1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 843 ]

FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, some

weeks ago the New Democratic Members in the House had the opportunity

of visiting the Washington State Legislature and the Senate and we were

given a very warm welcome as Members of this assembly. Today we are

honoured and very, very pleased to have a return visit from a number of

Representatives from Washington State. They are Representative Jeff

Dowthwaite, Representative Don Cheyney, Representative King Lyson,

Representative Charles Moon, and Representative Alan Thompson. They

have come in the spirit of friendship and cooperation. We've enjoyed

their visit. The Members who have not met them will have the

opportunity of meeting them in our caucus at 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and

I welcome you all and I would ask the House at this time to give

them a very warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier.

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

this province I want to join in the warm welcome of the Leader of the

Opposition. We are very fortunate that our only land neighbour is the

great United States of America.

We are very fortunate that we have a border of 4,000 miles with no

guns and no troops — with nothing but a spirit of goodwill. While we

differ in opinions from time to time, that's not bad, that's good,

that's healthy in a world in which we live. I join in a very warm

welcome.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 17th of Ireland. A very important day and

I rise as Premier of the Province of British Columbia today to pray

that the Irish people everywhere will have peace and prosperity.

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

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

first welcome our American visitors today to say on one occasion when I

visited an American State Legislature, they did me the courtesy of

inviting me to address them. I was greeted in a very mixed way because

it was the California Senate and I explained to them how in Canada that

the tradition had been to appoint senators for life.

They gave me a rousing cheer. The sort I never get in this House.

But Mr. Speaker, I blew it, because I then said I was in favour of an

elected senate, at which point they turned around and booed me.

(Laughter).

It's a wonderful thing that we have such an opportunity to take

advantage of the goodwill and good wishes from our great neighbour to

the south, the warm welcome we get whether we're tourists or visiting

politicians to their country. In that spirit the Liberal Party along

with everybody in this House extends to you people from the United

States our very, very warmest welcome.

Mr. Speaker, never before have I made a comment on St. Patrick's day

though this is the country obviously where my ancestors came from.

We do have one of the great tragedies of the world taking place in

that country today. One would hope and pray that Irish people

everywhere would join in trying to find some happy solutions to that

country that has been plagued by revolution for so many decades. I

suppose the greatest hope of Irish people everywhere is that one day

peace and tranquility will descend upon that land.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker we

have joining us in the gallery at a later time this afternoon, three

groups of students. However there are three of them in the gallery at

the present time and they are from the Pender Harbour Secondary School,

in the Sechelt peninsula and there are also young people from Brannan

Lake School and Willingdon School. We've had a most enjoyable lunch

together and they are joining me at my place for supper tonight. They

are enjoying their visit to the buildings, to the museum and to

Victoria. I'm sure all the Members present would wish to welcome them

here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

along with the students whom I introduced last evening in the gallery

you will be pleased to know that we have three members of the British

Columbia Grape Marketing Board, Mr. Raikes, chairman; Dr. Avery, one of

the members and Mr. Stevenson, and they are as you know, representing a

new board. It is an infant but it is growing, and I hope an Members,

particularly the Honourable first Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Capozzi) will give them a very warm welcome this afternoon.

I would also like to, as a good farmer, thank my colleague, the

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for the

memento of Ireland and assure her as a farmer who took it home and

planted it last year, it makes a marvellous forage crop.

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

MR. E.M. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to recognise four special guests in your gallery today. They are

special representatives from the Lions Clubs of Vancouver and Victoria.

They are here for the purpose of presenting a special plaque to our

Premier to commemorate the great service that the government has given

for participation in their many senior citizens' projects.

Their names are Paul Wong, a well known Irishman from the Chinese

district; Jack Tang from Victoria; Bob Lebron, district governor for

the Greater Vancouver area and Jack Ellis. I would ask the Members to

welcome them and in so doing to pay their respects and appreciation to

the Lions Clubs for their great efforts in initiating no less than

seven senior citizens' projects in the greater Vancouver area.

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

[ Page 844 ]

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

draw the House's attention to the fact that there are 125 Templeton

High School students in the gallery this afternoon and their teachers,

Mr. Greer and Mr. Sage, and I'd ask the House to welcome them.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Just a short note, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the comments by the Honourable Minister without

Portfolio. I of course welcome the Grape Marketing Board, there are no

sour grapes in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, sitting in the laps of the

students from Templeton High School are 106 students from Johnson

Heights Secondary School in Surrey.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, and finally our good friend and former representative in this House, Mr. Tony Gardner.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the former Member be seated on the floor of the House.

Introduction of bills.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

KOOTENAY CANAL LAND ACQUISITION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House March 14, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 89. On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 89 Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

THIRD READINGS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 5, intituled

An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1961 .

Bill No. 5 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 10, intituled British Columbia Railway Company Share Capital Purchase Act, 1972 .

Bill No. 10 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 11, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 11, intituled

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954 .

Bill No. 11 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 12, intituled

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro, and Power Authority Act, 1964 .

Bill No. 12 committed and reported complete without amendment. Bill

No. 12 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS-43

Ney

Barrett

Black

Marshall

Dailly, Mrs.

Fraser

Cocke

Capozzi

Campbell, B.

Hartley

LeCours

Wolfe

Lorimer

Little

Smith

Hall

Jefcoat

McDiarmid

Williams, R.A.

Bruch

Chabot

Wenman

McCarthy, Mrs.

Chant

Kripps, Mrs.

Jordan, Mrs.

Loffmark

Mussallem

Dawson, Mrs.

Gaglardi

Price

Kiernan

Campbell, D.R.J.

