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)

MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 619 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

He Hon. W.D. Black presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. W.D. Black, Bill (No. 70) intituled

An Act

to Amend the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act was introduced, read a

first time, and Ordered to be placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The Hon. D.L. Brothers presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, being amendments — to Bill (No. 64)

intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

The Hon. R.R. Loffmark presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. R.R. Loffmark, Bill (No. 69) intituled An

Act to Amend the Regional Hospital Districts Act was introduced, read a

first time, and Ordered to be placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The Hon. F.X. Richter presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. F.X. Richter, Bill (No. 47) intituled An

Act to Amend the Mineral Act was introduced, read a first time, and

Ordered to be placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of Mr. D. Barrett, Bill (No. 71) intituled

An Act to

Amend the Coal Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be

placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Second Reading of Bill No. 5, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act).

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Bill No. 5 is

an Act to Amend the

Municipalities Aid Act. To assist and to ease local taxes on municipal

property owners, a Provincial per capita municipal grant was increased

in 1968 and 1969, and now in 1970 a further increase of two dollars per

capita is proposed. This makes a total of $30 for each man, woman and

child in each municipality. It is estimated that this extra amount this

year will cost the Province an additional $3,000,000 or a total of

$46,700,000 for per capita grants. The amendment provides that the

amount of the increase in the grant to be used first to meet the cost

of social services in the municipality. Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as the Premier has

outlined, will increase the local government grant from $28 to $30 by

this Government. This per capita grant has been increased, as the

Premier said, over the last few years. We're not opposed to the

increase in the grant, we welcome it. However, we do not think that it

is adequate, and the Premier has announced that the two dollars will go

directly to cover the increase in social service cost. What the Premier

has neglected to share with the House is the current burden placed on

municipalities under this Government's change in the cost-sharing

formula for social assistance, and since this two dollars is directed

to the application of the cost of social assistance, it will not go

anywhere near, Mr. Speaker, meeting the additional burden on the local

taxpayer to the social assistance costs.

Last year social welfare costs in British Columbia had to be

supplemented from general revenue by $19,000,000. Some years ago the

social welfare costs were shared in this Province, 50 per cent paid for

by Federal funds, 40 per cent paid for by Provincial funds, and 10 per

cent by municipal funds. When that was changed, necessitating the

direction of the funds in this Bill, it was changed from 50 per cent

from Ottawa, 30 per cent from the Provincial Government, and 20 per

cent at the municipal level. Mr. Speaker, in directing this two dollar

increase to the per capita grants to pay for increased social service

costs, it no way comes near the additional costs that the

municipalities have had to burden themselves with because of the

backward step by this Government in reducing their share of social

services.

Mr. Speaker, I think the citizens should know that, rather than

taking a step forward in social services under this Bill by assigning

two dollars on a per capita, it has taken a step back, it has forced a

retrogressive analysis of social welfare at the municipal level and has

done nothing, done nothing, to re-examine the whole method of financing

social services in British Columbia. I make these comments, Mr.

Speaker, in support of the Bill, only to point out, only to point out

that the Provincial Government, through the directing of this two

dollars, is still far, far, far short of its fair share of social

welfare costs in British Columbia.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a Bill like this, leaves

members of our party feeling as though one must give a hungry man a few

more crumbs if they are offered. But we say that this kind of financing

for cities and municipalities in British Columbia will not bring

robust, healthy communities out of the growing children, the cities and

municipalities of this Province. This increase is entirely inadequate,

even granting that the method of sharing revenues is a satisfactory one

because interim receipts this past year were up 23 per cent. In other

words the Government, for every $100 it took in last year, it's taking

in $123 this year. But this increase to the cities and municipalities

is only between six and seven per cent. In other words, based on the

income to governments, this grant to the cities and municipalities of

our Province is only a third of what it should be.

Cities and municipalities are where the people of the Province live,

three quarters of them. This is where the problems are, and if we

examine all of the things that are debated on the floor of the House as

needing attention of the Provincial Government, nearly every one

involves the communities of man which constitute our cities and

municipalities. And yet there is no plan, Mr. Speaker, on the part of

the Government, to restore health in a financial way to these cities

and municipalities. You bring them begging every year to the steps of

the Legislature and toss out crumbs

[ Page 620 ]

from this heaping table of Provincial revenue.

Mr. Speaker, the time must come in British Columbia when the cities

and municipalities are allowed to share in the bounteous revenues of

this Province as partners in the development of British Columbia, and

not as dependent children who are forced by the Minister of Finance to

beg, with the Minister of Finance playing the role of the Beagle, and

the cities and municipalities like Oliver Twist coming and saying,

"Please sir, can I have more?" and hoping they don't get a caning. And,

while the Provincial Government grows fat with huge surpluses, a

groaning table of revenues, the cities and municipalities barely get

what spills over the edge, and they do get a caning, Mr. Speaker,

because it was a caning to increase the welfare costs from ten to 20

per cent.

The member from Burnaby-Edmonds says I keep raising the dickens.

Well, I think we should. Well, I think we should, because I don't think

the cities and municipalities are the crumbs. No. I am inclined to

think it's the people on the treasury benches who won't give them their

full share. But this business of increasing the local share of welfare

costs from ten to 20 per cent, Mr. Speaker, works a hardship on those

communities who are least able to pay, because it's the ones with

highest unemployment that have the least revenue at the local level,

and they are the ones that are forced to pay the most to carry their

welfare cases. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Finance is that

fair? Fair to these cities and municipalities? But I'd like the

Minister of Finance to know that he is not playing the role of the

Beagle here, and that he is not going to be fair, because I don't think

that this is being fair, to keep forcing it up at the local level. Some

areas in British Columbia aren't so fortunate, some of those smaller

communities in the interior. They carry a heavy welfare load and you're

making that burden worse, and you're not compensating for it when

you've got ample revenues to do so.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is little choice but to give

crumbs to a starving man if that's the best that can be done, and we'll

support the Bill, but with reluctance.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, like every member in this

House I intend to support Bill No. 5, not because of its adequacy, but

because it does improve what had become, and is still, an almost

intolerable situation for the municipalities.

Just the other day a municipal official accused the Government of a

callous disregard of the rapidly escalating costs to the municipalities

for social welfare, and from the municipalities in my own constituency

I have received comparative figures showing what the municipal costs

were in previous years and what the projected costs would be for 1970,

or what their costs were in 1969. From the Municipality of North

Cowichan, we find that in 1966 the Provincial Government paid $75,000

toward welfare. North Cowichan paid $38,000. In 1969 the Provincial

share was $127,000, which was up about less than 50 per cent, but the

North Cowichan share had gone up from $38,000 to $108,000. This meant

that the Provincial increase in a percentage figure was up 75 per cent,

but the municipal figure was up 275 per cent for social welfare costs,

and this is the position that they'll find themselves in.

I doubt very much that this two dollar per capita increase will fully cover this rapidly increasing cost to municipalities.

Remembering also, that the municipalities, first of all, are having

great additional burdens thrust upon them, and remembering further that

the unemployment figures which are now showing up throughout the

Province were not available, were not available when these

municipalities forecast their expected costs for the year 1970. So that

many of them are going to find themselves in a much worse position than

they now consider to be the case.

I had two communications from the town of Ladysmith, one which

showed that in actual fact 28 per cent of their total municipal budget

was going to go to social welfare costs and they broke down the

figures, but they sent me an additional communication after the

announcement of the two dollar per capita grant increase, and we find

that it will still be that the Ladysmith expenditure for social welfare

win be far above what it was in 1966, and will still require almost 26

per cent of their total general mill rate. In the City of Duncan the

same situation, and making the same comparison, 1967 figures this time,

we find that the Government paid $71,000. In '69 they paid $90,000.

Their share was up 27 per cent. The city of Duncan in '67 paid $37,000

for social welfare. In '69 it was up to $95,000, an increase of 157 per

cent.

There is an indication of the problem that is facing the

municipalities and this two dollar figure, while it will help, with

their continued increase in unemployment we can expect that the

municipalities are going to have a hard time finding the extra money

required to meet these social welfare costs.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the second

reading of this Bill, I think it might be wise for the House to recall

some of the history of the per capita grant in more recent years in

British Columbia. Some of you will recall that in 1965 there was a

sliding scale for the per capita grant which was $8, $12, $16 and $20.

One year later in 1966 which is the census year that was raised— and

all of these are very significant increases — that was raised to $12,

$16, $20 and $24 on the basis of population plateaus.

When it was not on a plateau basis it certainly, in those two years

where you are moving to 8 to 12 to 12 to 16, it certainly helped every

community in British Columbia. But, in addition to that, in 1966,

because of the change in the census, the Provincial Government met the

1966 census figures as well, so that in 1966, on top of that jump from

8 to 12 to 16 and 16 to 20 and 20 to 24, the change from the 1961

census year was reflected in their budget figures for 1966. It's

interesting, Mr. Member, that you've talked about that in terms…. I'm

glad, Mr. Premier, that the member mentioned that because the facts of

life are that every year since 1964 there have been significant

increases in the per capita grant.

But, in 1968, there was another very significant year for the per

capita grant and that was the year when all of those plateau levels

were wiped out, so then in 1968 the per capita grant, in fact, was

raised to $25 across the board, and this made very significant

increases to the municipalities, because no longer were there any left

along the way. Every man, woman and child in the community was made

subject of a transfer payment of $25 with respect to each and every one

of the people involved in that community. But that wasn't the end of

the road. That only takes us up to 1968.

[ Page 621 ]

In 1969 the per capita grant was increased from $25 to $28. In 1970,

now we see another increase from $28 to $30, but I think the members of

the Legislature should be well aware that 1971 again is a census year,

and the commitments on the part of the Provincial Government, in terms

of transfer payments, is indeed a very significant one, and you just

have to look at some of the communities in British Columbia to realize

what type of commitment that represents.

But what you are forgetting is that from '66 there have been

significant increases in the per capita grant in each and every year.

What you have perhaps not looked at is the impact of the present $30 in

terms of 1966, remember when it was $12, $16, $20, and $24, it is now

$30.00 for each and every man, woman and child in the community. So

that in making this commitment for 1970, in the year 1970, this is a

commitment which goes forward to the new census year, which again is

1971, and anyone who looks at the growth of British Columbia from '66

to '71 this represents a very, very significant increase over the

years, and also as between 1970 and 1971.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: I am very pleased to hear the contribution

that's been made to second reading of this Bill by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. I don't know whether he was announcing

redistribution at the same time. I'm not too sure about that. Maybe

we'll have an opportunity….

