1972 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 371 ]

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have the

great honour today of presenting to the House the Minister of Labour

for la belle province, the Province of Quebec, the Hon. Jean Cournoyer and

his Deputy Minister, Mr. Real Mireault, and I would ask the House to join

with me in extending a very warm welcome to our friends from Quebec.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mons. l'Orateur, ça me

donne beaucoup de plaisir aussi pour le parti officiel de

l'Opposition de souhaiter le bienvenu à Mons.

Cournoyer et son deputé à la Colombie Britannique.

Bienvenu!

(It gives me great pleasure also, on behalf of the official

Opposition party, to welcome Mr. Cournoyer and his deputy to

British Columbia. Welcome!)

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a bilingual party over here.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Silence, s'il vous plait!

(Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mons. l'Orateur, c'est avec

les mêmes sentiments de cordialité, d'expression d'amitié, que

moi aussi du parti Liberal veut joindre le ministre de travail de

la province de la Colombie pour dire au ministre de Québec mes

meilleurs veux et puis aussi le souhaiter un beau séjours

ici à Victoria.

(It is with the same feelings of cordiality and friendship

that I also, on behalf of the Liberal Party, join with the Hon.

Minister of Labour of British Columbia to pass on to the Hon.

Minister from Quebec our best wishes, and to wish him a pleasant

stay in Victoria.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, some people can't

even understand my Scottish accent. (Laughter). So I won't even

try to match the former speakers. But I do, on behalf of the

Conservative Party, offer you our greetings and hope you will

enjoy the proceedings of this afternoon. You will always be

welcome in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Nous croyons ici,

Mons.

' Cournoyer, dans un Canada uni d'un cot é à

l'autre.

(We believe here, Mr. Cournoyer, in one Canada united from one

side to the other.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Have no fear, I'm

going to keep you in B.C., Mr. Speaker. Among the visitors in the

gallery today is one who is interested, as many other people are,

in what has happened since August 30, observing us very closely.

I'm sure I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming Mr.

Charles Bernhardt, President of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

gallery this afternoon there is a gentlemen who has the unique

distinction of spend-

[ Page 372 ]

ing 28 years with political suits and he's an individual who

has taken more politicians to the cleaners than any single

individual or political party in the history of the province. I'm

referring to Mr. Jimmy James, the valet in the Empress Hotel. And

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that Jimmy, as most of us know him,

has been on the job since October, 1945. He's a very kind,

hard-working and dedicated citizen of this province and I'd like

all Members to extend to him a most cordial welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Hon.

Members of this House to join me in welcoming a delegation of

students from Willow Point Junior Secondary School in Campbell

River who are here with their sponsors, Mrs. Herrewig, Mrs.

Ritchie and Mr. Ritchie, vice-principal of that school.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) isn't here at the moment and I realise the House is

never going to believe what I'm doing but I have here a present

for him. If you told me this yesterday afternoon at 3 o'clock I'd

never have believed it. But it was a commitment that I was asked

to undertake and it involves recreation, Mr. Speaker.

There is a park in British Columbia, a class C park, Silver

Star, which is the largest class C park in British Columbia and

is well-known as a family ski area. The reason for this is the

belief of a number of citizens in the north Okanagan that this

park must have its status reviewed and must be more open to a

variety of public interests. It's an alburn of photographs taken

by naturalists, business people and people of all interests.

There's no brief with it at this time.

They would like him to have it, perhaps as the first token of

their appreciation of his interest in recreation and conservation

at his time in office. I would ask the Hon. Premier or his

colleague next to him to give this to him when he comes in the

House and that I might have a look at it after it's opened

because I haven't seen it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Yes, Mr. Speaker….

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: The Second Member.

MRS. WEBSTER: Oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think the Hon. Second Member is the lady

Member. (Laughter).

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege to

introduce a class of students from David Thompson Secondary

School from the constituency of Vancouver South along with their

teacher, Mr. Don Sampson.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

[ Page 373 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 14.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE PROBATE FEE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 14,

An Act to Repeal the Probate Fee

Act, I recognise the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the

principle of this bill,

An Act to Repeal the Probate Fee Act,

probate fees return very little revenue to the province. They

might be considered as an adjunct to the succession duties.

Standing on their own, probate fees are a little more than a

nuisance value. Along with our bills to cancel succession duties

and gift taxes therefore we present this bill to cancel probate

fees. I move second reading of Bill No. 14.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the bill

in my submission offends standing order 67 in that it trenches

upon the revenues of the Crown and therefore can only be a Crown

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the objection, Hon. Attorney General, is

well-taken. If you look at the decisions of the Speakers of this

House over the years right up to the present time and contained

more particularly in volume I of Speakers' decisions at page 134

and in volume 2 at page 56 you will see that it is clearly out of

order in that it tends to interfere with the revenue of the Crown

and would therefore be out of order in the hands of a private

Member. So I must, therefore, rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Perhaps I may have leave of the House to

make a very brief statement.

Today, for the benefit of the galleries, we're working on

private Members' bills. Today we will spend the sitting

discussing the ideas, both welcome and unwelcome, of the

Opposition. So I hope to give that

interpretation to the

galleries.

Second reading of Bill No. 15.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE SUCCF.SSION DUTY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 15,

An Act to Repeal the Succession Duty

Act. I recognise the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of

this bill,

An Act to Repeal the Succession Duty Act, in view of

the need of encouraging the assembling of capital by British

Columbians in the province, we believe that it is now necessary

to review the taxation principles behind the succession duties.

While it is true certain exemptions have been provided under the

Act, it is now considered of the utmost importance to protect the

individual's control over his home and farm and other possessions

in the event of death. In addition, employment must be created by

encouraging the accumulation of capital within the province.