Macdonald

Williston

Brothers

Strachan

Bennett

Shelford

Dowding

Peterson

Richter

Nimsick

NAYS-6

Brousson

Wallace

McGeer

Gardom

Clark

Williams, L.A.

PAIR

Vogel

Calder

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 18, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 18, intituled

[ Page 845 ]

Green Belt Protection Fund Act.

Bill No. 18 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 26, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 26, intituled

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act .

Bill No. 26 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 37, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 37, intituled

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act .

Bill No. 37 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 39, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 39, intituled Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act .

Bill No. 39 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 65, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FOREST ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 65. The Hon. second Member for Vancouver East.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 48?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill is before the House. The Hon. Member…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I realise this but the Chair is in no position to call the order of business.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't get it.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 65 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

THIRD READINGS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 60.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 60, Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act .

Bill No. 60 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 61, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 61,

An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965 .

Bill No. 61 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. NIMSICK: I'd like to ask what was the purpose. I was

looking at the orders of the day and we jumped from Bill No. 48 in

committee right down to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No.

AN HON. MEMBER: We jumped back again.

MR. NIMSICK: And then jumped back again. Now, I think…

AN HON. MEMBER: Too bad!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member knows the standing orders quite well.

MR. NIMSICK: What is it? You can jump any place you like?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, on government day.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, I think it was done as a cheap political trick when they saw the man was out of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Member is not in order. Next order.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, the Minister had to leave and that's why it was called.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 62, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PIPE-LINES ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 62. The Hon. Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 62, like its companion piece Bill No.61, seeks to arm the government of

[ Page 846 ]

the province with some control features protecting

our environment against spillage and things of that nature. I have been

conscious, Mr. Speaker, in that Bill No. 61, which is the one we just

dealt with did contain a great number of the powers that were

previously in the Act. However looking at Bill No. 62 I find there are

some new features added to the Pipe-lines Act and we're supporting this

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I

think the Hon. the Minister might elaborate a little more with regards

to this statute. It does strike me as significant that water is added

in this

section and I realise that slurry pipelines such as the ones

proposed by Cascades, the C.P.R. subsidiary, involves the diversion of

water from the Elk River or other sources.

However, it does seem to me that it might well include water

generally. I think that's a matter of some concern. I do believe, Mr.

Speaker, there is a great need for matters such as this to be dealt

with by the Public Utilities Commission.

The movement of bulk commodities within the province by pipe is a

critical transportation question. In many of the parts of the province

it is an effective monopoly power for the movement of certain goods.

It's unfortunate that it's not recognised in this manner.

With respect to the question of slurry pipe lines, Mr. Speaker, I

again hope that the Minister has given some thought to the various

approaches that might be taken with respect to this problem. That they

might be dealt with in a common way in common corridors in the province

so that there isn't a monopoly control with respect to the movement of

these goods. And the rights of ways for these kinds of pipe lines might

well be Crown corridors in which there were several carriers and that

could include the C.P.R. subsidiary or others.

Ideally it should be taken one step further. The Crown should have

equity, the Crown's lands in these corridors of the province should

form the basis for equities in the transportation system. So that the

Crown had an equity throughout these critical sinews through the narrow

valleys of British Columbia.

British Columbia is a little different than the prairie provinces

where they have quite a bit of freedom of movement around and through

and across their provinces. British Columbia, though, because of our

topography almost creates special conditions that single corporations

can take advantage of.

I am sorry that the Hon. the Minister hasn't seen this as a critical

transportation question — equal probably to the days of the C.P.R.'s

first railway in British Columbia. Pipelines are going to be the new

railways in this province and this nation and in other parts of the

world as well. It's unfortunate that the Minister doesn't see these

bulk-carrying pipelines for the critical transportation facilities that

they are.

You have an opportunity here to set some new goals and new standards

that will prevent the domination of the movement of certain bulk goods

by a corporation or a few corporations. The Province of Alberta with a

Social Credit government at the time, the Province of Saskatchewan,

have both indicated their concern about these questions with respect to

inter-provincial pipelines. They've intervened with respect to the

proposed potash carrier which would have moved from the prairie

provinces to British Columbia.

The Province of British Columbia has kept quiet on this question and

yet the Province of British Columbia has justified activities such as

American railways in order to deal with the problem of monopoly control

of pipelines. It's unfortunate that the Minister hasn't seen the

dimension of the problem that he's dealing with with respect to bulk

movement of goods in this province. Because it's clear now the C.P.R.

wants to continue to dominate the movement of bulk goods in this

province and obtain monopoly control for the next century like it's had

in the previous century for many reasons in this province.

The very fact that the Minister is not dealing with this problem in

the way that it should, mainly that the C.P.R. can again hold sway with

respect to controlling the price for the movement of basic bulk goods

through this province to the port at Roberts Bank and to the world,

that's going to be a major loss for all of us in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cowichan Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to agree with the Member who has just taken his place that this

is the new way of moving goods. I don't know how much experimentation

has been done on this, but I don't think it should be allowed to

develop as a private monopoly. It's much too important a process and I

do believe that where it's almost impossible to have competition or

it's not economic to have competition it should not be left in private

hands.

We can see the day coming when more and more of the coal from the

Kootenays will be moved this way as well as other types of solids and

that's what it mentions in this pipeline. In view of the potential

development that can take place in this area I'd like to read into the

records a letter which I came across just the other day. It was a

letter that was written to a M.T. Southporth who is the executive

secretary of the energy board. It was a letter sent to him while he was

in Japan. The letter is dated September 29, 1970 and the letter says:

Before you leave Japan I would appreciate your

arranging interviews with some of the leading coal users regarding the

possible sale of more coking coal and possibly some steam coal to Japan.

I would also like to know how the construction of

another rail line — the Kootenay-Elk Railway would affect the

possibility of obtaining new contracts.

