1970 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 769 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of

privilege, under Standing Order No. 71 of our Standing Orders, to move

the following motion, seconded by the member from Burnaby-Edmonds,

"That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having been

convened in camera without authority so to do being granted by the

Committee, and before the statements of accounts of the Liquor Control

Board had been discussed or other vouchers had been examined and the

Chairman thereof having, contrary to the rules of the House, refused to

convene a meeting open to the public, in compliance with parliamentary

procedure, and thereby depriving members of their rights and

privileges, this House hereby instructs the Chairman of the Committee

to reconvene, in open meeting, to consider such vouchers and financial

statements as remain to be disposed of before going into camera." Mr.

Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment please. Standing Order 71, as

quoted by the member, of course deals with the matter of the rules of

the House applying equally in the committee as they do in the

Legislative Assembly, and speaks also of quorum which is not related to

the matter of privilege.

Normally speaking, one would expect a notice to be given to the

House when instructions are given to a Committee. Nevertheless, the

honourable member has stood on a point of privilege and it would be the

Speaker's normal function to consider whether or not a prima facie case

of privilege actually existed.

I would, with the permission of the House, like some time to

consider this, and would bring in my finding at the end of this sitting

or possibly the beginning of the following sitting if that is agreed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

AN HON. MEMBER: May I confirm the statements that are in that particular motion as to the denial….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is not in order. Mr. Clerk.

MR. CLERK: Introduction of Bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: State the matter.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: The matter is the present hearing before

the Canadian Transport Commission in regard to an application by the

Kootenay and Elk Railway Company to connect with the Great Northern

Railway Company at the United States border.

The urgency involved arises from the insistence by this Government

that this route should be allowed to carry coal to Roberts Bank. The

urgency has been heightened by the issuance of an Order-in-Council on

February 2nd, 1970, by the Government of British Columbia, granting

permission to the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company to extend their

lines to the American border. The February 2nd Order-in-Council, while

not a matter of urgent public importance in itself, has been added to

by a letter sent to the Canadian Transport Commission by the

Attorney-General, a copy of which I have just received. This letter to

the Canadian Transport Commission indicates that the Provincial

Government is in favour of the shipment of Kaiser coal on American

railways to Roberts Bank. This letter from the Attorney-General creates

a definite matter of urgent public importance in that the Government's

action now before us threatens the economic security of thousands of

British Columbia railroad workers and, further, the economic stability

and potential growth of the town of Revelstoke and the whole Kootenay

Valley.

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, the adjournment of the House to discuss this definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I question seriously the matter of whether or

not this matter is within the Provincial jurisdiction. I realize the

member is making certain statements or allegations which have to do

with the representations made by the Province to the Canada Transport

Commission, but I would like, also, in this matter to enquire more

carefully into it before I give the House a decision, to ensure that

the matter is or is not within the jurisdiction of the Province.

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

contents of the letter referred to by the member as heightening the

matter of public urgency, is that the Attorney-General has taken the

position that the matter is fully and wholly within the Provincial

jurisdiction. That's why the urgency.

MR. SPEAKER: Now that I have this material, would the House

allow me time to give it some study and I will bring in a ruling on

this as well as the other matter that was raised earlier.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would

also ask Your Honour to consider the matter of urgency. This is a

question that has been discussed freely and fully by the honourable

member who proposed this motion earlier in the House in these debates,

and I would ask that the question of the urgency of the matter also be

given consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, all points of the matter will be given careful consideration before a ruling is brought in.

MR. NIMSICK: It was just today that I got that letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs)

The Chairman reported progress.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, with the indulgence of the House I reserved my decision on a

[ Page 770 ]

grievance raised as a matter of privilege by the

honourable first member for Vancouver–Point Grey. The honourable member

first referred to Standing Order 71(1) which provides that the Standing

Orders shall be observed in Select Standing Committees to the same

extent as the same may be applicable to a Committee of the Whole House

and then stated that a meeting of the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts and Printing had been convened in a manner contrary to

the rules of the House.

The essential question to be determined is whether the honourable member has a point of order or a point of privilege. In the Journals

of the House, 1968, pages 134 and 135, I find that the Chair in similar

circumstances considered what constituted matters of privilege. Reading

in part from that ruling at page 135:

"The 17th edition of May, at page 42, describes

'Parliamentary privilege' as 'the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by

each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of

parliament and by the members of each House individually, without which

they could not discharge their functions…. The privileges of

parliaments are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due

execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual members because

the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the

services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its

members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. When any

of these immunities, both of the members individually and of the

assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general

name of 'privileges,' are disregarded or attacked by any individual or

authority, the offence is called 'a breach of privilege' and is

punishable under the law of parliament.

