1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 829 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): As this is Private Members Day, would you consider moving to private bills?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill 88,

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act . The Honourable Member for Surrey adjourned the debate.

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

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act

has within it, Mr. Speaker, some changes in terms of the make-up of the

regional boards and some changes in the areas in which the Park

Authority could move, namely, the question of trails. It was my

intention, Mr. Speaker, to raise a number of points of principle

regarding the membership of the Parks Board. However, since I adjourned

the debate, Mr. Speaker, it has come up under another bill which is, I

think, a better vehicle to debate that particular issue.

May I say, however, on second reading of this bill, that, whilst it

has given certain administrative freedoms to the Regional Parks

Authority it still does not, in my view, give them sufficient freedom

in order to meet the problems, particularly in the lower mainland? I

feel that the bill falls short in meeting the problems which I've

announced to the Government in two successive Sessions, regarding the

land assembly programmes in the Lower Mainland Regional District.

However, I think we can usefully debate that, as I say, under the other

bill. This administrative amendment can be supported by this side of

the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 88 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 100, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 100,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act . The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, there have been amendments to the Municipal Act and the purpose of the amendments are to make what is already the best Municipal Act

in Canada better. It is interesting that the emerging Province of the

Yukon has very recently made a decision, having examined all Municipal Acts in Canada, to adopt the British Columbia model.

The three items I draw to your attention are the changes having to

do with voting procedures, which are self-explanatory. The second one

has to do with the provision for a new approach to zoning, having to do

with the introduction of the principle of the land use contract. The

third one which will take some working up during the course of this

year, and it's the intention of the department to involve the industry

and manufacturing people, elements in the trade union movement, in

bringing together what will in effect be a looseleaf set of by-laws

which will have a flexible method of variance and a flexible method of

amendment and will try to fit a standardization process into the

context of the British Columbia scene, leaning heavily on the National

Building Code. I move second reading.

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

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, there are

a number of sections in this bill and, for the short time we've had it,

one has had to work like the proverbial one-armed paperhanger to look

it all over. But there is one area that disturbs me and that is the

section dealing with the changes in the community planning, the

sections which state that the community plan will have no effect on the

areas which are at the present time tree farm licenses and timber sales

or timber areas. I suggest that this is a retrograde step. I think the

situation here is that the people in the area are losing their rights

to deal with the forests in the areas within their regional districts.

I think it's a mistake to have this change. I think, at the present

time, where the regional districts do have some say in the area, this

should be retained. We'll be speaking more on the other sections of

this bill in the committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, there is a

section of

this bill that we see recurring again and again and again in various

forms of legislation referring to the rule of the minority. I'm

wondering, once again, as we talk in terms of requiring 60 per cent

votes rather than just 50 or 51 per cent votes, as I look back into the

history of Parliament, I wonder if we are not violating a very

important rule — a rule that was established as far back in the Greek

times of Aristotle, who said that the rule of the majority of free and

equal citizens as opposed to monarchy and aristocracy, the rule

respectively of individuals consisting of the best citizens. Even he

recognized that he would limit the vote of the best citizens but,

still, the majority of those best citizens would make a decision, not

60 per cent, but the majority. In addition to that I would refer you to

the rules of Beauchesne , page 50,

section 98, which reads as follows — because I wonder if this isn't in contradiction of the British North America Act

and the Magna Carta, as well: "The principle that the majority rules

was conceded in

section 49 of the Magna Carta, which reads: 'In all

those things which are appointed to be done by these twenty-five

barons, if it happen that all the twenty-five have been present and

have differed in their opinions about anything, or if some of them who

had been summoned would not or could not be present, that which the

greater part of those who were present shall have provided and decreed,

shall be held as firm and as valid as if all the twenty-five had agreed

upon it."' The British North America Act

states further, "Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be

decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and

when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a

vote."

I'm concerned that, once again, in this we are

[ Page 830 ]

perpetuating a principle of rule by the minority

that, at least, if it is not to the letter of the law, it is opposed to

the spirit and the intent of the great charter by which we sit in this

Legislature.

I'm pleased to see that it has moved one step further but I think it

should have moved all the way and allowed for a majority vote in every

case, which is by the very right that each of us sit here and hold

office. I'm asking you today, as Speaker, if you could make a judgement

or a ruling or an opinion on the constitutionality of us putting in

legislation, even if it were a rule, a regulation, but to actually

place in

an act of our Legislature the principle that the minority

shall rule. I believe this principle is wrong and I cannot support the

bill on this basis, until a corrective statement can be shown in some

way that this is not rule by minority. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Member raises a point of

constitutionality. The Speaker, of course, not only cannot, but must

not judge points of law. The Supreme Court of Canada deals with the

interpretation of the British North America Act . So far as the notation in Beauchesne is concerned, this House is not governed by Beauchesne ,

only that it's used as a reference if and when our own Rules are silent

and nothing appears in the British practice. I find no Point of Order

raised by the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the changes in this act that put the Blue Book

of the National Building Code of Canada and our own B.C. Provincial

Plumbing Code into effect in every part of the Province. The Minister

and I have been agreeing on this for two or three years and we're

delighted to finally see this come into the House. I also agree with

using our own plumbing code rather than that of the National Building

Code. I think the Provincial one is a better one than the National one

in this case.