That was signed by "Yours Sincerely, Gordon M. Shrum." So it's

obvious that we are moving and trying to get new contracts for the

steam coal and coking coal and if we're going to make this pipeline

effective and it's going to be used for that purpose I suggest it

should be a government-owned pipeline and not a privately-owned

pipeline.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Hon. the Minister will close the debate.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

In relation to the question put forward by the second Member for

Vancouver East, in relation to water, in recent years we've. been

getting higher and higher pressures and a prime example is the line

from Jordan River going through municipalities which could be very

devastating if there was a rupture of any kind by erosion, washing out

of foundations and so on. But at the same time in the oil fields

[ Page 847 ]

to recover the gas and petroleum in some instances we do have water fills.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: It's usually pumped under very substantial

pressure from rather long distances and this too also gives us some

concern and we have brought the water pipelines under the same

legislation as the petroleum pipelines.

Now, as far as the solids pipeline is concerned we did have an

application by the C.P.R. — an intent, it wasn't an application. I've

never received an application. An intent in December of 1969. Since

that time they have not shown any degree of setting down a firm

application for a solids pipeline to move coal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they still negotiating?

HON. MR. RICHTER: Yes, at my request that they had to set up

a corridor through a region in compliance with the regional district

and I had to have consent in writing from the regional district, or a

statement of consent that they were in accord. Now, unless I get that,

there's nothing, they haven't proven their pollution point, they

haven't even proven that they have a market for this. And as far as I'm

concerned the thing is that they've got too many imponderables, and

questionable things to give it even serious consideration at this time

as far as I'm concerned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Well, this is still a question. They have

no water right, they have no Crown right-of-way to the best of my

knowledge at this time. And it's more or less sitting pretty much in a

state of non-existence as far as I can see it right at this time. Along

with that matter of the P.U.C., this legislation will not interfere

with the P.U.C. In any way whatsoreve. Now any of those things coming

under the jurisdiction of the P.U.C. this will pertain strictly to this

pipeline Act as far as the physical and operational factors are

concerned and as far as the pipelines corridor. The environmental land

use committee have this matter under very serious consideration as to

having a common corridor and provincially-controlled corridor. I move

second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 62

An Act to Amend the Pipe-lines Act , be read a second time. Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 62 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 70, Mr. Speaker.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 70. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members will recall that in 1969 this Legislature enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Assistance Compensation Act .

That statute provided for compensation to be paid through the medium of

the Workmen's Compensation Act for persons injured or killed in

assisting peace officers in the discharge of their duties.

Now Mr. Speaker, the government proposes to embark on a full-fledged

programme of compensating victims of crime on those offences coming

within the

schedule of the bill which I draw to the Honourable Members'

attention.

The administration of the programme will remain with the Workmen's

Compensation Board and the rates of compensation authorised by the bill

are those payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act subject to the limitations in terms of amounts that are contained in the bill that's before the House.

Now those who would benefit from the operation of this bill are

persons who are injured as a result of the commission of one of the

offences mentioned in the schedule, also persons who are injured as a

result of an arrest or the attempted arrest of an offender, or when

assisting a peace officer in making or attempting an arrest of an

offender whether or not the offence is listed in the schedule, and

persons who are injured in preventing or attempting to prevent the

commission of a criminal offence whether or not the offence is listed

in the schedule. So the legislation in that respect is very broad

indeed.

In addition if the victim dies, the Act will operate to provide

compensation for his dependents. As well as the compensation in the

strict sense of the term there is provision for the Workmen's

Compensation Board to provide medical care, transportation, medicine,

crutches, artificial limbs and other medical apparatus. Under the same

provision the board would be empowered to make a daily allowance to an

injured victim while he's undergoing treatment. Furthermore the board

has given the power to replace and repair artificial appliances,

clothing, eye glasses, dentures, hearing aids under the circumstances

that are mentioned in that particular section.

Compensation under the proposed Act, Mr. Speaker, would be payable

either in a lump sum or instalments and if there's an infant involved

there is provision for moneys to be held in trust.

I draw the Honourable Members' attention to the provisions limiting

the total amount to be paid, a minimum as well as a maximum provision

for medical examinations, for reports, et cetera, medical reports, also

a report to this legislature annually.

I think in looking at the entire bill, Mr. Speaker, it may be said

that the bill represents the most generous legislation in Canada, with

respect to the compensation for victims of crime. It places this

province among the most advanced in this respect — in terms of criminal

injuries compensation legislation in Canada.

The compensation would be payable regardless of the place of

residence of the applicant. The compensation can be awarded whether or

not there is actually a prosecution or the conviction of an offence.

Where the applicant is in actual financial need, compensation is

payable by way of interim payments pending the determination of the

applicant's entitlement. Mr. Speaker, such interim payments are not

recoverable in the event that he is not entitled to compensation.

In contrast to similar legislation in some other jurisdictions, this

bill would not require the applicant to go through a hearing before the

full board in order to become entitled to

[ Page 848 ]

compensation. An officer of the board may make

whatever enquiries are necessary and the board may act upon his

recommendations. And last, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that this

bill does not purport to take away any cause of action which a victim

may have. The intention is to provide an alternative if such a victim

either does not wish to take action in the courts, or is not

financially able to do so. Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a

second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker we on this

side of the House welcome the introduction of this measure. It is a

very well thought out proposal. And I'm sure every member of the House,

not only on this side, but on the other side welcome the proposal that

is embodied in this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: But, but!

MR. DOWDING: I was going to come to the "but" later Mr.

Speaker, I was going to finish up my fulsome praise before I started

with the "buts."

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't shorten it.

