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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 677 ]

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, I

have the pleasure of welcoming to the House today, and I ask the

Members to join me, a group of students from Centennial High School in

the District of Coquitlam.

Along with that, I have the rare privilege of introducing to the

House a long-standing friend of the people of British Columbia — a man

who has given 23 years uninterrupted service until last week to this

House. I wish to welcome him back today — the Member for Kootenay (Mr.

Nimsick).

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

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

Once again it's my pleasure to bring joy and happiness to the hearts of

the Members of this House by welcoming a group of students from that

great saw-milling centre on Vancouver Island — the students from

Chemainus Secondary School and I would ask the House to give them a

warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the

House to join with me in welcoming here today four very fine young

people and representatives from the University of British Columbia. We

have with us Mr. Doug Aldridge who is the president elect of the Alma

Mater Society, Mr. Gordon Blankstein who is the vice-president elect of

the A.M.S., Mr. Rod McDiarmid who is the former vice-president, and

Perry Lidstor who is in the capacity of the representative of the

agricultural society and general chauffeur for the group and I'd ask

you to join with me in welcoming them to the House today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate it if the

Members could welcome a pioneer family Parker Williams with a

delegation from one of the great pioneer families of Nanaimo and a

number of students Parker Williams from Nanaimo.

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

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

night just before the House adjourned a message was brought to this

House from the Lieutenant-Governor and a bill was introduced intituled

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act . Some of us went out and obtained copies of that bill and studied it — Bill No. 40.

But to our surprise these bills were all gathered up this morning

and a new bill was put in our books, Bill No. 49. I just wondered if we

could clarify which was the correct bill and for those of us who have

sent some of these bills out for study and distribution which is the

correct bill. Because they are highly similar but there are some

differences between the two.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment please. The bill that was introduced into the House was Bill No. 49 and the bill which now appears in the Votes and Proceedings is Bill No. 49. the Votes and Proceedings

read that Bill No. 49 was brought in and under those circumstances the

House is unaware of a Bill No. 40. But possibly the Honourable the

Minister if he is present could offer an explanation.

He's not here at the present time. Possibly the point of order could

be deferred until the arrival of the Minister and I'll allow the point

some time during the proceedings today and he may be able to offer

further explanation. The House has no knowledge of a Bill No. 40.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered

to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting after today.

Bill No. 31, intituled

An Act to Amend the Hearing Aid Regulation Act .

Bill No. 32, intituled

An Act to Amend the Litter Act .

Bill No. 63, intituled

An Act to Repeal the Queen's Counsel Act .

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Committee on Bill No. 13.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 13, Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act .

Bill No. 13 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 14.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 14,

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act .

Bill No. 14 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 15.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 15,

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act .

Bill No. 15 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 16.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 16, A n Act to Amend the Centennial Cultural Fund Act .

[ Page 678 ]

Bill No. 16 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

REVENUE SURPLUS APPROPRIATION ACT,

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 17. The Hon. the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BENNETT (Minister of Finance): In 1969, the

government established a fund in perpetuity of $10 million known as the

physical fitness and amateur sports fund. The purpose was the

furtherance and encouragement of physical fitness for the residents of

the province and of participation by the residents of the province in

amateur sports.

The interest earned from the fund's investment was to be used for

this purpose. To date $1,671,900 has been paid out of the fund. The

government considers this a most worthwhile and needed programme, being

particularly valuable in providing interests and programmes for the use

of our province. It is therefore recommended in this bill that an

additional $5 million be provided for the physical fitness and amateur

sports perpetual fund which will produce a 50 per cent increase in the

funds available for physical fitness purposes each and every year in

perpetuity.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, once more we strongly support the giving of funds to young athletes in British Columbia.

It was my pleasure when Karen Magnussen was here as the latest

champion from this province to say that our international athletes

particularly are our greatest ambassadors. We should not stint at all

in giving them both financial and moral support because the healthiest

example that we can set for future generations in British Columbia is

to take these people who do have capability, teach them sportsmanship

as well as athletics, and send them abroad to compete with the best in

the world. We Liberals strongly support efforts that can be made in

this direction. However…

HON. MR. BENNETT: But! But!

MR. McGEER: We do not consider that it is necessary to take a

capital fund out of revenue surplus to achieve this objective. Only

moments ago we passed a bill in this House, a Queen Elizabeth

centennial scholarship, which didn't require any kind of an endowment

like this which is every bit as important because it supports graduate

work — the mind rather than the body — honouring the Queen and if

anything would deserve support in perpetuity, if that's to be the

principle, then surely that would have qualified.

But you see, this is a much larger consideration in terms of the

number of people that are to be supported besides the size of the fund,

and I'm talking about the interest that will be available to people.

It's not the order of $5,000 but of the order of $500,000.

But rather than just take it out of consolidated revenue as was done

with this B.C. centennial scholarship, we create an endowment fund and

it's very clear that the purpose of this Act is not to help out

athletes, but to help out the Crown corporations of British Columbia.

We want to see the athletes supported, and supported generously. We

want to see them get annual grants from consolidated revenue of sizable

proportions, not just the interest that may or may not be paid out each

year, according to whether government Members decide they want to give

those funds out — it's a quasi-political slush fund not genuine grants

to the athletes of British Columbia.

This kind of support is not the appropriate way to do it. We should

be taking the surplus funds of British Columbia and making them

available in the amounts that are included in capital to the elderly

citizens, to the people who require chronic hospital care, to those who

have insufficient amounts on social assistance. Those are the people

who need and deserve this social capital, and what we should do is take

the equivalent interest and more, and make that available to the people

of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we tell the Premier, and the people of British Columbia

that we disagree with this kind of financial juggling, we disagree with

the methods by which these funds are disbursed — which are as favours

from government Members. What we want to do is see that the money is

properly handled in this province and responsibly administered and we

oppose this bill.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I find

myself as usual in rather surprised amazement at the good Member, the

first Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), the constant

manner in which the Liberal Members rise, support the bills, what fine

things they are and then go on to gradually cut them apart at a time

when athletics and particularly physical fitness need all the support

they can get. I suggest that if some of the programmes the Liberal

government has started in this field could be taken off the

administrative blackboards and moved into a more practical approach to

the support for athletics and the support for fitness, that we would be

a lot further down the road with the funds that we are using.

I would suggest that there are certain parts of this fund which need

some alteration. At the present moment as you are aware, Mr. Speaker,

the funds are used, and can be used only for grants for either travel,

for administration, for coaching. They cannot be used in any way for

the development of facilities.

Over the past years we have spent, and I think the figure is in

excess of $1 million now from this fund. And the fund in this coming

year will have roughly somewhere I assume, between $1 million and

$1,200,000 available. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the time has come to

consider the possibility of utilising certain portions of these funds

for capital equipment in the communities.

There's only a certain amount of hierarchy that you can develop

either through coaching administrative staffs or for other purposes. I

would like to suggest a programme whereby through the use, as I

mentioned before, of air bubbles we could standardise a programme

whereby, instead of having to go to the capital costs of $250,000 to

$350,000 or a half a million to build ice arenas, through the use of

more modern techniques and standardising a programme we could build

throughout the Province of British Columbia in the neighbourhood of

$90,000 to $100,000 each an ice arena in every community or a swimming

pool in every community, that

[ Page 679 ]

would be completely covered and usable through the entire 12 months of the year.

This could be done by providing part of the capital money from this

particular fund on the basis of 1/3 from the province, 1/3 from the

community itself and 1/3 from an active group within the community — one of the service clubs.

Already one of the public banks, the chartered banks, have suggested

they would be willing to help in the financing through the particular

organisations, and make these feasible.

This I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is a very definite need within all the

communities of the Province of British Columbia. Even in the lower

mainland we pride ourselves on having great numbers of playgrounds, and

great facilities and yet for several months of the year, in fact for

many months of the year, they are either not usable, because of the

water or the weather. It is time we started to look into the more

advanced techniques of covering our playgrounds with the use of these

particular air bubbles.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have perhaps let the pendulum swing

too far in the use of these funds for administrative and coaching

facilities. The time has come now to take another, and a more realistic

look at the use of them for the development of capital projects within

the community.

I would also suggest that we must take another look at what area we

are expending these funds. For a long while we looked at fitness, and

we looked at sports development as though it was something that was

only involved with young people. And if there is any real need in most

of our communities at this stage it is for recreation for older people.

I would like to see the development of all-year-round, through the

use of an artificial turf, year-round facilities for lawn bowling. And

I think this is part, a particular part, of the use of this fund.

I think there's a real need for programmes that involve our senior

citizens. We talked about medical costs, and the costs of various types

of programmes to keep people healthy. But one of the most important

ways is through the development of recreation and fitness. We read a

great deal, Mr. Speaker, about the dangers of drugs and the dangers

particularly of smoking. Recent figures indicate that more people will

die from being overweight, than they will from any other cause…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: No mention of anyone in this particular House

madame Member at all. More people will die from being overweight than

they will from either cancer or from smoking or any other cause. I

would suggest that recent figures would indicate that the average

person in British Columbia is approximately 10 lbs overweight — which

means that somewhere through this province we are carrying something

like 20 million extra pounds. You'll notice that I'm standing holding

my breath as I'm talking, trying to keep a slim profile, or whatever

that's for.

But I do suggest that there is a very definite need for programmes

on the use of proper dieting and the encouragement of this at all

levels in our society. I would also point out, by the way, through you

to the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Peterson), who of course administers

this fund, that there are some rather interesting paradoxes.

We are paying a great amount of this money out for travel. We are

paying for teams to travel both to the rest of Canada and of course in

world-wide competition. There is a very disturbing aspect to this. For

example, if a sporting team travels on Air Canada there is no

reduction. But, if it travels as a cultural society there is a

reduction. And as the first Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer), indicated I do believe that when our people travel throughout

the country — whether it's across Canada or any other area — they are

acting as ambassadors for the particular province that they come from

and are serving a tremendous purpose. I would ask the Attorney General

on behalf of this fund to make representation to the various airlines

to obtain the same privileges for travelling teams which would have the

effect of reducing the cost that is required.

I see no reason why people travelling on a cultural grant should

have any different

schedule of fares than people travelling

representing a sporting organisation travelling in competition in

Canada. We could save a fair amount of money on fares and a fair amount

of dollars out of this fund, Mr. Attorney General, if you would obtain

the support of the airlines on this.