Nevertheless, this Bill is now becoming an annual Bill and for that

reason we welcome it and we will support it. Other members have said

what they think about the two dollars and how it's going to help social

welfare costs, etc. I want to say what I think I said last year to the

Premier, that he has, on occasion, usually about quarter to six,

expressed some attitudes towards Ottawa about money with strings on it,

and yet here we see again in this Bill per capita grants being made

with strings attached to them. I well remember the Minister of Finance

going into an arm-waving display about money with strings on it, Mr.

Speaker, and it's as simple as that, and I want to say this, that if

indeed this money has strings on it as contained in the Bill, we should

be given the opportunity to find out what happens to those strings once

the money goes into the municipal coffers. Instead, we hear from the

Minister of Municipal Affairs every year about municipalities that

aren't doing the right thing, that are wasting money.

I think an examination of the Municipal Affairs Report is the least

we could expect in voting for the kind of principle involved in this

Bill, then we'd see some review, some review of the municipalities, and

what they're doing about providing ambulance services and other things

that are specifically mentioned in this Act. Because we have, Mr.

Speaker, south of the river, instance after instance where social

welfare patients, where old age pensioners were transferring their

husbands or their wives from a private hospital to the Royal Columbian

and paying ambulance fees, and yet we never hear from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs whether indeed this money, with the strings attached

to it, is being spent in that way.

So all I'm saying to the House in effect is, if you mean what you

say in the Bill, then we should have something that follows it. It's as

simple as that, and we don't get that. So what you're doing, in effect,

is producing a Bill that says the Provincial Government is providing

all sorts of money for municipal sewage treatment plants, for ambulance

service and so on, and that just doesn't happen. It just doesn't

happen. And I think that's what's wrong with the Bill, but as I say,

it's becoming an annual Bill now, and I can suggest to the House we're

going to get this annual speech, because we should hear what happens to

the strings once the money gets in the municipal coffers.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very

briefly, obviously to support the Bill, but secondly to point out that

there is one problem which has been raised by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and that is, since we are using the figures for 1966 which are

the census figures at that time, that there is a sort of built-in

penalty for those areas which have been growing faster than the other

areas throughout the Province of British Columbia. In the recent

figures which were indicated, it showed that Surrey, Richmond and

Vancouver were the fastest growing.

SOME HON. MEMBER: The Kelowna area is growing much faster.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, I have a slight feeling that if the

Kelowna area were the fastest growing area that maybe we might have

revised these figures slightly.

I'm querying, Mr. Speaker, the question of whether it is not

feasible under this Act, to take into consideration a more realistic

figure. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs pointed out, in 1971 there

will be a revision, and we are going to have to face a much larger

grant at that time, but it does seem only just and correct that, having

committed on the basis of per capita, on the basis of individuals, we

should be getting as close as we possibly can to the exact number of

people in each community.

Now we have more realistic figures and more accurate figures

available than 1966, and there is a need in every municipality to

provide this amount of money, and if we are saying that we are going to

give $30 for every individual in the community, then I think that,

rather than face that tremendous jump in 1971, we should be preparing

for a more realistic approach, and I was wondering whether it was not

possible for the Minister of Finance to endeavour to obtain a more

accurate approximation of the exact populations in every community.

The second point I wanted to raise is that the Minister of Finance,

in another point that I have raised before in regards to a grant to the

Police Academy, suggested that it was covered specifically in this

Bill. Now I have looked through this Bill, Mr. Minister, and I do not

see where there is anything special applied to Vancouver to cover the

cost of the $20,000 that was taken out of the….

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Order.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, Mr. Minister, it was pointed out that this

was specifically to cover the grant for the loss of this under the

Police Academy, and I do not find it in here, Mr. Minister, and I would

ask, Mr. Minister, that rather than say "order" that we find the

additional $20,000 which you've taken from my services .

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is out of order.

[ Page 622 ]

The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the Minister

of Municipal Affairs did rise and speak to this Bill, because in 1966,

when we had this first amendment moved, we found that it did have a

particular hardship on smaller communities, the villages and towns. At

that time I cited the towns of Hope and Merritt that had been in the

$20 category, and I believe at that time moved to $24, and yet they had

all the increased costs, and at that time the Minister was good enough

to give these, both these communities, and I believe others throughout

British Columbia, a special grant, because while the larger urban

centres moved ahead from eight, ten, twelve, fifteen, to the twenty and

later to the $25 grant, and this meant hundreds of thousands, millions

of dollars to the larger centres, but the two dollar increase didn't

mean enough to the towns like Hope and Merritt. So through you, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask if the Minister of Municipal Affairs has

any particular plans for improving the situation in the smaller towns

such as Hope and Merritt, where this grant still will not be adequate.

Now, I'd also like to deal with the situation with regard to health

services. You know, Mr. Speaker, this group over at this end of the

House have continually spoken out on behalf of a proper, well

co-ordinated programme of ambulance services for this Province — air

ambulance, and more particularly a properly co-ordinated ambulance

service between North Vancouver, City of Vancouver, New Westminster,

Surrey and all. Instead of having ambulance drivers fighting over

victims of auto accidents, that we have a properly co-ordinated

programme as part of B.C.H.I.S., an extension of our hospital insurance

programme, so that anyone that is hospitalized, or anyone that may have

to be hospitalized, knows that when they are moved from an acute care

bed to a chronic bed, that those ambulance services would be available.

Now those of us that have been here any length of time will recall

the Premier telling how they had an ambulance service on Salt Spring

Island, and I think he said he paid three dollars a year and he'd get

ambulance service anywhere in British Columbia, but I'd like to point

out through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and the Salt Spring

Island ambulance service do not get one penny from this Bill, and there

are many similar ambulance services. There's one up at Boston Bar that

will extend service to any member of this House, any citizen of the

Province or nation, anyone travelling Trans-Canada highways, that has

the misfortune to have a car accident. If they slip on the black ice,

go over the bank, the Boston Bar ambulance service will take them

either to the Lytton, the Hope, or the New Westminster Hospital,

depending on the severity of their case, and the community of Boston

Bar gets no penny.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that's their fault.

MR. HARTLEY: That's what you think. They'll help the member

from Cariboo, he often drives this road, Mr. Speaker, he often drives

the Trans-Canada highway, and if he has the misfortune to hit black

ice, slide along, and go over the bank, I'll just tell the people of

Boston Bar what he said.

AN HON'. MEMBER: Leave him there.

MR. HARTLEY: He said, he'll get help. And why? The reason is

that the Boston Bar Ambulance and other ambulances similar to the one

on Salt Spring Island and Boston Bar….

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I understand that the member is

trying to relate the matter of ambulance services as in the original

Bill to this amendment, but he is now speaking of the need for

ambulance services in unorganized areas which are not contemplated by

the principle in this particular Bill. I think I understand the point

you're making but, nevertheless, you're not in order.

MR. HARTLEY: Very good, Mr. Speaker. I hope also that the Premier got the point. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the proposal in this Bill is

that an additional grant be given to the municipalities on which

priorities or, as one member suggested, strings are attached. Now when

one looks at the Bill, if you're talking about priorities, the

section

that deals with the three dollars is definitely confusing, and should

really be looked at before we discuss it in committee because, if

you're talking about priorities, there's no priorities shown between

the use of the three dollars for ambulance service and the

encouragement of tourism and industrial development in the

municipality. I really don't know how they can say that priority is set

out in that particular location.

I join with the member for Lillooet in urging that that money

instead be used for the general purposes of the municipality, and that

the idea of helping ambulance service be a part built in on hospital

insurance. The reason for that is that the municipalities have to

operate with that money within their boundaries, and it automatically

excludes the good intentions that are implicit in the Act, in this

Bill, rather.

The other thing that I would draw attention to is that the Minister

can coast along for years underpaying the municipalities by resting his

payments upon the census. This makes a delightful situation for him,

but means increasing hardship, year after year, to the municipalities

until they get to another census, and it's as if that all procreations

stop after the census, so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned.

That isn't what happens in the real world, and somebody should tell the

Minister where babies come from.

On the other question of the social services, a number of

municipalities have complained of the fact that they have been bearing

the burden of 20 per cent of the cost of social welfare since the

Government changed it from the previous 10 per cent, in places like

Richmond, they really have something to complain about. The figures

that the honourable the member for Cowichan-Malahat read to us a few

minutes ago, showing the vast increase of burden in social welfare

chargeable to the municipalities, is true in places like Richmond, and

true also to some extent in Coquitlam and other fast growing municipal

areas. It seems to me the Government in this Bill, and the Minister,

have not tried to work out an equitable way of a sliding scale up to

take into account the growth in population in certain areas, and I

would urge them to take a look at it before we get to the committee

stage, although, Mr. Speaker, this is better than nothing, and anything

that will aid the municipalities we certainly favour.

[ Page 623 ]

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad all members of the

House are going to support this Bill. I'm amused at some of the

arguments used, as if we had changed something, and put a census on

something that hadn't been there before. This whole idea of per capita

grants originated with the Social Credit Government, right from the

beginning.

I want to show that very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that reference was

made to the great City of Vancouver, that the Provincial Government's

payments per cent of the municipal gross general revenue — British

Columbia Social Credit Government,, 36 per cent; in Ontario — Toronto,

27 per cent; Winnipeg, 13 per cent; Regina, 11 per cent, where they had

a Socialist government for a while; Calgary 17 per cent; Halifax, 16

per cent. Now all I want to say, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit

Government of British Columbia treats all its municipalities better

than any other provincial government in all Canada, and everybody knows

it…. And you believe it too, my friend, and that's the reason why

your vote's getting less, less, less.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. BENNETT: And that's the reason why the bus was turned into a buck for the Liberal party. (laughter)

AN HON. MEMBER: Enjoy it while it lasts,

MR. BENNETT: The per capita grant — yes, Mr. Speaker, enjoy

it while we last, because when we were elected in '52 they said we

wouldn't last one year, 18 years, growing stronger than ever, growing

stronger than ever and how you're shrinking down, my boy.

Mr. Speaker, the $30 per capita grant gives $25 per capita man,

woman and child, $25 per capita grant to the streets, that more than

maintains and builds the streets in Vancouver. To the streets,

pollution — local pollution costs — policing and parks, and then the

five dollar balance supplies three dollars to ambulance services,

encouragement of tourism and industrial development for the

municipalities, and the additional two dollars is to provide for the

increase in rates this year in the social welfare costs.

You must look at the over-all picture, Mr. Speaker. Even in this

last decade of the 60's, the amount given for the services to people in

the municipalities of our Province in 1960 amounted to $163,000,0000;

in 1965, 5 years later, $261,000,000; in the coming year, $653,000,000.

No, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia's Social Credit Government leads the

way in all of Canada in helping municipalities, and I am very pleased

to ask for second reading of this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 5,

An Act to Amend

the Municipalities Aid Act, be read a second time. All those in favour

say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 6. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Bill No 6,

An Act to Amend the

Provincial Home-owner Grant Act. This Government, Mr. Speaker, in 1957

pioneered this grant, not only for this Province, for this nation, but

for any place we could find in the free world. This Government has

reduced the burden of local property taxes on home-owners and

encourages every family to acquire their own home.