I am concerned, and I think some segments of the construction

industries are concerned, about the apparent ease with which changes

can be made once we have instituted this as a Provincial code. The

Minister may do this very simply by regulation and, if this is done

very often, very easily, we're going to end up by rapidly drifting

away, I'm afraid, from the National Code, and we conceivably can get

back into some of the problems we've already had. I hope the policy

will be to make such changes only when they're very essential, very

necessary, and perhaps only after reference to some sort of special

board, which is not referred to in the bill. Perhaps this appeal board

could conceivably be used for that purpose.

Referring to the Building Code Appeal Board, I hope, Mr. Speaker,

that it will be large enough. It refers really only to one person in

the bill. I hope it will be large enough to include representation from

all segments of the construction industry, every part of it, to

adequately serve the Minister. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are

conflicts in this code that we're talking about, this Blue Book . There are conflicts with other present Provincial Statutes, including the Gas Act , the Electric Act , Fire Marshals Act , the Boiler and Pressure Vessels Act

and the regulations thereunder do have a great many conflicts. I hope

the Minister will explain perhaps what action is going to be taken to

resolve these conflicts and which will take precedence — the present

regulations that we have or the new code.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister give us some idea of when this particular

section might be proclaimed?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in rising on debate

on this bill, in particular on the standardization of the building

codes, I hope that safeguards will be applied to stop some over-eager

innovators from wrecking everything. However, it is going to cover

plumbing and I think that there should also be regulations included

regarding septic tanks and waste disposal because, right now, the whole

situation is far too lax. I think, in the building code, we should have

the inclusion, where there is no sewage system, that there should be

certain specifications for septic tanks.

In the other part of the bill, I notice that the Minister is

including development zoning and I would like to see him go one step

further and put in density zoning as well. I think right now we're not

fully or properly utilizing some of our areas. There can be… (interruption) .

You can do it, because there can be some areas where perhaps say 100

acres, where 20 acres would be best suited for the residences, for

residential use, and yet the other could be left as a green area, as a

green strip. If you put density zoning in, say, a specific area, there

can only be so many housing units per acre or per 10 acres and I think

we can do away with a lot of the problems that we're facing today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, of course, I accept the words of the Minister that the Municipal Act

that we have in this Province is perhaps second to none. It certainly

should be. I can't remember any Statute which has been amended more

than this one has over the years. The Minister never seems to be able

to make up his mind but, slowly, we get changes. As a matter of fact,

it must be a very good Statute in order to allow our municipalities to

develop as well as they can under the gentle ministrations of the

Minister. It must be a good act, in order to protect the municipalities

from you.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we now get around to discussing it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that. I join

with the Honourable Member from Delta in the concern that he expresses

about the continued impact that this act permits to minorities. I join,

too, with the Member from Esquimalt in expressing appreciation at the

changes that are to take place in the zoning and the development of our

municipalities in the increased powers and increased concerns that

municipalities must have for proper development of their areas. I trust

that I heard correctly, during the remarks of the Member from

Esquimalt, when he raised his question of zoning, that the Minister

considers this to be in this

section because, as I read it, I'm sure

that the matter of density is included within the new

section that is

being provided.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to have concern at the actions of this

Government when it brings in proper amendments to the act, that it, at

the same time, takes action which diminishes, the status of local

government in this Province. Time and time again, we've heard the

Minister make pronouncements

[ Page 831 ]

that local governments are a full level of

government within our system, entitled to fulfil their responsibilities

and to discharge the powers that are given to them under the act. Yet,

when we find this significant change with regard to the development of

lands in one

section of this bill, we find, if we turn to one of the

later sections in this bill, that the municipal government can't use

this new provision without first obtaining the approval of the

Minister. Then, we… (interruption) .

Well, why limit it? Are local governments a level of government or are

they not? And we also find that, so far as the regions are concerned,

if the regions turn down any developer from a proposal which he may

wish to make, the Minister has got power to over-ride the regional

board. There's not much point, Mr. Speaker, in saying that these local

government levels, be they municipalities or be they regional

districts, are a full level of government in this Province, if the

Minister is always going to hold the reins.

The Minister speaks, from time to time, to the fact that no

additional monies are going to be made available from the Provincial

Government, unless and until these regional districts, these local

governments, become efficient, operating levels of Government. Yet,

each time we pass amendments to the act, we find that the Minister

prevents them from so acting. In matters of development, matters of

zoning, no one knows better what should take place in a local area, in

a local community, than the government which is directly elected by

that area and understands the situation. If they, in their wisdom,

determine that a particular development is not acceptable, then, I say

that it is wrong for the Minister to exercise his judgement, which

would have a tendency to over-rule the decisions made at the local

level.

I can recall when regional districts were first contemplated in this

Province and there was the right given on the part of local Governments

to opt out. This didn't work and the Minister took away that authority.

He substituted it with authority which gave greater and greater power

to him, the Minister. All I say is that if we continue with these kind

of amendments, local governments are not going to attain the status

which the Minister says they must attain if they are to be efficient

and to enjoy the full respect and full benefit that is available to

them from this Government at the Provincial level.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I'm

pleased to see the progress that we do make from Session to Session in

this sense of growth. I'm sure that it's the results of municipalities

wishing to take onto themselves more and more responsibility for the

needs of the local citizens. I think this is as it should be. I'm glad

to see that in the area of becoming provenders of information, they

will now have an added bit of tantalizing bait to offer the people,

probably, and in cablevision, television, etc. and I think this is

good. I hope that they don't feel that the entertainment field, though,

should be taken over in respect to theatres, as well. I trust it's only

meant that they may be able to provide that wonderful, necessary

assessment to our household in the field of television.