The need for a second look on imposing this tax became even

more compelling because of a federal capital gains tax. To

combine the succession duty tax would simply involve double

taxation. The real answer is revenue sharing of the capital gains

tax within the province. After all, it can be clearly shown that

it is the provincial investment which created much of the added

values upon which the capital gains tax is based. This is

particularly true in creating added values to real estate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, there is a point of order that has

been raised.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm afraid it's the same point of order,

Mr. Speaker. And I think my friend, the Hon. Member, has pretty

well explained it, has he not?

[ Page 374 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we want the explanation to be made at

a reasonable length. But I do raise the point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I must remind you that under our

standing orders if a point of order is raised I must deal with it at

the time it is raised. That's my obligation. Therefore I must deal with the

point of order at this time. Otherwise….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Members. I hope I'm helping

you. I don't know. Maybe you don't want to be helped.

I want to point out to you that the duty of the Speaker under

standing order 58 is to rule it out of order at the time that a

motion is made. If a point of order is raised prior to that time

I must deal with it at that time. So it really depends upon

whether a point of order is taken or not how far you go in your

discussion in each debate. I make that point to you now so that

you will appreciate why the order has to be taken at this time.

And I must rule it out of order on the very grounds that I did on

the previous bill and for the same reason.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 16, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE GIFT TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of

this Act,

An Act to Repeal the Gift Tax Act, a government levying

succession duties, must also levy a gift tax for administrative

and technical reasons otherwise, the succession duty is negated.

However, without a succession duty there is no necessity to levy

a gift tax. Accordingly, as we have presented a bill to cancel

succession duties, we now present a companion bill to cancel the

gift tax. I move second reading of Bill No. 16.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the

Liberal Party doesn't like death duties but I must raise the point of

order, standing order 67.

MR. SPEAKER: You are quite right. The Hon. Attorney General

has raised a point of order. The exact same reasons prevail and I

must, therefore, rule the bill out of order in the hands of a

private Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 17, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that the Attorney General will certainly allow me to

continue the debate, to have my say on this, because it's a

department which he is the head of, and I know that he's

interested in this bill.

It is proposed by this bill to set up the British Columbia

Development Corporation whose aim would be to encourage secondary

industries in the province, particularly of farm products and

secondary manufacture. Now that our prime industries in British

Columbia are well-advanced and our population exceeds 2.25

million and is growing rapidly, this bill is urgently needed to

create employment.

[ Page 375 ]

It is proposed by this bill to supply low-interest loans at

the rate of 1 per cent for the first year, 2 per cent for the

second year, 3 per cent for the third year and so on, up to 9 per

cent for the ninth year and all years thereafter. In order to

start the corporation it is proposed the province purchase $50

million of the corporation's shares. Thereafter, the corporation

would borrow money with a provincial guarantee up to a limit of

$250 million. The bill envisages a maximum loan of $1 million and

a minimum loan of $1,000.

The British Columbia Development

Corporation would be a Crown corporation and an agent of Her

Majesty and the right of the province. The Minister of Finance

for the province would be its fiscal agent. This is a set-up

similar to the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and the

British Columbia Railway.

In this crucial period in British

Columbia's history, it is essential that secondary industry be

encouraged to locate and grow in the province. Hon. Members, this

bill will go a long way toward furthering this encouragement. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has said that he is interested in secondary

industry, he's interested in employment. This bill is for the

unemployed in this province, Mr. Attorney General, and I would

suggest that…. There's one more word.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: One more?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier of this province has said that he is

going to have a love feast with business. I would suggest that it

reminds me of King Solomon's love nest — No, no, a thousand

times no.

HON. MR. MACCONALD: Same point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the bill is clearly out of order.

it offends against standing order 67 and my authority for that is

in our own Journals of the House, in 1931, pages 128 and 129.

Therefore I must rule it out of order in the hands of a private

Member because it does interfere, and tend to interfere, with the

revenues of the Crown.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a point of

order. As much as I hate to, I feel I must challenge your

ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I've often wondered if I should ask him why?

(Laughter). You've challenged my ruling and the question is,

shall the Speaker's ruling be sustained?

Mr. Speaker's ruling was sustained on the following

division:

YEAS-38

Liden

Rolston

Nicolson

Gorst

Lewis

Wallace

Nunweiler

Lockstead

Webster

Williams, L.A.

Stupich

Young

Kelly

Anderson, D.A.

Nimsick

Lea

Curtis

McGeer

Strachan

Lauk

Brousson

Dent

Dailly

Gabelmann

Gardom

Cummings

Barrett

Hartley

Steves

Sanford

Macdonald

King

Barnes

Radford

Hall

Cocke

Anderson, G.H.

Brown

NAYS-10

Schroeder

Phillips

Jordan

Bennett

Morrison

Fraser

Chabot

Richter

McClelland

Smith

[ Page 376 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 18.

OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In

moving second reading of this Bill, I would say that the great

concern in the Fraser Valley and, in fact, all over British

Columbia, is the disappearance of prime farmland at an alarming

rate. There have been a lot of schemes put forward, Mr. Speaker,

aimed at curbing the rate of urban growth in the rich farmlands

of the valley but none of them, I don't think, would achieve the

basic solution of keeping the farmers on the land by insuring

that they can make a good living by farming.

I think that is the point. The farmer will farm his land if

he's allowed to make a living and to live in the manner to which

other people in our society have become accustomed.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the senior levels of government

must give some help to these independent businessmen who farm the

land. All the aid possible, in fact, to make farming an

attractive economic proposal.

That there is a crisis in our Fraser Valley well recognised by

everyone, I believe. The official Lower Mainland Regional Plan

has been in effect for some time and has done a reasonably good

job of protecting land in the valley but it isn't enough. I think

there has to be more government action in this regard. I

recognise, too, that municipal people have to get involved a

little more intensively and they have to have much more courage

than they do now in enforcing the zoning regulations within their

own communities.

Planning consultant Norman Pearson recently said that with

proper planning of satellite communities, the land in the Fraser

Valley could hold up to 3.3 million people without encroaching on

the valuable farmland. But the planners, the local government and

the farmers, Mr. Speaker, need help from us.