It especially helps people that own a small home, and today the

home-owner grant pays tens of thousands of dollars, and only leaves one

dollar for the local person to pay. In other places it pays 50 per

cent, other places in the wealthy, large homes, perhaps pay only 10 per

cent, but in the real small homes it pays practically the whole bill

but one dollar.

The annual grant, when it was first brought into effect, was

ridiculed by the press, Mr. Speaker, saying that a Government could

never carry that into effect. The original amount in 1957 was $28. It

has been progressively raised until it reached $150 last year, in 1969.

At the same time the per capita of local government grants in the

municipalities have been continued, and they rise upwards, and grants

to local school boards for primary and secondary education have

increased each year.

To continue the programme started in 1957, this Government proposes

to increase the home-owner grant by a further $10 to a maximum of $160

in the 1970 taxation.

It is estimated the additional cost to the Province of the increase

this year will amount to $5,500,000 and the total home-owner grant in

1970-71, the next fiscal year, will be $61,100,000. Mr. Speaker, I move

second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion.

The Honourable the Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, like the last Bill, it makes

some contribution towards changing circumstances. What the Premier said

is true. The Bill was introduced in 1957, and the words that he used

were that ever since then it has been progressively raised, and that is

true. But at the same time, all over the Province, assessments have

been progressively raised and, in many cases, the progressive raising

of the assessments has more than off-set the progressive raising of the

home-owner grant, so that very often the home-owner grant goes up by

$10 but we find that on the local level, taxes are going up by $15,

$20, $25.

AN HON. MEMBER: It hasn't happened all over.

MR. STRACHAN: It has happened all over.

I've travelled British Columbia, I happen to be an M.L.A. In this

Province, and I am talking about what happens here. Of course, not only

are the assessments going up, but these Provincial finance departments

learn a great deal from the Federal finance department. They learn that

without changing the law in any way, you can change the

interpretation

of the law. So that many homes and home-owners are now finding

themselves, especially in the rural areas, that some which had remained

comparatively free from taxation are now included within the

ever-widening maw of the tax assessor, with the result that in many

cases his taxes went up 3, 4, 5, 600 per cent.

This has, as I pointed out before, led to a diminishing, in many

cases, of the natural beauty of Vancouver Island, which was based on

the fact that there were many small holdings with small patches of

timber, but the assessment was put on these small patches of timber,

making it impossible for the people to continue to pay the taxes

demanded, with the result that they have allowed these small loggers to

come in

[ Page 624 ]

and cut the trees, and this adds nothing whatever to the maintenance of the natural beauty of this Island.

We are speaking of taxes and the impact this has on taxes. I would

like to ask the Minister to take a look at the assessment practices,

and be sure that the assessment practices don't follow a course that

does despoil the beauty of this Island, and too, doesn't overcome any

advantage that is accruing to the middle home-owner group, which is a

vast majority. I agree that there are many with smaller homes who now

pay and have, for many years, paid only a dollar, but in the middle

home range bracket, their taxes have been increasing year by year,

despite the home-owner grant. But as I say, it's one of those Bills

where you support it, because it does offset, at least partially, the

money that the Department of Finance is taking away through other

procedures and in other ways.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the member

who has just taken his place says about the matter of assessments.

However, in view of the rather disastrous effect we had when the

honourable Minister of Finance last dealt with the matter of

assessments in this Province, I shudder to think what might be the

result if he takes another look. Because the assessment situation, so

far as equalization is concerned and it has a direct affect on this

grant, because it relates to the taxes that are levied, has required a

lot of very extensive change, because of actions taken by the Minister

of Finance.

But with respect to home-owner grant, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned

that again this year we have the regular recurring annual rise to which

we should all be, must be grateful, but there is not any proper

extension of this grant in aid of taxes to those people who are really

carrying the burden, particularly in the metropolitan areas. I refer,

Mr. Speaker, to the tenants whose rents are based, in part at least,

upon the taxes which the landlord must pay, and again we find this Act

continuing to perpetuate this separate class of advantaged people,

mainly those who own their own homes, to the detriment, I suggest, of

those tenants who are treated as in some other class and are

disadvantaged in comparison to the privileges that are extended to home

ownership in this Province. It seems to me that the time has long since

passed when the Government should be considering very seriously…. It

seems, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come when the Government must

give serious consideration to providing relief from regularly

increasing municipal taxes, and the burden which is cast upon those

who, for one reason or another, are not home-owners, but are

nonetheless paying the burden of real property tax. In that group of

people who do receive some benefit from the home-owner grant, there is

another segment of our society which the Government consistently

overlooks, and I speak of those senior citizens, those people who, on

pensions or fixed income, have maintained their homes in their own

communities that they helped to build, who are faced with steadily

increasing municipal taxes, and the steadily increasing impact of

school taxes, long after their own children have passed through the

school system. They find that they are almost crushed by the burden of

municipal taxes, and the home-owner grant allowed to them does not even

keep up with the annual rise they are facing.

I would have thought, too, that the Minister of Finance, this year,

might have taken to heart the suggestions which have been made from

this side of the floor, and indeed from his own supporters, that some

special provision should be made for those people who are on pension,

fixed income, who might wish to receive an additional grant up to the

full amount of their taxes over and above the amount which is provided

for in this Bill, and I have no doubt that many of those people who are

in that precise situation would welcome the opportunity of receiving an

additional grant, even though it were a condition that the excess grant

would one day be repayable out of the worth of their property when it

is eventually sold, either during their lifetime, or upon their death.

This is a simple, convenient, and humanitarian way of looking after

those elderly citizens who have built our communities, who live in our

communities, and wish to continue to enjoy the benefits of that which

they have created.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G. S. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for the

fact that the previous speaker has taken most of what I had intended to

say. I am very much in favour of increasing the home-owner grant. The

policy of this party, as everyone knows, has been to lay strong

emphasis on the importance of the home in our society, and as I

represent a riding where there are many senior citizens, and elderly

persons who are on fixed incomes, I feel that, for as good as the

home-owner grant is, I would make a special appeal for the elderly

segment of the community.

Furthermore, rather than just suggest such a solution to the

problem, I would like to draw the House's attention to the situation as

it applies in the City of Hamilton, Ontario . In that city, there are

two alternatives In that city, there are two alternatives open to the

senior citizens. In the first instance, any senior citizen who is a

home-owner and who is in receipt of old age security, namely the old

age pension, is entitled to a grant up to $100 a year, and this grant

is a credit which is not repayable when the home changes hands. The

second alternative is provincial legislation for anyone over 65 years

of age who owns their own home, and in the case of the alternative for

people over 65, there is an allowance of up to $150 per year, but in

this case a lien is applied against the property, and when the property

changes hands, of course the lien is repaid, the amount which has been

allowed over the years is repayable. I think the basic fact which has

been recognized, though I should have pointed out that in the case of

the old age pensioners receiving this type of assistance, there is a

means test which in the case of a single home-owner is $3,200 a year,

and in the case of a married couple is $4,000 per year.

But I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that this principle establishes the fact

that an extra $10 a year, such as we are now proposing, is really only

a very partial solution to the elderly person who not only is on a

fixed income, but who finds that her or his income buys progressively

less of the goods we all need to survive, and I am talking about as

simple and basic a matter as food. It is questionable whether another

$10 a year for a pensioner or a person on a fixed income in Oak Bay, is

going to go very far to meet the increasing costs which that person has

incurred over the past year, not only in terms of property taxation.

The most immediate need, I would suggest, would be met if this

Government would consider a close study of the type of legislation

which is present in Ontario, in the City of

[ Page 625 ]

Hamilton, and I took the trouble to contact the

City Clerk. The House may be interested to know that in the City of

Hamilton in 1969 there were 3,453 applications for the type,of grant of

$100 a year for those over age 70, and in discussion with the City

Clerk, he finds that this is a most accessible and much appreciated

policy followed by the city, and he finds, equally, the grant of $150

where a lien is applied to the property, is not particularly popular.

I should just add, that in Hamilton there is also a residential

qualification. In other words, the person applying for the assistance

must have lived there at least 10 out of the preceding 15 years. The

House has frequently heard of the difficulties of people on low, fixed

incomes and senior citizens, above all others. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that this offers an avenue, in addition to the present avenue,

of providing the kind of help for people for which this Government

stands.

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: The very idea of this grant originally

was to help people of low income and people on pension, and that's the

whole idea of it, but from the beginning we want to treat everybody the

same. But if in the percentage basis, some places it pays 99 per cent

for people on small incomes and small homes, and perhaps only 10 per

cent on wealthy people who have a mansion, and that is the way that it

equalizes itself up.

We were up against a situation where people, old age pensioners, had

two or three dollars increase in their taxes, and so the only way we

knew how to stop it, and we studied many different ways was to have

this kind of a grant, and it started, and it has been very successful.

In fact an old age pensioner that has a small house, pays no taxes at

all now, only one dollar a small house. In fact at today's values, a

person with a house of $16,000, in this Province pays no school taxes

at all, and no place else in Canada will you find that happening.

Of all the measures that this Social Credit Government has brought

forward, this one we've helped more real people with it than anything

else. I remember that the Liberals ridiculed it, called it trickery,

called it just a sham, and the socialists, they voted against it, Mr.

Speaker, and were against it.

I want to tell you this, the present Liberal Premier in Saskatchewan

came out a couple of elections ago to take

part in an election in

British Columbia. There he ran across his Social Credit mother in

Vancouver, and she said, "What party are you talking for?" He said,

"The Liberals." She said, "Go back home. This is the only Government

that does things for people in British Columbia." And he said, "Why?"

She said, "Why the home-owner grant." And do you know what he said to

me? He said, "Before there is another election I am going to have a

home-owner grant in the Province of Saskatchewan," and so he has.

Any time these other parties copy some of the good things of Social

Credit, it's added to their glory. But they worship afar off, because

it's easy to see the amount there compared to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a tremendous reform that we have to help

people in this Province, and I would ask now that we have second

reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 6,

An Act to Amend

the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act be read a second time. All those in

favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 51

Messieurs

Wallace

Macdonald

Williston

Merilees

Strachan

Bennett

Marshall

Dowding

Peterson

Brousson

Nimsick

Black

Gardom

Barrett

Fraser

Cocke

Dailly, Mrs.

Campbell, B.

Hartley

Vogel

Wolfe

Hall

LeCours

Smith

Williams, R. A.

Chabot

McDiarmid

Calder

Little

Capozzi

Wenman

Jefcoat

Chant

Kripps, Mrs.

