1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9103 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement: Compensation stabilization program.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9103

Mr. Howard –– 9104

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Protection against mortgage foreclosures. Mr. Lea –– 9105

Tax increases. Mr. Howard –– 9106

Boards of review. Ms. Sanford –– 9107

UBC decision on Professor Kane. Hon. Mr. McGeer replies –– 9107

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 69). Second reading,

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9109

Mr. Cocke –– 9109

Mr. Macdonald –– 9110

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9110

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9110

Mr. Leggatt –– 9111

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 9111

Mr. Mitchell –– 9112

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9112

Division –– 9112

Supply Act (No. 3), 1982 (Bill 71). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 9113

Second reading –– 9113

Third reading –– 9113

Royal assent to bills –– 9113

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 76). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 9113

Tabling Documents

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9113

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARBER: I rise to make an

introduction of several people. Here from Denman and Lasqueti Islands

are Monty Drake, Dazy Drake, Richard Bauer, Jane Sproule, Larry

Petemard, Darlene Olesko and Jim Drake. I introduce, as well, John

Rich, the chairman of the Islands Trust; Mike Humphries, vice-chairman

of the Islands Trust; Amelia Humphries from Lasqueti Island; Carol

Martin, a trustee from Hornby Island; Ed Drummond, a trustee from

Gambier Island; David Lott, a trustee from Saltspring Island....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Lauk?

MR. BARBER: Lott. What you're going to do to the subdivisions when you get your hands on them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. And Mrs. Hamish Tait from Denman Island; Joan Lott from Saltspring

Island; Mr. and Mrs. Fred Burd from Denman Island; Mrs. Sid Clarke from

Denman Island; Roy Pitter from Mayne Island; and many other Gulf

Islanders who are here today for a reason that I know I'm not permitted

to discuss at the moment. On their behalf, I would ask a Page to come

forward to get yet another petition signed by many more Gulf Islanders.

I direct it toward the currently vacant desk of the Premier. It's in

regard to the Islands Trust. I ask the House to make all of these

islanders welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, you

will observe, of course, that there is an order of the day on the order

paper for the presenting of petitions. I would recommend that perhaps

we follow the regular procedure of the House, if petitions indeed are

to be tabled. Instead of directing them to a minister or ministry, they

should be tabled here in the House, as we normally do.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, you leave me in a bit of a quandary, because I rose to

introduce some of my constituents from Thetis Island, who are in the

precincts today and have asked me to have delivered to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) some 160 letters. I would beg

your indulgence if I might ask the Page to take them to the minister. I

also ask the House to welcome these visitors from Thetis Island.

MS. BROWN:

Seated in your gallery is my very good friend, Amelia Humphries, and

some of my other friends from Lasqueti Island. I just want to let them

know that I hope I see them all soon. Would you bid them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I face the same quandary as the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace), because I, too, before your ruling today, was presented with

about 800 signatures from representatives from the islands of Denman and Hornby

and some of the surrounding areas, and I would like the Page to deliver those.

The first member for Victoria named a large number of representatives from the

constituency of Comox who are here from the Gulf Islands, and I would like to

also welcome those as yet unnamed representatives who are here not only in the

House but also in the precincts from Hornby, Denman and Lasqueti. I ask the

House to make them all welcome.

MR. BARRETT:

In the gallery today is a person who I had the opportunity of renewing

my very great acquaintance with during an impromptu meeting in front of

this building.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shirley.

MR. BARRETT:

My wife had lunch with me today, yes. In company with my wife, I was

happy to see a very dear, long-standing friend of ours visiting this

gallery and House today from the islands. I ask the House to welcome

Ms. Hilary Brown.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION PROGRAM

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I wish to make a statement regarding the British Columbia compensation

stabilization program. You and members will recall, sir, that the

Premier announced new parameters for that program on Tuesday of this

week; it is my intention to release today the now guidelines and

regulations to which he referred on that occasion,

It is

important from the outset to keep in mind the environment in which

these measures have been developed, and which the Premier outlined in

his statement three days ago. One very key point he made was that

government action, not inaction, is a vital component of economic

recovery. Together we face a worldwide recession. Admittedly, many of

the solutions to that worldwide recession are beyond our immediate

jurisdiction, but that is no excuse for any of us to overlook our

specific responsibilities in B.C.

Fundamental to all that we

have done and all that we shall continue to do are these key elements:

first, to preserve the integrity of services provided by the provincial

government upon which British Columbians depend; secondly, to attain

through work-sharing the most appropriate level of public sector

employment so that significant layoffs need not occur here in British

Columbia, as they have elsewhere in Canada and the United States; and

third, to recognize the limited ability of taxpayers to send more and

more of their money to governments, which was an essential point in the

budget debate and in the budget itself. To ignore these three key

factors is to overlook the economic realities of our time. We believe,

as a government, that British Columbians do wish to share, to work

together, and to return to prosperity through security in the workplace.

Also

on Tuesday, the Premier spoke of the extensive consultations he and a

number of his ministers have had with representatives of trade unions,

employers' groups and a variety of public-sector associations and

organizations. Throughout those discussions there has run a very common

theme: action taken by the government must be fair and equitable to

all. While the recession has deepened since the

[ Page 9104 ]

announcement

of the compensation program on February 18 of this year, the

fundamental base upon which the program was founded remains completely

intact. I believe it is clear to most British Columbians that a

downward revision is necessary if we are to maintain the level of

services and employment to which I referred just a few moments ago.