I would also suggest that we have an extra $5 million in the fund,

that a good portion of this should be directed over the next years to

the summer games, to the Olympic teams particularly getting ready for

the Olympic Games in the summer of this year. I think there's a real

need to encourage our athletes from the Province of British Columbia in

their quest for the Olympic games.

I would also ask the Hon. Attorney General to give very definite

consideration with the money from this fund to the support of the

Canada Games, which will be taking place in British Columbia in 1973,

in the great area of Burnaby-New Westminster, and I know that the good

Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who has taken such a

tremendous interest in the programme will rise and support my

particular request for additional funds for this particular cause.

I would also ask that the overall approach that we now take that we

take a more critical look at the granting of funds to the organisations

than we have in the past.

Some of the grants, and I intend to supply the Hon. Attorney General

with some of that information, has been given to teams sort of on a

constant basis, the same teams travelling across to other countries. I

suggest that the grants that we make to teams which travel outside of

Canada should be made on the condition that they have a responsibility

to bring back into Canada a similar competitive organisation that will

eventually compete in Canada and provide competition for our teams

here. I think that's a very, very important part of the programmes that

we are looking at.

I think, Mr. Premier, that this particular fund is one of the finest

things that you have done for the Province of British Columbia. It is

certainly a step forward and certainly one of the first of its kind

anywhere in Canada. I regret that far too few people in the Province of

British Columbia are aware of what has been.done in this fund. We have

publicised a tremendous number of our programmes, we've given great

publicity to our highways, great publicity to some of our other

programmes. I do believe that of all the activities that we have

undertaken, that this probably is the least-publicised and the one that

is probably deserving of the most credit. And I certainly intend to

support this bill.

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

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

[ Page 680 ]

I too support the bill. But I don't think the

legislation and the grants that we are making has been facing up to the

real problem that's going on in the world of sports at the present

time. I'm referring to the increasing commercialisation of sports, to

the conversion of the people of Canada into a group of gladiators who

are exploited, bullied, owned, traded, at the box office for commercial

gain. I don't exaggerate, Mr. Speaker, in the slightest.

In the case of hockey, a hockey club as it were with a chattel slave

owns the young athlete. And if the young athlete is not wanted on the

top team he's put on a farm team. He has no choice about the matter, he

is a chattel slave. He may want to play for another club such as the

Vancouver Canucks, but if he belongs in a farm club with somebody else

then he's a prisoner on that farm.

This is a breakdown in terms of individual freedom. It is an

increasing control of sports by syndicates, very often operating in

more than one country at the same time.

It is an exploitation of the young people of our country which has

led, and should lead in many fields such as hockey and football and

lacrosse, to the formation of groups known as Jock Lib, to try to

restore to these young people a measure of independence, a measure of

financial security, some voice in the operation of their club, and

freedom from being bullied from a coach who himself is under pressure

to win at all costs in order to make the biggest possible jingle at the

turnstile. And this is the world in which we are living and a world

which the legislators cannot ignore, either in the House of Commons in

Ottawa, or in this Legislature, and it will. And so I say look at

almost any of the big sports, hockey, football, tennis they are all

becoming professionalised, they are all becoming commercialised, and

increasingly controlled by syndicates whose interests are the profits

and gambling. While this fund is a good thing, it'll have to be

followed up by some kind of legislation in Canada to give self respect,

and to restore sportsmanship, in a field increasingly dominated by

commercial considerations.

MR. SPEAKER: The first Member for Vancouver Centre. On a point of order.

MR. CAPOZZI: In regards to control of sports by gambling

syndicates, it is the kind of statement which should not be allowed in

this House, without some sort of an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! It's not a point of order, the Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I think a

point of order might have been taken that all of the Honourable

Member's remarks were out of order. The first Member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Macdonald)…

AN HON. MEMBER: It's kind of late to bring it up now…

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm not taking that point but I'm going to

establish it in any event that all his remarks were directed to

professional sports, not to amateur sports.

This fund has nothing whatever to do with professional sports in

British Columbia or in Canada. It has nothing to do with the Canucks,

with the B.C. Lions, and other professional sports organisations in the

Province of British Columbia.

The thrust of this fund is two-fold. One, amateur sports as opposed

to professional sports — let's make that clear. The other thrust is to

physical fitness generally whether it's in the realm of amateur sports

or not. Some of the Honourable Members are suggesting that this has

nothing to do with our youth, our young people. I want to say that this

is one of the most positive influences for our youth that is in our

existence today. We should be proud of what is being done in a positive

way, to influence the future course, the future path of the young

people who are participating in physical fitness programmes,

participating in amateur athletics, learning to have pride in the

development of a sound mind and body.

This is something that is all important today when we see so many

other influences to our youth of drugs and other things that operate in

a different way. If we can be devoting this kind of money to promoting

and to encouraging sports and physical fitness in British Columbia,

it's far better to spend the taxpayers' money this way, Mr. Speaker,

than it is in trying to rehabilitate them once they've gone the wrong

way.

Our young people are often criticised today. But when you have the

opportunity as I have had to speak with them, to attend functions when

they are being honoured, given their awards, given their medals, I'll

tell you you can be extremely proud of the young athletes of British

Columbia.

Just a week ago I attended a banquet in Vancouver at which some of

our top athletes for the year were recognised and awards given out, one

of which went to Karen Magnussen who was mentioned here just a moment

ago. The guest speaker for that occasion was the president association,

but a national organisation representing that body throughout Canada.

Not only the guest speaker but everyone else who participated spoke in

glowing terms of the contribution that this province is making compared

with any other province in Canada through amateur sports and physical

fitness programmes.

We give a great deal of authority to the amateur sports

organisations. It's completely flexible so that they can develop in

many ways and this is the criticism they have of the federal grants

that are being made.

The leader of the Liberal Party in this province said that the

purpose of this Act is not to help the athletes. Those were his exact

words. Those were his exact words which I hope will be relayed to all

of the athletes in British Columbia because they know differently.

He said that this was a quasi-political slush fund, which is a

reflection on all those who are called upon to administer this fund,

Mr. Speaker.

Who are some of these people on our advisory council that are being

referred to in this way by the leader of the Liberal Party? I'm only

going to mention a few of them: Dr. Robert Bell, Department of Physical

Education, University of Victoria; Dr. Douglas Clement, past-president

of the B.C. Track and Field Association, former Olympic team manager — in 1968 he received the Vanier Outstanding Young Men's Award, head of

the Department of Medicine at Richmond General Hospital, one of our

advisors; Lorne Davis, director of athletics, Simon Fraser University;

Dr. Robert Hindmarch, past-president of the B.C. Sports Federation and

associate professor of physical education at the University of British

Columbia; Dick Jacks, Canadian Olympic Association, past national

president of the Canadian Amateur Swimming Association, president for

this year of the British Columbia Sports Federation; Harry Jerome, the

greatest sprinter in Canadian history, now with the Department of

National Health and Welfare in Ottawa who attends our advisory

[ Page 681 ]

council meetings and has offered advice to our

committee; Elaine Tanner, the greatest swimmer; Bob Osborne, Professor

Osborne, director of the School of Physical Education and Recreation at

U.B.C.; Nancy Greene, now Mrs. Raines, the world-renowned skier from

Rossland who was for some time in Quebec when she was appointed to this

committee. She has business in Quebec and still managed to attend a

great number of our advisory council meetings. Now, of course, we're

fortunate indeed in British Columbia that she and her husband and her

family have taken up residence permanently in the Province of British

Columbia. We're fortunate, I suggest, to have a person of the calibre

of Nancy Greene advising us in these matters.

I want to go on. There are many others as well and yet the leader of

the Liberal Party has the temerity to reflect on the integrity to

reflect on the integrity of these people that this is a political slush

fund. "A quasi-political slush fund" are his exact words, his exact

words. I challenge him to play the tape and he'll find they are his

words.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the House come to order?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, there have been some useful

suggestions offered by the first Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Capozzi) some of which he has offered in the past to the advisory

council. Unfortunately, if we were to divert this fund into the capital

area, you could spend the whole year's revenue on one ski hill.

I think one of the first applications we had come before the council

was in this area of development of a ski hill. It would have taken our

total revenue and left nothing for other worthwhile purposes. So we

have moved in the other direction of operating grants to these

organisations covering all of the various sporting fields — be it

archery, badminton, baseball, basketball, boxing, canoe, cricket,

curling, cycling, diving, fencing, field hockey, figure skating,

football, gymnastics, golf, hand ball, hockey, horse owners,

horseshoes. Talk about…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did it go to? The horse owners…

HON. MR. PETERSON: This would be to sponsor events and have

competitions among the riders, not in connection with the track or

anything of that nature. Horseshoes, of course, designed to provide

coaching clinics for the older people because while we have placed the

emphasis on what this fund is doing for our youth it is for people of

all ages. We want people of all ages to be active.

Then we sponsor curling for the elderly citizens as well as for the

young people. We sponsor as well lawn bowling which is primarily an

activity of the older citizens. Judo, kendo, lacrosse, lawn tennis,

mountaineering, parachuting, rowing, skiing, soccer, softball, rugby,

speed skating, squash, swimming, synchronised swimming, table tennis,

track and field, volleyball, water-skiing, wheelchair sports — and you

know, if you were to observe some of these wheelchair sports, people

that are completely paralysed and are confined to a wheelchair, and see

how they compete. They compete not only nationally but internationally

as well — it would give us a great lift to know the help we're giving

in these areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, if you look at our last year's expenditure of

nearly $750,000 — to be exact $735,192 — and you can see — and that's

only on our existing expenditures — you can see the need for the

increase of this fund, the fact that we will be able to effectively

utilise the increased revenue that is being made available to us. We've

only, thus far, engaged one full-time coach in a team sport and that is

in basketball. At the moment we are advertising for one additional in

the field of track and field, which of course embraces many sports, and

many physical fitness endeavours.

But there are many other areas where this could be expanded and

would help greatly, say for instance in volleyball or other team sports

or other individual sports where the demand is there, the need is

there. We produce the best volleyball players in Canada at the moment

in British Columbia. I think the national team…

AN HON. MEMBER: Name a team.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The Calownas. I think we should have the headquarters of the national team always here in the Province of British Columbia.