I would look at and canvass the

section regarding the setting up of

municipalities and certain steps and procedures. It seems the more we

get into this identifying of procedures we may forget that it's

impossible to legislate all situations. I think it demands a

flexibility for situation ethics in the field of allowing people

self-government or the privilege of going into self-government. I think

of the Islands and the way in which they've got pocket development. I

trust that they won't have pocket municipalities that later on create

vulcanized divisions that never can be vulcanized. I like to see

harmonious situations on those Islands and I think we've got to work

with situation ethics. I trust the Minister may keep that in mind, that

it's not meant to sterilize areas and that we can't conform to a

harmonious, overall picture on, say an island, because we're looking

only at the mainland or something. We're not looking at the pocket

developments that have taken place in the growing situations that have

taken place on these little kingdoms of their own, as it were.

I hope that there will be always room for situation ethics in the Municipal Act.

Then, I think of the National Housing Code. It's good to have

conformity there but, again, we have far more improvements under

Canadian standards. Frequently, the regulations under Canadian

standards seem to run contrary to what National Building Codes are and

you get, specially in manufactured housing, you get a code that meets

all the Canadian standards, under the electrical standards and the

plumbing standards, and then you find the National Building Code says,

"No dice." People are buying these manufactured, modular homes,

bringing them into the country and then finding that the

municipalities, under certain zoning by-laws that they have picked up

from the National Code, forbids these homes to be placed in the

community. We have a contradiction of purpose here and I trust that we

will be able to accept both standards. I think, where possible, where

one standard is superior to the other and not named, it should go

forthwith, and accepted that the Canadian standards will be acceptable

as well as the National Building Code. I would hope that this would be

covered.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): I'm waving this orange

flag, Mr. Speaker, because at the bottom it says, "When in distress,

hoist or wave this flag." It's an international orange flag. It's a

recognized distress signal and I'm waving this on behalf of the

municipalities of British Columbia — because of their financial

distress…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR.STRACHAN: …because the Government has failed to

restructure the tax divisions within the Province of British Columbia.

I think the proof of the fact that the Government has failed to

restructure the tax system adequately is based on two things: one, that

the Government continually attaches a virtue to being debt free, the

Government continually claims that it, as a Government of the Province

of British Columbia, is debt free, but the Government continually

refuses to allow the municipalities the kind of financial income that

allows them to remain debt free.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. STRACHAN: Within the principle of this act, and if you

want to divert a Section, I will, it allows the municipalities to

borrow on a short-term basis, it doubles the amount they can borrow on

a short-term basis. And, of course… (interruption) . Well, as I say, distress, distress. They have to borrow money on a short-term basis and then

[ Page 832 ]

convert it into a long-term basis. I think this is

a factor within the legislation. While I agree that our municipalities

are in distress in the whole field of getting enough money to meet the

demands that are made on them, they're not as badly off in this

Province as they are in some other Provinces. Well, I'll say some other

Provinces. The municipalities are the creatures of the Provincial

Government and I think the Provincial Government rightly keeps a

careful eye on what's happening within the municipalities. I think

rightly so.

I know that, a few years ago, when I was in Ontario, I was speaking

to some of the M.L.A.s in Ontario and some of those municipalities were

at the point where their financial situation was so bad, they just

couldn't borrow another penny (interruption) .

Because we like to think we do things better in British Columbia. We

like to think we do. And the municipalities are unable to meet many of

the demands that are put upon them because of your failure to see to it

that the whole financial division in the Province of British Columbia

is changed completely.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill has many sections and many principles but the one which I

wish to deal with very briefly this afternoon is in the second

section

and that is where 60 per cent of the voters turn out, then, a by-law

may pass with 50 per cent plus one of those who cast their ballots. It

was to make a suggestion along these lines that I, earlier in the

Session, put questions on the Order Paper to both the Minister of

Education and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to find out what sort

of voter percentage turn-outs we have had in this Province. I think

that we should remember and keep well in mind that the present 60 per

cent requirement, which we're changing here, is of those who turn out

to vote, not of the voters as a whole, so that if we get only, for

example, a 10 per cent turn-out at the polls, 6 per cent of the people

are putting an obligation on the people of the community for probably

not less than 20 years. We had the same principle in a previous bill in

this House, 47,

section 75, in the Public Schools Act and we gave it our support, at that time, and I expect we'll give this one our support, at this time.

What I am particularly pleased about in this particular

section is

that, with respect to by-laws for environmental purposes, such as

sewage by-laws, at the present time, this type of by-law is being

turned down frequently, even though it has a very high percentage

turn-out of voters. The voters are sort of one set of sidewalk experts

versus another set of sidewalk experts. They're not against the sewage

referendum but they get convinced that maybe one system is better than

another system and, this way, by-laws, such as I indicated — environmentally desirable — will get a good percentage turn-out of

voters but only those which get over the 50 per cent approval from

those who turn out will receive approval. Therefore, I think that this

section is very much in the public interest.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver-East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

think the Minister might be commended on a couple of points in the

legislation and I'm prepared to go as far as doing that.

The land use contract is an interesting idea, one that might well

have application especially in the more sophisticated municipalities.

The idea of a registered condition in the Land Registry Office, with

respect to development, is a worthwhile departure in terms of

Government policy. On the basis of that recommendation, I hope the

Minister doesn't reconsider the legislation. The National Building Code

references are also worthwhile.

There's an important area where he's taking a big step backwards.