You

will recall, sir, that the compensation stabilization program has as

its basic operating principle a two-step process. First, the voluntary

guidelines, and then, if necessary, the mandatory regulations. That

principle has not changed. Under the regulations which are issued

today, the new basic income factor will be 6 percent in year one and 5

percent in year two, and the allowable annual increases will range from

0 to 10 percent in year one and from 0 to 9 percent in year two.

would like to draw the members attention to a number of other

significant changes from the earlier program, because they illustrate

the commitment of this government to a set of principles which are

fair, equitable and necessary. To repeat, this is still a two-stage

process — guidelines, and then, if necessary, application of the

regulations. Within that framework the first responsibility of the

commissioner for CSP, Mr. Peck, in reviewing any settlement under the

guidelines, will be to ensure that three objectives are met: first,

that we are restraining and stabilizing levels of compensation in the

public sector; second, that we are preserving the level of public

services to our citizens; third, that the level of employment in the

public sector is maintained. To this end, the role of the commissioner

has been expanded with today's regulations and other documents by

removing from the guidelines specific percentage figures for the

factors which can be considered in determining an acceptable increase

for a group of employees. Only an overall top limit of 10 percent has

been left in place. We anticipate that the commissioner may now be

involved in offering advice at the very early stages of negotiation in

order that all parties understand the commitment of this government to

preserve jobs and services.

In earlier proposals the

special-circumstances factor related to the elements of productivity

and critical skills shortages. Now the special-circumstances factor

will include certain key indices which reflect the state of the

provincial economy. These will include the consumer price index,

provincial government revenues, provincial rate of employment, and

levels of compensation settlements in the provincial private sector. In

addition, the special-circumstances factor will continue to emphasize

productivity. However, it is our view that savings realized by

increases in productivity should be shared between the employer and

employees. This is a key element in our program to improve the economic

well-being of this province. Real, sustainable growth, benefiting all

our citizens, can only be attained through improved productivity.

Under

the revised guidelines the commissioner will have the flexibility of

being able to weigh the factors that I've just mentioned without being

bound by specific percentage figures, except for the overall top limit

of 10 percent. If, despite his best efforts, the parties cannot

establish a compensation plan with annual percentage increases which

satisfy the guidelines, the commissioner may make a group subject to

the regulations. Under the regulations, the commissioner and the

parties will be constrained by precise percentage limits on the basic

income factor, experience adjustment factor and the

special-circumstances factor, the elaboration of which I spoke about,

the total of which will set the allowable annual increase for a group.

the interests of fairness and also for transitional purposes, groups

which have finalized compensation plans between February 18 and July 27

will have them reviewed by the commissioner, under the guidelines — I

emphasize under the guidelines — established in compensation bulletin

No. 4. By following voluntary restrain under the spirit and intent of

the guidelines, groups will not face the tougher, legally enforceable

regulations.

In addition, I would like to expand briefly on

the Premier's statement with respect to the 40-hour week. This change

is to apply to all excluded staff in classifications not covered by a

collective agreement. These guidelines and regulations recommit this

government to the task which has occupied a great deal of our time this

year: job security, the maintenance of vital services to people, and

again, increased productivity as the only source of a continuing and

growing economic well-being. I know that all British Columbians will

recognize them as fair, equitable and a significant attempt to control

the growth of government and, therefore, the level of taxes, and to put

this province back on the road to prosperity.

MR. HOWARD:

During the time that the Committee of Supply was examining the

estimates of the Ministry of Forests, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) and I both advanced opinions on the necessity for government

to embark in a formalized, organized and structured way with respect to

productivity, productivity committees and the involvement of people in

the workforce in the functioning and management of the industries in

which they live. At that time we received not a single, solitary

recognition of the value of that idea either from the Minister of

Forests or from anybody else on the government side.

submit to you that productivity and the involvement of workers in a

formal way in the industries within which they function is the proper

way to go. That will produce productivity and a lower-cost product in

this province, but it won't come about through some pious hope

expressed by the minister that maybe, hopefully, somebody will do

something. The minister is probably not talking about a work-sharing

program as much as he is talking about a misery-sharing program,

especially when he makes reference to productivity as some sort of

theoretical thing, without the practical machinery to put it into

effect.

The minister talked about the limited ability of the

taxpayers to pay. We wish that he had had that attitude when he first

became Minister of Finance and increased the expenditures of this

province in that budget by 20 percent. We wish he had had the

recognition in his second year and second budget, when he again

increased expenditures by 20 percent, and when he levied an increased

tax burden on the people of this province to pay for the lavish

extravagances of this government — keeping in mind that at the same

time that Minister of Finance, this Premier and this government were

imposing 20 percent increases in expenditure on themselves, provincial

government employees were under the constraint of an 8 percent increase

in salary while faced with a 10 percent and 12 percent inflationary

rate.

What the minister talks about today is an expansion on

the rubber-room concept the Premier enunciated out in the corridors

during the time this House was considering Bill 28. The Premier was

then talking about things like 5 percent, 4

[ Page

9105 ]

percent, 8 percent or some other elastic figure. They're still in the rubber

room.

What

the minister has enunciated today is just a reiteration of the attempt

on the part of this government to make a complete farce and mockery out

of the concept of collective bargaining, We have this extended arm of

government called GERB which, functioning under the government's

orders, has not approached its relationship with the B.C. Government

Employees Union in any sense of fair, free and true collective

bargaining, as carried out within the law and as required by the law,

but has carried out an instruction and a hope on the part of this

government for greater and greater confrontation with public employees

in this province, because the Premier has seen and sees — and this

government sees it — that within the atmosphere and environment of

confrontation they hope to make some political gains whenever that next

election comes about.

This country and province cannot

continue to live within an atmosphere in which the law is mocked, in

which government mocks and ignores the law and issues instructions to

its negotiating arm to ignore the law and not to bargain in good faith.

That's what's been going on until now. It's 6 percent today. What will

it be next week? Four percent? I understand GERB's offer was minus 2

percent. Does that reflect the government's attitude about 0 to 10

percent this year?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that debate is not in order in a reply to a ministerial statement.