One could go on in other areas. For instance, and I'll give another

example, we've had very limited assistance up to now in terms of

scholarships to the athletes to pursue their studies at secondary

schools. All we've had are the Nancy Greene scholarships of $500 each.

With the increase in the fund this year we're going to double the

number of these Nancy Greene scholarships available. We're increasing

the amount of the Nancy Greene scholarships from $500 to $750.

Then additionally this year we will have other scholarships

available that have not been in existence before. We will have five top

athletic awards of $1,000 each, We will have 25 other athletic awards

of $500 each. This is all in addition to the Nancy Greene scholarships,

which gives you some indication of the kind of help with these 40

awards that will be available this year to our top athletes in the

province.

As far as travelling, I agree with the Honourable first Member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) that considerable amount of funds is

used by these sports bodies for travel purposes. We're trying to only

supplement the federal fund in this respect that first of all they must

take advantage of the federal funds that are available for travel and

where they're insufficient we do make travel grants. Certainly we're

hopeful that less and less would be used on travel to international

meets leaving us more and more to contribute to the domestic front in

the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, I would think that the greatest

amount of travel expenditure is still made by the federal government

for our international travelling. For instance, we approved a grant the

other day. All the top competitors were being paid for by the federal,

we're bringing along some of the junior competitors so they can have

the benefit of that experience as well paid for provincially. This is

the sort of thing that's going on.

While we're giving considerable attention on our top athletes we

want more Nancy Greenes, we want more Elaine Tanners, we want more

Harry Jeromes. Why? Because young people will emulate these outstanding

athletes and they will try and achieve and perform to the very best of

their ability.

At the same time our fund is being focussed on a mass basis, to have

mass participation in physical education activities and amateur sports.

The funds we give to the B.C. Sports Federation are in keeping with

this.

[ Page 682 ]

Mr. Speaker, I could go on at some length but I hope I've said

enough to indicate the need to increase this fund by $5 million to

assure the Honourable Members with the kind of advisory council that we

have that the money is being well spent in the Province of British

Columbia.

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

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

suggest that there is one area that the British Columbia government

could take a lead in and that's in the area of restoring national

pride, in terms of a national hockey team.

It hurts as a Canadian to watch the Winter Olympics and see

Czechoslovakia and Russia and Sweden — and the United States even got a

bronze medal in world amateur hockey this year — and no Canadian team.

I can remember in the years gone by when a Canadian team entered the

World Amateur Hockey competition, there was no contest. We won hands

down.

The last great spontaneous victory of, shall we say, Canadian

amateurism of a national team, was the Trail Smoke Eaters, in terms of

a spontaneous growth without any kind of national identity out of

existing leagues.

The Trail Smoke Eaters came out of an existing league. In the past we've tried the Penticton league…

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition will relate this to the bill.

MR. BARRETT: What I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the

Premier should take the lead and announce that British Columbia will

put up $25,000 as one province out of this fund if the other nine

provinces do the same to establish a central Canadian training camp for

Canadian amateur teams that can get us back into the amateur world

hockey league that we've been missing in the last couple of world

competitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: That wouldn't even pay the salaries of the amateurs.

MR. BARRETT: It wouldn't even pay the salaries of the

amateurs, says the Honourable Member. Well, I'm suggesting that we

could give a lead to establish this much needed return into

international hockey by an amateur team representing Canada. I don't

think that burying our heads in the sand and complaining about the

rules is doing us much good.

We've got to face the fact that the competition is tougher and just

because it's tougher and we don't like the way it got tougher is no

reason for us to pack up our hockey sticks and go home.

I'd like to see this government give a lead and, in that way restore

one area of national unity and national pride. Perhaps the Attorney

General might advise the Premier to consider this action.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I think that some

Members in this House completely missed the purpose of this type of a

fund because when they talk about the need to look after the elderly

and the young people, they are ignoring the fact that this fund will

help build the hospitals for the elderly, will help build the school

facilities for the younger people.

But very basically, Mr. Speaker, while I agree that this fund is

doing a splendid job, I believe it has to go one step further. There's

one area where there's real need. Certainly we want the top athletes.

But we want more healthy young people participating.

While this fund, so far, has been helping the ones that can make the

team, really it's the youngster that can't quite make the team that has

been left out. I want to suggest one particular phase where I think we

can really help.

We have many arenas, many swimming pools, many ice arenas that are

existing but because of the tremendously high interest rates their

operating costs are going up and up. Number one, the fees — the rates

they charge the youngsters — are going up. Number two, to make ends

meet, some of the arenas have to take in shows and circuses and rent

the arenas for dog shows and the youngsters don't get the opportunity

to utilise that arena in those periods of time.

I would suggest that in this increase in funds, the committee should

look very seriously to perhaps a grant to the swimming pools and the

ice arenas that would pay for certain number of hours a week in which

those facilities would be made open to the youngsters under a certain

age level so that they can get to use these facilities, that they can

participate in this physical fitness and prepare themselves for amateur

sports

whereas otherwise they don't have that opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I feel as though I'm making my maiden speech in this great arena.

This fund on physical fitness, it's all very well to have it set up

in a, bill such as this and have a committee distributing the funds. I

agree with the Honourable the Attorney General that we need more Nancy

Greenes, more Miss Tanners, more Jeromes. But we will not get those

people unless we go down to the grass roots. This fund is not doing the

job that it should be doing. I can't help, but believe that some of

these funds, when you see the big ads in the papers with pictures, that

there is a political overtone to it as well.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, point of order. There's never

been an advertisement paid for out of this fund with any picture on it

at all. The Honourable Member is completely out of order.

MR. NIMSICK: It may not have been paid for out of this fund

but there's ads. But still I say that it gives the government a handle

to try and lead the people to believe that they're doing a great deal

to increase participation by the youngsters throughout the province and

build physical fitness.

But when you look, the money that is in this fund should actually

belong to the community recreation branch, when you look to the

community recreation branch to cover the whole province — and don't

forget that you've got to deal with the little villages in this

province as well as the big cities.

There's Nancy Greenes and Jeromes and all the rest of them left at

the gate because these recreation funds do not get down to the little

people in the small villages. When you look at the recreational fund

for last year or this year coming it's $125,000 to cover the whole

Province of British Columbia. No increase at all from last year. It was

$ 115,000,

[ Page 683 ]

the only increase is maybe the wages.

We've got seven consultants in the whole Province of British

Columbia to look after the physical fitness and the recreation

development of our children. This is a physical fitness fund to build

the youngsters of the Province of British Columbia and I'm saying that

on the one hand you're coming out in a big arm-waving idea about the

wonderful things you're doing with this fund when you're short-changing

the community recreational branch and not giving them sufficient money

nor personnel to try and build that physical fitness in the

schoolchildren of this province.

I had a meeting just before I left Cranbrook with these people and

they're crying because there's seven consultants in the whole province.

One from Nelson has got to cover the whole area and I say that this

money that's in this fund actually should be in this community

recreational branch.

I've got nothing against the fund, if you would give the community

recreational branch sufficient money to operate the way they should and

do the job that they should. They're not doing the job, they can't do

the job. One representative to cover all the way from Trail, Grand

Forks, Nelson, East Kootenay right through to the Alberta border. How

can one paid consultant do that job and go into the places like Canal

Flats, Invermere, Golden and all these places and try to lay the

foundation and build leadership among the young people to build their

physical fitness?

It's impossible to do it and I say, Mr. Speaker, that while if this

is the only way you're going to give any money, I'll support the bill

but I say it's only a sham battle when you don't give the money where

it actually belongs — where the people that are working to try and

build this physical fitness in the province, these are the people that

you should be giving the money to and not divvying it out in a fund.

Otherwise, you should, if you've got enough money in the community

recreational fund — fine and dandy — have an extra fund.

HON. MR. PETERSON: What grants do you want cancelled, that we pay?

MR. NIMSICK: I say that this money actually should be

building up more consultants, more people, more recreational people

throughout the province in the little areas. No more administration,

because this is what they're crying about on the local level. They need

more consultants, we need a consultant in the East Kootenay and we

could use two of them if we wanted to build up this physical fitness

for the children. It's all very well to rave about the fund but let's

not be too smug about the fund and let's put the money where it should

be.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to

contradict in the strongest words possible the remarks that the Member

who just took his seat made. It just goes to show the little knowledge

that this Member really has about where this money is going because

certainly in my constituency, when I go up to Gold River, the people

are saying: "You know, that's the greatest thing that you ever did for

us. It's the greatest thing that ever happened because if we didn't

have this money, we wouldn't be able to get our junior hockey teams to

get into Campbell River to play against their team. We don't have

enough people in this little community to get good competition at home

and this money gets the junior and the midget teams down from Tahsis to

play at Gold River and give them a team sense of competitiveness among

rural communities that could never have afforded it before, to take

their teams."

For you to get up here and say that this money just doesn't get down

to the grass roots level just means to say that you're full of hot air

as usual, Mr. Member. You don't know what you're talking about.

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

MR. E.M. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very pleased at the increase in the physical fitness and amateur

sports fund and although I am not aware of the specific reasons for

increasing the fund, I'm certainly in favour of it and I also

understand that the object of this fund is of course to support amateur

sport and activity groups of different kinds.

I rise here at this time to make a more particular suggestion. I

know it disagrees with statements the Attorney General as chairman of

the fund has made in regard to not spending this money on physical

facilities. However, I think this is a very important suggestion which

deserves consideration in the future direction that the fund might take.

It seems to me that the increase in this physical fitness fund could

be directed to certain urban areas in great need. I'm referring to

areas in Vancouver surrounding major housing projects which are rapidly

developing into ghettos for young children who are resident there.

A good example is the Raymur and MacLean park housing projects in

the Vancouver-Strathcona area. Recreational facilities are almost

nonexistent in this district and they are very badly needed. These

large housing projects have injected large numbers of children with

very little to keep them occupied except to roam the streets.

Of course well all observe the recent attention given to nail-polish

sniffing. This matter really pointed up a basic social problem and one

aspect of this problem is the lack of recreational facilities. For

instance, what I feel they need in the Strathcona area of Vancouver is

a swimming pool, a skating rink, possibly some kind of a football field

with supervised activities arranged by the school or parks board.