He's taking a bit of a step forward in the specific municipal areas in

by-law controls, but he's stepping back when it comes to the whole

question of regional planning and the question of more local input with

respect to resource questions in the regions. He's yanking out the

forest reserves of the Province from control of the regions. He's

yanking out the tree farm licenses from control of the regions. These,

to a great extent, are banana republics in British Columbia where the

few forest giants manage them almost at will. The one area, where we

might well have made progress at the local level with respect to

resolving resource conflicts, was in this area where the regional

districts could have stepped into these areas controlled by the forest

giants and started resolving some conflicts and started asserting the

public interest in those areas.

In the Minister's own riding of Comox almost all of his own

electoral district is in tree farm licenses and he's been after them to

establish regional planning and develop staffing on a regional planning

basis and so on. Obviously, the next step was to have these

professionals concerned about integrated resource management, looking

at the specific actions of this one industry in relation to the public

interest as a whole. Now, he's gutted the legislation by this one

simple step. He's gutting the legislation and telling them that the

forest giants are in control and you leave them alone and that policy

will be theirs to resolve, not the new regional districts.

I know the Minister likes to talk about the regional districts as

possibly the new arbiters of resource conflicts in the Province and

they could very well be that. Certainly the district in the Cariboo

sees itself as that kind of agency. Certainly the district in East

Kootenays sees itself as that kind of agency. By taking out the tree

farm licenses and taking out the forest reserves, you're taking out

most of the land area under their jurisdiction so that official

community plans will have no meaning over those areas whatsoever. You

only need to look at the map in the latest Forest Service Annual

Report. Everything that's brown on that map, and that includes most of

Vancouver Island, is in a tree farm license like most of the Minister's

own constituency. Everything outlined in red, in terms of red bands on

this map, which is the southern two thirds of the Province, with the

exception of the valley bottoms, is in Provincial forest reserves. With

that one step, the Minister is gutting the bill and taking a big step

backwards away from the area where the regional districts might really

see their real role fulfilled in terms of resolving resource conflicts

and developing integrated resource management policies at the local

level, which, in turn, could be integrated into the work done by the

larger committees under the Land Use and Environmental Committee here

in Victoria. It's unfortunate that the Minister is taking this step in

taking these areas out.

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

[ Page 833 ]

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, most

of the general principles of this bill have been dealt with and I don't

intend to repeat the debate on them, but I wish to draw to your

attention, Mr. Speaker, one basic inconsistency in this act, namely,

and it is one specific

section but, as it is a principle, I think it

would be better debated on second reading.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in an earlier debate in a

different bill, we discussed the principle of where land returns to the

Crown, due to default on tax payments, that, first of all it should

return to the Crown and, secondly, that, in its resale or release,

Canadian citizens should be those in a position to receive these

benefits. In this bill that we are considering today, Mr. Speaker, we

set up an entirely new set of circumstances and we say to the

municipalities, who up till now have not even been able to bid on tax

sale lands, that the municipalities may now bid on tax sale lands. So

we have put the municipalities, I admit it's a small step forward but

it is not in keeping with the earlier principles we have debated, we

are putting the municipalities in a position of competition with the

private entrepreneur, which I don't think is right, and if tax sale

lands returning to the Crown are right Provincially, why are they not

municipally? In my opinion, the

section in this bill is inconsistent

with the debates that occurred in this House earlier. In my opinion,

tax sale lands within the municipality should go to the Crown in the

form of the municipality to be disposed of as that municipality sees

fit. We should not have a bidding process which is set up in this bill.

As I've already pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the position regarding

Canadian citizenship and these lands does not apply if the lands are

within municipal boundaries.

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

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the Member for

Delta might be inclined to review his position so that he can be

consistent with his vote on the Public Schools Act .

The two points that were raised that I do want to comment on, though

it's inconceivable to me that, at least, some Members of the House feel

that the taxpayers in the unorganized areas and, indeed, in the

municipalities don't load the Department of Municipal Affairs with

comments from time to time about the actions of councils or regional

districts. We've already had examples within this current Session, when

the Leader of the Opposition and Member for North Vancouver–Seymour had

occasion to comment on a certain action in an unorganized

section of

the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Member for Kootenay blew

the whistle, here, not very long ago when some of his people were very

upset about the action of his regional district and he was very quick

to phone the Minister. The Member for Cowichan-Malahat, on occasion,

has had reference to the Department of Municipal Affairs because the

people were upset about one action or another of the regional districts.

Surely the kind of Statute that we have here does not or should not

preclude somebody being in a review position on some of the actions by

regional districts. It's as simple as that. I can tell you all over

British Columbia that petition after petition comes to the department

and we review it. We review it in that context and we review it because

I think there should be some kind of court of last resort, at least, to

review some of these acts. That's one of the reasons why the

section

having to do with land use contracts is in there.

That's why I assume there will be some ongoing responsibility by the

department to review some action. I don't think that's inconsistent

with good municipal operation.

The other one… (interruption) .

Well, certainly, the Member for Kootenay didn't object to the action I

took up in Kootenay. He asked me to come up and we looked over the

situation and I think came to an appropriate conclusion. I think the

Member for Kootenay would agree with that.