MR. HOWARD:

I didn't think I was debating it. I thought I was responding

specifically to this government's challenge to free collective

bargaining.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

It has been brought to my attention that I have some constituents here

from Gambier Island, Keats Island and the Thormanbys — all islands in

the Islands Trust. There are too many to name. I ask the House to join

me in welcoming them. In doing so, I may as well ask the Page to take

this petition and place it on the Premier's desk, the Premier being

absent at the present time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please. Hon. members, if petitions are to be presented to the

Legislature, they must be laid on the table of the House. Any other

communication which members may wish to send to ministers — or to each

other, for that matter — and which they wish to take place in an

informal manner, are ones in which, of course, the Chair has no

interest.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move

that the rules be suspended and the sixth report of your Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills be adopted.

Leave not granted.

Oral Questions

PROTECTION AGAINST

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES

MR. LEA: To the Minister of

Finance: the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have

passed legislation to protect homeowners who have suffered mortgage

foreclosures from being sued by mortgage companies for any balance

remaining after their houses have been sold. Has the government decided

to provide a similar protection for mortgage-holders and homeowners in

this province, such as is now enjoyed by all western provinces except

ours?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The precise question is: has the government decided? The answer to that specific question is no.

MR. LEA:

All available indicators show a marked increase in mortages — both

mortgages in arrears and foreclosures by the banks in this province. In

view of the fact that house prices are falling at the same time, does

the government propose to leave unemployed British Columbians in a

position of not only losing their homes but being left a crushing debt

at the same time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question

really speaks to the heart of the statement that I made just a few

moments ago in terms of the cost of government, the increasing demand

for services and the cost of delivering those services. With respect to

the specific aspect of the question, I have had a number of

conversations and discussions with those who are active in the mortgage

field in British Columbia — credit unions, credit union managers,

banks, trust companies — and those discussions are continuing. I'm

monitoring the situation, as I'm sure my colleagues the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams) and others are. I think that the member would want to be

reassured that those discussions do not just take place every once in a

while but are going on almost continually.

MR. LEA:

It's my understanding that this wouldn't call for the expenditure of

money. It would possibly cost the banks a bit of money, and we feel

they can afford a little bit of money, and we'd like them to share in

the downturn also.

Would the minister agree with me — by

the government not having decided to move now to protect homeowners

against being sued by the banks for the difference in money after the

house is sold — that this program wouldn't cost the government of

British Columbia any money to institute?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member opened his comments with respect to the profits being made

by banks. I indicated very carefully that we're meeting with trust

companies, credit unions and banks. There is one bank, Mr. Speaker,

which would have more money to send to government through taxation if

the absent, irresponsible member for Vancouver Centre had not driven

down the stock.

Interjections.

[ Page 9106 ]

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please. Hon. members, question period is only 15 minutes in duration.

MR. LEA:

I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

The minister has stated that the major reason he went to Scottsdale,

Arizona, was to read and to think. I don't know why he chose it over

Pugwash or Couchiching, but I guess that's the minister's option. While

he was there thinking, did he think of any way that he might save the

homeowners of this province having to pay the difference in money to

the mortgage companies that I was questioning the Minister of Finance

about? Has the minister decided on any concrete plan that would help

the householders and the mortgage-holders of this province not to be

gouged by the banking system?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the presumption of the member's question is not correct, but

I'm happy to remind him that soon after my return my ministry convened

a conference on innovative home-financing techniques. We brought in as

the keynote speaker the leading American expert on the topic.

Subsequently work has been done, particularly on the share appreciation

mortgage, and work is continuing. Certain of the financial institutions

in this province are considering the possibility of the shared

appreciation mortgage. I should also add that with respect to the

principle of seize or sue under mortgage lending practices, I've been

in active discussion with several of my colleagues on that topic.

MR. LEA:

Yes, I have a copy of the pamphlet the minister spoke about: "Surviving

a Personal Financial Crisis," subtitled "How to go under gracefully

without bringing embarrassment to the government or your neighbours."

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the member has a question.

MR. LEA:

Yes, I do. Has the minister decided to put out another brochure, this

time informing the people of British Columbia of what positive steps

the government has decided to take in order to save them from having to

pay the difference between what the bank or mortgage company sells the

house for...? As these houses go down in value and the foreclosures

happen because of this government's economic problems, caused a great

deal by themselves, have you now decided to put out a brochure to tell

people that you have a plan to prevent the mortgage companies and the

banks from suing the unemployed for that difference? Is there a

brochure in the works?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: There are

several questions there. First, as the member perhaps doesn't know,

about one-third of the home mortgages in this province are held by the

credit unions. With respect, however, to the banks, to which he's

alluded on several occasions, may I confirm that on several occasions

in recent months I've been in touch with the B.C. chairman of the

Canadian Bankers Association. We have worked to ensure that each of the

chartered banks in this province now has internally what are called

review committees, and the purpose of those is to review all hardship

cases of potential mortgage foreclosures. Those are at work, and

working well. I can also advise that my ministry recently has provided

several pieces of publication to our public with respect to early steps

to protect one's home.

MR. LEA: It sounds like a Cosgrove clone.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member knows that debate is not in order in question period.

MR. LEA:

Has the minister decided to consult with the Junior League to find some

solutions to this financial crisis that many people are experiencing,

whether it's in Scottsdale or in that little office in Vancouver East?

Has the minister decided to consult with the Junior League to see how

we can best help the people of the province?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I'm always quite prepared to help educate members opposite about the

work of the Junior League of Vancouver. Certainly, the well-known

fellow NDP member, the Mayor of Vancouver, for example, only recently

was extolling the virtues of the various work and projects of the

Junior League of Vancouver, whose current major project is in Vancouver

Centre and is regularly supported publicly by that vacationing first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

TAX INCREASES

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. During the

early part of the resumption of this session or it might have been on

budget day, as a matter of fact the minister was asked to confirm that

the government had already imposed tax increases for the 1982-83 fiscal

year of some $300 million to $500 million in the form of fees and user

charges. In the ensuing four months — I believe it was from April — has

the minister been able to compile that information and make it

available to the House?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member

hasn't done his homework. In the course of debate on my estimates just

over a week ago, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is absent —

with leave, I believe, unlike the first member for Vancouver Centre —

asked for that information. There is a question on the order paper. I

have undertaken to provide the material to the member at the earliest

possible time. We are in the process of compiling that information. It

will, either through this House or directly, be communicated to the

member for Nanaimo.