It strikes me that our provincial physical fitness and amateur

sports fund should take a special interest in areas of this type.

Perhaps they could develop a programme specifically designed to assist

children in these areas by obtaining the necessary recreational

facilities and promoting activities for them. It's becoming more and

more clear that we have a lot to do in providing such facilities for

these areas in the interests of the community and its future adults.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that

I think the fund has been very successful in establishing a quality

championship performance in British Columbia and a quantity of

championship performance as well.

I think it has done a good job as far as distributing grants through

the B.C. Sports Federation and I would urge that this should continue.

I might suggest, however, that one of the ways the grant travelled from

the department is that they travel to the B.C. Sports Federation to the

local, to the B.C. Football Association to the regional football

association, the

[ Page 684 ]

local club to the individual player. I think that

we need this continuity of development and of encouragement and so I'm

saying that this is good.

But, we must on the same hand, be careful that there is also a fund

that goes directly to the individual player that is coming up — the

young 10-year-old that is going out there at 4:00 a.m. In the morning

out to the skating rink or wherever it is and we need another vehicle

as well — of high jumpers, pole vaulters…

AN HON. MEMBER: Pole vaulters?

MR. WENMAN: That's right. We need another vehicle as well and

that vehicle that we need is, I would say that the honourable Speaker

in another fund that we're well aware of establishes community grants

on a per capita basis and I think that's an excellent method of

distribution. That method should be employed also in the fitness fund

as another vehicle. Because under the current situation, the way it

works is you tend to protect the strong and continue to build the

strong but we need also to build the community and the people that can

best develop the community aspect are those who live in the community.

Somehow we need — like we have our fine arts councils in our

communities, no administration costs — directly two steps. One right

from the cultural grant fund to the local committee, to that

participant. It's a very, very direct process. Very, very little

bureaucracy involved and it's not a filtering process, it's very, very

direct.

I think that we need to establish community fitness councils similar

to community art councils as another vehicle for making sure that funds

move directly to the participant so that we can build these millions of

young people into more, and more champions. Just as those champions in

turn inspire participation, we need to engender that participation at

this lower level through more direct grants. I pass that idea on to you

and I hope that it can be implemented with this new $5 million.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

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

weekend, I along with a number of other parents went down to Seattle

with 5,000 schoolboys. 5,000 schoolboys to play a game — a tournament — in the Seattle area. Playing soccer.

In talking to many of those parents and observing the games, I

noticed a great deal of difference between the condition of the playing

fields in one area of Seattle, say around Burien, compared to another

area around a school as distinct from a public park.

I was reminded in examining some of these facilities that the same

thing holds true here in British Columbia. That some areas are well

blessed with playing fields and others are not so well blessed. In fact

a great degree of concern is being expressed by recreation people about

the fact that our playing field production is not keeping up with the

kind of thing that we're supporting in this fund.

While I welcome the fund and I realise that paying operating costs

is a very essential part of amateur athletics, it seems rather

short-sighted of the government to go full speed ahead in this

direction and yet short-change athletics and recreation in other ways.

Take for instance the problem regarding shared facilities that exist

between the Minister of Municpal Affairs — who's not here — and the

Minister of Education — who's not here. They haven't got together yet,

on solving the problem of who pays the cost of who looks after the

shared facilities.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: They're all out together. Do you think they're

discussing it now? I don't think they even talk to each other, that's

the trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come now!

MR. HALL: Now, then, Mr. Speaker, when you see that kind of

argument going on that's been going on now for at least two years in

this House regarding who pays the operating costs of shared facilities,

it makes this bill a little less worth while.

When you see whole programmes cancelled because of bad engineering,

bad planning, bad maintenance of our playing fields in the area south

of the river, you've got to see that something else must be done on a

co-ordinated programme.

In another bill that's just received third reading, we had

an Act

which uses the name of our Queen and I'm reminded as a schoolboy myself

of one of the things that happened in the country that I played most of

my sports in. We had the Duke of Edinburgh Playing Fields Association

and perhaps this government should take, under advisement, to match

that kind of activity headed by the Duke of Edinburgh which provided

hundreds of playing fields in that area in the immediate 1950 and

post-war period.

Until we do that we really can't feel as proud and as confident of

this bill as we should do. I feel that the Minister should make sure,

in his capacity as the leader of the government, as a Crown prince

perhaps, that he should get those few Ministers to talk to each other

and solve some of these problems.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

wish to make just a few comments and I'll be very brief. I'd like to

direct my remarks to the chairman of the fund. I do think that the key

phrase in the distribution of the grants from the funds that are

available under this vote is "amateur sports organisations." This

phrase was used by the Minister and certainly has been reiterated time

and time again and I would just like to rephrase that another way and

say "organised amateur sports."

But I do feel that there is an area that is not being looked after

and I feel that it would be of a great service if somehow, some of the

money that's available in this fund could filter down to the level of

organisations who may be less than perfect in the organisation that

they have available to them in the community.

Many times new communities have a great deal of difficulty in

obtaining trained personnel with the know-how and the technique of

going about the proper channels to qualify for grants, under a fund

such as this. Yet, young people who they represent are just as badly in

need of the small amount of funds that could be made available to them

as anybody in the province.

So while we can talk about the headliner names in amateur sports — and we all agree and recognise that most of

[ Page 685 ]

these people who get the publicity in amateur

sports come from many of the larger centres and once they become

nationally and internationally known they're familiar names to all of

us — we do have scattered throughout the province amateur athletes who

are just as competent, just as capable, who win many awards that don't

probably get the recognition as some of the people closer to the lower

mainland do.

Not only that, but the children who are coming up in many sporting

events could use some assistance from the funds available. So all I'm

suggesting to the chairman of the fund is that there is an area where I

think we are now not putting the effort that we should. We're missing

some of the towns and villages that do not have a sophisticated

organisation through which they can go.

Generally the answer to these communities is, apply to the

provincial organisation that represents your sport and eventually on

some grounds you'll qualify for a grant. It's not really their fault

that they don't have provincial affiliations sometimes and they're in

that area that eventually they will become recognised provincially. So,

I would hope that in dealing with future allocations of money from this

fund — particularly since it's going to be increased — that the

chairman would give consideration to the communities that don't

presently qualify because they're not a member of some provincial

amateur sports organisation but they do have the problem of children

who want to become active in some sort of sport.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. FJ. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, following up on what our

Honourable Member from Peace River (Mr. Smith) just stated, I certainly

go along with the idea of trying to keep this fund to the young

athletes.

But the thing I'm concerned about today from the comments of a

number of the Members is that all of a sudden you can see the old

wheels of bureaucracy getting to work. They can see a nice big plum

there and they're going to get hold of that money and start creating

more facilities which axe going to cost more money for the

municipalities or the regional districts to maintain.

We already have the fiscal and the political administrative vehicle

at the regional and municipal level to create more facilities and if

the people want more they can have more by paying for it. There's

nothing free in this whole world.

Now, this fund is doing a wonderful job in our own community and all

around B.C. because it's getting to the young people, to the athletes — young people that don't know their way around the corridors of the

legislature building or into the Ministers' offices.

It's come to them beautifully. It's doing a fine job and I hope it

just stays that way and let's — not let the old bureaucracy get their

hands on that money because once it does that fund will just go down

like that. Let's keep it the way it's going now.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I would through you, just casually inquire if the Member from Nanaimo is talking about Social Credit bureaucracy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Will the Member get his remarks back to this bill?

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the

Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) that there is an additional need

that isn't covered by this legislation. It's a need that we very often

run into in the villages and the towns, the smaller organised

communities. In the larger cities like Prince Rupert, it may not be

quite so prevalent because the vast bulk of the population does live in

a well organised centre.

But in smaller communities like Quesnel and Merritt, where there's a

fairly large rural population living outside of the boundaries of the

town, then the people who live outside of those boundaries like to come

in to the local arena, the local swimming pool, that has been built

through community efforts and in some cases centennial grants. The

people living outside of the organised communities have had no way to

participate as taxpayers. They're not taxpayers in that organised

community.

I would like to see this bill extended to make it possible to have a

facility grant so that any community could be given a grant of say $10

per capita that would take in not only the people living in the

organised community of say Merritt, but all those that live in Lower

Nicola, in Brookmere, in Aspen Grove, the people that do move into the

organised community and take advantage of the organised recreational

facilities.

But these facilities heretofore have been built pretty well from the

tax dollar of those in the organised areas. I think it's only fair that

there be facility grants that would assist these organised communities

in building the proper type of facility that everyone in the overall

area — organised or unorganised — can have contributed towards, through

their tax dollar, and can participate in.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 17 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No. 26.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No, 26, the Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a umber of amendments to the Motor-vehicle Act . Many of hem are purely technical in nature and do not attempt to introduce any new or revised policy.

Others are more substantial and do involve a number of principles

which I'm sure the Honourable Members want to discuss. In view of the

fact that there's no common thread throughout the bill but each of the

amendments are different revisions in the Motor-vehicle Act ,

I think it might be easier to discuss them when we are in committee,

discussing each,

section by section. So at this time, I would merely

move the bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the Minister

about the different number of principles. However, I feel that the

interests of the Legislature would not be served

[ Page 686 ]

just to skip second reading because it's a complex

bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adjourn this debate until the

next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Do you have to adjourn? Are you not prepared to discuss it now?

MR. HALL: No, I'd like to adjourn.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 27, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE JURY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 27. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: There are two major principles, Mr. Speaker, in this bill which would amend the Jury Act .

The present provisions of the Jury Act

provide that each party to a trial may challenge peremptorily not more

than four of a total of eight jurors. I'm speaking now of civil trials,

not of criminal trials.

The amendment proposed in this bill would provide that the

plaintiffs collectively would have four such challenges and the

defendants collectively would have four such challenges. This is the

situation, of course, in most trials where there are but two parties to

the trial.

However, the question has arisen with the new Jury Act

of what the situation really is when there are more than the two

parties. The intention of the amendments is to limit the challenges to

four for each side.

Really this brings it back to what the legislation intended in the

first place, to the situation that existed before the advent of the new

Jury Act . There will still, of course be the opportunity for every party to challenge any juror for cause.