MR. DOWDING: No, I won't shorten the praise. I think that a

great deal of credit must go to all those pioneers, on both sides of

the House, over the years who have proposed this kind of legislation.

And the legislation that we have had up to this time has not been

satisfactory. One of the problems, of course, was that coming to the

aid of a police officer who is in the act of doing something could lead

to many problems as to whether compensation would ever be given.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name the pioneers.

MR. DOWDING: I was thinking of for one the Honourable the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). I am thinking of the Member for

Point Grey, the second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I was

thinking of a man who is not in this House but ran for election in 1969

but for many years prior to that as a victim of a crime pursued with

solid purpose the promotion of this bill — Mr. Allan Duplessis. I think

all Members in the House owe a debt to him for having studied every

scheme around the world, and from that knowledge that he gleaned made

proposals to us from time to time to develop legislation that would

take care of the victims of crime.

As you may know Allan Duplessis was-himself a victim when he came to

the aid of a young woman in a cafe who was being attacked, and was

himself injured. He suffered permanent injury in that crime.

We, I think, must welcome the provision in the bill that regardless

of whether the offender or criminal is convicted of the offence if it

becomes obvious that the offence actually took place and for any reason

the offender may be acquitted — and there are many reasons in law why

an offender may be acquitted and yet the crime take place — none the

less under the bill it does provide compensation may be awarded in such

an event and I think that's an excellent provision.

I think it's an excellent provision that you don't have to wait

until the completion of all the proceedings that might take place to

establish that a crime was committed, because in many cases it's a

prima facie crime, or an event that only can be described as a crime.

I'm sure that the discretion given to the compensation board in this

matter and the right of the Attorney General to intervene will make it

certain that there will be very few miscarriages of compensation on

that ground.

I was going to suggest a "but." I would say that it would be useful

if we now considered the other area of compensation that we should

regard with equal gravity and that's where a good samaritan goes to the

rescue of others who are in difficulty — whether they be down a glacier

crevasse, on top of a mountain top or stranded on a cliff, or

struggling in the water…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOWDING: And I do hope consideration for that type of compensation will be considered in the future — it isn't in this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: No, nor is it a crime.

MR. DOWDING: I realise Mr. Speaker, that this is confined to subject of crime…

MR. SPEAKER: Criminal injuries.

MR. DOWDING: …and I will try to confine myself to that

because I had to find a "but" somewhere. Oh, I could have used a

"however." I also think there is one vital aspect of it that I often

wish it had been in the Compensation Act originally.

And that is the full discretionary power of the board at any time to

re-open, re-hear and re-determine any matter that has been dealt with

by it. That power here is untrammeled and I think that is an excellent

provision, because events some time later can show what may have been

deemed not to be a crime in later time, was found to be a crime, or

events have so occurred that the board may have revised opinion on the

amount of an injury caused to a victim by reason of crime.

I just hope that that

section is interpreted widely, and wisely. And

with that I certainly support the bill in second reading and compliment

the Attorney General for the way it was drafted.

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

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

Attorney General has brought forward

an Act which is heartily applauded

by the Liberal benches. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has been the one to

champion this kind of legislation, and indeed brought forward a very

excellent Act himself in 1969. The second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey began talking about the need for such legislation before even he

was elected to our Legislature.

I think that the Act which the Attorney General has brought in in

this case is even better than the one the second Member from

Vancouver–Point Grey brought in in 1969 and that was a very excellent

Act too. This is a little bit better, and Mr. Attorney General we're

very pleased with this legislation and we have only one question — why

did you wait so long?

[ Page 849 ]

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

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

it's a good bill, but it's a proclamation bill. And I think from what

the Attorney General is saying that he is going to wait upon Ottawa and

some financial help — am I not correct in that? — so what we're really

doing is in a way an empty exercise today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: You're not waiting on Ottawa? Can the Attorney

General say when it will be proclaimed? "A matter of time." Well,

that's the only doubt that we have Mr. Speaker. Will it be proclaimed

this year?

Well, this is the doubt we have because if the bill has good things

in it and we believe it has, there's no doubt about that, we don't want

another bill like we've had so many in this House that are simply

pieces of paper because they're not implemented. Or they wait upon some

negotiations with Ottawa. Or they remain unproclaimed.

That's the only doubt we have, Mr. Attorney General, and we think

that this bill rather than being a proclamation bill, should be law and

implemented upon the conclusion of this session, when the

Lieutenant-Governor assents thereto.

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

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

been talking about this matter for so long I suppose the House would be

prepared to give me leave to close the debate and announce that the

bill is going to be proclaimed forthwith.

But in the event that the House is not so prepared to grant such

leave I would like to say that I am absolutely delighted with the

measure that has been brought in by the Attorney General and do hope

that he will be able to show by his actions in proclaiming the bill

that they will amount to the same degree of excellence that he has

shown us with the preparation of the bill.

You know, from an historical point of view, Mr. Speaker, in one

sense we are perhaps turning a 180 degrees because long before the days

of Henry Il there used to be a tariff of atonement to injured people.

If my recollection of history is correct it is known a "bot" or a

"wite" I have forgotten, one or the other. A person would receive a

degree of compensation for injury that was done to them. Then with the

coming of Henry Il the idea of the King's peace developed and no longer

was there payment from the injuring party to the injured party and a

system of state punishment came into being.

Unfortunately from that point on until really 1964, when this

legislation was spirited first in the world, which was New Zealand,

there was no compensation for those who were injured as a result of

criminal acts. Great Britain came in in 1964, also California was the

first part of this world but brought in comparable legislation in 1966.

The first province in Canada I think, the pathfinder was Saskatchewan

in 1967, and then we find Ontario, Newfoundland, and Alberta coming

down the line.