MR. HOWARD: Contrary to the

erroneous assumption of the minister, I had done my homework. We knew

that. We were just seeing whether he had the information available,

that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Debate is out of order, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: The minister, Mr. Speaker, with respect, should not be permitted to get away with statements which are not factually correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Debate is not in order.

MR. HOWARD:

The minister, at the same time that I'm talking about, was also asked

why he had failed to impose any limit on government fee increases, such

as bus fares, ICBC rates, medicare premiums and so on. Has the minister

now decided to give the House the benefit of his examination

[ Page 9107 ]

of that subject matter, and to provide the House with an answer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That examination, to use the member's word, is ongoing with more than one ministry.

MR. HOWARD: Lots of things are going on.

The

minister has stated repeatedly here that the quarterly financial report

— I believe it's the second one, or the first one for this fiscal year

— would be released in the last few days of July or the first few days

in August, roughly speaking. Can the minister tell the House why it is

that the Ministry of Finance information officers are now saying, as of

this morning, that the report will not be released until mid August?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

As a minister, I have to take responsibility for statements made by

staff within the ministry, certainly, but that's the first I've heard

of it, Mr. Member. I'm not looking for a date anywhere as late as the

middle of August. I have the material in front of me now. As the member

will know, the quarterly reports are printed rather than issued in

manuscript form. I am still targeting for the first few working days of

August.

BOARDS OF REVIEW

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. By the end of the year,

the backlog at the boards of review will be such that injured workers

will have to wait a full year to have their appeals heard. Two weeks

ago today the minister stated that he would consider appointing another

board of review: that's in addition to filling the positions that are

now vacant. I'm wondering if the minister has now decided to appoint an

additional board of review.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The

answer is that I have not yet decided to appoint another panel. But

with respect to the one and a half appointments, this was a subject of

debate during estimates, and I gave my assurance to the member that the

appointments would be filled by the end of this month.

MS. SANFORD:

How long are those injured workers going to have to wait to have their

appeals heard before the boards of review? When can we expect a

decision out of this minister, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I thought this particular subject was canvassed in some detail during

the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. I also advised the member that

the Workers' Compensation Board has reviewed its policy so that when

new evidence comes forth, whether it's 3, 6, 9 or 12 months hence,

there's the opportunity for readjudication. In addition, I advised the

member that there are a number of other areas in here; one is that the

appointment of another panel is not going to handle that backlog with

any degree of efficiency whatsoever. It was the first thing I did when

I assumed the portfolio, and it really hasn't done any good at all.

UBC DECISION ON PROFESSOR KANE

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, some days ago I took on notice a question posed by the

member for Nelson Creston (Mr. Nicolson) with respect to Professor Kane

and the decision made by the University of British Columbia. I'd be

prepared to provide an answer if the House would indulge me for a

moment or two.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted for this answer now?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I undertook to seek a legal opinion as to whether, under the

Universities Act, there was any way in which we could look behind the

decision reached by the University of British Columbia. It is with some

regret that I report to the House that there is no way under the

Universities Act. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with the decision,

and I hope the University of British Columbia will review both the

decision and their procedure.

MR. BARRETT: Will that include leave of absence?

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'm undertaking, Mr. Speaker, to answer the member for Nelson-Creston

and not the usual jabbering of the Leader of the Opposition. If I can

have the indulgence of the House for just a moment, if not of the

Leader of the Opposition, I'll finish my statement and the House can

get on with its business. Will that be agreeable to the Leader of the

Opposition?

MR. BARRETT: Extended leave of absence.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I may ask for an extension of that leave of absence just to assist the

government of British Columbia get better service than it got under you

and your....

MR. BARRETT: As a Liberal or a Socred?

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. HOWARD: You get another ten years as a Socred.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The member for Skeena knows well the rules of the House.

I ask the member for Skeena to now withdraw from the chamber for the

rest of today's sitting.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Gladly, Mr. Speaker. I just did not see Your Honour — I was looking in the other direction.

HON. MR. McGEER:

To conclude very briefly, it's not the policy of the government to open

up every act every year. But it is the policy of our ministry to open

the Universities Act for the next legislative session. While we're

giving no undertaking that this would be one of the loopholes we would

correct, I invite the advice of the opposition and invite the general

public to make suggestions as to what changes in the Universities Act

would be appropriate.

[ Page 9108 ]

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of

section 27(

l) of the Constitution

Act, which allows a motion without leave and sets out the procedure, I

read this motion, and hand a copy to Your Honour. I read it quickly,

because some of the facts are well known. Pursuant to that section, the

undersigned alleges that the hon. second member for Vancouver South

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman) has contravened

section 25 of the said Constitution

Act, and moves without leave that the matter be referred forthwith to a

committee to be named by the special committee appointed under standing

order 68(1), and that this committee inquire into and consider the

matter and report back to the Legislative Assembly whether the said

member has contravened said

section 25, and should therefore cease to

be a member and vacate his seat.