"In the same edition of May the privileges which

attach to members of parliament individually are enumerated as follows:

(1) Privilege of freedom of speech; (2) privilege of freedom from

arrest or molestation; (3) privilege of access to the Crown.

"In Bourinot's 'Parliamentary Procedure,' 4th edition

at page 303, 'questions of privilege' are described in general terms as

referring to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the

House collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their

representative character.

"The power of this House to define those privileges is

sanctioned by the Constitution Act, R.S.B.C. 1960,

chapter 71, and such

privileges have been largely codified in the Legislative Assembly

Privileges Act, R.S.B.C. 1960,

chapter 215.

"As explained by Dawson in the 2nd edition of

member are primarily designed to enable the member to attend his

parliamentary duties without interference and to encourage members to

speak and act freely without fear Of undesirable consequences."

As I have earlier indicated, the honourable member based his

grievance on an alleged breach of Standing Order 71(1) and the motion

offered by him addresses itself to procedures "contrary to the rules of

the House."

I must therefore conclude that the issue is clearly a point of order

and not a point of privilege. Points of order must, of course, be

resolved in the Committee and not in the House. Reference Journals,

1968, page 52.

Mr. Speaker left the chair at 6 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs and of the Department of Public Works)

The Committee reported Resolutions 194 to 198 inclusive, and Resolutions 238 to 243, inclusive.

The House proceeded to the Order "Private Bills."

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

Bill (No. 50) intituled

An Act to Amend the Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company Act.

Bill (No. 51) intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

Bill (No. 52) intituled

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company.

Bill (No. 54) intituled

An Act Respecting Yorkshire Trust Company.

Mr. J. Chabot presented the Report of the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, as follows:

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries begs leave to report as follows:

Pursuant to motion of February 24, 1970, your Committee was ordered convened to study the following matter:

Resolved, That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on

Forestry and Fisheries to receive and study the following reports from

the Forest Service:

(1) Slash-burning in the Interior:

(2) Damage to forest values by mining development:

(3) Application of the 30-50 per cent contractor clauses in tree-farm licences.

Also to consider and report to the House on the total management

responsibilities of the quota holders within any sustained-yield unit

which is being cut to the maximum allowable harvest under close

utilization standards.

Six meetings were held and representations were heard from the

following: Forestry officials; Columbia Cellulose Company Limited;

Rayonier Canada (B.C.) Limited; MacMillan Bloedel Limited; Weldwood of

Canada Limited; Eurocan Pulp and Paper Company Limited; The Western

Independent Log Haulers Association; Prince George and District Truck

Loggers Association; Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association; The

Truck Loggers Association; and The Independent Squamish Logging

Operators Limited.

The Forestry Committee appreciated the cooperation of the Forest

Service in collecting reports and submitting information on the various

subjects.

Slash-burning in the Interior under

section 116 of the Forest Act.

The Forest Service indicated to the Committee that in 1969

slash-burning was carried out in an orderly arrangement with industry

and that escapes were negligible and the volume of timber destroyed was

nil. Cooperation exists between industry and the Forest Services on

slash burning.

Your Committee recommends that the Forest Service continue to hold

annual meetings with the Interior associations to assess slash burning

guidelines on an annual basis.

Damage to Forest Values by Mining Development- The Committee

considered the report from the Forest Service on damage to forest

values by mining development, no representations were received on the

subject. The Forest Service indicated that after a further year's

experience regarding

[ Page 771 ]

submission of the notice of opening of a mine or

quarry that there are now no undue delays in processing the notices

through the offices of the District Inspector of Mines and the District

Forester. There still appears to be a problem with timber being cleared

without authority resulting from the mining companies failing to submit

the "Notice of Opening of a Mine" or by failure to submit the notice in

sufficient time prior to commencement of operations.

While the situation has improved, there is still a need for better

cooperation. Your Committee recommends that the Forest Service in

cooperation with the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources,

endeavour through meetings with the mining industry to reach a

satisfactory solution to the problem of mineral exploration in forested

areas.

Application of the 30-50 per cent Contractor Clauses in Tree-farm

Licences. Your Committee appreciates the study undertaken by Mr. I.T.

Cameron, Assistant Chief Forester, Operations, British Columbia Forest

Service (Chairman); Mr. C. Joergensen, vice-president, Columbia

Cellulose Company Limited, representing the licencees; and Mr. I.S.

Mahood, owner director, Millstream Timber Limited, representing the

contractors operating in tree-farm licences on the application of the

30-50 per cent contractor clause in tree-farm licences. Your Committee

heard several representations on this report from the licencees and the

contractors.

The parties concerned expressed acceptance of the recommendations with the exception of Recommendation Nos. 5 and 8.