Tisdalle

Loffmark

Mussallem

Bruch

Gaglardi

Price

McCarthy, Mrs.

Campbell, D.R.J.

Clark

Jordan, Mrs.

Brothers

McGeer

Dawson, Mrs.

Shelford

Williams, L. A.

Kiernan

Richter

PAIR:

Messieurs

Skillings

Lorimer

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 12. (An Act Respecting Motion Pictures) The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 12 is the Motion

Pictures Act. As the explanatory note indicates, its purpose is to

repeal the existing Moving Pictures Act, and substitute therefore the

Motion Pictures Act. I think those of you who have taken the trouble to

read the existing legislation on the subject, and compare it with this

new Bill, will find considerably more change than that. Certainly the

application is not as extensive as in the existing legislation. It does

not apply to educational institutions, universities, film societies. We

have also removed many of the obsolete provisions, which has

contributed to a reduction in the over-all size of the Act — cut it in

about half from the existing legislation — such provisions as if you

are 14 years of age or under you have to be accompanied by an adult to

go to the movies at certain times. This is still on the statute books,

although it hasn't been enforced for some 30 years or so.

Then there is also the provision which you find in the existing

legislation, which this Bill will repeal, which sets out the type of

things that the censor is not to allow to be shown; scenes of an

immoral or obscene nature, the representation of crime, or pictures

reproducing any brutalizing spectacle, or which indicate or suggest

lewdness or indecency, or the infidelity, or unfaithfulness of husband

or wife or any other such pictures which he may consider injurious to

morals or against the public welfare, or which

[ Page 626 ]

may offer evil suggestions to the minds of

children, or which may more likely offend the public. I think, under

that definition, "The Good Life" is the only film in the country that

would qualify.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know the members of this House, from discussions

that have taken place in the past, hold very strong views on the

desirability or undesirability of censorship as such, and I don't think

for a moment that we would be able to gain any unanimity on that score

today. But I do think, that if you have read the existing Bill and

compared it with the Act which it replaces, we can all be unanimous in

finding that it is a great improvement over the old legislation. The

main thrust of the Bill is moving from the concept of censorship to the

idea of classification of films, but still giving to this office the

responsibility of rejecting films for showing to the public. That has

not been removed in its entirety.

I think we have to, as well, in considering this legislation, agree

that, or acknowledge I should say, the whole spectrum of motion picture

content has changed drastically in the past decade. Today the office

can only do basic classifications to ensure that the viewing public are

fully aware of what is being shown in the theatres, leaving it to them

to decide which pictures to see and which not to see. That's the

primary philosophy that we are moving on.

I think, too, that we cannot in this day and age be over protective,

because since the advent of television we find now pictures being shown

on television, coming into your homes, which would previously have been

in the restricted categories, so this, too, has to be taken into

account, I think the major responsibility of government and government

offices must be to classify, to determine the advertising, so that

people will be forewarned as to what they might see, and then can

govern themselves accordingly.

AN HON. MEMBER: This Act goes further than that.

MR. PETERSON: This Act, as I indicated, does go further than

that in terms of still allowing for a rejection of films, not to be

shown at all, where they don't have any value, and that is, as I say,

something on which I don't think we will get any full agreement on. But

the major point is a classification into the three categories of

general, which is suitable for all persons; adult, as the term implies

being unsuitable or of no interest to persons under age 18; and

restricted, as being suitable only for persons of the age of 18 years

or over and this latter category to be enforced in those terms.

You will also have observed that the title of Censor is no longer

found in the Act. His job title is more accurately described as Film

Classification Director, and that is the title that's used here and

now, as well as in Ontario, and in the Province of Saskatchewan.

I think it's fair to say that the distributors and theatres

throughout the Province have a very high regard for the judgment of our

censor, Mr. MacDonald, who will become the Classification Officer under

this new Bill. In the past year he did reject some 20 films, but I

think it is relevant to point out that none of the rejections were

appealed, and there is provision for appeal. The duties of the Film

Classification Director are set out in the Act, and probably don't

require any further explanation from myself.

The three classifications — although we did at one stage consider a

fourth — we have come to the conclusion that the three classifications

are broad enough to provide sound guidelines to ensure that the public

will be aware of the pictures that are being shown in the theatres in

the Province, and then in turn will have responsibility for determining

which pictures they or their children will be able to see. I move that

the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: I think the Minister is right when he said there

will be unanimity on one thing, that is the fact that the old Bill will

die, the old Act will die, and I can assure him that he will probably

get unanimity as far as that is concerned.

This Bill really has two principles, Mr. Speaker, principle one is

classification, principle two is censorship. The two things we find

together aren't supportable. No matter what we call the gentleman in

charge of this Act, whether we call him a Censor or whether we call him

a Film Classification Director, has still a pair of scissors in his

hand. As long as the gentleman in charge of this has a pair of scissors

in his hand we find that we cannot support this Bill. It's just as

simple as that. Without the criteria that in order to tell him what to

do, the criteria which so far has thwarted the best minds in the world

to try and determine what is wrong, what is unpalatable, what is

obscenity, what is pornographic, as long as that criteria is not and

never will, in my view, be there, then the ownership of a pair of

scissors in the hands of one person, or a committee of people, call it

what they will, is unacceptable.

I think certainly there's no question about the classification side

of this Bill. I think everybody should welcome that kind of move,

particularly, as the Minister says, when you realize that films are now

being relayed into the homes via television, and that principle,

classification certainly gets our full support, our total support. But

when you've got one good principle in a Bill and one unacceptable

principle, the issue is really clear and that is we can't support it.

Now, in a Bill like this, debate so frequently seems to zone in, and

to home in, on the question of pornography and the question of sex, but

I don't want to spend much time discussing that, only to say this, that

I think that it's fair to say that there are many more things which we

can find objectionable than that narrow, limited sphere of debate.

There is more obscenity, in my view, in some of the violence we see

than there is in some of the movies we've heard debated in this Chamber

on previous occasions. We on this side, for instance, Mr. Speaker, have

said that we don't believe in corporal punishment because we believe

that, in many ways, is obscene. Yet, of course, there is obscenity in

the sarcasm that can be used by a senior person to a group of students,

and so on. Similarly we feel there is obscenity in violence. We feel

there is obscenity frequently in values which are portrayed, material

portrayal, ways of life, and so on. We find that whilst all this is

going on, to get back to the first point, the principle of a cutting is

just untenable.

We intend, Mr. Speaker, just so that we can announce to the

Attorney-General, we intend, if second reading of this Bill does go

through, to provide a series of amendments to the Bill for discussion

in committee, which we feel will then make this Bill a first-class

Bill, and one which could be supported by everybody in this Province

and everybody in this Chamber.

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

[ Page 627 ]

MR. B. A. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, so that I can clarify the

position of our party on this Bill, right from the beginning I would

like to say that I am against censorship but for the Bill, and in this

sense disagree completely with the member from Surrey, because to

oppose this Bill, I feel, is to show support for a Bill that now exists

on the statute books of this Province which is antiquated, outmoded,

unjust and almost any other word like that you can apply to it. Mr.

Speaker, I am in the midst of the ohs and ahs, from that end of the

Chamber. I agree that we have two principles here. One is censorship

and one is classification, and I said at the beginning I'm opposed to

censorship. As far as I am concerned it is not my position to judge

what someone else shall watch, and I'm not about to set myself up as

that authority.

I appreciate the Attorney-General has gone to great lengths to

remove the word censor from the Bill, but he has also been honest in

this House in pointing out that the Bill does contain a censorship

classification, and it gives the authority to the director to censor.

Well, from a principle point of view, Mr. Speaker, therefore the Bill

as it stands before us, I think, is supportable on principle, although

I would agree that there are sections that I personally would oppose.

On the subject of classification I wish to comment briefly as well,

and I don't intend to conduct a long dissertation on this Bill. I

mentioned in an earlier debate in this House my views on what was

happening in Denmark, where they are perhaps taking the lead as far as

censorship is concerned. Although I was somewhat surprised, Mr.

Speaker, to learn in Denmark that they have a film censor, and he still

has an office and is quite active and in fact censors films, but never

in relation to sex. The film censor's job is to censor violence, and

when you think about it, it makes a great deal of sense, and when I was

in Denmark this past year there was a film showing there that I think

many members of this House might have seen. I found it one of the most

horrible movies I have ever seen in my life, and that was John Wayne in

"The Green Berets," a despicable movie if ever I saw one, where there

was great joy and jubilation taken as American helicopters descended on

certain people and blasted them into oblivion, and this was supposed to

be suitable for young people to see. That particular movie showing in

Denmark was censored, and that

section was cut out. I found that rather

interesting.

I agree with the member from Surrey that the emphasis in censorship

or even in classification on sex is one-sided, and I think really

misguided, and I would hope that our censor, in utilizing or using his

rights of classification, will pay some attention to the violence that

is appearing in our movies, particularly violence that appears to

glorify war which, in my opinion, is every bit as obscene as anything

that has ever been cut out of movies in this Province, if not more so.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the Bill because it is an

improvement. I'll oppose sections of it, specifically

section five, but

other than that I think it is a great improvement and I hope the

Censor, or Director as we'll now call him, will exert his powers in

relation to classification in ways other than he has done in the past,

namely in ways of violence.

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of Bill that

people are inclined to be cautious about because of political overtones

related to statements that a member may make. Mr. Speaker, when I was

first elected to this House, under the Attorney-General's Department

there was a vote on the movie censor, and consistently for the ten

years I have been here, I have been opposed to the role of censorship

and my position has not changed. Mr. Speaker, the idea of classifying

movies is welcome, but I say let us not be hypocritical, because into

every home in this nation television films come in uncensored,

unclassified, and can be seen from both sides of the border, and I say,

Mr. Speaker, that it is the parents' responsibility to determine what

they want their child to see or not to see, and any parent who allows

the state to take that right from them is not in a position to fully

raise their children in a mature manner. It was the Prime Minister of

this country who said that the state has no right in the bedrooms of

the nation.

There are Criminal Code sections that stop pornography if that is

the area of concern. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that any step around

censorship removes the relationship that must be strengthened between

parent and child. Any parent who does not spend time with his child in

assisting a child making decisions, and in many instances making

decisions for a child, is allowing his responsibility to fall into

someone else's hands, Mr. Speaker, and that is a most dangerous

concept, I have my bias, as my friend from North Vancouver–Seymour has,

about what I wish to see or not see in a movie, or what I wish my

children to see or not see, but I don't want anybody else's prejudice

or bias imposed upon my children.

I don't like violence in movies. I don't like it being acted out,

Mr. Speaker. But I abhor news broadcasts directly from Vietnam six

o'clock every day showing the slaughter of children by American troops,

my friend, and you think that the censor cutting that out of the movies

will stop that from coming into a home? Mr. Speaker, people might as

well see what the world is really like, so that we can start getting

some basic, fundamental, decent changes in the world we live in.