Particulars of this

allegation, as called for by

section 27 of the Constitution Act, are:

(1) that the second member for Vancouver South accepted moneys from the

Crown contrary to

section 25 of the act, and not within the exceptions

provided in

section 26(l)(

b) of that act — namely, reasonable

out-of-pocket travelling and other expenses incurred by a member in the

discharge of his duties; and (2) that the moneys accepted are referred

to in the report to the Legislative Assembly to the assembly of the

auditor-general, dated July 23, 1982. The moneys, to a total of $1,509,

were claimed and received by the member seven months after returning

from a trip of February 21 to February 28, 1981 to Arizona, U.S.A. From

said report and answers of the minister it is apparent that the trip

was arranged a month before February 21, and no prior appointments or

business were arranged. In Arizona the member heard about a meeting one

or two days before it occurred and attended, and seven months later

claimed and received $1,509 from the Crown for expenses covering the

whole period of February 21 to February 28, 1981. Such reimbursement

was not reasonable and not in the discharge of his duties. The member

has contravened

section 25 of the Constitution Act, and his seat should

be vacated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

I must interrupt the hon. member. The provisions of

section 27 of the

Constitution Act referred to by the member require that notice of a

motion shall be tabled with the House and not read. Secondly, it

provides that the motion be made in accordance with the standing orders

of the Legislative Assembly. Those provisions allow that a motion to be

brought forward in this House be brought forward during the time

assigned on the order paper for that kind of business. I would refer

the hon. member to our Journals of April 29 this year, which says:

"Akin

to this dilemma is the problem which arises when hon. members at random

times rise in their place and seek "leave to move a motion," apparently

based on the assumption that at any time they are so entitled to ask

leave. This cannot be the case if the House is to proceed with its

business in an orderly manner; therefore there are limitations in place

on when such leave may properly be sought. Further, when leave is

sought to move a motion without prior notice and without disclosing its

content or subject matter, members are in the undesirable position of

having to make a decision without knowing the nature of the motion

sought to be moved."

The hon. member is aware of the fact that the motion cannot be deemed to be in order.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to enter into a long debate about this. The section....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The motion is not in order, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD:

On a point of order raised by Your Honour,

section 27 does say "without

leave under routine proceedings." I think I'm in the right time. The

question of whether prior notice should be given is a separate matter,

and therefore I ask leave of the House that the motion proceed at this

time.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for moving motions is

assigned on the order paper.

Section 27, with great respect, does say

that the motion shall be tabled and not read, and that the motion must

be in accordance with standing orders. The standing orders of our House

are very explicit in this matter.

MR. MACDONALD: On a

point of order, as the question of the timing is, I submit, a difficult

one, I file as well notice of motion. So I filed the motion with Your

Honour, and I file the notice of motion in the same terms.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, specifically in relation to standing order 9: "Mr.

Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of

order, subject to an appeal of the House without debate." The request

for the member for Skeena to leave, obviously under this section, is

one that is understandably difficult for the Chair at any given time.

It is a judgment call. The member for Skeena accepted your judgment,

without appeal to the House; that's a matter of record. But I am

particularly disturbed that yesterday in this House the Premier of this

province was in flagrant abuse, in the same manner, of this standing

order of the House, and he was not asked to leave. His abuse was much

more severe, of much longer standing, and certainly more provocative,

than the ruling made today on the member for Skeena. I would ask the

Speaker, so that we have complete understanding that this is fairly

applied.... It might be advisable for all members of the House,

including the Premier, to have a written

interpretation from the Chair

of when standing order 9 will be used fairly by the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER:

I cannot accept any suggestion that the rules would be applied

unfairly. But, hon. members, just so that there should be no surprises,

the Chair has been chastized about warnings, so the Chair is a little

bit cautious about giving warnings. Nonetheless, this is the proceeding

which I follow. When disturbance or disorder occurs in the House and it

no longer responds to a call for order, the Speaker stands. The

disorder that is in progress at that time must certainly be given an

opportunity to subdue, as in the case today, when both the Minister of

Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) were engaged in gross disorder. They were given the

opportunity to at least have that disorder subside. However, in the

case of the member who was asked to leave the chamber, the member for

Skeena, he began his disorder after the Speaker was standing. Hon.

members, unless we can have a response to the call for order, we have

to resort to the Speaker standing. This is the only

[ Page 9109 ]

way

we can have some finality to the disorder itself I try desperately hard

to do it as fairly as possible, hon. members. I would think that that's

all that can be expected, myself being human.

MR. BARRETT:

I do not dispute the difficulty of the job of the Chair. I'm asking for

an

interpretation. In the member's defence, he pointed out that he did

not see the Speaker standing. However, be that the case, there's no

doubt that I was out of order, along with the Minister of Energy. We

were companions in our disrespect for this House, and I apologize on

behalf of both of us.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker,

yesterday the Premier stood his ground when you stood up in the Chair

and did not sit down immediately in respect to the Chair. Sir, I want

to tell you that did not go unnoticed by me — and no action was taken

against him yesterday.

HON. MR. McGEER: On the same

point of order, perhaps how you stand in

interpretation depends on

where you sit. I sit very close to the Premier and it was my

impression, from sitting more closely at hand than the Leader of the

Opposition, that the Leader of the Opposition is quite incorrect in

what he says. Of course, if your objective is to disrupt the member and

not the Chair, you frequently look away from the Chair. Members who sit

in this part of the House see it rather differently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That will conclude the matter.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order as well. Today in

question period and in recent days in question period, I have been

concerned that some of the questions posed may offend against the

well-known rule with respect to anticipation. I therefore wonder if, to

assist the members, you might consider this matter, provide us with an

appropriate definition of anticipation, or examples thereof, and the

application of those

interpretations to the rule in order that we won't

be offending.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

We'll review again the proceedings in question period and bring a

written decision to the House, hon. members.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2) 1982

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, in debating this bill, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

(No. 2), 1982, I wish to advise the House of our continuing and, in

fact, growing concern for our motorists and citizens in the province,

and the dangers of the drinking driver. This province has initiated new

programs over the last few years in an attempt to curb this most

serious of problems, and I think it is fair to say that they have been

effective to a degree; but we must provide greater emphasis on such

programs to deal with the drinking driver, who is causing a great

number of fatalities and injuries on the highway system. This amendment

does not change the fact that people are still asked to take a

breathalyser test if a police officer suspects that they have been

driving while under the influence of alcohol. What this amendment does

allow is that a police officer may request that if a person is unable

to provide a breathalyser test, a blood test be taken to ascertain his

blood-alcohol content level. For through motor vehicle accidents the

deaths and injuries of many innocent citizens are caused, and people

are not apprehended for their misdeeds. In fact, they are back behind

the wheel of vehicles without having to deal with the motor vehicle

branch or the court system. This amendment will ensure that we will

have one more valuable tool to deal with and, hopefully, curb the

carnage caused by the drinking driver.