The other point is, and I find this most difficult to understand,

that somebody in the planning business could get up and talk about the

section having to do with forestry. There's nothing in that

section

that presumes that a regional district will not have some input as far

as the decision on lifting certain lands from forest communities is

concerned, but how foolish it would be if we have a forestry system in

the Province, we hire forestry experts at the Provincial level. Is he

suggesting that we go out and staff a whole set-up of 28 regional

districts with forestry experts, too? This is the very thing that we

want to get away from. We have the East Kootenay regional district now,

and the Member for Kootenay, you should listen to your own Members,

because sometimes they're smarter than these planners are. The Member

for Kootenay made the observation, here, just the other day, that

here's the regional district of East Kootenay, it presumably has call

upon the pollution control resources of the Province and, then, they

bounce off to Calgary to hire some more pollution control experts. Now

this is just a ridiculous misuse of the ideas involved in resource

management in regional districts. Surely if we're hiring biologists in

various Government departments, we're hiring public health inspectors

at the Provincial level, why, in the name of common sense, would we ask

the property owner in the regional districts to hire some more and

everybody running around vetting everybody else's work. That makes no

sense at all. I'm amazed at the planning consultant for the East

Kootenay regional district coming up with that kind of an idea. He

should talk to the Member for Kootenay. I move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 100 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 102, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 102, Greater Vancouver Regional Water and Sewer District Act . The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which was, in large

measure, worked out in cooperation with the various bodies involved in

the Greater Vancouver area of the Greater Vancouver Water and Sewer

District, the Greater Vancouver Regional District merely places the

water and sewer functions beneath the umbrella of the Greater Vancouver

Regional District. I move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 102 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 834 ]

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 104, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 104,

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act . The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this is the annual goof-up Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CAMPBELL: I think, because of the nature of this bill,

it's more appropriate to discuss it in committee. I will indicate, now,

that, at the request of the Member for Nanaimo, sections 194 and 195 in

committee, I will move to delete. I think the rest of the bill is quite

self-explanatory. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, there are, however, I think two

principles I do want to refer to in a more general way, although I

agree, basically, with the idea of this going into committee, each

section on its merit. You are dealing with a principle which is

hitherto, as the Minister is wont to say, not found in some of the

legislation and that is that we are suggesting to the Greater Vancouver

Regional District…I'll wait until everybody quietens down. We are

suggesting to the Greater Vancouver Regional District that they take

over the function of parks but in so doing, Mr. Speaker, we are

allowing municipalities, within that regional district, to opt out of

that particular function. We don't allow them to opt out of any other

functions, if my reading of the act is correct, but we are going to

allow municipalities in the Greater Vancouver Regional District to opt

out of their fair share of paying for the costs of the parks in that

area. Not only that, but we're saying that those municipalities that

were in the old parks district which are now outside the Greater

Vancouver Regional District will continue to have to pay their share.

So we've got this peculiar situation, where we've made, in my view, a

mockery of the kind of legislation everybody in this House has been

supporting in terms of regional districts.

I want to say quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, I'm against any

municipality having a free ride as far as parks and land assembly, in

terms of park functioning, is concerned. I'm against free rides. This

Government has said frequently through the mouth of its Premier and

other officers of the Cabinet that they're against free rides so why

are we allowing this to continue? Why are we allowing it to continue?

The problems of that regional district are so great that they have,

now, come, as I say, to the question of an examination, an

investigation, and I'm sure many Cabinet Ministers are looking at the

results of that investigation. I agree that it's probably right, at

this time, to put this. function into the Greater Vancouver Regional

District but, in so doing, we should now tidy up our legislation to

make it mandatory for those people who are going to enjoy, whose

citizens are going to enjoy, the benefits of these parks, and the cost

of the land assembly should be borne by those people who enjoy the

privileges. That's a clear principle and I think that the Minister has,

as I read the act, not fulfilled that simple principle.

The second principle, Mr. Speaker, deals with the city of Vancouver.

I'm not going to debate specifically what the Minister has done to the

city of Vancouver but I am going to say this and very clearly, that,

having been in this House for five years, and on the Standing Orders

and Private Bills Committee for four of those five years, I think it's

time that we threw out the Vancouver Charter and put the city of

Vancouver under the excellent act you've just talked about, the Municipal Act.

I think it's time that the city of Vancouver had the same treatment and

privileges as other municipalities and vice versa and if, indeed, the

idea of having a separate charter, as suggested in this bill, is to

allow for special provisions and perhaps experimental legislation, the

history shows that that doesn't happen because, when it does conflict

with some of the Government's preconceived ideas, they say it's not

public policy. You play fast and loose with this act as much as the

city does. I think it's time we called a halt and got all the

municipalities on the Municipal Act .

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to nail

that one quickly before it goes very far, Mr. Speaker. The Honourable

Member for Surrey is entitled to his opinion about the status of the

city of Vancouver but, as one of the representatives for the city, I'd

like to make it abundantly clear that the city of Vancouver should have

its own charter, as most major cities in most Provinces and States in

North America, in fact, do have. What it shouldn't have is the kind of

boondocks treatment that it gets under this Minister with that charter.

This major city, no. We're a country, outside of the east, we're

essentially a country of city states. The major concentrations of

population are in a handful of great cities in this Nation and these

cities should, more and more, have the right to determine their own

destinies, the right to determine where and how they tax and why, and

they should have the right to determine how they develop, internally,

and free of these rurally-dominated Legislatures, like this one,

because of an unfair, rotten electoral system which you've been willing

to live with.