Then the first activity of our own province was in 1967 then when a

very, very weak sister amendment came in whereby it was sloughed on to

the municipalities that people who happen to be injured assisting

police officers could make a claim against the municipality. Manitoba

brought its legislation in in 1970, Mr. Speaker, North West Territories

last year and Quebec last year, and I say hurray, hurray, almost the

first of May and here we have 1972, B.C. coming along with this, which

it has done.

Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, the concept of the Act is first class.

I'm delighted to see that it's going to be handled by a functioning

body, the Workmen's Compensation Board, which has a great deal of

experience in matters of injuries and there's not any need for an

increased bureaucracy to take care of the point.

I do feel, however, it would be an excellent thing if we could at

some time, and I'm just going to make a very short statement, Mr.

Speaker, have some kind of a declaration or attitude from the Attorney

General concerning probation. I do hope that he would favour the

remarks passed by some of the recent judges, Judge Bewley and Mr.

Justice Dohm. that when probation is to be granted that the judges who

did the sentencing should be requested to express their opinion as to

whether the same should be granted.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: You've done that? What time of the night was

that, I'm sorry maybe I missed that? I obviously did. Well, if you've

done that I'm delighted to hear that as well. We say without question,

Mr. Speaker, that we are supporting the bill, but I do hope that when

the Attorney General gets up that he's going to indicate to the House

exactly when this is going to come into being in British Columbia

because he really does not have to wait until the federal cost-sharing

programme initiates for British Columbia to take the bull by the horns,

shall we say, and incorporate this as law in the province.

The value of claims really and truly is not a serious amount of

money. I've got some comparable figures from the State of California

which certainly has a much higher incidence of crime than we have. In

1968 there were only 21 claims for payments of $16,000. 1969, 63 claims

allowed for a payment of $78,000. 1970, $171,000 was paid for 130

claims. 1971, 173 claims were allowed for a claimant of $385,000. This

is the State of California which has the population of Canada.

There is no need, Mr. Attorney General, for the provincial

government to sit on its oars. It should enact this legislation

immediately and do the job that it is supposed to do.

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

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver-Seymout): Mr. Speaker, I have

two "buts" in regard to this legislation, which I heartily support. The

question of course — why the government waited so long — would be an

interesting one to answer and as my colleague has mentioned — I'm

concerned as to when this will be proclaimed.

The other "but" I have, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the Attorney

General would comment on is that legislation such as this I think can

be used two ways. One that where people make application for

assistance, the assistance is available to them. That is the intent of

the bill. The other way without amending this bill in any respect is to

put the agents of the compensation board on notice that they should

instigate investigation as well.

[ Page 850 ]

Here's the point I'm making. A person who is injured tragically,

seriously, emotionally — and particularly I think of rape cases for

example — very often would not know anything about this legislation and

could become involved in a great deal of expense before the chance even

occurred that someone would draw to their attention that there is

compensation available.

These cases usually are covered adequately in the Press. What I'm

asking the Attorney General to comment on is, in instructing the staff,

would he consider in instructing them on a regular basis to be aware of

the events in the courts and in the media and to actually take the

first step where they feel such action would benefit?

Certain types of cases in particular I think, probably rate as the

best example where so frequently these people want no publicity. The

girl would not want to have her name mentioned in any way if possible

in the Press or as making application.

I think this could be accomplished by your staff very easily, Mr.

Attorney General, through you, Mr. Speaker. It's just the method of

approach. I would ask the Attorney General if he might comment on that

as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General will close the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm grateful for the very kind comments

and the commendation that's been given in respect to this bill. It's so

unusual that I'm rather hesitant to close the debate at this time. I'd

be glad to have it continued. It's almost unique in the House.

With reference to the points that have been made, certainly I agree

with the Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) that

there will be a need, particularly in the early stages of the operation

of the legislation, to bring it to public notice and certainly through

the auspices of the Workmen's Compensation Board and any other means

that we have at our disposal, this will be one of the prime objectives.

Whether it would be feasible in fact with the kind of staff that the

Workmen's Compensation Board now has, to go this additional step and

indeed make the first call on anyone who they read about in the paper

as being injured as a result of a criminal offence, I wouldn't want to

give any undertaking in that respect. But in respect to the whole

matter, I do agree with the desirability of making the provisions of

the legislation known to the public at large. The precise methods that

may be decided upon will be something to be determined in the future.

The only other question that I recall having been raised is that of

proclamation. I've been very careful since the introduction of this

bill not to give any indication one way or the other on this point,

because there has been an announcement made in Ottawa of the cost

sharing. We have included a specific provision in this bill and it is

anticipated that there will be some funds on a sharing basis provided

by Ottawa. Nor am I prepared at this point in time to take the position

that if that is not forthcoming, that the bill will not be proclaimed.

I do feel that there is a need for this kind of legislation. I would

not want to see any lengthy delay in the provision of the legislation

for the benefit of the people of the province. The precise date of the

proclamation is a matter that will be determined by executive council.

The date has not yet been determined.

I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 70, Criminal Injuries Compensation Act , now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 70 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Second reading of Bill No. 77, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 77. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: This Act is probably more easily discussed

in committee and we have placed some quite extensive explanatory notes

attached to each

section because of the omnibus nature of the bill. I

think it would be more proper to discuss it in committee. I therefore

move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion, are you ready for the question? The question is that Bill No. 77,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act , now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 77 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Second reading of Bill No. 81, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 81. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority Act

is essentially a technical bill which tightens up some of the

procedures which the finance authority requested. It does give them a

little more leeway in terms of short-term financing but there is no

basic change in the concept of the authority itself. It's essentially a

procedural bill which is self explanatory. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan), I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Second reading of Bill No. 79, Mr. Speaker.