Mr. Speaker, in an

article in one of our daily papers it was noted that this was an

unprecedented step, and I think everyone in this House will agree that

this type of action is required now. It is this type of universal

support for the fight against the drunken driver that will eventually

lead to the solution of this very serious problem in society.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. COCKE:

We all recall that there was a bill before this House recently, and at

the time of the debate on that bill — Bill 9, as I recall — a number of

us discussed this question. I particularly remember my contribution to

that debate, which was that somehow the offending driver has to be

accountable for his offence.

First, let me congratulate the

minister for bringing in Bill 69, which, if enacted — or if anything

along the line of Bill 69 is enacted — there will finally be a means of

really attacking this problem. When the question of civil liberties,

human rights and all the rest of the discussions are over, the one

person who is continually forgotten is the victim of the person driving

that lethal weapon, a car. Having once been the Minister of Health and

having spent a considerable number of hours and days in different

hospitals, in different emergency wards, seeing what happens as a

result of the careless, stupid handling of a 4,000-pound vehicle on a

highway, I can't help but agree that what is necessary is that the

person behind the wheel be responsible, and responsible to the extent

that the person agrees that driving is not a right but a privilege, a

privilege that he or she offends if in fact they take that car out on

the road and it becomes a lethal projectile.

I'm sorry that

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has announced that it has to

be held up to some extent. In any event, I'm delighted that this is now

at least a warning to people on the road that things are going to be a

lot tougher. I've heard some criticisms already; I've heard people say:

"Oh, my goodness, what right has a person got to take my blood?" I ask:

"What right has that person to take the life or the blood of a person

who is totally innocent?" And we've all seen it. There is hardly a

family, hardly a group in this province, that hasn't seen the result of

the fact that people are out there driving irresponsibly. The one thing

that we can stop, as they have to a large degree in Scandinavia....

Incidentally,

I bring to the attention of the House that Scandinavia has been for

years champions of civil liberties and so on, but the one thing they

will not put up with is drunken driving. Do you know what the people do

now? They either take a taxi or they share a vehicle with a person who

isn't going to be drinking, because it's so tough. I agree

[ Page 9110 ]

that

we have to make it tough. I'm pleased also that the person who refuses

to provide the blood sample is then deemed to be chargeable with the

original offence; at least the law has access to the extent of the law

behind this act.

I really feel that every legislator should

stand for the innocent person out there; I've always felt that. This

bill goes a step forward in standing for the innocent person.

MR. MACDONALD:

I entirely support the hon. member for New Westminster in what he has

said. I look at the bill, however, and regret that it is not

proceeding. If it is not proceeding through all stages at this session,

I ask the Attorney-General to have a look at it in terms of its

wording. I would have preferred to see an amendment to the Evidence

Act. It seems to me that we are unnecessarily creating a criminal

offence in terms of the .08 which is already in the Criminal Code.

There could be a challenge on that basis. I would have thought it

should have been treated as a matter of evidence and made compulsory,

with the necessary penalties in the event that somebody did not yield

up the blood sample. It's very important that the testing begin just as

quickly as possible. I make those legalistic remarks merely for the

consideration of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I want to make a few comments as the minister responsible for the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Our statistics indicate that

a tremendous number of accidents in this province result from the

drinking driver. I'm pleased to stand in my place today to compliment

the Minister of Highways for introducing this bill in the House and can

only say that I also support entirely what the member for New

Westminster said with regard to those people who say it's an

infringement on their personal rights to have their blood tested after

an accident. I say to them, as he said, that they, in possibly being

responsible for the accident, are responsible for taking somebody

else's blood. I think that was a very profound statement that was made.

As minister responsible for ICBC, I support the minister's bringing

this bill into the House at this time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I wish to rise in support of this bill and to say that what we are

doing here is attempting to close that last gap that exists in the

legislation that we have with regard to the fair detection of the

person who is so irresponsible as to drive, having consumed alcohol to

a level which interferes with the manner in which he can control, as

the member for New Westminster says, "a dangerous weapon." We would be

aghast if we were to allow the people of our communities to wander

about irresponsibly with what we generally term offensive weapons, and

yet we don't seem to think any problem exists so long as they get

inside a couple of tons of steel and plastic and go charging off at

speeds and in conditions where they can't control the vehicle they are

driving.

The manner of blood testing has been a subject of debate in Canada for some

time. There's a provision in the Criminal Code that it cannot be utilized

with respect to the drinking driving sections. Yet when we examine what has happened

in most European countries — Sweden, Finland, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland,

the Netherlands, United Kingdom — a driver is obliged to provide a blood sample

when requested to do so. Similar legislation in New Zealand, most of the states

of Australia and two of the states of the United States of America make this

requirement, but in Canada we are left with the breathalyser as the only real

test. As the member for New Westminster has pointed out, the use of the breathalyser

can be avoided, necessarily in most cases, by persons who are injured. Unfortunately

— and this is the experience in other jurisdictions as well — it can be avoided

by those who would feign injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident. We're

trying to close that last gap.

colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom), when he was Attorney-General, took the initiative in the fall

of 1978, and a six-month pilot project was undertaken in the emergency

wards at Royal Columbian Hospital. That hospital was selected because

it probably has one of the largest trauma operations of any hospital in

the lower mainland, as the member for New Westminster has on other

occasions pointed out. During that six months, persons who came to the

hospital as a result of motor vehicle accidents were asked to give

blood samples voluntarily. The results were startling. In that

six-month period there were 776 victims of traffic accidents; 422 of

them were the drivers of vehicles. Of these, 31 percent had been

drinking. When you consider those who were drinking, 81 percent had a

blood-alcohol level above the bottom impairment level of .08. Even more

startling is that 47 percent, almost half of those drivers, had a

reading over .15. They weren't impaired; they were drunk. With them,

above the 422 drivers, totalling the 776 persons were passengers,

cyclists and pedestrians. They were the innocent victims, in most

instances, of the consequences of those drivers having consumed alcohol

to such an extent that almost half of them were drunk.