A recent study by the Central Fraser Valley Regional District

indicated that about 3,000 acres per year are now disappearing.

That is an alarming rate, Mr. Speaker. There are only about

100,000 acres of prime farmland left in the Fraser Valley. We

can't afford to keep losing it at 3,000 acres per year.

I don't believe that the province can afford, nor should it

become involved in, a programme of buying development rights from

farmers. The costs would be astronomical and, with companion

legislation to our Green Belt Protection Fund, that type of

costly approach would be unnecessary, in my opinion.

However, regardless of our suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to

municipalities to tighten up their zoning regulations and the

application of those restrictions, we must recognise that the

independent farmers are now, and will be in the future, under

severe economic pressure to develop their land. They're getting

offers from real estate developers and others which makes it very

difficult for them to refuse those offers. I think we need to

help the independent farmer to make a decent living. If we zone

away his right to develop then we would have to make it up to him

some way.

I feel that this bill, Mr. Speaker, the Open Space

Preservation Act, will go a long way towards easing the

consciences of municipal politicians and allow them to tighten up

their zoning regulations on prime farmland with much less

hesitancy. It will offer a major tax incentive to Lower Mainland

independent farmers and spread the cost of the tax loss to the

municipalities over the whole of the Lower Mainland, not just the

municipality involved and not just the regional district

involved, Mr. Speaker — the whole region, because the preservation

of farmland is vitally important to the whole region. In fact, to

all of British Columbia.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this

Bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this

does affect the tax revenues of the province and the regions.

[ Page 377 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I must take cognizance of the point of order. You

will note in the bill, particularly in

section 8, that it

deprives certain municipalities of revenue and places a burden

upon others. Any bill in the hands of a private Member that

places an impost on the people or any group of the people or any

part of the community is out of order in the hands of a private

Member unless it had been brought in or approved by the Crown or

by a message from the Crown. In those circumstances, I must,

pursuant to standing order 67, rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 19, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the

principle of Bill No. 19, a few years back this Legislature

carved the province up into 28 regional districts. In these

regional districts we have municipalities and rural areas. At the

present time all the municipal citizens in a regional district

get $30 per annum per capita grant. What this bill does is

extend this to the citizens of a rural area of a regional

district. The estimated population of the province is 2,185,000

people. The people affected by this bill would be approximately

435,000 citizens that are now not getting this $30 per capita

grant. I would recommend second reading of this bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Point of order. Standing rule 67, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I would think that the Member would agree

that it does offend against that standing order in that it places the

duty upon the Lieutenant-Governor and the Minister of Finance and requires

payments from consolidated revenue. In that case, as the Hon. Mr. Murray

before me has ruled so many times, it would be improper in the hands of a

private Member that the bill proceed. I must order it struck from the order

paper.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 20.

AN ACT RESPECTING MOBILE HOMES

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

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

Speaking to the principle of this bill, it is our position that

it would provide a more equitable and workable means of taxing

mobile homes than exists under the present Act. When the present

Act was introduced, it was what I would term "experimental

legislation". It has not worked as well as we think it should

work.

There is no question in the minds of people who live in mobile

homes that they do not wish to pay taxes — they wish to pay

taxes on a fair basis like other home-owners. The principle of

this bill would provide that the trailers within parks would be

classed as improvements and taxed under the Taxation Act and

would also be eligible for home-owner grants in the same manner

as anyone else who owns a home. Those outside of the trailer

parks would be taxed a flat $50 per year.

We feel that the amount of revenue generated from this type of

taxation would probably be greater than the revenue presently

generated under the existing Act. We feel that it is a better

approach, it's an approach that has been welcomed by the people

who represent the mobile home-owners within the province.

I would move second reading.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, same point of order.

[ Page 378 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The one that has been repeated — standing order 67, Hon.

Leader of the Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I know, but he

didn't say it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I could grasp the point all right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The same one as you used to use on us.

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members. the tax under

section 2 and 5

thereof would place an impost on the people and the Hon. Member

himself admitted that it would increase the burden upon the

people and consequently it would be out of order in the hands of

a private Member. I must rule it out of order under standing

order 67.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 21, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE GUARANTEE BY THE PROVINCE OF

LOANS FOR FEEDING CATTLE FOR MARKET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I'm overwhelmed by the

reception, Mr. Speaker. In speaking to the principle of this

bill, the intent of the bill is to provide a guarantee for loans.

These loans could be obtained from any bank, designated or

undesignated. They would tend to erase the fears that prospective

feedlot operators may have in anticipating losses which could

occur in establishing these new feedlots.

Historically, Mr. Speaker, whenever a bill of agricultural

nature is spoken to in this House it is regarded as somewhat "ho

hum". But I would like to have the ear, not only of you, Mr.

Speaker, but of all the Hon. Members, in that we have

approximately 9 per cent of the population, not only of British

Columbia but of Canada, that is responsible for raising all of

the foodstuffs for all of the other 91 per cent of the

population. I think that it is in order to have this kind of

legislation because there is a need to raise this beef in our own

province. We consume about 5,000 carcasses of beef per week. I

don't mean us in this House, Mr. Speaker, I mean the population

of British Columbia.

The facts are that only 800 of these are produced within the

boundaries of our province, meaning that about 4,200 carcasses

per week are imported. This clearly indicates a need for

producing this beef here inside the province.

I would like to suggest that the only reason we don't produce

it inside the province is because there is a fear of the loss

which could occur in the developing of this particular business.

Now this bill would serve to erase that fear and help us to

produce that foodstuff here in this province.

I would like to move second reading of this bill, Sir.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's my submission that this bill is $2

million out of order under standing order 67. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General has pointed out

something that I think is evident from the bill when you examine

section 5 in particular where it actually attempts to disturb the

consolidated revenues of the province, to the extent that it says

"moneys required for the purpose of this Act shall until the 31st

day of March 1971 in the absence of any special appropriation

available therefore be paid out of Consolidated Revenue Fund and

thereafter shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund

with moneys authorised by

an Act of the Legislature to be paid

and applied for such purposes", and then it gives certain duties

to the

[ Page 379 ]

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council which he is otherwise not

obliged to follow. The combination of this interferes with the

revenues of the Crown and would not be properly advanced without

a message or by a private Member of the House, and I must

therefore rule it out of order.