FIRST CITIZENS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

CORPORATION ACT

[ Page 851 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 79. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which has been

laid on the table, certainly is approved in principle by the various

Indian organizations who are part of the advisory committee to the

first citizens' fund. I cannot inform the House that in every detail

this may be acceptable in specific terms but the bill has been written

on the basis of it being an enabling Act and I undertook with the

advisory committee to the first citizens' fund that there may be

observations between now and third reading which are quite acceptable.

The concept of the bill is quite general. It's enabling. The idea of

course that once proclaimed it's a proclamation bill as you'll notice,

that we would have to work out with the Indian organizations who are

involved the exact methodology of bringing the corporation into

existence — questions of the management, matters having to do with the

naming of the board of directors.

All of this I've given an undertaking to the advisory committee that

this would be the approach that would be made. So I must indicate to

the House that there may be, between now and committee, some specific

amendments suggested by one or other of the Indians, but essentially

this bill is something which has been discussed by the Indian people

over some time.

It was felt this was the year to act that because in the way in

which the bill is essentially enabling, we can work out most of the

details I know to the satisfaction of the people I've been working

with. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): I'm happy to see the bill

introduced, Mr. Speaker. I know that there have been consultations in

the past year and that practically all the organizations involved have

more or less been behind the introduction and that is a good thing.

I do hope though that the bill can extend to — if it's going to be

successful in the forming of companies, in the sales — that it goes to

the extent of barring entry into the country of such things as the tag

of "made in Japan," "made in the United States" and that this bill will

go all out to say "made in Canada." This is what I would like to see.

I'm quite sure that, as the Minister has indicated, we will be

discussing

section by section. There may be amendments and I think we

can discuss it much more thoroughly.

Our party is happy to support and endorse this bill but I do hope

that the Minister will, when the time comes, mention about this import

of artifacts that are made in other countries. I do know that there is

a discussion under way in the federal field. Perhaps you know more

about this than I do and I hope that we will bring this before the

House when the time comes.

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

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in

section two, sub-section

C, to specifically come to this point, it is the intention of the

corporation to be the vehicle through which we do talk to the federal

authorities involved with copyrights and this sort of thing and also to

be the vehicle through which we try to do whatever is required to be

done in terms of dumping in exports and the authenticity question of

the type of artifacts, the kinds of bootlegging that's been going on

with argillite poles for example. All of those things we intend to

tackle through the corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 79, First Citizens of British Columbia Corporation Act , now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 79 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 67, Mr. Speaker.

SAFETY ENGINEERING SERVICES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 67. The Honourable the Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.N. CHANT (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 67, Safety Engineering Services Act ,

is a bill that's been under study for quite a number of years to bring

it up to date, you might say, in reference to modern equipment and its

operation.

The bill is a technical bill in many ways and would lend itself to a

wide range of discussion but of course we're just debating the

principle of the bill at the present time.

I might say that the general purpose of the bill is to bring into

line the administration and the operation of the safety engineering

Acts in one Act. We all know that in recent years there has been quite

a lot of change in the equipment and the updating of the controls — electronic controls and automation on the various equipment that is in

operation today.

As you will note, at the end of the bill, it's a proclamation bill

and we anticipate that it will take approximately a year's time to

bring it into operation. I want to assure the Honourable Members of

this House that the safety factors in the new bill and the regulations

regarding it, that all due and careful consideration will be given to

safety factors and that the operations under this bill or the

operations will be every bit as safe and possibly more safe than it was

under the old Act.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, this bill which has been a long time

a-borning has been the subject of correspondence even before its

presentation in the House. Indeed it's been the subject of

advertisement before it was tabled in the House, and it was only tabled

a short while ago.

It's one of the most controversial bills that is before us, Mr.

Speaker, and therefore I would respectfully request adjournment to the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 71, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT

[ Page 852 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 71. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, thank you. Bill No. 71,

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act .

Because of the advent of regional districts and the necessity for a

federated public library system and an integrated public library

system, this bill is being brought in. At the same time there are some

two or three housekeeping amendments — dotting i's and crossing t's

sort of thing — in the Act and further it gives some jurisdiction to

the regional districts and municipal councils in respect of these new

libraries because of regional districts.

I understand that there is a parallel amendment to the Municipal Act

as well to do that and it empowers the Minister to make regulations

pertinent to the setup with these new integrated library systems.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

welcome this bill, but I point out the dangerous concept that is now

being officially accepted by the government and that is the acceptance

of equalization payments for library services from federal governments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's in the bill. Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, it's

right there. We're receiving federal government grants for libraries

here in British Columbia, federal money from Ottawa on an equalization

basis, now allowing the money to go directly into the hands of library

boards and I welcome it. I welcome the return of some of our tax

dollars to British Columbia.

I think the federal government, I assume it's the modesty of my

Liberal friends who won't jump up today and perhaps, they've read the

bill even and they're too modest to get up and praise the federal

government.

Really, what the bill says is that the Government of B.C. will make

itself available with federal funds. I welcome that. The federal

government is making money available. I welcome that.

I hope that this bill and the debate today will bring about a new

spirit of cooperation between Ottawa and Victoria so that both the

Prime Minister and the Premier can stop calling each other names and

get on with the business of governing this great country.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Just very briefly, I'm very pleased to

see a principle called integrated public library systems being involved

here. I think that's a very worthy step. I just was wondering about the

interpretation of that. I didn't see there — and I was wondering if it

was missed or if it is implied in the legislation — that this

integrated public library system includes integration with the public

school library system as well, so we don't have this duplication going

on again and again.