I don't believe in raising children in a cotton-batten atmosphere

defined by the state, Mr. Speaker. If the world is ugly, then it is

ugly. The children of this nation have an expression that aptly

describes the attitude of opening our eyes to reality. They say, "Tell

it the way it is." And I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that no state

behind the Iron Curtain or this side of the Iron Curtain has any right

to interfere in telling it the way it is. We saw what censorship has

done in Czechoslovakia, Mr. Speaker; and do not think that that kind of

censorship cannot lead down the same road here in this country. The

door is open when you allow one man or a government to determine what

my child shall or shall not see. I will decide for myself what my

children will see, and if I can't assume that responsibility then the

state is saying to me that I am not a good enough parent, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the definition of the kind of movies that are shown,

there are many movies that are totally inappropriate in terms of cheap

pandering to sell tickets, but how will any child ever know, how will

any youngster ever know what kind of decision he wishes to make for

himself unless there is a whole basis of moral foundation built in the

home, built in the home? Some of the things done in the name of

censorship only lead to regressive development and negative

construction. This is 1970, Mr. Speaker, and yet all the horrors of

mankind are still compounded around us and the only way to overcome

those horrors is to liberate the mind,

[ Page 628 ]

and to liberate the mind, Mr. Speaker, means taking

filth and goodness on the basis of a personal scale defined by parents

whose love and concern for those children will define the scales that

they want those children to grow up under.

I have complete faith in the government of the day. I am sure they

won't be oppressive in their approach to censorship, but that's not the

point, Mr. Speaker. The point is to build up that kind of intense

personal relationship between parent and child that teaches the child

how to make a choice and how to act on that choice, and when the state

interferes with that, it is threatening the very fabric of

responsibility between the parent and the child. I go to many movies,

but I make the decision with my wife as to what movie we will take our

children to. I don't want the state interfering with that relationship

that is most important with me, and I am going to oppose the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H. J. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree with a few

of the points that have been put forward. We turn around and complain

that we must put in censorship on pollution, but we don't want any

censorship on the pollution of the minds of the young.

Unfortunately there are too many instances where individuals will

take the attitude that they say, "All right, if the censor or the

classification officer allows it for public showing, then it must be

all right." I think that we can perhaps agree that if people want to

see any filth or any violence they want to, they can show it. But it is

another story when in public showing, there are great big marquees, and

there used to be the time that to entice the public they would show the

worst scenes in the movies in the pictures in the advertisements, and

now it has gone to the other extreme that they take the few decent

scenes in a movie and use them for advertisement of the picture to

entice people in to see the trash that is being shown.

You know, one of the members said there was no censorship in TV. I

beg to differ. We do not, as a Legislature, lay down the law as to what

is permissible for the movie companies to put into a film, but the

C.B.C. and the Board of Broadcast Governors do have a control on what

can be shown in the home, and sometimes it is not sufficiently applied,

and it might be very nice for people to say that the Prime Minister

said that the Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation,

but a Government-supported enterprise, the C.B.C., is spending half of

their time there.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a certain responsibility to set

certain standards. We set them and we could, in effect, say, "All

right, we have no right to indicate or censor what we do with alcohol

or with liquor." We could use the same argument as far, and say that,

well we shouldn't have the public school system and say what should be

taught, just leave it open and free to the teachers and to the

students. I think we can take this thing far too far.

I believe that there should be a certain guidance and direction, and

particularly if you are going to do classification, let's not monkey

around with them, let's put the classification that so many members

say, "Tell it as it is." Some of the classifications have been far too

weak for the type of movies shown, and what I deplore is that you might

turn around and say, "Let anybody see what they wish," but how many

times in the past five years has there not been a choice at any of the

movie theatres to see an unrestricted film. And I think it is time that

some directions were given and given in a much much stronger position

than has been in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G. H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the Bill, so far as it

relates to classification of motion pictures, is acceptable because it

is, in effect, the expression of opinion of a movie critic. Whether he

is a good critic or a bad critic we are not allowed to judge by any

specific thoughts that he may have, in that the mere depiction of a

black cat on an advertisement hardly tells you the intelligence or

otherwise of the movie critic who happens to be the censor of this

Government. I would rather hear an essay from him as to why he thinks

the movie is obscene, then we would be able to judge whether he was, in

our way of thinking, biased or prejudiced one way or another upon the

revelation of the truth. I see no way under this Bill that we are in

any way able to judge the critic who has the scissors in his hand, and

I am not particularly in favour of critics of any kind who have

scissors and the power to, in effect, change the truth as it appears to

any man who creates his idea of the truth.

The truth may be to you something distasteful. If, for example,

somebody wants to print a book on birth control, there are some people

who would say that that is obscene, and there are many cases in the

catalogue of the Supreme Court of the United States, such as the Scopes

trial, where the question of birth control had been ruled to be

obscene. To anyone living today, who has a broad and tolerant aspect,

that idea would have sounded like it was medieval, and there are still

people today who would say the subject of birth control is obscene.

There are people today who have children in school who are seeing

movies that are shown in school on sex and sex education who think that

the movies are obscene.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Saanich won't even listen to your speech.

MR. DOWDING: I have no doubt. And yet the subject of, for

example, does the censor cut out scenes of adultery in movies? Does he

cut out? No. I always go to the movies that I judge are the ones that

are fit to see in terms of my conception of fitness in art. That may

not be yours, Mr. Attorney-General, and you have no right to tell me

what movies I will see, and I have no right to tell you.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: I don't intend to.

MR. DOWDING: Well, this is what the import of this Bill is. I

said the other day, Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the subject generally,

that unless we know what the critic is doing how do we know what he

expurgated from the film with his scissors? Now, it is all very well to

say that the principle of the Bill is that if you don't like the

decision of the censor you don't show the film in British Columbia.

Well, that's no answer. It is no excuse to say that if you don't like

the view of the censor that you can appeal to an Appeal Board. It still

amounts to this, that that decision is by a censor and the censor's

decision is final.

I object to this matter on another ground as well, and it is an

important ground. The criminal law and the Criminal Code has dealt with

the subject, the Federal Parliament has dealt with the subject of what

you shall see and what you shan't see when it comes to the public

viewing of any

[ Page 629 ]

obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph

record, or other things whatsoever, or any public exhibition of an

indecent show.

Now,

section 150 of the Code means that the criminal law has spoken,

Federal Parliament has spoken, to determine what is a criminal offence

to display. Yet here we have the Province, in effect, setting up as a

criminal offence the displaying of anything that the censor has

prohibited, and when you read the specific portions of the Bill, you

will see that the censor has the power to prohibit, and if you do not

get his certificate and you go ahead and display your motion picture

you are subject to criminal prosecution by the censor, and I cannot see

how this Government can justify two sets of criminal law in regard to

the display of what is deemed to be obscene matter. If it is obscene

matter under the Federal criminal law, then it is not, in my view, the

subject of criminal or quasi-criminal punishment by this Government,

and you are intervening in a field that is not yours to intervene in.

Now, this happened before with Social Credit. Back in 1938, I think

it was 1938, the Alberta Government tried to pass three Bills, one was

on taxing of banks, another to consolidate the credit of Alberta

regulations, and the third was called — and this is the one to which I

refer —

An Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and

Information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is speaking beside the principle of this Bill.

MR. DOWDING: Well, I would say with respect, Mr. Speaker, my point in mentioning that is that it was a Bill to censor the press.

MR. SPEAKER: This has little to do with the Motion Picture Act.

MR. DOWDING: Now, why I say that the principle of this Bill

offends under our jurisdiction and our legal constitutional position is

this, that right in that particular reference to the Supreme Court, it

made it clear that where the Federal Government has, in the criminal

law provided exemptions for newspapers from prosecution or any

expression that is printed in that newspaper, it is not for a Province

to then lay down punishment for newspapers that do print the news as

they see it. It is not for the Provincial Government. Once it has been

assumed by the Federal authority, to set out the law and to decide what

is criminal in respect to the publication in the newspapers, you get

into a larger field than mere civil rights, and you have no right to

legislate, according to that decision.

Now, looking at what the principle of the Bill is here, one of the

principles is the idea of censorship. Now we have had another case in

the Supreme Court of Canada that dealt with broadcasting, and it was

held there that the broadcasting, once established by the Federal

Government, was not the subject of regulation or censorship within the

Province. Now broadcasting includes movies, they are shown within the

Province on television…. advertising is sometimes obscene, too….

but the point of it is, that once having occupied that field by a

criminal law and having declared what is obscene and what is not, are

we to have substituted a different judgment by a court which is not a

court, an individual who is not appointed by the Federal Government,

to, in effect, supplant the decisions of the courts of the land who

deal with the subject of obscenity?

This is where I fear that the Government is offending against a

basic principle, and that is they are trying to set up their own

standards outside of the standard that the law says is acceptable by a

Parliament that has the right to legislate, and I feel that on that

ground alone, this principle is abhorrent, both from a standpoint of

constitutional position, and from a standpoint of freedom and the right

of the individual to decide, subject only to one risk, that if he

exhibits or displays anything that is deemed by the criminal law to be

unlawful, he must take the consequences. But you do not let him make

that decision himself, when he is an exhibitor. Under this Bill, he

would be forced to apply and if he is turned down, he can't show the

film. If he goes ahead and shows the film, he is prosecuted for not

getting the certificate. So it's a devious means or ruse, to say that

we are going to legislate and censor the motion pictures.

Now I am all in favour of a proper method of letting the public know

and judge what the movies are all about, and which ones may offend

against the taste and the ideas and the notions of this particular

decade, but all of us in this House are well aware how motion pictures

have changed in the last ten years. All over the world there's been a

wind of tolerance that in some places has turned into a whirlwind of

pornography. Good examples of that may be seen in Copenhagen or

Denmark, I am told. But one of the curious things about removing all

censorship in Denmark, was the marked and immediate drop in sex crimes,

and the change in attitude of the public towards obscenity itself,

which is a curious thing about psychology. Although I am not one who

looks for movies with black cats on them, sometimes it is better that

we know all sides of life in order to know what is good and what is

right and what standards should be, and those who want to see movies

that are subject to license, will have to decide for themselves what

their standards are, but for me to impose on another the right to

judge, based upon my concepts of what is right is presumptuous, and for

a whole Legislature to do the same, to me is an offense against the

integrity and freedom of the individual to make his own decisions.