The city of Vancouver, under the charter and the kinds of activities

of this Minister of Municipal Affairs, might as well be in

receivership. When they try and show a little initiative, whether we

agree with it or not, but when they do try and show some initiative in

the revenue field, as they have done I believe in their right to

determine these things. If I was on the city council, I might vote

differently than the mayor. In fact, most of the time, I'm sure I

would, but that has nothing to do with it. The people in Vancouver have

elected that mayor, they've elected that council and they should have

the right to govern. You're not allowing them to govern and you're not

allowing them to develop into the kind of maturity that they should

have. In a way you're really snipping at the kind of leadership

potential in that great city by your own activities, by saying you know

better, that you know better than the people in the city. I say, Mr.

Speaker, that's just not so.

The people of that city can govern themselves and they should be

given the opportunity to govern themselves and, again and again, with

respect to this specific issue, this Government has been less than

honest with the city of Vancouver. When the city has come and said they

want these new revenue sources, you have turned them down, year in year

out and, then, finally, you say you want the revenue sources,

yourselves. You just haven't been honest with them, at all. They've

made it clear that they want to change their

[ Page 835 ]

licensing procedures and change their fees and so

on and, now, you're saying you can't. So, you are nipping them in the

bud again. It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that this rurally-dominated

Legislature continues to treat this major western Canadian city the way

it does.

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

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

to associate myself, and I don't very often do this, with the Second

Member from Vancouver East. I recall that at the first Session of the

Legislature at which I sat, the city of Vancouver made application to

the Provincial Government for permission to increase the bicycle fee in

that city from 50 cents to a $1. They were turned down. That's the kind

of smallness of mind which holds back great cities in North America and

particularly the city of Vancouver. Who is the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who gets elected by people in Campbell River, to push around

the city of Vancouver and who are most of the Members who sit in this

House? Every single alderman who sits on that City Council has been

elected by almost ten times as many people as the Members who take

seats on the floor of this Provincial House.

The city of Vancouver should have very, very broad powers to chart

its own destiny, to tax, to borrow and to spend. They should be given

every encouragement by every Member of this House. I, too, as a city

member, am completely disgusted with the way the Provincial Legislature

has pushed that city around for a generation, where Ministers of

Municipal Affairs, who haven't known a tooth about city affairs, have

pushed them around and dictated to them, limited their taxing powers

and have done everything to interfere with progress that Members could

possibly do. This Minister of Municipal Affairs is no exception. He's

the same as all the others who have gone before in this Government.

I think the time has come when very broad powers should be given to

the city of Vancouver, when they should stand up and dismiss this

Government with a flick of its wrist, which is what the city of

Vancouver could do if they wanted to stand up for their future and

their destiny. They've been dominated too long by rural Members and

it's time for a change. That time should come with a complete rewriting

of the City Charter. It should come with broad powers of that city to

raise its funds and to borrow and to break the rural yoke that's held

the city back.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Minister's

warming up, if nothing else, Mr. Speaker. Without any question of a

doubt, this particular part of this bill is just an example of the

lofty posture of this Minister and the mandarin-like pronouncements

that he's been putting out over the last few days without

investigation, without consultation, without even notice. This is just

a straight slap in the face to the city of Vancouver. It's machete

legislation. It's in the face of a Court decision of only about two or

three days old and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, how this Minister can

designate his office as the self-appointed oracle to interfere with the

license base of the city, to me, is absolutely preposterous. I say that

this Minister is trying to create the most enormous power base in the

Province of British Columbia, since the roads-to-vote programme of the

Premier a few years back. I know why he's trying to do this. This is

just a straight push towards the leadership of the Social Credit

Party…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR.GARDOM: …while you're bringing in these kind of things,

Mr. Minister. There's no question of a doubt, the city of Vancouver

wanted this revenue and they needed it. They were of the opinion that

they would inject some of this directly into the industry which needed

it, the industry which produces this kind of money. The city of

Vancouver has more tourists in it, during the year, than the rest of

the Province put together and make no mistake of that fact. So, they

brought in their private bill and you strangled it in its crib. Then,

you heard from the Second Member from Vancouver Centre, who made an

excellent speech a few days ago, when he said that you'd shortchanged

the city by $300,000 by your form of assessment. I'm very happy to see

that the Second Member from Vancouver Centre is in the House, when I

mention these remarks. It was a first-class speech.

Now, you're coming in today with this legislation and this is the

second $300,000 kick at the city. You know, I'm thankful for one thing

— that the Session hasn't got too long to go because you're knocking

the city of Vancouver off at about $300,000 a day. I don't think it's a

bit fair. This city has the intellectual capacity, the morale capacity

and the legal right to manage its own affairs in this particular field.

You are denying it to them and you have not introduced a single,

solitary, valid reason as to why you're doing it. You said one word.

You said you did not want to create a tax jungle. Well, that's absolute

nonsense. I suggest that the Honourable Minister, when he's talking

about tax jungles and something like this, which side of the cage is he

looking out of?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the

debate. Would the Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver East

kindly watch his remarks.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, it's rather revealing, I think,

that the Members opposite would have to go back into the history books

to bring forward the idea of the city state. Anyone who understands

anything at all about history knows the story of the city state because

a city does not sit in splendid isolation from its hinterland. Cities

like the city of Vancouver would not be there if it were not for the

total Provincial economy, the resources of the hinterland and the

activities in the hinterland. Anyone who understands anything at all

about the weaknesses of city states and their splendid isolation knows

very well that they very quickly withered and died on the ground

because they did not have any attachment to a hinterland. All over

Canada today we're hearing this kind of nonsense about city states and

the idea that they can, in some way, live in splendid isolation from

all the other people around them.