MR. SCHROEDER: With the deepest of regrets there, Mr.

Speaker, and speaking on a point of order, I would like to draw

to your attention, Sir, that this is only a guarantee. We cannot

anticipate expenditure under a guarantee and it would seem to me

that if the climate of the economics in our province is such as

has been stated in this House that they are, we could not even

anticipate any losses, Sir.

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

very fact that you introduce a guarantee does tie up certain revenues of

the province to protect with that guarantee the revenues of the province

and the administration of such

an Act. That being so, then it

follows that you are interfering with the Crown's right to dispose of the revenues

in accordance with its own plans, and I therefore insist it is out of

order.

MR. SCHROEDER: I accept your ruling, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 22, Mr.

Speaker.

TRAINING ON THE JOB ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. Bill No. 22 clearly offends standing order 67 and that

is an expenditure of revenue.

MR. SPEAKER: I will say that I have not had an explanation of

the bill yet, and I would like to hear the explanation of the

bill before I rule on the matter.

MR. LAUK: But, Mr. Speaker, it says clearly in

section 1 of

that bill that it is an expenditure.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to hear what the Hon. Member says, Hon.

Member, before I make any ruling on the question.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much for your consideration and

your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that the comments made

by the Hon. Member…

MR. SPEAKER: No, please stick to the bill, Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: …indicate why we don't need any more

lawyers in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: You need one, I think. You've got one in the

chair, and at least he's trying to protect you.

MRS. JORDAN: He's doing very well, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill

intituled Training on the Job Act, and in speaking to the

principle, Mr. Speaker, we desire to encourage a programme of

training on the job of all our citizens in British Columbia. We

feel that this programme will not only provide immediate

training, but also immediate employment in the Province of

British Columbia.

[ Page 380 ]

It will supplement the training done by the educational and

vocational school systems in our province, and we would propose

that the government pay one half of the wages of persons taking

the training programmes and the other half be paid by industry.

We would suggest should the government consider this, our only

stipulations are that the wages should be at the going rate for

the work that is being done and that the training period must

last for a period of at least 12 months.

In view of the serious unemployment problems that we have

faced over the past months, created mainly due to the increase of

population, especially from other, provinces, we consider the

passing of this bill known as the Training on the Job Act a top

priority of the provincial government and we would hope that they

would consider it, Mr. Speaker, and I move second reading of this

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: There has been objection raised already. I've

listened to the explanation of the Hon. Member. I would point out

that under standing order 67, it clearly requires that this bill

be carried forward by means of revenue of the province, and that

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has certain duties, and in

view of those circumstances and the expense involved that is not

covered by a message from the Crown I see no other course but to

rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 23, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps for the benefit

of the new Members of the House you might permit me a very, very

brief history.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MRS. JORDAN: In speaking to the principle of this Act to Amend

the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, I would

advise the new Members that the Province of British Columbia….

MR. LAUK: I have a point of order. This Act clearly offends

standing order 67.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many leaders have you got over there?

MR. SPEAKER: I would like the Hon. Member for North Okanagan

to explain how it offends against standing order 67 or it

doesn't.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was attempting for the

benefit of the new Members to just explain very briefly what the

Municipal Finance Authority is. The Province of British Columbia,

because of a desire for sound financial management and knowledge

of financial ability, through the Minister of Finance, achieved a

double "A" credit rating and a respected position in world

financial markets. This reputation and this financial ability

gave birth to a new authority called the municipal Finance

Authority which represented all municipalities in British

Columbia and all regional districts and brought them together as

one body which allowed them to benefit from the financing of

their joint assets. By forming the Municipal Finance Authority

and bringing these municipalities together, it gave each

municipality and each regional district, large or small, an equal

opportunity to finance its undertakings at a very modest interest

rate. In fact an interest rate that is enjoyed by few other

jurisdictions in Canada including other provinces.

[ Page 381 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. There is one question

that the learned Member has raised and I would ask you to address

yourself to, and that is the

section that extends the borrowing powers to a

much wider extent than exists today, to other fields other than they presently

enjoy. Does this not therefore increase the burden upon the people by

placing a heavier burden on them in any case where the authority borrows money

henceforward?

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Speaker. If you would just give me a

moment. This does not impose any imposition on the Crown. What it

does — and this is what I was coming to — when this financing

authority was formed it was agreed between the municipalities in

the regional district and the government that they would

undertake just the financing of public works, such as sewers and

water systems and it was a commitment by the former Minister of

Municipal Affairs and the former government in conjunction with

the financing authority that when it reached maturity and had

established itself on the financial market, that they would

expand its financing ability which still doesn't impose any

expense on the Crown, and there is no provincial guarantee, Mr.

Speaker, on this. It's an independent authority, and this bill

proposes to meet that commitment so that the municipalities can

utilise this function, this vehicle, which imposes no expense on

the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we've all obtained the benefit of your

argument to understand what you are driving at. Now the question

remains that the learned Member for Vancouver Centre has pointed out quite

properly. I think that the bill does offend against standing order 67. The

reason I say it does is because you extend the borrowing power by not limiting

it any longer to specific works. Therefore, you place a burden on all the

municipalities where formerly one municipality might borrow for those

specific purposes.

Now it requires the support of all the other municipal bodies

to back up the guarantee for an extended use of money, and

extended borrowing into other fields, and therefore it does tend

to place a burden or an impost upon all the municipalities of

British Columbia and consequently would be out of order, unless

it were by a message bill. I must therefore respectfully rule it

out of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that

by being a vehicle with no provincial guarantee or backing and

that it was that these bills applied to the actions of this

House, that it could be amended.