We have gone through the age that was typified from 1870 on when

censorship, prohibition of every kind, enveloped society and every work

and field of art. It involved family life, it involved every aspect of

the individual. That age has passed. The Courts have dealt with books,

they have dealt with movies, they have dealt with pictures, and more

and more in an age of enlightenment, Courts have said we must rely on

the individual, his own education, his background, his family, to

determine what standards he accepts. It's wrong, in my opinion, to go

forward on this principle of censorship implicit in the Bill No. 12.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm just a country lad and,

like many of the M.L.A.s, come from a one-theatre town, if we even have

that many theatres in it, and we had heard word, you know, that down at

the flesh pots of Victoria and Vancouver the theatres are nothing but

garbage cans with seats, and had looked forward, perhaps, to doing a

little personal research into the subject. However, the House Leader,

in setting out the business, has sort of prevented that with the night

sittings, and by the time the weekends roll around they change the

movies at the local theatres.

But I can't agree with some of the propositions which

[ Page 630 ]

have been expressed from the other side of the

House, with respect to responsibility, and that is that a lot of these

films sort of show life as it is, that they show all sides of life. I

would agree with the member from Esquimalt in his comments in respect

to TV and our C.B.C. I think that in many, they are showing a very

small aspect of life and blowing it up out of all proportion, and that

in showing these to youngsters and so forth, they are not getting a

balanced view of what, in fact, life is all about. They talk about

censorship versus classification. We see in one state, in Michigan,

where it was proposed in their Legislature that they start taxing on

the basis of their classification where under a Bill proposed there,

theatre owners would be taxed $50 to show an M-rated film, $75 for an

R-film, and $100 for an X-rated film, letting the public purse benefit

from some of the trash which is being shown. I agree with the Leader of

the Opposition, that parents certainly have a responsibility, but so

does the Province, and I think that in this Bill it has hit a

compromise between classification and censorship and, like one of the

members from the North Shore, agree that it is certainly far better

than we have now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard

MR. B. PRICE: Mr. Speaker,

just a few words on this. I support this Bill, and I do so because I am

of the opinion that society has reached the level that it has today by

virtue of regulation, and there is no doubt that if we permit complete

showing of films without control, unbalance would certainly prevail. As

it has already been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, some

films are totally inappropriate, and even some of the films that I see

over the television, I don't want them in my home, and I very often

have taken the trouble to turn them off.

I don't see how anyone could complain about this particular Bill

because it has taken away the authority to censor films, and in fact

the classifier will not even look at films that are going to be shown

at a university, or at film societies, or in educational institutions,

and on that basis I fail to see, utterly, why there would be any

objection to this Bill being passed. But there is no doubt, as far as I

am concerned, that unless there is some classification, the movement

will always be down, and instead of having films that are worthy and

documentary and films which are going to improve the standard of

living, you are going to have something which will break it down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D. G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one thing occurs to me just to

begin, and I don't want my remarks to be protracted. But I would like

to say that the Liberal position reminds me of a Charlie Brown

expression, "How can we lose when we are so sincere?" You know there

are two principles, and they admit the two principles, they oppose one

principle and they support the other principle. You know, if you are

against the principle then how can you support the thing in principle?

So it is just a matter of being placed in a position, and we have taken

a stand in our party, that because of the position that we are placed

in we have to go against the Bill right down the line because of the

fact that there is censorship involved. While we agree with the

classification, we certainly don't agree with the censorship for two or

three reasons.

The problem here is that there is a bias, and there is a bias in

practically every individual. My problem with this Government is the

fact that they are going to appoint the censor, the director, and a lot

of people say that the current director is a great man and so on and so

forth, and they also will appoint the Appeal Board. I notice that the

Appeal Board has appointed Chairman and others through the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, decides in their infinite wisdom who

should be on that Board, this same Government accused us of being

Marxist Socialists. That was never censored out of their advertising,

and yet it is incorrect and I don't trust them to put up this kind of a

Board, that's the kind of situation that I feel that we….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the truth.

MR.COCKE: …that's not the truth and you know it, Mr. Attorney-General. Absolutely.

So therefore, as far as I am concerned, I would like to see our

children given an opportunity to be disciplined in this regard by their

parents, and not by this Government who is so almighty and so

all-knowing — that's our position. I don't think this position of being

able to support one principle and not another, is legitimate. I think

that that is the situation that we have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I

think, in that we are moving in this Bill from censorship to

classification, I think that it is a basically sound concept which I

can support. However, I think we must do more than just change the name

of a censor, indeed if we intend to change his job to reclassification,

we should omit the censorship section.

I would say that a point that hasn't been brought forward is that we

should be reminded that the film industry today is a cultural art form.

I think a very valid cultural art form, and it is being adjudicated

constantly, just as other art forms. Be it in the field of sculpture,

while one person might find the Michelangelo’s David an obscene statue,

another person might find the modern art, where you can't even

recognize this form, as a form of trash that isn't worthy of being

observed.

Now I think that the current censor that we happen to have is using

great discretion and doing a very fine job. I have seen many of the

films that he has censored, and I think that in thinking of a film like

Romeo and Juliet, he didn't touch this great love film, and as a

result, the actors and actresses in the film were able to present this

the way the author Shakespeare had intended, and the judgment that he

used was good here. But just because he happens to agree with my

particular bias, doesn't mean that that is necessarily the right thing,

and I would say that I think that when it comes to the discussion of

the sections, this is one

section that is certainly going to need

changes here.

I think that again, while we are taking out of the Act the

description to him of the things that he must censor, and certainly

they are ridiculous, we again forget the fact that probably more

important than cutting out scenes of nudity, certainly I would agree,

several of the speakers have mentioned that there is much obscenity in

violence and much obscenity in senses of values.

I know that I was at a movie recently called "The Sundance Kid" or something like that. Now that movie, I

[ Page 631 ]

really enjoyed, it was a good movie, but I think

perhaps the whole movie itself should have been censored, because of

the attitude. It was presented in a very humourous attitude, honouring

violence, honouring bank robbers, and a very gory, bloody ending. The

same thing, and you could look to the type Bonnie and Clyde type of

thing. This is the kind of thing that should be censored if we are

going to have a censor, rather than the scenes relating to nudity.

Now another point that I think needs to be made. I am of the opinion

that my rights as an individual, my freedom of choice to see and hear

as an adult, will be infringed upon here. I think it is not necessary,

because the market will regulate itself, and we can see this, because

if you look at the ratings of the shows, and if you look at the

attendance and the high gross in shows, you find out that the Walt

Disney shows are the shows that are making the money, and this is what

people want to and are going to see today. If you want to take an

example of the excesses of nudity that are being indicated by the

restrictive show, if this was so, that this demand was seen as intense

as we figured, then certainly the shows down in Blaine would be

overcrowded constantly with their….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a funny thing that you should reflect on Walt Disney.

MR. WENMAN: …Walt Disney films are doing extremely well.

They are big money makers — yes, they are. Well we can argue that

point, but perhaps we should get some statistics, but I think the

market will regulate itself. I think that we should look at the film as

a cultural art form, and I think that we should move further and

further towards the classification of films and away from censorship.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister will close the debate.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in opening the debate on

this Bill this afternoon I predicted that there wouldn't be any

unanimity in this House on the question of censorship, and I see that

that prediction has already come true. I do want, as well, in closing

this debate, to acknowledge the sentiments expressed by the Leader of

the Opposition when he said he had complete faith in the Government of

the day in that we wouldn't be oppressive in our censorship. I

appreciate that statement, because many of the remarks today made on

the subject of censorship have been rather divorced from the reality of

the situation as to what applies in the Province of British Columbia

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do we know?

MR. PETERSON: Well, let me put it this way. You had a statute

on the books of this Province, I don't know for how long, it long

precedes this Government, but when the honourable member from Burnaby

was speaking, he had to go to the Province of Alberta and bring in

Social Credit legislation referring it in likeness to this Bill, rather

than dealing with the Bill that's on the statute books now and

comparing it with the Bill that's before the House today, and here's a

great mistake that the N.D.P. are making.

I find it somewhat difficult to; approve of the position taken by

the Liberals at all times but I have to, in this particular instance,

because they acknowledge that this is an improvement over the existing

legislation. The N.D.P. acknowledge it, too, but they say they're going

to vote against it, Mr. Speaker, and by voting against it, voting

against this Bill, it means that the old Moving Pictures Act remains in

full force and effect with much more censorship than this Bill has ever

thought of. So that is, I suggest, a ridiculous situation and a great

mistake for the N.D.P. In this House, and I want you to know that

before you exercise your vote. You know, one would think that if they

were totally opposed to censorship in this instance, they would be as

some of the other honourable members have pointed out, in other

instances. One would think, too, that the Theatre Association of the

Province, if there were these dangers that the honourable members

across the way talk about, would be opposed to censorship. But I'd like

to quote from a brief which they presented to me in which they opposed

any easing of censorship. These are the people in the business in the

Province of British Columbia showing these pictures, showing these

pictures.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're in it to make money.

MR. PETERSON: Well, you know, if they were in it completely

to make money would they not want to eliminate all censorship? All

censorship? I would think so. But what do they say, Mr. Speaker? They

say that, "Any easing of this situation would be an open invitation to

irresponsible film makers and distributors to flood B.C. with cinematic

pornography that lacks any redeeming social value." They point out that

this year, this past year, the censor in British Columbia has rejected

no less than 20 films, the highest figure ever in the Province, and for

this they congratulate him, because theatre owners are certain that

these films are of little artistic worth and do not deserve to be shown.

They also say that as theatre owners who show films in the Province

that they do not wish to police their own industry, they want the

Government to continue to reject these films that have no artistic

value and are simply in the category that I mentioned, or undue

violence, in the areas in which the censorship has been exercised in

the past.

Mr. Speaker, there will of course, I'm sure, be no agreement on

this, but I think, and I reiterate this once more, that surely it

should be the objective of all members to at least improve an existing

situation in terms of legislation, and that's what we're asking you to

do today, and I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 12 be now read

a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary,

minded, No. I think the Ayes have it.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 13, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 13,

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act. The Honourable Minister.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 13 is

an Act to

Amend the Payment of Wages Act. The main purpose of this Bill, I would

suggest, is twofold. One, to extend the benefits of the Payment of

Wages Act and this method of collecting unpaid wages to additional

workmen, and the second purpose of the legislation, the primary

purpose, is to strengthen the means of collecting unpaid wages in the

Province.

At present, the Payment of Wages Act applies only to

[ Page 632 ]

employers in certain listed industrial undertaking.

Now with this Bill, the amendment, it would apply to all employees, and

then subject to certain specific exemptions. So it's just completely

reversing the situation in terms of its application, and it will have

much broader application when these amendments are passed. This Act has

been an effective instrument and has provided effective means to

collect unpaid wages on behalf of employees in the Province of British

Columbia.