The second principle involved in this bill I'm sure will meet with

approval of this House. That is it provides for a juror who sits on a

trial for more than 10 days will receive double pay for each extra day

that he attends. This will assist those who find themselves tied up in

lengthy trials — of which we've had a number in recent years.

The average juror doesn't find it too difficult to make an

arrangement with the employer for a limited period of time but for very

lengthy trials then it is a considerable inconvenience and this

amendment is proposed as a result of discussions that I have had with

the Chief Justice of the province on the subject, as well as looking at

the legislation in England which is similar to that which is proposed

for adoption in this House. I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 27 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The second reading of Bill No. 28, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 28. The Honourable Attorney General

HON. MR. PETERSON: Bill No. 28, Mr. Speaker, consists of amendments to the Administration Act . These, I suggest, are some very progressive proposals in this important area.

The proposals that are to be found in this bill will be of great

significance, of great importance, to widows and widowers of deceased

persons, They will also be of considerable interest and importance to

those who have other than a legal relationship in terms of their

marriage, because of the changes that are proposed.

Honourable Members are probably aware that the Administration Act applies where a person dies without leaving a will. The law in the Administration Act

then provides for the distribution of that estate. Under the present

law it provides that the first $20,000 goes to the surviving spouse,

the widow, and the balance is divided according to the number of

children. If there is one child then the first $20,000 would go to the

widow or widower and the remainder would be divided equally, half to

the child and half to the widow.

If there's more than one child, then it's the first $20,000 to the

surviving widow and the remainder divided one-third to the widow and

the balance among the children, depending on the number of children

that are involved.

The amendment that's proposed in this bill would superimpose on this

two things. One — absolute title to the household furnishings to the

surviving spouse. You'll find in the bill household furnishings are

defined.

Then in addition, it gives the surviving spouse a life interest in

the matrimonial home. That is another very important principle in the

new legislation — a life interest in the matrimonial home, and you'll

find that the matrimonial home is also defined in the legislation.

This is a new departure as far as British Columbia is concerned,

which will give more generous treatment to the surviving spouse. It

will mean that regardless of the circumstances the home would be

available if the surviving spouse so desires it, for the remainder of

his or her lifetime and she would have absolute title to the household

furnishings.

Of course, it's possible by consent and by agreement to vary these

terms if you want to avoid the operation of these provisions. All you

have to do, of course, is leave a will and then you can dispose of your

property as you see fit.

Another provision in this respect which is a significant change

relates to the circumstances between husband and wife. At the present

time the Administration Act

provides that a spouse that has left the other spouse and who is living

in adultery at the time of the death of that spouse, that the survivor

shall not take any part of the estate of the latter person. This is an

existing provision.

A case went to the Privy Council at a time when we could take cases

to the Privy Council, Mr. Speaker — Burns versus Burns — which decided,

for this

section to be operative, you had to establish that the person

was living in adultery at the time of death. That wasn't too easy to

establish in most cases and so it has had limited operation.

What is proposed in its place is the elimination of this provision

entirely and to provide that where people are living separate and apart

for at least a year immediately preceding the death, with the intention

of living separately and apart on a permanent basis, then they would

not take from the estate unless the court otherwise orders.

So, in the existing Act it's an absolute bar — adultery. Now we're

saying if you're living separate and apart, then you wouldn't take,

unless the court agrees that you should. I suggest that this is a major

improvement in the law on this subject.

[ Page 687 ]

Another provision relates to

part 5 of the Administration Act .

The present

part 5 allows the courts of our province to make provision

for a concubine or illegitimate child out of the estate of a deceased

person. The amount presently is limited to $500 or 10 per cent of the

estate, whichever is the greater amount.

This, I might say, was established I believe in 1897. I'm not aware

of any decisions defining "concubine" since that date, although there

may have been. But certainly there hasn't been any change in the amount

of money to be awarded since that time in 1897 when there was this

limitation of $500 or 10 per cent of the estate whichever is the

greater.

I suppose if we were to take into account the inflation that has

continued since 1897, this $500 would be a rather substantial sum

today. However, we are changing the basis of the law in the new bill

and the amendments contained in the bill, Mr. Speaker, would make

reference instead to a common-law spouse. It contains a definition of

the common law spouse.

It would further allow the courts to use discretion in deciding what

amounts should be awarded from the estate to a common-law spouse or

illegitimate child. This, I suggest, is a much improved provision over

the existing provision in the Act.

There are other provisions in

part 5, which relate to the nature of these applications.

Another new principle of this Act is to require and to introduce a

new requirement that notice be given of any application for letters

probate or letters of administration to all who might have an interest

in the estate.

In this case this provision applies whether by will or without will, whether it's letters probate or letters of administration.

The

section as drafted would prohibit the granting of letters of

administration or letters probate without first c establishing that

notice has been given to the people who are referred to in the Act,

including those who might have a potential claim under the Testators Family Maintenance Act , which is a statute that applies where there is a will. The detailed provision of the bill I will not refer to in this respect.

The last part of the bill, Mr. Speaker, would incorporate as part of the Administration Act the present provisions of the Deceased Workmen's Wages Act and it adds some provisions in this respect.

It's been found that the present statute is seldom used and we think

one of the reasons for this is that it is a separate statute, not well

known and it would be better to have it part of this overall

legislation. We're simplifying the procedures that apply and these

simplified procedures are to be found in the bill. I'm sure it will

enable the claims for wages against an estate involving deceased

workmen to be much easier and utilised much more freely under this new

legislation. Mr.Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill can be discussed

perhaps better in committee but I'm naturally pleased that the notice

section is included, that probate can't be granted without proper

notice to those who might have an interest in the estate and the same

on intestacy, as suggested in Bill No. 2, now withdrawn.

But there are improvements in the case of common-law spouses which

are long overdue in the law. Mr. Speaker, I again point out that when

you're considering the financial security of these common-law spouses

and illegitimate children, to use that expression, you've got to

remember that there's great inequality towards these people under the

succession duty laws of the Province of British Columbia because

they're treated as strangers and heavily taxed under those laws. What

you give them under this kind of legislation, you are taking away

through the Minister of Finance.

I hope that there's time in this session if we are really

introducing a new definition of common-law spouse to correct that

obvious anomaly and injustice.

There is not in this legislation, Mr. Speaker — although it appears

to be the principle of one of the sections — the sort of thing that was

argued for some years by the Member from Oak Bay, who has since passed

to his reward — Mr. Justice McFarlane as he is now known. He said that

in addition to what is in here that you should in the case of an

intestacy allow applications under the Testators Family Maintenance Act

because the division is there. That is not provided for yet in the laws

of British Columbia and it should be because you may have an

impoverished widow, a small estate and children who are well off who

shouldn't have any part of it and many kinds of different circumstances

of that kind. They do now on an intestacy. If the discretion of the

court is available where there's a will, the discretion of the court

should be available, in the case of an intestacy as well.

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

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

consider this to be good social legislation and are particularly

interested in certain specific sections in the bill which I do think

can be much better discussed during the committees than here.

We are pleased to see the James Nesbitt amendment which essentially

is the codification of the common law which has always been the law but

is better to see it in black and white. It's perhaps a little easier

and it would be better notice to the trustees and to all people who

have go to go lead and give the effective notice that is now called for

under the proposed legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I could like

to draw the attention of the Attorney General to be definition of an

illegitimate child which doesn't include a child who has become

illegitimate by reason of annulment proceedings. I think that is

another definition that's been missed and I hope that you'll give some

thought to that because there are people who started out presumed to be

legitimate and ended up being illegitimate and I don't mean by

operation or by political attack.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The honourable the Attorney General will close the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate that there

are some minor amendments that will be proposed in the committee stage

of this bill but nothing of a major principle.

[ Page 688 ]

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 28 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. 33, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 33. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the

Summary Convictions Act .

Most of the amendments proposed in the bill are what might be termed of

a housekeeping nature. A new definition of the criminal code to bring

our statute up to date and some amendments of that nature. A provision

whereby a justice may adjourn the trial without becoming seized of the

matter. This sort of thing.

Another provision allows the service of documents on the Attorney

General to be made by filing with the court registry rather than trying

to run down and catch the Attorney General personally.

None of these are earth-shaking amendments. I think the most

substantial and most significant amendment proposed in the bill is the

one which would permit a justice to sentence a defendant to a term of

imprisonment and direct that the term be served not on consecutive days

but on days to be named or weekends throughout a period long enough to

ensure that the full sentence is served. A limitation of one year,

however, is proposed to be placed upon the total time within which the

sentence is served.

My information is that this is the first time that this type of

detention has been proposed in

summary conviction cases in Canada. It's

our hope that it can be used in the case of the type of minor offences

that are punishable under the

Summary Convictions Act

that will enable a person who is convicted and who is a bread winner of

a poorer family to continue to be productively employed while paying

his debt to society.

I move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker. You know the old saying that a drop

of water on a rock that drops long enough, often enough, will finally

wear away the rock. I remember that this amendment that the Honourable

the Attorney General spoke about, is the bill that the Honourable the

Leader of the Opposition brought into the House somewhere about six

years ago. I thought that the Honourable the Attorney General, when he

was looking across at the Leader of the Opposition, I thought he would

give him credit for bringing this to his attention. But, I don't think

he was quite that gracious to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the meaning of Social Credit.

MR. NIMSICK: But I think it should be brought to the

attention of this House that this amendment is actually an amendment

that belongs to the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

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

MR. GARDOM: I would like to make one observation concerning

this bill which we are supporting and that is this. That it is a very,

very terrific step forward in my view, the particular

section which the

Attorney General referred to wherein the magistrate has the discretion

to have broken periods of imprisonment if necessary.

Now, the magistrates in the Province of British Columbia, now known

as the provincial court judges, have very — I want to use the correct

word here — jealously wished to guard their powers of sentencing and I

think by extending the right to them here, this is a great step forward

because, it's always their responsibility to consider the full natures

and circumstances surrounding a criminal act. If there has been

restitution; if there's been a great deal of brutality and so forth.

They secondly have to determine the protection of the public when

sentencing and thirdly the likelihood for rehabilitation or reform of

the individual.

I was impressed with the words of the Honourable the Attorney

General when he said that thought could be given to giving, shall we

say, a break to the breadwinner in the family by permitting him to be

out and to be vocational under certain circumstances.