MR. SPEAKER: An impost on any

section of the people of British

Columbia is out of order in the hands of private Members and I

rule it out of order and that has been the decision of Speaker

after Speaker before me.

MRS. JORDAN: With due respect, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: I would challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 24, Mt.

Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is indeed a bill

very close to your own heart because I do recall when you were a

Member for Burnaby-Willingdon….

MR. SPEAKER: Burnaby where? I don't take responsibility for

Burnaby-Willingdon.

[ Page 382 ]

MR. GARDOM: Burnaby-Edmonds, sorry. You introduced a measure

much along the same lines as this as was earlier done by the then

George Gregory and after him, by the Member Alan McFarlane.

Very, very quickly and simply, Mr. Speaker, the fiat system is an

out-moded system in contemporary society. We and I'm sure the

government Members look upon the individual as the hallmark of

democracy and this individual should be able to wage his case

against government exactly the same way as government can wage

its case against him.

There's absolutely no reason, Mr. Speaker, why a government

with the largest personnel and power to defend should be

permitted to hide behind a concept which should have perished

with the divine right of kings. The purpose of the bill, Mr.

Speaker, is to permit the citizens of British Columbia to sue

their government and I so move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have to raise a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. Because previous Speakers have ruled that this

interferes with the prerogative of the Crown and they have ruled

bills out of order, occasionally to my own personal sorrow, as I

think I have presented this one in the past myself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General raised a valid point of

order.

I refer to the decision of the Hon. William Murray in 1972,

Journals of the House , page 260, where the same bill was

presented in almost identical terms — it was then Bill No. 85 — I think by the same Hon. Member. And he may have forgotten

that.

It said in there, "on a point of order being raised by the

Hon. the Attorney General that the bill interfered with the

prerogative of the Crown, Mr. Speaker sustained the point of

order and further stated that the bill was out of order in the

hands of a private Member in that it offended standing order 66,

as involving the expenditure of public funds." The bill was

ordered dropped from the order paper and I must do the same in

this case.

MR. GARDOM: But we have a new Attorney General now, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: But we have the same old bill. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: The same old Liberal.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 25, Mr.

Speaker.

THE GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of

this bill the Social Credit Party policy interpreted in this

bill recognizes the urgent need to provide a guaranteed monthly

income, for those who are handicapped by virtue of age, mental or

physical disability and for mothers of dependent children.

I would like to point out to this House, Mr. Speaker, that the

former Premier, and Leader of our Social Credit Party, Hon.

W.A.C. Bennett, was the man who pioneered the idea of the

guaranteed monthly income at a federal-provincial conference, and

since that time the phrase "guaranteed annual income" has become

fashionable with other parties. It is also obvious that the Hon.

W.A.C. Bennett's proposals….

MR. SPEAKER: lion. Member, it is a practice in every House

that you do not refer to other Hon. Members by their personal

name. It's all impersonal — you refer to "the Hon. the Leader of

the Opposition". If I may check you in that regard.

[ Page 383 ]

MR. MORRISON: Thank you very much, Sir. It is also obvious

that the Hon. Member for South Okanagan's (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) proposals at that time were practical and needed for the

segment of our population who are among the nation's poor,

low-income or handicapped. The guaranteed annual income proposal

has been lauded by the Senate Committee on Poverty in Canada. It

has been endorsed by those with awareness of our social needs in

many countries, including the United States of America. I want to

speak today on behalf of those people who are defenseless at this

time of inflation. And in this area of economic instability….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I point out

that this subject matter has been widely canvassed in the House

at this short session, widely canvassed. And it appears from that

discussion, Mr. Speaker, that this does cost the Crown some money

and it offends therefore standing rule 67.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I am forced by the rules to interrupt the

Hon. Member and point out that

section 1 clearly does interfere

with the Crown revenues…it refers to consolidated revenue

funds. Now, without further ado I want to also point out that

this subject and the debate on this subject was in general

canvassed in second reading of other legislation before the

House. And in the circumstances I have, because of the point of

order, no other choice but to rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 26, Mr.

Speaker.

CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL HISTORIC SITE GRANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to

acknowledge in British Columbia, in the beautiful city of

Vancouver, we have a unique and I would suggest in many eyes

beautiful church, the Christ Church Cathedral.

It was built in the early 1900's the early part of the

century. It has become very much part of the history of

Vancouver. It serves not only a particular denomination, but it

serves the spiritual needs of people who visit in the downtown

area of Vancouver by way of their stays in the hotel, or people

who wish to drop into a church and refresh themselves in an area

of quiet, and in a Christian environment.

When one looks at Vancouver core, one can't help be impressed

with some of the beautiful new buildings that are going up. But,

Mr. Speaker, when I examined it not long ago I felt that there

was a tedium of modernity growing and when you look at Christ

Church Cathedral in itself you realise it offers a relief from

modern life in its architecture, and in its spiritual

concept.

We would propose in this bill that this Christ Church

Cathedral, known throughout Canada, and really by many visitors

around the world, be declared a historic site. And in so doing

that the Crown undertake to assist, its preservation and to

assist its restoration and to assist its continuing operation as

a historic site.

We would propose that this not be totally a responsibility of

the Crown that it should be on the basis of perhaps one-third

from the Crown, one-third by private donation, and one-third from

the City of Vancouver. And I recognise that the Attorney General

is going to rule this out of order, but I would appeal to him,

through you, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the imposition on the

Crown, would you meet the commitment of the former government to

see Christ Church Cathedral declared a historic site?

Would you give us an indication if you would undertake to do

this within the next year because time is essential and with the

pressure to destroy that beautiful building, that beautiful

island of peace and Christianity, or man's humanity to man, in

the centre of a busy and vital metropolitan area may be lost. I

move second reading of this bill.

[ Page 384 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Point of order under standing order 67,

expenditure of public money.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member herself has admitted that

that is the situation, and therefore she knows that I have no

other course open but to drop the bill from the order paper.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of till No. 27, Mr.