I don't think it's necessary to outline in any detail the difficulty

that an employee faces when he has worked for a month perhaps, or even

longer, and finds that at the end of his period of service that the

employer hasn't the money to pay his wages, money that he has been

relying on to make payments that he has committed for himself. Before

this Act, it was necessary to either lay charges in the Magistrates

Courts, which was not a very effective method of collecting money and

was resented by the Bench because they felt this was not an appropriate

thing for them to be engaged in. Or the other alternative was to go and

see your friendly neighbourhood lawyer and take action in a higher

Court.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Where is there a friendly neighbourhood lawyer?

MR. PETERSON: Well, you're sitting between two of them now,

Mr. former Leader of the Opposition. I thought you would be kinder to

the two people that are sitting on each side of you today than you

apparently are.

But nevertheless, now we provide this procedure where you can make

an application to the Industrial Relations Board. You don't need a

lawyer to represent you. The Board files a certificate. This

certificate has the same force and effect as a judgment of a Court, and

can be collected in like manner. Through this means, in this last year

alone, if you've checked in the Annual Report, we collected $277,370 a

total of 135 certificates were issued. But if the amendments which

we're proposing now had been in effect, we would have been able to

collect substantially more, not only because of the broadening of the

application of the Act, but the second major principle, and that is

that we will give wages now, in this legislation, a new priority which

they have not had before, and that is, "Wages owing under this Act will

constitute a lien and charge in favour of the Board, payable in

priority over all liens, charges, or mortgages of every person in

respect of the real or personal property of the employer, including

those of the Crown in the right, of the Province."

This is a very important principle, and it means that in cases where

the Crown has had priorities in the past in terms of lien, such as

workmen's compensation claims, now, with the passage of this Bill,

wages, unpaid wages, will have a top priority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even over compensation?

MR. PETERSON: Even over compensation. We've had cases in the

past — we had one where a certificate was filed for some $10,000 for

unpaid wages, and we found that others, including workmen's

compensation, had priority and therefore we could not collect on behalf

of the workman. Another instance, we issued a certificate on behalf of

15 employees for wages amounting to some $2,700 and there was the sum

of $22,000 available, but again, because of those who had prior liens,

all of this money went for other purposes and not one penny of it to

the unpaid wages.

Now in changing the priority, which is a major principle as I said,

coming ahead of everything else, we're also changing the time limit

both in terms of the limitation period to commence your claim, to bring

it before the Board, and also the amount that you can collect. In other

words, there haven't been any limitations up till now, but we're

changing that to six months. You can only collect six months wages. If

your employer hasn't paid his wages and you continue working beyond

that time, you either don't collect or you can go to a Court of law to

collect, but you can't use this procedure to collect more than six

months wages, which I think is a reasonable provision.

Also, the other provision, that you must file your application

within six months of the last time he failed to pay you, because we

have had instances in the past where people will file, bring forward

old claims, and this creates a great deal of work on behalf of the

Department of Labour in terms of trying to find the old books of

account. Perhaps the employer has quit his business, folded up, gone

elsewhere, no records left, etc. It makes it a very difficult job even

to determine whether the amount, in fact, is owing. So these are the

two limitations that are included in this legislation. I think those

are the major principles of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I move the Bill be

now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this Act as certainly a

step forward, and in fact in two of the sections, a great step forward,

and I think the Minister should be congratulated on that.

The principles involved are many, and the interesting thing, just

before I get into some of the details of those principles, was that

when we caucused this Bill, Mr. Speaker, we found that a number of

M.L.A.'s on this side of the House had got differing stories to tell as

far as their successes in previous years over dealing with the

Department of Labour on this business of Payment of Wages Act. I, for

one, found that on the two occasions that I had been there I had some

success. Others had not had so much success. I think perhaps this Act

may, indeed, strengthen the whole situation and, in fact, may see an

end to the difference of experience that M.L.A.'s find when they go

into the Department for help on constituents' problems regarding the

Payment of Wages Act. So that was rather interesting when we did

discuss this Bill in caucus.

I certainly think that the inclusion of a deceased employer, the

provisions regarding liens, the provisions contained in

section 9, are

excellent. I am going to ask the Attorney-General if he will, when he

winds up the debate, however, or at possibly some future date, to deal

with the question of other Acts of Parliament. He mentioned the Bank

Act, and I think that's going to be rather important, Mr.

Attorney-General. A lot of people are going to read this Bill, a lot of

people are going to read specifically that their wages have priority,

and I think that maybe you should tackle this thing as soon as possible

to get some sort of ruling that we may use, because I don't know how

many times M.L.A.'s have phoned up, particularly in the field of small

contractors, regarding this problem, and it's as well for us to know

that answer before we may mislead anyone.

There are, however, two things in the Bill that we cannot support, and the Attorney-General won't be surprised at that,

[ Page 633 ]

because he's already seen the amendments on the

Order Paper. One is, of course, the exclusions; we cannot understand

why there are the exclusions contained in the Bill. We know, south of

the River particularly, the kind of things that are going on in

horticulture, and I don't see in this day and age why those people are

protected. I realize it's all part and parcel of other Acts, but I'm

not so sure that it's fair to say that those that are included in one

particular Act administered by the Department of Labour shouldn't be

included in another, particularly when it comes down to something so

basic as getting what he's entitled to, getting what he's entitled to.

Certainly some of the records — I don't want to castigate the industry

by any stretch of the imagination — but some of the wages that are paid

and some of the risks that are undertaken by employees in the field of

horticulture — I wish the Minister of Agriculture was here — are far

too great, far too great. I wish the Minister would deal with that, and

we'll have an opportunity of perhaps voting on it in Committee.

Secondly, I'm not so sure that the time elements that the Minister

has introduced are really satisfactory, and here again, sufficient to

the day, let me say that amendments have been placed on the Order Paper

already. In short, Mr. Speaker, we want to congratulate the Minister on

two particularly forward looking steps, and we will support this Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. LA WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the Bill is

certainly a move forward and I join with the member from Surrey in

expressing surprise that, having moved this far with the Bill, the

Minister would have continued to exempt people from the benefits under

this Act. It seems to me that in this day and age an employee is an

employee, and if an employee needs the assistance of the officials of

the Department of Labour in a matter as important to him as securing

the payment of his wages, that the fact that he may be in one

particular occupation should not be a disadvantage to him. Why you

single out the P.G.E., why you single out employees who are in

professional columns, farm labourers, I just don't know, and it seemed

illogical that you wouldn't extend the rights, which are worthwhile

rights, to all employees.

I think, if I may point for a moment to one particular section,

section 10, quite obviously the Board has the right to facilitate the

payment of wages to the beneficiary, the heirs, of a deceased employee.

This is a step forward, because too often, for the collection of small

amounts of money, some heirs are being put to some unnecessary expense,

but this cuts through that and I am pleased to see this kind of move,

and I would really hope that the Minister could explain and perhaps

reconsider the exclusions that he has in

section 2.

I am a bit concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the extension of the rights

of assignment of wages. Now, the Department may have found that it was

involved in a lot of extra work in approving assignments which were

permitted under the existing legislation, but in many cases I have had

occasion to be concerned as to the way in which assignments of wages

have been taken by finance companies, people who are prepared to extend

credit, and it has been a brake, a protection to employees, when

they've been obliged to seek the permission of the Department in order

to allow these assignments to go forward. It's sort of given people a

second pause so that they could reconsider the advisability of the

move. It seems to me that the extension of it may cut down the amount

of work which the Department is faced, but it scarcely seems to be the

kind of protection that one would expect to wage earners.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about one aspect of this Bill which, in

my view, is becoming all too prevalent in the legislation that is being

presented to this House. That is found in

section 20 of the Bill, and

it is a matter of principle, whereby information which is obtained by

Departments of Government are not open to inspection by any person or

any Court. I really wonder at the non-disclosure provisions which are

finding their way into our legislation. Strangely enough, we find that

in this particular Bill, offences for breach of the Bill are punishable

under the

Summary Convictions Act. I would wonder how a conviction can

be obtained properly if the information obtained by the Department as a

result of its inspections are not open to examination by that Court.

There seems to be some conflict.

We also find in this Act an extension of the regulatory power of

Government and, indeed, an extension of the status which is given to

regulations. No one misunderstands the need in our legislation for the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to produce regulations. It's essential

to the proper working of many of the laws which are upon our statute

books. But we find now, in this particular Bill, such regulations are

deemed to be part of this Act and have the force of law as such, and

therefore, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is beginning to discharge

a function which is legislative in nature.

I would be concerned to know, when the Attorney-General closes the

debate, if he would deem a regulation which receives the status of

legislation can be changed by regulation, or whether those regulations

must be changed by amendment to the Act. I think this is an attitude, a

growing one, which we must guard against, and I would welcome some

comments from the Attorney-General in that regard.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support both

the previous speakers, one with regard to what the member from

Vancouver–Howe Sound said with regard to

section 20, and what my

colleague, the member from Surrey, has said with regard to agricultural

and other workers.

One of the things that we have found in studying Medicare, is that

while men and women employed in that profession, as professional people

may receive some of the highest wages on the continent, but very often

the tradesmen and tradeswomen that are working under them receive far

lower than the going rate for their trade, for their work. Now why

those people should be excluded from the protection of this legislation

I do not know. If there is any group in this Province which have

trouble getting slips with their pay, collecting over-time and back

money, it is the agricultural workers, and they too, as has been

mentioned, are excluded.

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, there is a case

that you and I discussed under your labour estimates. Just today in the

mail I've received a letter from one of the parties involved, stating

that their problem goes back until last April, which will soon be a

year. Now, according to this legislation, and the six months clause,

that we would assist them for the past six months, the immediate six

months but not for the year. This party has quit, and is now possibly a

little freer to kick up a bit of fuss and go after

[ Page 634 ]

the overtime, and hordes that have not been paid

them, so I to would like to suggest that the six months clause be

extended to at least one year. With regard to the letter that I'm

referring to, and which I just received this afternoon, I plan on

photostating it and letting you have a copy, because the overtime in

that particular area has not been paid in full.

Now, I'd like to conclude with one question, through you to the

Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. How quickly do you feel that the

Department of Labour will be able to act when a mill or an industrial

operation goes bankrupt? I'm thinking more of little gypo logging or

two by four milling concern, possibly in the interior, where he says,

"Well, we just have no money, we can't pay you." I had a case just

about the time we came down here. A chap came to me and said, "We

didn't get our pay Friday. The boss says he has no money." I said,

"Well have you been to Industrial Relations, Labour Relations?" and he

said, "Yes, but they told me to hire a lawyer, that we can't act

quickly enough in this particular case. You get yourself a lawyer."

…And, while my learned friend thinks that's a good idea, but the chap

probably couldn't afford to pay law and court presentation on one

week's 'wages, so he came to me…Oh, he really got action….