Your Committee was unanimous that the contractor clause should be

based on volume rather than costs. After consideration it was agreed

for the purpose of clarification that Recommendation No. 5 should read

as follows:

"In recommending acceptance of phase contracting, the

Committee underlines that such contracting must relate directly to a

particular share of the prescribed volume of annual allowable cut

required to be offered. Within this context it is recognized that where

50 per cent of the harvest is to be offered for contract the licencee

has the option of offering the volume in 'full contracts' or offering

the same volume in 'phase contracts.' 'Phase contracts' should,

whenever possible, offer a balanced share of the phases. The

contribution of phase required to be contracted will ordinarily be

measured by giving weight to the dollars expended thereon. In other

words, if hauling is 10 per cent of the cost in a 'full contract,' then

in determining the volume contributed by the hauling phase, the volume

credited would be limited to 10 per cent of the volume required to be

offered for contract. As a normal rule, where greater volume of

contracting is done than required in a particular phase this excess

would not be transferred to reduce the amount of contracting offered in

another phase. In cases where this stipulation constitutes an

impediment to effective planning of a contractor programme, for reasons

of lack of suitable contractors, or unusual conditions prevailing

within a particular tree-farm licence then the Minister may waive this

stipulation after first hearing objections, if any, by contractors

engaged within the particular tree farm."

After reviewing Recommendation No. 8 of the report your Committee

recommends that all unsettled disputes arising between tree-farm

licencees and contractors would be arbitrated within the provisions of

the Arbitration Act.

Your Committee recommends the implementation of the report along with the amendment to Recommendation No. 5 as outlined.

Your Committee is of the opinion that the appendix to the report is

not in accord with the intent of the contractor clause and recommends

that it be deleted from the report.

Your Committee recommends that the Forest Service, at the next

session of the Legislature, submit a report regarding the

implementation of the recommendations so that a further review can be

undertaken.

Consideration on the Total Management Responsibility of the Quota

Holders within any Sustained-yield Unit Which Has Been Cut to the

Maximum Allowable Harvest under Close Utilization Standards. Your

Committee received one representation on this subject and, from the

lack of submissions, it is the opinion that the matter is not a

contentious one.

Your Committee recommends that a further study of this matter be undertaken next year.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

JAMES R. CHABOT, Chairman.

The report was taken as read and received.

Mr. G. Mussallem presented the Second Report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing, as follows:

Mr. Speaker:

Your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing begs leave to report as follows:

Your Committee held several meetings for examination of vouchers

supplied by the Comptroller-General. These vouchers were supplied from

various votes on the request of members through the Chairman.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

GEORGE MUSSALLEM, Chairman.

On the motion that the report be taken as read and received, the House divided.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Messieurs

Wallace

Tisdalle

Wolfe

Ney

Bruch

Smith

Merilees

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Marshall

Jordan, Mrs.

Capozzi

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Little

Campbell, B.

Richter

Jefcoat

NAYS — 15

Messieurs

Brousson

Cocke

Lorimer

Gardom

Hartley

Hall

[ Page 772 ]

Williams, R. A.

McGeer

Nimsick

Calder

Williams, L. A.

Barrett

Clark

Strachan

Dailly, Mrs.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, at the opening of the

sitting this afternoon I reserved my decision on an urgency motion

raised by the honourable member for Kootenay and have now had the

opportunity to consider the statement handed to me in accordance with

Standing Order 35(3) together with the reply of the Honourable the

Attorney-General respecting the present hearing before the Canadian

Transport Commission in regard to an application by the Kootenay and

Elk Railway Company to connect with the Great Northern Railway Company

at the United States border. I have also examined a copy of an

Order-in-Council No.332, handed to me in support of the motion for

adjournment.

The duty of the Chair is to determine the urgency of debate at this

particular time on the motion concerned, not the urgency of the matter

itself, and an examination of the rules applicable to motions under our

Standing Order 35 reveals that, in order to qualify, the matter sought

to be raised must be of recent occurrence and raised without delay.

May's 16th edition, at page 370, states that, "the fact that new

information has been received regarding a matter that has been

continuing for some time does not in itself make the matter one of

urgency." Again, at page 370, it is further observed that, "if the

facts have only been recently revealed this does not make the

occurrence recent."

The relevant Order-in-Council is dated February 2, 1970, and the

reply of the Honourable the Attorney-General above referred to is dated

March 13, 1970. Whether or not the said reply or the Order-in-Council

were only recently revealed to the honourable member is, in my opinion,

quite irrelevant in view of the parliamentary authority quoted.

It is also clear that while certain facts may have come to the

honourable member's attention only recently, the subject matter with

which we are concerned has been continuing for some time and the

urgency of debate at this particular time has not been established.

Accordingly, I must rule the motion out of order.

The House adjourned at 10.34 p.m.