But we have in this particular bill something that is directly in

contravention of the philosophy of another bill that has come before

the House which completely takes away from the magistrates the right to

exercise any discretion whatsoever concerning licence suspensions and

the judges in the Province of British Columbia have felt, I think

consistently, that they are in a better position to determine as to

whether or not there should be a suspension or not of a motor vehicle

licence.

They have awarded suspensions from dawn to dusk where you have the

situation of an individual who is a breadwinner or he is not permitted,

say, to drive on the weekends.

So we have one situation here of the government expanding the

jurisdiction of the provincial court judges then we have the other

illustration before this House of the government going the other way

and reducing it.

I think it would be a little better if there was a higher degree of consistency in the government attitudes than there has been.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend through the

Speaker to the former Member for Dewdney (Mr. Barrett) — not the

present Member for Dewdney, but the former Member for Dewdney — my

congratulations for his great victory today. It's a moment of complete

humility that I praise the former Member for Dewdney for his actions in

bringing this to the attention of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When we have completed the self congratulatory

messages could we proceed now with the principle of this particular

bill? (Laughter).

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill does permit for

the first time in the history of this province, but not for the first

time in any jurisdiction in Canada, unfortunately.

[ Page 689 ]

In the Province of Saskatchewan, through you, Mr. Speaker, they

introduced a bill in the former Liberal government, some three years

ago that had incorporated four pages of my original bill, word for

word, which I plagiarised from the State of Wisconsin.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did they get it from?

MR. BARRETT: They got it from an Attorney General by the name of Huber, in 1921.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he, by the way?

MR. BARRETT: He was a Socialist and it was an original idea

with the LaFollette regime. Huber was an outstanding intellectual. An

outstanding American Socialist politician and an outstanding attorney

general in the State of Wisconsin.

It has been estimated that this particular concept has saved the

State of Wisconsin not only millions and millions of dollars, but has

actually been demonstrated to show that they have avoided marriage

breakdowns through the taking of children into custody by the State of

Wisconsin.

An outstanding social reform, that when it was first introduced into

this House, the former Attorney General said: "It's 40 years too soon."

I had to remind him at that time that he was 40 years late.

Mr. Speaker, through you, this kind of legislation has got

absolutely nothing to do with political philosophies or political

divisions. We acknowledge that. But then I ask you this question and I

mean it sincerely — why does it take so long? When an idea is presented

in the House and the idea has obviously got nothing to do with shaking

down the government or electing the N.D.P. and defeating Social Credit

or the Liberals or anything else — why can't we adopt these ideas into

law far more quickly?

I give this Attorney General credit, because some politicians resist

a new idea as a matter of pride rather than understanding that there is

room in this House — as difficult as it is for some observers to

understand — there may be room in this House for an exchange of ideas

outside the arena of political parties, on every instance.

It does indeed do the kind of thing that we were looking for.

There's still a number of problems that I would like to hear from the

Attorney General on — in terms of administering this Act.

At the present time if you were so unfortunate as to be walking

along the street, Mr. Speaker, and be robbed of $50, under this

section

you wouldn't get your $50 back.

I don't think that we should allow people to steal $50 from the

Speaker — or anyone else, for that matter — without the Speaker or

someone else being able to recover the $50 lost.

Part of punishment is the return of the original amount of money

that was stolen and if the Attorney General were to understand that the

concept of weekend jails is to enable the offender to be more directly

responsible for his crime and one way of being more directly

responsible for one's crime is to return that that has been stolen — plus expenses. Plus medical expenses. They may be out or a day away

from work that he had to come to court and testify: "Yes, this is the

man who robbed me."

Then you go to the judge and say: "I'd like my money back." And the

judge will say: "Be quiet or I'll fine you for contempt of court." It

wasn't even his fault. The victim's approach to the court's system is

one of fear.

Let's exit the victim, then let's look at the state, the provincial

government. We put him in jail for the weekend, but why should we pay

for his room and board?

Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why should we give anybody a weekend

free in beautiful downtown Oakalla? If he's going to go to jail and

it's part of punishment, then charge him room and board for the

weekend. Charge him $2.50 a day for room and board.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: That's about all it is worth, that's correct.

But even at that, the point is that it is money out of the taxpayers'

pockets to put him in jail. We are taking away the planned recreational

period from the offender, so let him pay room and board while he's in

jail, $2.50 a day would not be out of line.

Now, what are we doing with the time that he's in jail? That time

should be used to establish what the Dutch are experimenting with and

have been experimenting with for a number of years. Establishing a

therapeutic community concept, keeping the same group of offenders

together every weekend with a highly-skilled probation officer who is

supervising that group out in the community.

The assignment should be made by keeping case loads low. It's not

good enough in my opinion for the judge in the case to be placed in the

position of saying to the offender: "O.K., I'm going to put you in on

weekends and you report to the prison on weekends and you get out on

Monday," without anyone following through on the case.

So what's needed if we're going to make this

section really work, is

an experimental group of probation officers to develop a whole new

service in this area and keeping their case loads down to 20 or 25

people and keeping the case load as a group in itself.

Beyond this, Mr. Speaker, is the family. If this is a married man,

then we must understand that we can't just confine our services to the

man himself. There is a wife and children involved and the family

should be looked upon as a unit receiving service from the probation

officer who is supervising if that's the intention of the Attorney

General.

I welcome this section. I know it will work. The thing that would

make me even happier than this, Mr. Speaker, is for the Attorney

General to bring in a law saying that no child, 12 years of age or

younger shall be held in an institution, holding children over the age

of 12. That's the next step.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Attorney General

deserves praise for having brought in this

section and in effect

allowing the Leader of the Opposition to see a government implement an

idea that's good.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a rarity.

MR. DOWDING: I think together they should be able to work out

the way this becomes a success. I think what the Leader of the

Opposition has said now is very important. It's not spelled out in the

legislation but it's no use putting something down in black and white

in a bill and expecting it to look after itself. It just doesn't do it

that way.

I might add I had an interesting experience this morning

[ Page 690 ]

on this, how it works out in practice. In a court

case in Port Coquitlam I was sitting there listening and a provincial

judge was trying to decide on the sentence for a man who had a reading

over 0.08. So he said: "I'm going to fine you $200. Now what do you do

for a living?"

The man said: "I need my car to go to work every day, there's no bus

line where I go to a refinery that's quite a distance away from the

travelled route." The judge said: "Well I could sentence you to a

three-month suspension but with provision that you can use it only to

go to work and back to your home. Would that suit you?"

The man thought about it and he said: "Well, what else would you do if I didn't like that?"

"Well, if you want an option I would give you a straight 30-day

suspension, instead of a 90-day suspension," said the judge. So the man

thought that over for a minute and he decided the 30-day suspension

clear and outright, in which he'd have to find his way to work by

either his wife driving him, or somebody else driving him, or hitching

a ride, was preferable to three months of the other remedy.

It's very much like this. This is a tougher sentence for some people

than just to spend their time in jail for a longer period of time. It

means you've got to stick to a schedule, it means you've got to

continue paying your debt. It means that every time you go there you

think about what you did. And you are determined, I would think, not to

do it again.

Aside from the pecuniary aspect of it, I think the constant return

to a group participating in the same kind of penitence, as it were, by

good works is a useful means of bringing about reformation that does

not normally take place. When you look at the percentage of recidivism

that takes place in crime today, a new approach is needed. I certainly

on behalf of all of us thank the Attorney General for being bold enough

to take that approach.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Attorney General will close the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think we have established

today that this is a government that listens to the Members of this

House and regardless of whether an idea is proposed by Members who sit

in the Opposition benches or on the government side, if the idea is

good, if it's a sound idea, if it's constructive and we hear so little

in terms of constructive proposals…

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

HON. MR. PETERSON: We sat all night and we didn't hear one

constructive proposal in this respect. But when we do, Mr. Speaker, we

listen, and we act. This isn't the first time.

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: We've got a proposal here for the

Summary Convictions Act .

If you look at the correction statute which was put into effect a short

while ago, a work training programme, which allows people who are in

our correctional institutions to obtain employment, or to continue in

employment and this statute provides what the Honourable the Leader of

the Opposition was talking about — a deduction for his food and

lodging. This is provided now in the law, when persons from our

correctional institutions are allowed out on work training programmes.

I realise that has limited application but nevertheless it is a principle that's established there.

Now also on the question of restitution, or the example chosen by

the Leader of the Opposition a person goes out and steals $50 from the

Speaker. I know, Mr. Speaker, that's not a pleasant thing to

contemplate, but under the present law the court has that authority

now. They have the authority to order restitution by a person that's

accused of theft. So there's no need for legislation in that respect.

I might say as well that there is a new trend now in terms of

probation orders — one that I have discussed as well with members of

the bench, which I think is extremely good. Varying conditions can be

imposed on people who are let out on probation. They in turn have to do

their bit for the community. They may have to wash cars, they may have

to clean up messes that they've made, this sort of thing. It's a lot in

keeping with the same idea of restitution, and this is all extremely

good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I might just add before making the final motion, that

there is a minor amendment that will be made to the bill in committee

stage but it's technical in nature. I move the bill be now read a

second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 33 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 35, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MORTGAGE BROKERS ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 35,

An Act to Amend the Mortgage Brokers Act . The Honourable Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains some important amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act ,

which is a statute that Honourable Members will recall was introduced

in the Legislature last year. The Act itself is divided into two broad

parts, two major principles — one dealing with registration of mortgage

brokers, and secondly, provisions which would require a lender in

certain cases to furnish a disclosure statement, showing the various

items that make up the cost of borrowing, plus the other terms and

conditions of a mortgage.

At the time this bill was being considered one year ago, I indicated

to the House that the registration provisions of the Act would come

into force and effect first, and that I would not recommend the

proclamation of the disclosure provisions, the other part of the Act,

until I was completely satisfied that these provisions would be

considered practical and capable of ready compliance.

In August of last year the Executive Council issued a proclamation

bringing the registration provisions into force effective January I

this year. That time interval was required to enable the necessary

printing of the application forms and passing of the regulations et

cetera.

At the present time the registration provisions are working well, I

might add. We have 160 brokers registered at the last count that I

received, and sub-mortgage brokers number 240 registered.