I want to tell you, it's not only nonsense, it's nonsense when we

hear this continual talk in this House about rural British Columbia.

What in the name of common sense is rural British Columbia today? We

have… Oh, wait a minute, Mr. Speaker, we have in British Columbia

today 80 per cent of our people live within municipal jurisdiction on

one half of one per cent of the total land area of the Province of

British Columbia. You tell me, when you're talking about rural

[ Page 836 ]

British Columbia, what in the name of common sense

is rural about Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Prince George, Dawson

Creek, Nanaimo? This is a myth which the Members opposite can keep

repeating, as far as I'm concerned, because it's one reason, Mr.

Speaker, why they're over there and we're here, because they don't

understand. They don't understand, Mr. Speaker. They haven't the

foggiest notion about what the make-up of this Province happens to be,

not the foggiest (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Leader of the

Liberal Party always sounds so insincere in this House when he talks

about the city of Vancouver but I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the reason

is that he comes up to places like Campbell River and he comes up to

places like Port Hardy and he comes up to places like Prince Rupert and

he comes up to places like Prince George and tells a completely

different story, and that's the reason you're over there and not over

here. If you're going to be consistent about how British Columbia is

governed, then, I think, you'd get off the kick about city states

pretty quick. I move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 104 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

The House proceeded to the Order "Private Bills."

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 50,

An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology . The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, Bill 50 has to

do with the Incorporation of the Vancouver School of Theology. It

covers a resolution to establish an ecumenical centre for theological

education on the campus of the University of British Columbia. I think

the

preamble to the bill is self-explanatory and I, therefore, move

second reading.

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

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I just

feel obliged to say a few words about a group of institutions which are

situated on the campus of the University of British Columbia which are

governed by this bill and which I think are, to a great extent,

overlooked by many citizens in the Province. For many years, these

schools have not only produced ministers for the various churches in

our Province but have provided accommodation for students at university

when that accommodation has been unavailable elsewhere. I consider it a

privilege that I was provided with such accommodation and, when I was

at one of the schools, it was the hope, at that time, that, at least,

intellectually on the campus some unity would prevail amongst the

denominations. I feel this is a step in the right direction and I

would, therefore, happily support second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 50 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 51,

An Act Respecting Central City Mission . The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 51 is

An Act Respecting the Central City Mission .

In effect, it's a tidying up of bills to more or less amalgamate what

is known as the Central City Mission, Limited, and the Central City

Mission Society, both of which organizations have been in existence for

some years. This bill has been approved by the committee and I,

therefore, move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 51 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 54,

An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act . The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, this bill was sponsored by the Honourable the First Member for

Vancouver-Burrard and, on his behalf, I speak to the bill, now. I think

I should say to the House that this bill was very carefully considered

by the Select Standing Committee that had it in charge. There were some

unsatisfactory features involved that we required, after hearing from

the majority of shareholders and hearing their representations, we

heard from the minority shareholders and we asked them to get together,

resolve their differences and come to us with a joint representation to

proceed, which they did. We were, then, satisfied to proceed with this

bill, which is primarily designed to permit the company to conform to

the Alberta legislation and keep it, therefore, in good standing. We

were faced, finally, with the unanimous representations from all

shareholders that the bill, as finally agreed to, would proceed and I,

therefore, move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: In rising to support this second reading, I think

it is definitely a shortcoming, at the moment, that the rules which

exist for the control and operation of what may be termed private bill

companies do not match the standards that we have for public Companies

under the Companies Act . If

we had the same standards, the difficulties experienced by the

committee, I feel, would have been lessened, if not avoided altogether.

Until we make sure that what is sauce for the private bill companies is

also sauce for the Public Companies Act legislation, then, we will fall short of giving the protection to shareholders that I think this Province should require.

[ Page 837 ]

In short, what would at one time in the history of this Legislature,

have been a plus item, namely, that the rules and regulations

surrounding a private bill company were better than those surrounding a

public corporation, has now been reversed and by legislation put

forward by this Government over the years they have taken the public

rules and regulations in advance of those that are still attendant to

the private bill companies.

I seriously suggest to the Attorney-General that he remedy this at

the next Session of the House and, at the very least, prepare for the

observance of all private bill companies, with possibly some sort of

mandatory legislation that those private bill companies get their

affairs in order to meet the rules that we've laid down now in our

general Statutes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): I certainly join with the

Member for Surrey in trying to find a method to prevent the situation

that developed in this particular bill from occurring time after time.

My suggestion is that, when we have private bills by petition coming to

this House, it be provided in the Standing Orders requirements at the

time in the Gazette , where

people look for the rules by which they are governed in applying by

petition, so that they know that they must comply with certain

mandatory provisions of the Companies Act, so amended from time to time

— those vital provisions of the Companies Act

that protect shareholders, for example, and the idea that they don't

need a 75 per cent resolution by the shareholders, on a special

resolution by the shareholders, to change and alter the capital

structure of the company, which is one of the purposes of this bill.

That they don't have to comply with what every other company has to

comply with is, I think, a curious anomaly that we have to cure. My

suggestion to the Attorney-General is that, in future, to spare both

the Private Bills Committee and this House the problems that were

thrown up by Bill 54, that a look be given at incorporation under the

rules of private bills and private bill companies, the safeguards that

are, from time to time, in the Companies Act .