They

couldn't be prosecuted on the basis of breath analysis, and were

excused prosecution because they had contributed to this pilot project.

Some of them were prosecuted, because the evidence available without

the use of blood alcohol content analysis permitted some of them to be

charged with impaired driving, irrespective of the blood alcohol level.

This test discloses that 50 percent of the injuries occurred between 4

o'clock Friday afternoon and 4 o'clock Sunday morning; the weekend

parties. They also showed that the age of the injured persons tended to

decrease as the lateness of the hour increased. The later at night,

earlier in the morning, the younger the person was who was injured in

those accidents.

We think the time has come when those

persons should be tested, and if necessary called to account for a

number of reasons. It's for their own benefit. People who will drive a

motor vehicle who have a blood-alcohol content of over .15 have got an

alcohol problem and need some assistance. The taking of blood samples

also indicates to the medical profession some directions they should

take in the treatment of these people, aside from the victims.

Therefore we are introducing this legislation so it can be examined in

this House and community as part of a continuing debate.

the member for Vancouver East has said, there are other ways of

approaching this problem. The province of Saskatchewan has looked at

doing it on an Evidence Act concept. They've been struck down in their

court of appeal. Every one of the Attorneys-General in the ten

provinces is examining this problem. It was discussed at the meetings

last October and will be discussed, I trust finally, at the meetings to

be held this October.

We wish to introduce this legislation

and have it debated in principle in second reading, but we will not

proceed with its enactment at this time, because we wish to have the

[ Page 9111 ]

opportunity

of examining the legislation at the Uniform Law Conference of Canada,

which takes place next month, because we believe there must be

uniformity across this nation. It may be that the best way of achieving

that will be to amend the Criminal Code. We hope we can encourage the

federal government to do that.

We know there will be

challenges on a constitutional basis. We believe that as a province we

can meet those challenges. We know there will be challenges with

respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those challenges have

already been raised with respect to the breathalyser tests provided for

in the Criminal Code. If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to

interfere with the enforcement of drinking and driving legislation, I'm

afraid I will have to introduce legislation in this House which will

avoid the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this particular case,

because while the rights and freedoms of all our individuals are

important, someone has to speak for the rights and freedoms of the

person who dies or is injured as a result of a drinking driver. I think

society is no longer prepared to accept conduct on the roads such as we

are experiencing in this province and nation.

I trust we

will have the support of the civil libertarians in this province. Some

of them have already spoken out. It's a difficult choice for them to

make, but I think when they consider what the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has said — whose liberties are really being

affected? — they will know what the proper answer will be.

The

legislation will also enable us to focus attention on some of the

serious medical-legal problems which this legislation raises. It's easy

to talk about the concept of blood testing, but until we can focus

attention on the specific details of what must be done in order to make

this legislation successful, I think that we can resolve some of the

outstanding medical-legal questions.

We will also be

challenged, I'm sure, when the legislation becomes law, by lawyers who

defend people who are charged because they drink and drive beyond the

limits we have here. Well, a person who is charged with an offence is

entitled to his defence, but I must say that I find some difficulty

when I consider the ingenuity that is being used in the defence of

people who find themselves in this position.

As the

Attorney-General I am pleased to note from the debate today that we

have on both sides of this House support for legislation of this kind.

I think it will offer hope to the Mothers Against Drinking Driving, an

organization in this province and elsewhere which deserves the support

of every citizen. The mothers and the fathers in school groups and the

students in this province who are trying to tackle this problem will, I

believe, take heart from the introduction and the indicated support for

this legislation.

It is my hope that we will quickly come

back with this legislation — perhaps improved as a result of

discussions with colleagues in other provinces — and will see it become

the law of British Columbia. We can then move to other areas of traffic

safety and let this question of enforcement rest, because enforcement

alone will never be enough. Education and the other concepts which are

evolving will produce the attitudinal change which will enable us, I

hope, to beat this growing social problem.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of the bill. I congratulate

the government for bringing it forward, and the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) for pressing so hard to bring some kind of

legislation.

There are a couple of things that should still

be said. I'm one of those who defend impaired drivers from time to

time, and there is a misunderstanding about the civil liberties nature

of the requirement to blow into a breathalyser and, if this becomes

law, the requirement to provide a sample of your blood. It is a

privilege to drive a car, not a right, and I would like to suggest to

the Attorney-General that when a person applies for his licence, he

should provide in advance the consent to have the blood sample taken.

Thereby one avoids the civil liberties problem of someone's being

required against his will to provide evidence in court. The evidence

question was dealt with, I understand, in Saskatchewan. I think a prior

consent form may be one of the answers to this constitutional question.

Every time one applied for a licence, one would sign a consent form in

which he agreed to provide a sample of blood under circumstances as set

out in the bill. When you renew your licence the same provision should

be required; each time you apply for the privilege to continue to drive

a motor vehicle, you should provide your consent that the law be

entitled in proper circumstances to examine a sample of your blood, as

they now have the right to require a breathalyser.