I know that Minister is in favour of that concept and I wonder if it is implied in this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H. J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I welcome to see a

broadening of this concept because certainly some of the regional

libraries on this island have worked very well and of tremendous

benefit, especially on the west coast where they have had the

interchangeability to get books in and have had tremendous usage of the

library system. I agree with the Member for Delta (Mr. Wenman) that

perhaps we should be going a step further in tying in the other

libraries with the school libraries because at Port Renfrew this has

worked very successfully. I endorse the principle of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: I just want to point out one

section of the bill

that provides for federal money to be paid for library services is a

form of equalization. If you follow the Premier's theory the money

should go to the book borrowers instead of the libraries.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question is that Bill No. 71, intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act , be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 71 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 72, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGHWAY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 72, the Honourable the Minister of Highways.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker this is

An Act to Amend the Highway Act . There are two principles involved in the bill.

One dealing with the railway right-of-way where there is a problem

that an established road on railway right-of-way could be precluded

from the railway necessarily making additional trackage. In light of

what we're thinking today in terms of rapid transit et cetera, this

just has to go in to protect that. Of course that doesn't preclude by

agreement that municipalities or anyone who makes an agreement that

those right-of-ways could not be used and that's all.

The second principle of the Act is completely different and has to

do with the flashing lights and these distracting light influences that

are on our highways at night. They have been a great concern to the

driving public, by chambers of commerce and boards of trade, et cetera.

It is thought advisable that in the public's safety, there ought to be

some control of those lights obviously at night, Mr. Speaker, or for

night driving. The other principle of the bill does that clearly and is

explained in the bill.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 853 ]

MR. BARRETT: Just a couple of questions for the Minister

when. he closes the debate. I've become aware of a problem. I'm sure

that his office is more familiar with it than I am. It is the constant

request from individuals who have access to their property over other

private roads.

I think that the case that hit the newspapers was the Graham case

just east of Fraser Lake where these people had been snowed in and had

requested the Department of Highways to help them. The department got

into some question of legal

interpretation of their rights — this is

the

section you're amending, snow-ploughing — the question of going in

over to give them access.

A group of citizens in the community finally went in on their own

one weekend and cleared a path for this family. I've written the

Minister's department about it. I'd like to know what changes now in

the

section I'm referring to, what these will do. Will they facilitate

the access by these people by the use of government snow-ploughs?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: I did want the Honourable the Minister (Mr.

Black) to close the debate but I think that this question of if you

snow-plough a road and spend public money in this fashion that you

wouldn't have to declare it a public highway, is a good one.

There is many times that I think the Highways Department is afraid

to plough roads that are very necessary for people for fear that once

they've spent that money on it, it can be declared a public road. I

take it that is why that is on there.

The next one in regards to the railway. I notice that you state even

if the money was spent when their land was still owned by the Crown,

unless you have an alternate route, it is my opinion that if a railroad

comes in after the road is built and even if it is on their

right-of-way, that it should be considered as a public right-of-way

unless they make an alternate route outside of the right-of-way of the

railway.

Now in regards to the flashing lights I think this is a very good

section. Many, many times across this province you find lights just

about blind you. Some of the lights are highway lights that are not

properly shaded and not properly fixed up. In the cities I'm sure that

accidents have happened due to some of the neon signs almost

duplicating the stop signs at intersections. This I agree has been a

problem for years. It's something that I feel should be gone ahead with

immediately.

When the Minister replies, I ask that he answers a few questions if

that's the idea of the snow-ploughing so that you can snow-plough

without declaring it a public road and the question in regards to the

road along a railway track.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, I know that in the past the

Department of Highways has sometimes hesitated to move in and provide a

public service. Certainly they have done a tremendous job in

facilitating things on private roads; for example, like the roads to

Green Mountain and removing anything that might create an objection or

create a tendency to hesitate is certainly welcome. Also any move to

make driving on our highways safer is really to be commended at this

time.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLLAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I just have one question I'm sure the Minister can answer when he closes the debate.

I noticed that

section 2 has a marginal note which refers to

offensive lights. I wonder if the Minister in closing would indicate

whether it includes a naked bulb or not. (Laughter).

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

HON. MR. BLACK: It isn't very often that I miss a joke. I would take it that I was the butt of it. Was that not so, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I think it had something to do with a naked bulb.

HON. MR. BLACK: A naked bulb? Oh! I'm sorry I didn't hear it

but someone felt that their discussion was far more important than

this, so I couldn't listen to two things at the same time.

First of all, relative to snow-ploughing, this has absolutely

nothing, Mr. Speaker, to do with the snow-ploughing sections that are

already in the Act. It merely says that the expenditure of public money

through snow-ploughing does not make a road a public highway. Now

that's what it is an about.

Now secondly, the railway right-of-way. There are many, many times

when public roads are already encroaching on railway right-of-way. That

doesn't prevent that happening again through leases and through

agreements or by mutual consent. It doesn't prevent that at all. I've

already moved second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 72 be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 72 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 74.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PARI MUTUEL BETTING TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 74, the Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 74. Under the present Pari Mutuel Tax Act ,

the province levies a 12 per cent pari mutual tax. Of this amount the

province retains 9.5 per cent. 1.5 per cent is granted to the track

operators for purses and 1 per cent is granted for purses for British

Columbia born and raised horses. Grants are made pursuant to orders of

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council.

After listening to observations in this House and elsewhere, after

carefully looking into the matter, the province was of the opinion the

pari mutual betting tax is too high in relation to comparative levies

elsewhere, and encourages, we are told, off-the-track betting.

Accordingly I made the offer in the Legislature that the tax be

reduced from 12 per cent to 7 per cent with an additional 1 per cent to

be levied to increase the purchase of British Columbia born and raised

horses, and encourage the

[ Page 854 ]

owners of British Columbia horses.