In this particular case, I don't think the committee would have been

too favourable to this application, had it not been for the concern of

Members on all sides of the House in that committee for the

safeguarding of the shareholders and, particularly, the minority

shareholders. We found ourselves straying into a corporate jungle of

such immensity it was almost like finding yourself in the middle of

Disneyland. It was repellent to most of us to see the kind of corporate

take-overs that have occurred and in a vital field of insurance, where

we have a company, here, that has done well in British Columbia and

will continue, I hope, to do well. I'm not going to go into all those

details. I just want to say that we did what we felt was best for the

minority shareholders to protect their interest. They agreed to it with

the majority shareholders and it seems the only course to follow to

keep this company on the rails.

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

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I was out of the room for a moment

when the Honourable the Member was speaking and I'm not sure if he

covered this point. If he didn't, I'd like to mention that it's my view

that all future companies that are incorporated by private acts of the

Legislature should automatically come within the provisions of the B.C.

Companies Act . We have two standards of company law in the Province of B.C. and it's just not right at all.

We've got the standards as prescribed in the B.C. Companies Act ,

an excellent standard, and we also have the standard of whatever may or

may not come in in a private bill. I think that there should be an

omnibus provision in each private bill that the private bill companies,

who are seeking private charter, agree to comply with all of the

provisions of the B.C. Companies Act and all necessary and applicable amendments.

Insofar as the ones that are already incorporated and carrying on

business in the Province of British Columbia, I cannot see why those

companies, themselves, also should not be requested to bring their

charters and their affairs in order, in order that they themselves may

comply with the provisions of the B.C. Companies Act .

In this particular bill, part of the major opposition by one side,

during committee, was to the effect that they were unable to have a

meeting as can be called within the provisions of the B.C. Companies Act ,

which is a meeting upon special resolution — two weeks notice, three

quarters vote and you've got to give notice of the resolution which you

intend to pass — and this provision was not within the provisions of

this private bill company. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear

and, I think, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this was the general feeling

of the committee, too. I'm not just expressing my own opinion and the

opinion of our Party here (interruption) .

It has been. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I'm glad it has been expressed.

There's nothing like reiterating the fact. I do hope that, over the

coming year, the Department of the Attorney-General, and we don't need

the Law Reform Commission to look at this one, we've got the power

right here to do it, the Department of the Attorney-General will see

that, in future, it is a requirement of private bill companies that

they comply with the provisions of the B.C. Companies Act .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hope the honourable Member is

about to speak to the principle of this bill. We've heard the

pronouncements of three Members now, none of whom have spoken to the

principle of the bill. Proceed.

The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. TISDALLE: Mr. Speaker, in respect to the position of

those responsible shareholders involved in this bill, the Seaboard

Assurance Company Act, 1953, if it's done anything I think it's pointed

out the fact that there's nothing sacred about companies and it doesn't

necessarily hold true that you're going to make a windfall. I hope that

the committee's work will have done more than just settle a dispute

amongst these shareholders but also have come to bear and to focus the

attention, the spotlight, upon the fact that the company is no better

than its administrators. It also requires the continual surveillance by

the shareholders to see that their responsibilities and opportunities

are fulfilled in the structure of the company.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 54 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

The House reverted to the Order "Public Bills and

[ Page 838 ]

Orders."

The following bills were read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 38) intituled Mortgage Brokers Act .

Bill (No. 44) intituled

An Act to Amend the Marriage Act .

Bill (No. 62) intituled

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act .

Bill (No. 67) intituled

An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act .

Bill (No. 68) intituled

An Act to Amend the Forest Act was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 80) intituled Ecological Reserves Act was committed, reported complete without amendment.

The Committee further reported that in consideration of

section 4, the Committee divided.

The committee recommended that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

By leave of the House, on the motion of Mr. Barrett, the Rules were

suspended and it was Ordered that the division on

section 4 be recorded

in the Journals of the House as follows:

YEAS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

NAYS — 34

Messieurs

Wallace

McCarthy, Mrs.

Smith

Ney

Jordan, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Marshall

Dawson, Mrs.

Capozzi

Wenman

Kiernan

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Williston

Chant

Mussallem

Bennett

Loffmark

Price

Peterson

Gaglardi

Vogel

Black

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Fraser

Brothers

Chabot

Campbell, B.

Shelford

Jefcoat

Wolfe

Richter

Tisdalle

Bill read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 78) intituled Mobile Home Park Fee Act was committed, reported complete without amendment.

On the motion for the third reading of Bill 78, the House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Messieurs

Wallace

Bruch

Wolfe

Ney

McCarthy, Mrs.

Smith

Marshall

Jordan, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Jefcoat

Campbell, B.

Richter

Tisdalle

NAYS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

Bill 78 read a third time and passed.

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

Bill (No. 82) intituled Environment and Land Use Act .

Bill (No. 83) intituled

An Act to Amend the Water Act .

Bill (No. 94) intituled

An Act to Amend the Health Act .

Bill (No. 97) intituled Hospital Corporations Act .

Bill (No. 98) intituled

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act .

Bill (No. 103) intituled Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act .

Bill (No. 105) intituled

An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act, 1961 .

Bill (No. 107) intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971 , was committed. The Committee reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

The House proceeded to the Order "Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees."

Mr. J.D. Tisdalle presented the Second and Third Reports of the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education.

The reports were taken as read and received.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

The House met at 8: 00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

Bill (No. 107) intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971 , was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 839 ]

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

The committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again at the next sitting.

Mr. W.F. Jefcoat presented the First and Second Reports of the

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. The reports were taken as

read and received.

The House adjourned at 11: 34 p.m.