Speaker.

RECREATION FACILITIES GRANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker in speaking to the principle of this bill

there are three things under consideration.

The first is that in society today, and in British Columbia,

because we are no different, there is a growing concern about

finding new values in life. This is not confined particularly to

the younger generation. I believe it's confined to all of us of

all ages.

We have in British Columbia adopted, through the words of the

new government, a no-growth policy and in taking these two points

into consideration I think one that we must undertake to rotate

jobs or provide jobs through looking and finding what this new

emphasis in life should be. I suggest that recreation is this — Vancouver, if I may cite it as an example and one or two other

cities in British Columbia, and many in Canada are built as

places to work in but to get out of when the weekend comes. And I

believe we need a new emphasis, that cities must not only be made

beautiful architecturally, they must be made beautiful for

people, and in so doing we must provide recreational areas, not

just green belts.

In light of the fact that people are working shorter hours,

have more free time, but less opportunity to develop physical health and

improve their physical health through a strenuous physical activity, the

principle of this bill points out that we have to provide what I might call, if

I may be permitted to use the language, sweat-producing areas within

communities where people can go, run vigorously — I don't mean this in an

uncomplimentary way — but run vigorously.

I'm sure the Hon. the Attorney General realizes it is where

people can play squash, or badminton so that they tax their

bodies, they tax their breathing systems, they stimulate the

circulation, and in this concept of providing new jobs through

new emphasis in life and moving strongly into the area of

preventive medicine….

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. The Hon. the Second Member for

Vancouver Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh — he'll make the cabinet yet….

MR. LAUK: The point of order is that this is obviously an

expenditure of the consolidated revenue which is public money and

it's not a proper bill in private hands.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is well taken under standing order 67.

I point out that it calls upon the consolidated revenue fund and

where the expression "may" is used, it means "shall" in this

instance because otherwise the bill would be futile. So it

follows that it does interfere with the revenues of the Crown and

under standing order 67, is out of order. And then the Hon.

Member said something further about taxing the people — I think

taxing them physically though.

MRS. JORDAN: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would

suggest that again I understood that lawyers were to defend

public interests and free speech and not stifle it….

[ Page 385 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please sit down?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 28.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUPREME COURT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 28,

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court

Act, the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is exceptionally

different than any other bills that have been introduced this

afternoon because it's in order.

At least it appears to be in order. Outward appearance

sometimes is very valuable, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you will

agree. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of this

if accepted will considerably enhance the providing of greater

justice and better equity in our courts and also it should have

the effect of lessening litigation and the number of cases that

go to court.

The purpose of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to grant a judge the

discretion to order interest on a judgment from the date when the

court of action arose. So, if the court, Mr. Speaker, felt the

circumstances merited it, a defendant could be penalised for its

delay in not earlier paying the plaintiff and there by depriving

the plaintiff litigant of the use of money or damages that were

rightfully claimed and were rightfully his.

There's very good precedent for the measure, Mr. Speaker. Way

back in 1833 a statute known as Lord Tenterden's Act made some

provision for interest and that law arrived here by proclamation

in 1859 when B.C. adopted the laws of England. Now, pilot

legislation concerning the specific measure which is before the

House this afternoon came in in England in 1934 when the Law

Reform Act enacted something very similar to that which is now

proposed. And it's been more in this legislation since then.

Also in other parts of the world, I might say, there's

complementary legislation in New South Wales, in Queensland, in

New York State and to a lesser extent in Ontario.

So, Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, the bill would empower a

B.C. Court if it felt necessary to include in the amount for

which a judgment is given, interest on the whole or any part of

the judgment for the whole or any part of the period between the

date when the cause of action arose — say for debt or damages — and the date of the court judgment or the court award.

Now, as I said this should have the very desirable effect of

encouraging settlement of law suits as well as giving some very

deserved relief to plaintiffs where defendants have been able to

use the plaintiff's money while the litigation is in process.

And in these days of very high interest rates this is far from

an uncommon procedure and it is certainly one which should be

discouraged. And I think that this amendment to the Supreme Court

Act would assist in doing just this.

You find it happening, Mr. Speaker, in situations, say in

claims of some magnitude, say in a building contract situation.

One party is claiming from another — just pick a figure out of

thin air — say $100,000 and it's a just claim.

But the individual does not recognise it or the company does

not recognise it as a just claim and it's not paid. It takes

about a year, or shall we say a year-and-a-half, to have the

thing come for trial and during that period of time the defendant

has the use of those funds and say at bank interest of 8 per cent

there'd be $12,000 interest in the period of time that I've

mentioned.

There's no reason why a plaintiff should have to feel that

he's penalised by court's delay and this is one way that a

plaintiff is penalised by court's delay and we find this

situation happening in damage claims in many, many instances

where there is settlement on the court house steps about two or

three years after serious injury and the individual does not get

any interest on the claim whatsoever.

[ Page 386 ]

The court makes an award — whatever it may be say $5,000 or

$10,000 — but the poor unfortunate injured person doesn't

receive any interest on those funds and the defendant has gained

interest on them and it's a most unfair situation.

I do say, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately at the present time

both the common law and equity are unable to deal with this

matter and that's why it has to be a thing that can be cured only

by a legislative action. And I would be very pleased to move

second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I'm

inclined to agree with my friend that it is in order. Though it's

a question of giving instructions to a servant of the Queen, but

I won't raise that.

But I think there's a good principle involved in this

particular proposal by the Hon. Member. I myself am examining it especially

as it relates to the victims of automobile accidents. The government, I

think, and we all agree it's a good principle. We want to examine it in the

broadest possible context and I would, Mr. Speaker, in order to allow

us time to complete our labours in that regard move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 29, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 29,

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations

Act. The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, this is a

simple amendment to the Labour Relations Act and I wish to move

second reading.