You will find in this bill some additional proposals in

[ Page 691 ]

respect to the registration of mortgages but the

main thrust of the bill that's before the House relates to a rewrite of

the provisions of the Act relating to disclosure.

It became apparent as this matter was considered the kind of

mortgage transactions where disclosure statements were required were

those where the interest rate shown on the mortgage document did not

fully reflect the cost to the borrower. For example, if the interest

rate shown on the face of the mortgage is, say, 9 per cent per annum,

but there's a substantial bonus or discount attached to the mortgage,

then the interest rate is much more than 9 per cent.

It's in this area that we've rewritten the requirements of the

statute, to provide where there is a bonus or commission, or discount,

et cetera or whatever name it's called then the disclosure provision

provides.

This is a different principle really from that which we adopted last

year where we said it applied to everything unless specifically

excluded. Now, we think this is a better procedure and will cover the

cases which require covering in the Province of British Columbia.

In addition a new principle has been established in this bill — that

the borrower who borrows money by a bonus or discount mortgage, that

where there is a bonus or discount, where you are required to complete

the disclosure statement, then the borrower will have the right within

48 hours after he receives the disclosure statement or signs the

mortgage, whichever event first occurs to rescind the mortgage and to

be put back into the same position he was in prior to the transaction

being entered upon.

So, here for the first time we're introducing a genuine element of

prior disclosures giving a suitable period of time in which a borrower

can, when all the facts are known to him, consider what he has done. If

he wants to rescind then he can do so within the 48-hour period. In

other words there is a cooling-off period of 48 hours when you know all

the facts to decide whether you should proceed and go through with the

transaction or not.

There is another significant provision and that is the one which

enables a borrower who ought to have received a disclosure statement

but did not receive such a statement of bringing an action to redeem

the property within 30 days if he can show to the court that he was

entitled to such a disclosure statement but did not receive one, or

that he was deliberately mislead by some item in the disclosure

statement.

So, Mr. Speaker, in

summary the disclosure provisions are directed

toward those kind of mortgages where disclosure is most necessary.

Namely, where there are bonuses and discounts. Secondly the provisions

provide for the first time a genuine element of prior disclosure with

rescission privileges within 48 hours. And thirdly, a provision to

allow the borrower to redeem the property within one month, if a

disclosure statement ought to have been provided which was not provided

or if there was false information in the disclosure statement.

It's my view that these provisions are not only substantial

improvements from the existing provisions, which are not yet proclaimed

in any event, but they are the type of provisions with which the

industry itself can readily comply. I feel that these changes will make

the statute effective for enforcement purposes without in any way

impeding the availability of mortgage money or creating undue

difficulties in complying with the amended requirements. I move the

bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second Member for Vancouver Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: We are in accord with the principle of the bill,

Mr. Speaker. There's just one observation I would like to make to the

Honourable the Attorney General which perhaps could be considered by

him before the time we get into committee and that deals, Mr. Speaker,

with the disclosure of provisions in the bill and I have the Attorney

General's ear.

Dealing with the disclosures provisions you give the borrower and

power to rescind under your

section 16, and you also give him the

opportunity to repay, but if he does not repay you do not seem to cover

the situation as to whether or not his rescission is effective. You

might consider that point perhaps by the time we come to committee.

Because it doesn't seem to me to be expressed with the degree of

clarity that it should be.

HON. MR. PETERSON: That's under

section 16?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, under

section 16-2 and 16-6. The point that

I am making, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General that you've given the

man the power to rescind under

section 16-2 and then he has the

opportunity to repay under 16-6. But if he choses to rescind and he

does not repay, then you've left it sort of up in the air as to whether

or not there's an effective rescission, probably at law there would not

be. But perhaps, I think, this could be put within the terms of the

bill to make it more clear to the general public.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 35 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE REGIONAL PARKS ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 36.

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act . The Honourable Minister.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, when the original Regional Parks Act

was drawn up in 1965 there were some people in the municipalities who

were doubtful that they would want to either (

a) participate in such a

vehicle, or (

b) be locked into it if they didn't participate.

In order to safeguard that concern, we provided in the original Act

that they must not enter into purchase agreements that would require

longer than five years to discharge and that they could not fund any

portion of the procurement operations of the regional park.

Since that time, however, over these past five or six years the

regional park concept has become well established and is substantially

utilised in two areas of the province, and is expanding its utilisation

into other areas of the province.

In process of the actual operation, the regional district that

operates in the Greater Vancouver-Lower Fraser Valley area, found that

in some of their park planning, that in order to be effective they had

to accomplish in a shorter period of time than they had originally

anticipated, certain of their

[ Page 692 ]

property acquisition objectives if they were to

obtain the kind of property assemblies that would effectively serve the

regional park purposes that they were seeking to serve.

As a result of this they require a reasonable amount of money at an

early date rather than simply relying on their authority to spread out

their purchase under purchase agreement over five years, or to simply

spend the money as it came in from their normally agreed to half-mil

levy over a period of years.

There was no indication, however, that they wanted to go to any

great extensive terms in funded debts and I would hope the regional

districts, wherever it's practical to do so, that they do limit their

operations to either their annual cash flow or to comparatively

short-term purchase agreements so that they are not building up a large

funded debt.

But in the particular situation I think it deals primarily with the

Tynehead property. The only real solution to the problem is to permit

the district if they so desire to fund the necessary dollar volume

which would be something in the range of $4 million or less than $5

million and acquire these properties now since they are all encompassed

in the boundaries of the particular park projects, satisfying in this

manner the present property owners and not delay the transaction

unduly. That, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of the amendments before you

in relation to the Regional Parks Act .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 36 I welcome,

having spent some six years of my life answering questions from people

in my constituency who have been hit by the question of the development

of regional parks and had their properties frozen in value without any

ability to get out of that box that the various rules and regulations

and authorities have seen them placed in. The Member for Delta (Mr.

Wenman) the Member for Langley (Mr. Vogel) and myself have welcomed the

arrival into our areas of this kind of legislation to develop regional

parks. Over the years we've had occasion to appear at joint meetings

and joint platforms to support the concept of regional parks. It makes

it that much more difficult, Mr. Speaker, when there is not sufficient

money to back up a good public idea. The Member for Langley and myself

have said, I think on a few occasions, that if it's a good idea and in

the public good then the public must pay for it. There's nothing for

free.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, one can't help but reflect on

an Act

that sees certain municipalities having a free ride. There are

municipalities which will enjoy the benefits of this bill, will enjoy

the acquisition of parkland, their citizens will be able to have

recreational programmes and even such esoteric affairs as zoos,

biological gardens, all for free, Mr. Speaker. Because we don't have

the legislation that makes it mandatory for all member municipalities

to pay their fair share, pay their fair share of the regional parks

activities in the region, of the lower mainland.

I welcome the bill because this now enables the regional parks to

mortgage the future a little bit to make sure that those people who are

affected in this public progress are able to be looked after properly

and no longer have to suffer the slings and fortunes of tax problems

and the freezing of their properties and the inability to make

decisions as to whether to improve their property or to do the various

things that normal people have to do.

I welcome the bill. The Minister has had a sympathetic ear over the

years and now to his credit he had managed to pull something out of the

hat for us and we welcome the bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall) for his recognition of the mutual concern that the

Member for Delta (Mr. Wenman) the Member for Surrey and I have shown in

connection with the parkland acquisition problems that exists in the

area. These people have been in a very bad way for a number of years as

the Member has said and I think this bill is coming in not a bit too

soon.

I can be hopeful that the amount of money to be borrowed permissible

under the bill will permit the acquisition of the lands that have been

zoned for park purposes and frozen and therefore are virtually arrested

as far as either proper development use for their own purposes or sale

is concerned and I think perhaps it might be timely to comment upon one

or two things that we have learned in the effort we have made to

develop parkland on a regional basis.

First of all, it's completely futile to outline park areas by

drawing lines on a map and saying that the acquisition would be

desirable without providing immediately the funds for that purpose,

simply because in the central Fraser Valley typically and I suppose

most places generally the increasing prices have made it quite sure

that the programme of acquisition could never be completed if it were

done over a period of time.

What has happened here of course, is that the acceleration of prices

has been retarded by the municipal policy which has been followed with

the idea of deliberately freezing this land. These people have been

told that the land is marked for acquisition. Buyers therefore were

warned not to go into the area to buy but the people that owned the

land could not use it for their own purposes, seek another buyer or

obtain their money. It was a most unfair situation. I congratulate the

Minister for having resolved the matter in this manner and am very

happy to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 36 be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 36 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 37, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 37,

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act . The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Bill No. 37,

An Act to Amend the Constitutional Act .

All Members have had this bill before them for some period of time now

and are acquainted with its contents. Contents being that it ties

increases in indemnity for those people connected with the House — the

M.L.A.'s, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, et

cetera — to a percentage determined by certain acts which may take

place in the

[ Page 693 ]

public sector.

I personally think this is a wise

approach, and the bill, you will notice, is retroactive in order to

take care of this particular session of the Legislature. A pleasure

moving that it be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we're asking for an adjournment

of this

section of this bill. Sorry not to be ready, but that first

sentence and the syntax makes it something that our caucus has not

really had a chance to read let alone discuss. I move adjournment.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BLACK: I doubt if that is the reason.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 18.

GREEN BELT PROTECTION FUND ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 18, Green Belt Protection Fund Act . Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as part of the better life

policy in British Columbia of this government it is desired to preserve

green belt areas throughout the province in perpetuity. To this end it

will be necessary for the government to purchase privately-owned land

to hold as green belt areas in addition to lands presently held for

that purpose by the government.

It will be the government policy to add to this fund in future years

to combine and augment the purchase of green belt areas, as we consider

this at this time in our history a very important policy in our

government.

This bill, therefore, provides initially for a special fund of $25

million to be set up from which moneys may be spent to acquire private

lands to be held by the Crown as green belt areas. The bill outlines

that such lands acquired may be used mainly for parkland without

camping, for forestry reserves or for renting for farming purposes.

Immediately this bill is passed the government will commence to

purchase the land. It is our intention to step in and buy these lands

as soon as possible in different parts of this province.