But really, the Department of Labour, through the Department of

Industrial Relations, I believe should be able to act as quickly as

possible to step in. If this legislation is going to get priority, as

it appears that it will, over other people that would have claims on

bankrupt concerns we have to be prepared to act quickly and I'd like to

ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister, how quickly does he

feel that the Department could and would act to protect a man who has,

wages coming, to protect him over and above other claims?

HON. L.R. PETERSON: As quickly as possible.

MR. HARTLEY: That doesn't answer my question. I guess I'll

have to call my learned friends to get in there and place an order of

restraint to protect other groups coming ahead, particularly with this

section 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, one

section of the Bill, I'm

not going to deal with sections, but one principle of this Bill that

I'd like to voice my objection to, and that is the fact that you have

left a number of the employees throughout the Province outside of this

protection. I don't think that any workers in the Province should be

passed over or placed in the position of second class citizens in this

regard.

It's my opinion that in this

section 2, that it should cover all

workers in the Province and not leave them out at all, because a person

that works on a farm or works on horticulture or works other places,

and I see where you can exempt any class of employer that you wish

throughout the Province in subsection 2, and I feel that anyone that is

working for wages should have this protection. Because if he hasn't got

this protection it's just as difficult for him to get along if he isn't

paid his wages as for anyone else. Why we should say to some employers,

you don't have to live up to this Act, and other employers you have to,

or to say to some workers you haven't got this protection, and to

others that you have this protection in regard to the payment of wages.

It just doesn't seem to me — it's not a complete story, and when you

are amending this Bill or bringing in this new Bill in regard to the

payment of wages, I can't understand why you didn't go all the way and

cover all the workers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 13 be now read

a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary

minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 14, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 14,

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this Bill represents a

continuing endeavour on our part to update and to streamline the

procedures throughout the Department, and many of these individual

amendments contained in this Bill are for that purpose, and can perhaps

be best dealt with in committee when we can deal with it

section by

section. But such things as the use of the two and a half foot hand

seal that we are still obliged to use in the Court Registry, we're

finding other means; and the filing of examinations for discovery as

part of the Court records, whether they're introduced into evidence or

not. This is the type of thing that some of these statutory provisions

are seeking to eliminate. Also, to simplify and streamline the various

methods by which the citizenry can reach the Court. There is one

amendment dealing with that, and I would hope that that will be but a

first step, that we might be able to make further progress in that

respect as well. I move the Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well I think, Mr. Speaker, that it should

be known that the lawyers in this House will rise and congratulate the

Attorney-General on taking a step which will make the Supreme Court of

this Province more available to the citizens of this Province, and will

do anything to cut out the procedures which may have hampered the

proper discharge of the business of that Court.

With respect to the seal, I would hope that the Attorney-General

would indicate that the seal would continue to be used upon. documents

in the form of judgments or orders, because it would be, I think, wrong

to use a stamp which might either be obliterated over the passage of

time, or indeed which might be capable of being forged. But the seal, I

would suspect, is not for documents of that kind.

I notice that the Attorney-General takes unto himself the right to

add some other words, and I would hope maybe the Attorney-General would

indicate what other words he has in mind to add after the word

"Columbia" in the second line of

section 8. Like "beautiful" or….

MR. PETERSON: You wouldn't object to "beautiful"? (laughter)

I MR. WILLIAMS: …and certainly we will be able to debate

section by

section when we get into committee, but I would like the

Attorney-General perhaps to ask some of his staff to consider

section 4

of this Bill because he might want to reconsider it. As I read the

section which is being repealed by

section 4, may have an effect on

section 73 as well, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, and

section

73 is one which deals with the certification of transcripts which have

[ Page 635 ]

been taken by the official reporter. I would think

it unfortunate if we lost the right to get certification by repealing a

section which would have an effect on other .sections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I hope in committee the

Attorney-General will tell us why, when a transcript of the proceedings

is made by a court reporter, whether it be in discovery, or trial, or

part of a witness's testimony, that should not be filed in the Court

Registry carbon copy of it. Because that makes it available (

a) to the

judge, (

b) to the other parties, or to the public. I think, otherwise,

it gives an advantage to the persons willing to pay for this

transcript, but on the other hand his opponent, who may not have the

money to spend in the course of the trial, can't look at the Court copy

and see just what evidence the one side has caused to be transcribed,

and so forth. There may be an answer, but I think that when one side

asks for any part of the evidence to be typed out, I think it should be

filed in the Court Registry, and I haven't heard anything that would

change my mind up to the present time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby~Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: I think, in the main, we support the second

reading of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I do have similar concern over the

exclusion of

section 72 of the Act. Taking that out, it's going to

deprive, presumably, parties from requiring court reporters to make

extended notes and transcripts, if you read that

section that is being

excluded, and it sets out the duties of the official reporter in that

section, which is hereby to be repealed. That seems to be the major

point in the Bill. The other aspects of it are somewhat in the nature

of housekeeping, and certainly are welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: I'll certainly check the point that has

been raised about the inter-relation of

section 4 with

section 73. But

in terms of the transcripts and the filing of them in the Registry, the

current procedure is that when there is an examination for discovery

the original is filed with the Registrar, becomes part of the file,

even though none of it may be used or read into the record at the trial

itself. From our point of view, from an administrative point of view,

this of course creates, you can imagine the bulky files that this

builds up in the Registry and that's one reason for eliminating it, but

I think the other and perhaps the more serious reservation I have is

that this should not be available to the judge and everyone else until

it is read in, and….

AN HON. MEMBER: It would form part of the record afterwards.

MR. PETERSON: Well, what is read in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only after it's been read in.

MR. PETERSON: Yes, yes. My understanding is that it applies

to the examination for discovery but I will check that point and the

inter-relationship of those sections.

My understanding of the current procedure is that these transcripts

from examination for discovery are part — the original of those do go

into the file — and that's what we are trying to eliminate. I will

check the amendment, and if we haven't done so we will want to propose

an amendment in that respect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 14 be now read

a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary

minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 15, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 15, Jury Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the main proposals of this

Bill are to narrow the exemptions for persons who can be called for

jury duty, and also to simplify the procedure that we are using and

have used in the past in terms of the selection of jurors.

Under the new list for selection of jurors the Act provides for a

broader social base for persons that can be required to serve on a

jury. Basically, every person who is lawfully registered as a voter at

elections for members of the Legislative Assembly is qualified and is

liable to serve as a juror, unless specifically exempted by the Act,

and the list of exemptions is much smaller than that which had obtained

heretofore. A person, of course, can always apply even though they are

not included in those exempted lists. They can always apply for

exemptions on the ground of illness or hardship when they are summonsed

for jury duty, and this will often be the case.

The Act also provides for a simplified method of selection of jurors

by sheriff. Under the old system, in a series of complicated

administrative steps, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the

Provincial Assessor for the area, and the Sheriff, were responsible for

the selection of juries to appear at the Assizes throughout the

Province, and now we will, in this new Act, provide the Sheriff with

the responsibility of the selection of jurors.

Recent studies were conducted by the various Bar Association groups,

including the Criminal Justice Committee of the British Columbia

section of the Canadian Bar, and the Law Society itself. In addition,

we have had studies conducted within our own Department in consultation

with our Sheriff in the Province, and all of these studies have

resulted in the provisions which now appear in the new Jury Act, and I

move that the Bill be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

MR. G. B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the principle of the Bill.

There is one item, though, that I would like to again redirect to

the attention of the Government, and the Attorney-General in specific,

through you, Mr. Speaker, and that is this, that we all recognize the

fact that it is the responsibility of a citizen to serve upon a jury,

but in many cases the duty is far, far from pleasant. I think for this

particular task, these people who are jurors in the Province should be

entitled to receive at least equal treatment, and at

[ Page 636 ]

the present time under the new Bill, Mr. Speaker,

there is provision made for recompense for the jurors in civil trials

and jurors in criminal trials may receive the $10 expenses which is an

increase, plus any necessary lodging or out-of pocket expenses, and I

think this is a good thing.

But the point that I find somewhat disquieting, Mr. Speaker, is the

fact that coroner's jurors are once again left in the cold, and I think

that they should be included within the provisions of this Jury Act.

There are a number of coroner's juries that have to sit throughout each

and every year, and their job is, I think, somewhat particularly

unpleasant. It takes a great deal of time and there is no logical

reason that I know of why they should not be included to receive some

kind of remuneration.

If the Attorney-General would take a look at the Orders of the Day ,

I have proposed, on Page 17, an amendment to include the coroner's

juries, and if the Government sees fit to do that, of course I am most

delighted to withdraw the amendment, but I think it is high time. I

spoke about this last year, and as a matter of fact the year before.

This point has been raised to me by a number of coroners in the

Province of British Columbia. If you are selected, or requested, to

attend a coroner's jury you've just got to go, the same way as any

other jury. These people take their day off work, sometimes their two

and three days off work, and there is no reason why they should not

receive exactly the same type of recompense that a civil juror does or

a criminal juror.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G. H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I think that most of the Bill

is a useful attempt to streamline some of the procedure. I point out a

number of problems that result from this, from the difficulties in

administering justice with juries. One of the problems is that people

are really sometimes inclined to avoid the voters list for fear that

they will be placed on a jury. It is an excellent idea that they not be

summonsed once in more than two years, I should say in less than two

years, because it is not too great

an act of citizenship to serve on a

jury once in every two years. As it works in practice it is seldom

anything like that often that one serves on a jury, so I think that is

a useful provision. I think it is also a useful provision to allow the

Court the discretion to decide whether a person shall serve on a jury,

particularly I note under

section 28 of the Act. I think that is a

useful provision.

But I want to say another thing that I wish the Government would

take a good look at. Most jurors may serve for less than ten days and

therefore some compensation should be made for the loss that they have

in wages, and they often lose wages in some occupations. Or if they are

self-employed like a plumber or a painter or a small shopkeeper who has

no help, they lose so much that the $10 a day proposed will not go to

pay the rent for the lost time, let alone feed their families. I'll

give you an example, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman.

There was a trial of five people which lasted 44 days in the New

Westminster Assizes a few years ago. Several of those people in those

44 days went broke. One of them lost his shop, had to close it up, he

couldn't pay the rent. There was no way that the Crown was about to

compensate him for the loss of his shop in doing his duty as a citizen.

He had a small repair shop, radios and television sets, he just

couldn't carry on, and you don't get much chance to make other

arrangements. If you can't find somebody to take your place to keep

your shop going, what do you do. It's all right if you've got a big

hardware store, you can manage that, you don't have to be there all the

time to operate it. But I am going to suggest that the Attorney-General

take a good look at this problem of all those jury trials that last

more than ten days, that the juror's pay or remuneration or really

compensation be increased to $25 a day and expenses. That's what we get

here, and it is little enough for some people who are forced to stay in

town when they live some distance away, pay practically all their

living expenses, feed their family at home, and you must remember we

are not just talking about the metropolitan areas. If the