I want to say at this time that it appears, being the last

bill in the House, it's one which appears to me to be in order.

Unless some technicality might rule it out of order. But it does

not involve the expenditure of public funds. It's an amendment to

the Labour Relations Act which might be called the charity

clause. Because there are people because of religious conviction

in this province and in this country who do not believe in the

philosophy of compulsory unionism. And what it does it makes

provisions for these people to contribute an equal amount to what

they're presently assessed as union dues to a registered charity

in the Province of British Columbia in lieu of union dues.

There are very few people in the province really that would be

affected by this particular clause. But I think these people have

rights and that these rights should be considered and should be

protected.

The provision which I'm presenting here at this time is not

new. It's one which has been instituted in law in the Province of

Ontario, the Province of Saskatchewan, and now in the Province of

Manitoba. And I think it's a provision worthy of consideration. I

would like to urge the government to accept this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I'm inclined

to agree with the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) on a

number of points. I think the bill is in order. As he suggested,

I think it's simple. But I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, the

government intention to conduct hearings over the next number of

months and into the whole structure and framework of the labour

laws of this province. It has been our policy to avoid changing

or introducing any more legislation than what was absolutely

necessary to improve the climate at this particular time. So, I

don't think that this type of clause could contribute anything to

the security of the labour

[ Page 387 ]

climate in the province at this particular time. I therefore

move adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker, until the next

sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out that I do have the

prerogative too at this stage to rule it out of order. In my

opinion it is out of order. I don't want by putting the motion to

indicate that it is in order because there is an aspect of it

that I won't go into since it hasn't been raised. So I will put

the motion if it is agreeable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the debate be adjourned until

the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, motions and adjourned debates

on motions. I call motion No. 2 on the order paper, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2 on the order paper. The Hon. the

Member for North Peace River.

(That this House is of the opinion that the Minister of

Highways, when drafting the legislation for government-operated

car insurance, should be instructed to draft the legislation in

such a way as to provide that

(1) no part of the promotional advertising costs,

administration, and operating costs or claim liabilities charged

against the government car insurance plan will be charged to

consolidated revenue of the province, but shall come solely from

premiums paid by policy holders;

(2) no part of the promotional advertising costs,

administration, and operating costs or claim liabilities charged

against the government car insurance plan will be supported by

revenues derived specifically from motive-fuel taxes, vehicles'

license fees, or drivers' license fees;

(3) no part of the promotional advertising costs,

administration, and operating costs or claim liabilities charged

against the government car insurance plan will be derived through

borrowing accounts in the name of the government car insurance

plan or of the province;

(4) compulsory government insurance requiring premiums for

general insurance carried by

(

a) school boards;

(

b) hospital boards;

(

c) university boards;

(

d) Crown corporations;

(

e) community college councils

shall not be used to offset any

of the abovementioned costs for the operation of the car

insurance plan itself;

(5) the accounts of the car insurance plan shall be presented

to the Legislature annually and shall be subject to the scrutiny

of the select standing committee of this House on public accounts

and printing.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that in

the government's opinion motion No. 2 is out of order and I ask

your ruling on that motion.

[ Page 388 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2, I must point out to the Hon.

Member, the point of order having been taken, that this clearly

dictates government policy and requires the government to move in

the direction that is ordered by the motion and that this would

be an offence against the rules of the House with respect to

Speaker's decisions, volume 2, pages 35, 36 and 37. It imposes a

duty on the government which is not permitted to a private Member

or by other means in a message bill. It also offends in

accordance with the decisions that have been made in volume 3 of

the Speaker's decisions at page 54 and pages 61, 62 and 63. Those

are the authorities I cite to the Hon. Member. I won't take the

time of, the House to report on them lengthily but they are

available to you.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: I must strike it out.

MR. SMITH: Yes, I understand that. What standing order of the

House are you using in referring to these rulings?

MR. SPEAKER: Standing order 67 deals with the resolutions as

well. The problem is the Hon. Member may be taking it that I have

to deal with it on the basis of a standing order. If you will

examine the authorities I cited to you under our usages which

follow those of May there are certain traditions and usages in

regard to interfering with government policy and that's the basic

reason as set out in those Speakers' decisions, and if you look

at standing order 58, "whenever the Speaker is of the opinion

that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and

privileges he shall apprise the House thereof immediately before

putting the question thereon, and quote the rule of authority

applicable to the case".

Now, that does not mean a standing order. It can also mean the

customs, traditions, usages of parliament.

AN HON. MEMBER: What gives you the authority to quote

something that's not in the standing orders of this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The first standing order does. The first standing

order, Hon. Member, which says, and I quote that if you wish the

authority on that: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by

sessional or other orders the usages and customs of the House of

Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland as enforced at the time shall be followed as far as they

may be applicable to this House". And this is the tradition in

our House.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. SMITH: But I wanted it on the basis of the reference to

our standing orders so that we may be guided in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I call motion No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3, the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in

moving motion No. 3 and seconded by the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips),

(That this House urge the provincial government to immediately review the procedures which are used for the

care

[ Page 389 ]

of mental patients having a record of violence and in

particular to review the procedures currently practiced with

respect to their discharge back to the community.)

Now, late in August, Mr. Speaker, and I know that many of the

Ministers of the government along with our Premier have been

contacted by a series of letters and productions bringing to

their attention a very sad situation that really started within

my constituency, continued on through and finally ended up over

in the Arrow Lakes area in which six people met their death. The

individual responsible, one William Bernard LaPine was a young

man, certainly physically fit but a very, very sick gentleman

mentally.

Now, he escaped twice within this last summer months in June,

July from Riverview Hospital. And we know we've had escapes

previously but along with that we have had occasions where

permissive freedom has been given to not only mentally-ill people

but also criminally-inclined people who have been allowed out for

sporting occasions and such and I don't confine this to the

provincial area. It's equally applicable to the federal area.