This isn't a perpetual fund, though we hope it will be added to each

year and so it will be a permanent policy as long as this government is

in office, which I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, with these kind of policies

will be for many, many years.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, you'll retire. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): The official Opposition

is pleased that the government is doing something about protecting land

around the edge of cities in this province. It's long overdue. I would

like to say Mr. Speaker that those feelings are genuine.

I would hope that the government would think seriously about the

whole question of priorities and not just go rushing into certain areas

because there are specific pressures of the moment.

I would hope that the green belts genuinely become that around our

major cities, namely the Victoria area and the Greater Vancouver area.

I would hope that the government would give priority in these two

critical areas where growth is so rapid and where the land may not be

preserved for any great length of time.

I think specifically in the Greater Vancouver area and the lower

mainland there are some natural green belts that should be preserved. I

think the natural green belt around the metropolitan Vancouver area

includes the Pitt River flatlands which are magnificent farm lands, the

whole Nicomekl-Serpentine Basin surrounding the Surrey Upland and then

the Delta flatlands and the Municipality of Delta and the magnificent

islands out by the Reiffel sanctuary, Weston Island, Reiffel Island and

so on. These are great provincial, maybe national assets that should by

all means be preserved.

Now, there's a case for it for many reasons. These are probably the

most productive farmlands in the province. They are close to the

metropolitan heart-land, the great population and in the case of some

parts of them in terms of developing them for their full agricultural

potential there will probably be major capital works necessary in the

case of the Serpentine and the Nicomekl in particular there's a genuine

flood control problems, water table problems and so on. They should be

dealt with so that this area is developed into a major food basket that

is producing more and more all the time. Simply because there are these

problems of major capital expenditures that the individual farmers in

those areas might well not be able to carry, there is a case for using

the green belt fund to preserve those key agricultural lands.

It's also a unique opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for making it feasible

for more young people to go into farming in British Columbia. I would

note that the Government of Saskatchewan is presently planning on going

into a land bank programme on a significant scale in order to overcome

this capital problem — that is the capitalised value of the land is

preventing people from becoming farmers and producers on the land

today. A programme such as this which would allow a tremendous amount

of leasehold farming to take place, and these key areas would be great

in terms of allowing that possibility.

Now, I know that the government is usually reticent to allow the

development of any bureaucracy, but I would urge upon the Minister of

Finance the hiring of some staff at least with respect to this fund. It

wouldn't be quite good enough to handle it the way he handles his

amateur sports fund or the like, but rather look at the question of

priority and develop a significant programme. I'm convinced, Mr.

Speaker, that in fact the ideal situation would be to have this

administered not by the Minister of Finance but by a Minister of the

Environment for British Columbia.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Is the Hon. the Premier announcing that he's going to be the new Minister of the Environment?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: No? Oh its the Hon Premier

[ Page 694 ]

suggesting, that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources,

P.G.E., B.C. Hydro, et cetera, et cetera is also going to be the

Minister of Environment?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You missed a few et ceteras.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the et ceteras, you know, make it

abundantly clear that the Hon. Minister on the Premier's right is

overworked and has too many masters and that dealing with the

industrial sectors of the economy of our major industrial sectors isn't

the base that the Minister of the Environment should operate from. So I

would hope for a Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker, but at the very

least the hiring of some staff rather than the establishment of another

committee with the same old bodies on the committee that are on the

culture fund, the sports fund, and all the other funds. But you know, I

would hope we'd have some assurance from the Minister with respect to

that.

I would hope too, Mr. Speaker, that the government start looking at

the massive industrial belt that they have acquired in the district of

Delta and seriously rethink that. The government bought what, some

5,000 or 6,000 acres. In Delta municipality back of the superport, and

it's clear that will probably not be needed for that purpose.

These lands ideally should be preserved to a greater extent as green

areas within the city or near the city and not as part of an industrial

complex at the port.

Clearly, the amount of industrial land zoned in the Greater

Vancouver area now is very large and I think the actual amount used is

about 20 per cent. So we're moving past the year 2,000 and beyond in

terms of using land that is presently zoned for industry in the Greater

Vancouver region.

I would again hope that some staff input of a high calibre was

established so that there could be a review of the industrial land

holdings of the Crown in the lower mainland as well, so that that land

in turn could be preserved.

Mr. Speaker, there are areas of course, around the regional cities

in the province and I'm sure that arguments can be made for preserving

some of that land but that may be another problem — areas like Kamloops

and so on. In fact, if this government was really on its toes it would

have acquired the land on the edge of Kamloops for other purposes. That

is for development purposes in that area. If they'd been on their toes

they would have accepted the original proposals of the City of Kamloops

for acquiring those lands. But they're not.

There is a related problem and that is the whole question of the

price of land in our society and land tenure questions generally. I

again would urge upon the government the need for some staff over-view

of this massive problem. So long as we ignore what's happening in the

land market around the edge of our cities, we're going to be creating a

burden for all the people that want housing and want to function in

cities, a burden that they shouldn't necessarily have to carry. I would

hope that the government would realise that they must look at the land

market around cities and look at ways they can affect it so that

(1) they avoid the pressure on the farmer to sell his land to speculators

or for speculative use or for urban purposes, and, (2) so that they can

have some effect on the price of land.

I would suggest that economic and tax policies with respect to land

around cities could be developed that would have an impact on the price

of the land and an impact on the pressures on that land.

You know, the recent example in the District of Dufferin which I

don't really want to bring up but it's classic in a way. The tax

pressures…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: The tax pressures that we can put on land, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we come back to Bill No. 18 please?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, yes. That's preserving land, Mr.

Speaker. The tax pressure that we can put on land affects its price.

Certainly an increase in taxes of 41 times as has just recently

happened in the Kamloops area has an effect on the value of that land.

That's something the government should be thinking about. If tax

pressures worked in the right direction, if we shifted taxes away from

productive enterprise in relation to building on land and shifted the

burden more towards the holders of land that are speculating it would

have a tremendous effect on the price. That in turn would have an

impact with respect to the green belt fund. If there were fair taxation

across the board, around all the cities of British Columbia…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: …you could probably buy $100 million worth

of green belt rather than $25 million worth of green belt. Well, the

Premier says that's right. It is right. But what I want to know is why

aren't you doing something about it?

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: You know, the Premier can talk about

inflation in Ottawa and not coming to grips with inflation in Ottawa

but the areas of inflation that he can deal with in British Columbia

he's content to leave alone, and let massive fortunes build up on the

edge of cities for the favoured few.

That need not be. This is the area that the Minister of Finance can

deal with. This is the inflation bubble that he can pop. But he chooses

not to.

This $25 million can do various things. One of the things it can do

is help push the price of land up. Oh yes, you know it. If there's

increased buyers — prices go up. You know all about supply and demand.

If you do not have concurrent policies that deal with this problem

then you've got a $5 million bill rather than a $25 million bill here.

Mr. Premier, you're fully aware of that. How many more instances do we

need in British Columbia before you'll face up to the fact that this is

your responsibility, that you can do something about it, that these

free riders around the edge of the towns will not be supported any

longer? This is a great opportunity to make this $25 million do $100

million worth of work. I urge the Premier to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

[ Page 695 ]

MR. VOGEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on Bill No. 18.

I agree that the requirement for open spaces and green belt occurs

more obviously at the high-priced land in the perimeter of the growing

area, in the Vancouver rapidly developing sector. But I think that we

all recognise that properly considered the entire coastal plain as far

as Chilliwack should be regarded as an extension of metropolitan

Vancouver because the density will continue to move eastward and we'll

be facing the same problem from a number of growing centres such as

North Surrey, the Whalley area, Langley and Abbotsford and so on.

I don't quite agree with my friend from Vancouver East, the

Honourable second Member (Mr. R.A. Williams) with regard to the manner

in which these funds should be expended. Simply because I think that

large areas obviously more suitable for agricultural production than

anything else should be retained by firm zoning on the part of the

municipalities.

I don't think that public money should be put into productive

farmlands that are being properly used, thereby creating the rental

problem and so on, and the possibility that they will become less

productive simply because they are not owner operated. I do think

though that in order to ensure that the owners can use them with proper

economy and productivity it is necessary to use public funds to solve

the drainage problem and I certainly think that's where we've been

falling down.

The flood plane of the Nicomekl and the Serpentine involves 16,000

acres. It's within 25 miles of the post office of the City of

Vancouver. It's probably the most productive land in the entire lower

mainland or could be if the water were lower and I would think for the

government simply to buy that would be a great mistake but to increase

the productivity by looking after the drainage problem would be a very

obvious thing to do. I think perhaps our money should be better spent

in bits and pieces around the small growing communities. If, say, North

Surrey in the Guildford area we had had this fund a few years ago we

would have probably selectively picked up parcels of land that would

have been a very great help to the Municipality of Surrey in

maintaining sensibly planned communities and a good environment and we

can do a great deal now.

I would like to see the committee look at it from that point of view

and try to diversify the acquisition as much as possible to the

communities that are obviously going to be the cities of the future.

There's one thing that I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, and I

wonder if the Premier would make clear when he speaks the manner in

which the dealing is going to occur. How the acquisitions are going to

occur. I would certainly hope that there would be no expropriations

with regard to acquisition of land under this bill — that we would

simply acquire lands under the rule of the marketplace between a free

buyer and a free seller. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Mr. Speaker, concerning the institution of the Green Belt Protection

Fund Act I think those of us who have been concerned with environmental

matters in the province and the control of lands have wished for some

time that there was some such fund as this which was available for the

acquisition of particularly desirable pieces of land which should be

retained in the public sector for all times.

We really haven't had this without some direction of the Legislature

through the passage of

an Act such as this to give direction which

would give approval to the expenditure of such public money.

Now we have it and you have the assurance that this first sum that

has been placed here is really a starting fund and upon the nature of

the acquisitions which are made I am sure that they will commend

themselves to the Members of this House so that this fund like some

other funds will from time to time be expanded in the public interest

with the unanimous endorsation of the Members of this House.

I think you should, now we have established the policy, Mr. Speaker,

realise that the concept of the policy is far greater than is

envisioned just in this fund because for the first time it establishes

a policy on behalf of government — not only that certain private lands

may be acquired and shall be set aside for all time, with the green

belt designation, but that throughout the province certain Crown lands

shall be set aside in exactly the same way and given the same basic

designation at this time.

Whereas, of course, when one looks at the future we should make