Thus the effective tax rate would be reduced from 12 per cent to 8

per cent. This offer has been accepted by all parties concerned in this

particular business.

Mr. Speaker, I'm therefore pleased to move second reading of this

bill today, which reduces the pari mutual betting tax from 12 per cent

to 7 per cent and levies a 1 per cent tax for use to increase purses

for British Columbia born and raised horses. I move second reading, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a big

improvement. I'm glad to see the tax reduced. Now mind you, the amount

of the horse-players' betting dollars that still doesn't come back in

any form to him is still pretty high in the Province of British

Columbia because of the track costs.

It used to be 22 cents, now I suppose it's about 18 cents out of every betting dollar.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, there's a small amount, 0.5 per cent I believe.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, but they regulate it.

MR. MACDONALD: But the track costs are too high. I would like

to see Exhibition Park run by the horsemen on a non-profit basis. Id

like to see the movement to put it in the hands of these people away

from, if you like — not that I'm attacking them in any way — the Turf

Club, the B.C. Jockey Club people. I'd like to see it as a cooperative

non-profit venture.

I think in that way we can reduce our track costs, and therefore

give the horse-players a better break, a little more of the action, a

little better chance to save their shirts and dress their dollies up in

clothes…

HON. MR. BENNETT: And lose their money more slowly.

MR. MACDONALD: And lose their money more slowly, and spend a little more money down in the bar possibly.

That brings up another point. One of the valuable concessions at

Exhibition Park is the liquor concession because an awful lot of liquor

and soft drink and beer is consumed during the season. That all goes

into the question of track costs. That money, I don't think is now

going back into the operation of the racetrack. It isn't going to what

goes to the jockeys. It isn't going to relieve what I said was too high

a proportion of the betting dollar that still is taken out away from

any chance of the horse-player winning it.

So I'd like to see things like the various concessions — if this

becomes, Mr. Speaker, a non-profit society operating places like

Exhibition Park during the horseracing season, then I would like to see

those non-profit societies having the benefit of the liquor concessions

and the horse manure concession — that's not a big item, nothing like

the very great sums involved, in my opinion, in the liquor concession

which doesn't show on any books at the present time that I know of.

The horse manure concession is above $20,000 a year. I would like to

see the cooperative body have benefit of these concessions too so that

we can have the best possible racing the Province of British Columbia,

the best possible entertainment spectacle, the best races and lots of

open races as well as those for B.C. thoroughbreds only, and therefore

a more attractive industry whether you call it entertainment or sport.

It's still something that makes for more colourful. life in the

Province of British Columbia and helps to make us a more international

society.

So I feel that in raising this matter that we've got a better bill

than we started with last January in helping to raise it, I'm glad to

be able to add my voice and have no intention of opposing this bill

which by the way does improve the definition of "B.C. bred" because the

filly has to be bred, born, and raised in the Province of British

Columbia. So the international trafficking whereby you take the mare

across the border, have the mare studded south of the line say, and

then brought back here to drop her foal and called a B.C. bred, is

changed. The whole process has to be both bred, born, and raised in

B.C. That's more of a genuine B.C. crop of thoroughbreds than we had in

the past.

I think this is a considerable improvement but let's have a non-profit organization to run our race tracks.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we're

supporting the principle of this bill. The only problem that we find is

why it took the Premier so long to understand the principle of the bill

and to provide a better shake for the horseman and for the breeders and

the bettors in the Province of B.C.

I've always wondered, Mr. Speaker, who the Premier looked to for his

advice and counsel and his source of information concerning this

particular point. I searched and searched and searched and eventually,

Mr. Speaker, I've come up with the solution where the Premier receives

his information. This is a revelation, indeed.

I'm told that the owner told Clarence the Clocker.

The Clocker told jockey McGoo.

The jockey of course passed it on to the horse.

And the horse told you. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, just one point. In too many of our

entertainment sports, we have very little local content and very little

local participation, especially when it gets to hockey and everything

else. You have to import players. I'm certainly pleased to see that we

are putting the emphasis that there is an advantage and to encourage a

local horse breeder to supply the entertainment in this sport.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): I'd like to say one thing, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Honourable Member who spoke on the subject originally.

I have the honour of representing an area where there are a number

of B.C. breeders. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I felt that he would want

to know that one is an old age pensioner who spent all his life with

horses. He got $108 this year from his B.C. bred. The other four are

all hard-working minimum

[ Page 855 ]

income people. They're not rich people and there's

one man who is building a very fine B.C. breeding and boarding farm in

the Okanagan and he has some money and he made it through felling trees

and working hard and I just want to lend my support to it.

I think that it's the beginning of a very fine industry for British

Columbia and very much a part of the future of the Okanagan where we

want this type of development. I don't do well myself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I support the

principle of the bill. I'm glad that it's a step in the right

direction, that we're going to maybe honour the Quarter Horse breeders

next and see whether we can't do something for them.

I really feel that racing area is coming into its own. One thing

about this bill, it goes further than some of the social welfare bills.

It doesn't allow for illegitimacy and as long as the mares know the

difference that's all that counts.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Premier will close the debate. Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the first Member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) made a good suggestion about the owners of the

horses running the track. I thought that would take place this year and

my understanding is they did make an offer and then they withdrew their

offer and so forth and I was disappointed.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think it was too high. I think it was too high.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could we have a grant for it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: But the property, of course, is owned by

the P.N.E. I want to be fair to the operators and I don't mind mention

of names. Mr. Jack Diamond, he is a good citizen in the province. He's

a good man in operating a track like that and you need a certain talent

and I say that not in criticism, I say that in praise. He's represented

us on many occasions and I move second reading.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 74 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Loffmark files the annual report for the Mental Health Branch for the year ended December 31, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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