Now the

second advantage to the bill is that all the breathalyser is is a way

of measuring the extent of alcohol in the blood. That's a less

scientific way to do so than actually taking a sample of blood; it's a

far more accurate reading. By the way, speaking as one who defends

people who are guilty of impaired driving, it's more difficult to

defend an actual blood sample than it is to defend against the

complicated system of the Borkenstein breathalyser. And so, in terms of

certainty, it is very useful from the Attorney-General's point of view

that we could in the future use the blood sample — the more accurate

test of the extent of alcohol in the blood. Now I know there are going

to be cries....

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: All my of my clients have always been innocent. Sometimes I have had a misguided judge.

Mr.

Speaker, I do want to congratulate the Attorney-General, the member for

New Westminster, who has been trying very hard to see this legislation

come forward, and the Minister of Highways, who has brought the bill

forward. He has the support of both sides of the House and I think he

has the support of the majority of the bar of the province on this

particular piece of legislature.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It

would appear that this vote will be one of nemine contradicente, but I

would like to add a few personal remarks because I think many of us

have been personally touched as a result of tragedies involving

impaired drivers. I had occasion recently to meet with a group of

ambulance attendants in the province, and between them — attendants and

drivers — they had over ten years of experience. I brought up the

subject of impaired drivers and asked how often they attended accidents

which involved impaired drivers. They said that between them they had

not yet had enough experience to attend a motor vehicle accident where

one of the people involved wasn't impaired, which really says a lot. It

means that alcohol was involved in every single automobile accident

they ever attended — either the victim or the person who was driving

the car. Every case; 100 percent of the time. The Attorney-General

spoke earlier about the time of day at which these instances occur, and

the days of the

[ Page 9112 ]

week, and he tells me it's as reliable a way to set your watch as anything else. It's a tragedy that we must put an end to.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to join with this side of the House in congratulating the

government and the minister for bringing in this particular bill. You

will recall that I spoke out for this type of legislation in earlier

debate. The reason I am so concerned with this is that I guess I

represent or was part of the group that will enforce the legislation

when it does come into effect. Also as one with a little bit of

experience: if you check the Victoria court records, you'll find that

the first case ever prosecuted in Victoria on the blood was a Robert

Woodford, and the person who prosecuted him was myself. This is the

only way of getting a true reading of blood alcohol content. I think

it's really important, before the legislation does go into effect, that

throughout the province methods are set up for gathering that evidence.

One

of the problems in taking a blood test, even when people will volunteer

to do it, is that neither the medical nor nursing profession wants to

get involved in the court system. Even if you have convinced a driver

that he should give a blood sample, getting the material and the vials

and a way of taking and storing the blood have always been a major

problem throughout the province. When they get down to the detail of

the regulations, a program of acquiring the evidence and of protecting

it so that it's admissible in court is very important.

welcome it. The people who are trying to control the carnage on the

highways need that extra piece of help. I hope it will be given as much

and as wide publicity as the breathalyser test, and the improvement in

the type of testing that can come from a blood sample.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I certainly appreciate all the support that has been given from all

sides of the House. Without any further ado, I move the bill be now

read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

69, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the

rules be suspended and that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of

Supply on June 1, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 23 and 29, and July 5, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15,

16, 19, 20, 21, 27 and 29 be now received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the resolution from

the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and

agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her

Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from

and out of the consolidated revenue fund, the following:

1. $9,840,194 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, and

$7,232,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, such sum to include that

authorized to be paid under

section 1 (

a) of the Supply Act (No. 1),

1982, and

section 1 (

a) of the Supply Act (No. 2), 1982.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the resolution.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER:

The committee reports a resolution that towards making good the supply

granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be

granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following:

1. $9,840,194 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1981, and

$7,232,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, such sum to include that

authorized to be paid under

section 1 (

a) of the Supply Act (No. 1),

1982, and

section 1 (

a) of the Supply Act (No. 2), 1982.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

[ Page

9113 ]

SUPPLY ACT, (No. 3), 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 71, intituled Supply Act, (No. 3), 1982.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the committee rise and report to the House recommending the introduction of Bill 71.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been distributed, hon. members. I trust each one has his copy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended

and the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 3), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 71, Supply Act (No. 3), 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Administrator is in the

building and will be here shortly. I declare a short recess. I'll ring

the bells when your attendance is required.

The House took recess at 4:05 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:12 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Administrator is ready

to enter the chamber. Would we all please take our places.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1982

Police Amendment Act, 1982

Land Title Amendment Act, 1982

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1982

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982

Supply Act (No. 3), 1982

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to these bills.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1982

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982.

Bill

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

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled: the annual report of the Legal Services Society of

British Columbia for the year ending March 31, 1981; pursuant to the Criminal

Code of Canada, the 1981 annual return with respect to

part 4 of the Criminal

Code, concerning the invasion of privacy; pursuant to the provisions of

section

I of the Court Rules Act, regulations dealing with supreme court rules.

[ Page 9114 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I wish to make a statement, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the government

and, I'm sure, all members of the official opposition, we'd like to pay

our respects and thanks to all members of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff,

the Pages and the guides for their courtesies and assistance during

this first part of the session. I'd particularly like to recognize Mrs.

Evelyn Moore, Mr. George Christensen, Mr. Gordon Meeks and Mr. James

Anderson of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, who will be retiring at the

conclusion of the current session.

MR. LEA: We would like to also go on record as thanking all the people the House Leader for the government has put forward.

There's

one further I'd like to add. Over the past two years I've had as a

secretary Marie Decaire, who's worked hard and long, not for me or the

Legislature but for the people of the province. It's her last session

with us. I'd like to ask everybody to join me in wishing her good luck.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do

stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation

with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall

meet or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired

to prorogue the fourth session of the 32nd parliament of the province of British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so

advised and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice

and as the case may be may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned

to that time, and that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing

to illness or other cause the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the

purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada