves, or are they

having some problem with their own member organizations not keeping

their registrations up? Is there some problem in that respect? While I

don't oppose the principle of the bill in second reading, I think it

would be interesting for all of us to have had an opportunity to listen

to the Minister of Agriculture prior to being asked to approve second

reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, I'm

sure that will be explained by the Minister of Agriculture that

this legislation is at the request of the institute.

Motion approved.

Bill 6, Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1975, read

a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Second reading of Bill 8.

LIMITATIONS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, The Limitations Act is to

introduce a measure of....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, that is the Minister of

Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are discussing Bill 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Bill 8, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt

which has gone on for a long period of time to introduce some

simplicity into the general law of limitations. At the present

time it is a wilderness of differing times and conditions under

which somebody can assert their rights in court. We have cut

through the thickets with basically a two-year limitation

period.

Now you need some exceptions even to that. If Hon. Members

have done their homework and they have read the report of the

Law Reform Commission of British Columbia of 1974 (and I'm sure

they have, Mr. Speaker) they will find that the question of

transition the question of some exceptions, becomes something

that has to receive attention. So even this bill isn't all that

small.

I might say I am prepared, on this bill, to listen to

particular sections so that it may be that in committee we will

take another look at them. I have lots of representations, for

example, from municipalities in relation to applying the

two-year limitation upon suits against municipalities. I have

been kind of receptive to the representations that have been

made because there can be a difficulty in reassembling the

evidence after a period of time without any notice to the

municipalities. We are looking at a possible solution to that

kind of a problem.

Then, in the case of fraudulent breaches of trust, of

course, you enter into an entirely different field,

[ Page 2263 ]

where somebody is deliberately pulling the wool over

somebody else's eyes in order to induce them not to take action

within two years, or hiding the situation from them. There,

obviously, the two years is not adequate. So there are

exceptions, but generally it will be welcomed as, on-the-whole,

a simple, understandable rule.

As I say, it is subject to listening by particular sections,

although I don't suppose they are totally in order in the

debate on principle. I would be glad to hear about them with a

view to possible amendments.

I move second reading.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): The Hon.

Attorney-General, in introducing this bill for second reading,

has touched on one point which I do wish to raise. I might say,

Mr. Speaker, that when we are dealing with legislation, which

is essentially the province of those who have been legally

trained, then we laymen step in with a little fear and

trepidation. Nonetheless, I hope that the Minister will do more

than listen to the municipalities with respect to the impact

that Bill 8, as presently written and presented to this House,

will have on local government.

If I may cite what I believe to be an accurate and very

straightforward example, we have a man or woman named Jones

proceeding along the street, stumbling on a broken curb,

suffering some injuries, and deciding that really the

municipality or regional district is at fault. Under the

existing legislation, it was necessary for this person named

Jones to take certain action within a certain length of time.

If it carries as presently drawn, then this person has a much

longer time in which to notify the municipality or the regional

district — the area of local government concerned — that in

fact he or she did stumble on the sidewalk and suffer painful

injuries which resulted in treatments for a sore back and so on

for a number of months. In the meantime, as the

Attorney-General must realize, in the specific which I cite for

you the municipality in the course of normal maintenance may

well have come along and repaired the curb, the sidewalk, the

pothole, whatever. So the evidence has disappeared.

I can't make it any more straightforward than that, again,

speaking as a layman, but as one who has some knowledge of the

problems associated with local government and frivolous actions

which are occasionally taken against local government. If that

one example is in here, there may be many, many more.

I took the liberty of referring this to a well-known and, I

consider, very knowledgeable, municipal solicitor in British Columbia.

He does agree that the

section — and I realize we are discussing the

bill in principle — of the bill which directly changes sections of the

Municipal Act will, to quote him, "very seriously interfere with the

protection presently afforded to municipalities and which they have

enjoyed for many years."

Section 738 of the Municipal Act, Mr. Speaker, provides that

all actions against a municipality for the unlawful doing of

anything purporting to have been done by such municipality

under powers conferred by

an Act of the Legislature must be

commenced within six months after the cause of the action first

arose, and that all other actions against a municipality shall

be commenced within one year after the cause of such

action.

Section 739 of the Municipal Act provides that a

municipality is in no case liable for damages until notice in

writing setting forth the time, the place and the manner in

which such damage was sustained is given to the municipality

within two months after the date on which the damage was

sustained. That

section also provides that the want or

insufficiency of the notice is not a bar to the maintenance of

an action if, in the opinion of the court, there is reasonable

excuse for such want or insufficiency.

Now in these instances, in the example which I set out for

the Attorney-General, perhaps two months is fair, or some other

relatively short period. But I do urge upon the

Attorney-General and those who advise him in this matter to

very carefully examine the impact on local government and,

hopefully, to amend the bill in committee stage in order that

we can avoid the very serious impediment in the reasonable

operation of a municipality or regional district in dealing

with individuals who rightly or not rightly claim to have

encountered some difficulty as a result of an oversight of

carelessness on the part of a municipality.

I can't speak to the balance of the bill with any great

assistance to those learned gentlemen in here who carry law

degrees, but I do point out this particular problem, and

emphasize again the need for very careful study of this in the

local government context.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: I'm very happy to see that this Attorney-General

has taken it upon himself to give consideration to reform in

this rather difficult and complicated area. I'm somewhat

cheered to see that it's come in nine years since it was first

raised in this House. I have a degree of personal experience on

that point because I remember I raised it first in this House,

way back in 1966. We had a plethora of limitation periods; the

law was quite uncertain and there was certainly a necessity for

an improvement.

As I must mention in taking a look at this statute, Mr.

Speaker, that there is something wrong with our process here

today. It's this: this covers such a multitude of matters — it

talks about injury to people, defamation, trespass, false imprisonment,

[ Page 2264 ]

malicious prosecution. It refers to no end of statutes: the

Privacy Act; the Families' Compensation Act; the Bankruptcy Act

(Canada) — just to name a few — the Patients' Estates Act; the

hydro power authority Act; the limitations under the Labour

Relations Act; drainage, diking and development statutes;

Industrial Transportation Act; the Laws Declaratory Act; the

Railway Act; the Official Guardian Act; the Minimum Wage Act.

It pretty well encompasses the bulk of all of the statutory

authorities that we have here.

Now this, in my view, is a bill that requires examination of

the minutest detail. I do not think that a Committee of the

Whole House is the correct form to do that. This is, I think,

an area where we could certainly have legislative reform in

this province, and a bill such as this should move to an

independent committee of the House and be thoroughly examined

there. I don't think....

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, he's referring to the report of the Law

Reform Commission.

It should move to an independent committee of the House

where it can receive more detailed consideration and certainly

more detailed analysis.

I also feel that in view of the fact that the bill is highly

complicated and has introduced a number of measures that are

somewhat unknown or extremely obscure insofar as the common law

is concerned — the confirmation of causes of action, the running

of time, the postponements of running of time set forth under

the bill — I think the Attorney-General would best serve the

people of this province to get this bill into second reading,

just let it sit there, and not bring it up until....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: After the election?

MR. GARDOM: Well, if we're going to have an election before

you bring that up, I welcome that, so would the people of this

province, Mr. Attorney-General. I can tell you one thing, Mr.

Attorney-General, they are solid in one aspect — that the NDP will be

going out, and you can bet your bottom dollar on that. Seventy-five per

cent of the people of this province are not going to go ahead and have

their desires and their interests subverted by the minority, and make

no mistake of that. So the Hon. Attorney-General would be best serving

all of the citizens of this province if he hoisted this bill and let it

sit for a period of time — we've had statutes not as complicated as

this remain on the books for the better part of nine years — and let

more people in the community have an opportunity to consider the

measure and come back with valid assessments. I don't think that we

will be able, this session, with the Members we have here, to

thoroughly analyze this bill and come up with something that would be a

successful result.

It is a lawyer's dream, this bill. In fact, it is more of a

lawyer's nightmare, as my friend from Vict