Undoubtedly all the Members in this House will recall the

incident that happened in Surrey, another one up at Matsqui — we

have any number of them throughout the country broad and wide,

that have had the individuals released. They have had a tendency

in one particular area of crime or a mental incapacity that they

have a predestined desire to carry out their mission. And whether

it happens to be in the area of killing people or whether it

happens to be assaulting people in various ways they invariably

do this.

Now, in this particular case this individual escaped twice. He

was in the Oliver area. He unfortunately killed two people — a

young boy of 16 and another man. He took off and herded a group

of campers into a camper unit and turned loose with an arsenal of

bullets on them and wounded and killed. And then eventually went

on, attacking an elderly couple, killed both of those and then in

the final wind-up attacked a fisherman. And this is a very sad

situation.

But not only on that one particular individual, only within

about two weeks of this man being incarcerated and another man

was turned loose from Pearson Hospital, directed to the Olivera

area although he had no particular family ties there, but

directed to that area because they couldn't handle him in Pearson

Hospital. Well, if he couldn't be handled by people who are

trained in this field how could he be handled by a community?

This is the area in which I think that I would appreciate if

the government would give serious consideration to accepting the

recommendations of this motion and have a look at the methods in

which we handle these people with these particular peculiarities

and these tendencies and I think that maybe we can help the

individuals themselves and certainly help society. And I move the

motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, we've observed the motion on the order paper and I must say to

the Hon. Member that we're doing that very thing right now. We have a problem

in this province as they have in the rest of the world. You know, there is just

no possible way that people can be protected totally from this sort of thing.

Because there are many more outside that are equally dangerous that aren't even

recognised.

The problem that we've had in Riverview has been under close

scrutiny. The problem that we had in Pearson has been under close

scrutiny. Having spoken many times from the other side of the

House I think it's probably understood that we've indicated that

there has been some shortcomings in those particular

institutions, the two that were mentioned. It's under close

scrutiny now, we're reviewing it and Mr. Speaker, I would adjourn

debate on this motion until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 390 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the

Hon. the Administrator is in the precincts of the legislative

assembly and I would ask leave of the House to take recess until

3.45.

The House took recess.

The House resumed at 3:45 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions on behalf of Hon.

Mr. Levi.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all Members rise.

His Honour the Administrator entered the House and took his

place in the chair.

CLERK ASSISTANT:

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act.

An Act to Amend the

Gift Tax Act.

Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act.

Handicapped Persons Income Assistance Act.

An Act to Amend the

Mediation Commission Act.

An Act to Amend the Male Minimum Wage

Act.

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

An Act to Amend the

Municipal Act.

Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act Repeal Act.

Tobacco Products Act.

An Act to Amend the Government Liquor Act.

Legislative Procedure and Practice Enquiry Act.

Sessional

Allowances Reduction Act, 1972.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth

assent to these bills.

HON. J.O. WILSON (Administrator): Mr. Speaker, and Members of

the legislative assembly. Your deliberations during the first

session of the 30th parliament have been of great benefit to the

citizens of this province.

In his speech to you at the opening of this session, His

Honour the Lieutenant Governor referred specifically to the

guaranteed minimum income assistance of $200 per month for senior

citizens as a measure which would pioneer legislation for the

senior citizens of this province, and he expressed the hope that

the consideration of this measure would be treated as a matter of

some urgency.

I express my appreciation at this time that the importance of

this measure has received your urgent consideration and that as

this Legislature prorogues you will have accomplished through

your legislative duties the enactment of a measure of which you

may justly be proud.

Furthermore, in a companion measure you have guaranteed to our

handicapped citizens a similar minimum income of $200 per

month.

By amendments to the Gift Tax Act you have exempted, and

thereby encouraged, gifts by our citizens to charitable

organizations, hospitals, educational institutions, and to

non-profit organizations whose works are of benefit to the

community. You have also approved measures designed to restrain

the immoderate and harmful uses of liquor and tobacco products,

by restrictions upon the uncontrolled advertising of these

products.

Amendments to the Mediation Commission Act and the Male

Minimum wage Act have effected a change in the titles of each of

these Acts to Mediation Services Act, and Minimum Wage Act

respectfully. Furthermore, the increase in the minimum wage to $2

per hour, and the organization of labour/ management mediation

methods and services will inaugurate a happier climate of

industrial relations in this province. Changes of the Public

Schools Act

[ Page 391 ]

will likewise improve the bargaining processes involving

school boards and teachers, and will permit school boards to

increase operating budgets so that our children will not be

deprived of essential educational services.

Finally, you have approved a measure instituting a complete

inquiry into all aspects of the conduct and governance of this

assembly and its Members, and of the practices and procedure

thereof, which will I am certain produce recommendations that in

due course will enable this House to discharge in a much more

effective and democratic way its duties to the advantage of all

the people of this province. Such legislation will also benefit

many citizens in this province for whom special measures were

required to be enacted during this special session and will

greatly contribute to their happiness and well-being and point

the way to increased benefits in the future.

Members of the legislative assembly, I think you for your

earnest deliberations and labours. Hon. Members, I now relieve

you of your legislative duties and I trust that the blessing of

divine providence will accompany you to your respective

homes.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker and members

of the legislative assembly, it is His Honour the Administrator's

will and pleasure that the legislative assembly be prorogued

until it shall please His Honour to summon the same for the

dispatch of business, and this provincial legislative assembly is

hereby prorogued accordingly.

His Honour the Administrator was pleased to retire from the

chamber.

The House prorogued at 3:50 p.m.

ERRATA

The following lines should be corrected to read as

shown:

P. 4. L. 1.

North Vancouver–Seymour. Colin Stuart Gabelmann.

P. 83. L. 46, 47 and 48.

You know, two prominent socialist economists in Europe, Mr.

Myrdahl and Mr. Schiller, have stated many, many times that any

intemperate, ill-considered, ill-conceived entry of the

government into

P. 83. L. 51.

This sentiment has been echoed by Mr. Freeman and Mr.

Galbraith, in

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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