1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 965 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to welcome from North Delta Senior Secondary School a group of very fine students.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to Motion No. 33.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I move that

motion No. 33 standing in my name on the order paper be adopted. (Your

select standing committee on standing orders and private bills begs

leave to report as follows:

With reference to Bill No. 47 intituled Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited (Non-Personal Liability) Mineral Claims Act ,

it is the opinion of your committee that the circumstances surrounding

the subject-matter of the said bill warrant that the bill be proceeded

with, and your committee recommends accordingly.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Speaking on the adoption of the report, Mr. Speaker, this report deals with the Sunshine

Comstock Mines Ltd., which was a mining company which had mineral

claims and it was alleged before the committee that this mine and the

owners of it had not received a proper notice from the government on

the taxes that were due and owing in 1969 by just before April, 1969.

This was an accumulation of taxes. It only amounted to a little over

$1,000. It was both on the mine property and on the mineral grants

which were Crown grants.

The company had been taken over by a man named Groves from New York

and his son. They had complete control of the company by virtue of 40

per cent of the shares, Immediately, as soon as they got control of the

company, one of the terms of the purchase of the shares was that the

directors would resign and they would appoint their own directors. The

first step they took as soon as they did that was to take over $400,000

out of the company and remove it out of the jurisdiction and back to

New York.

This man had previously done the same thing to a railway in Georgia.

He was in a certain stage of cancer and subsequently died before he

could be prosecuted by this government.

The fact of the matter is that if it were as simple as to say that

there had been an error on the part of the government in not having

notified the company at either its registered office or at its business

office, one being on Davey Street in Vancouver and the other at the

registered office, presumably the lawyers of the company, then it might

well be said that the government was entirely to blame, that something

should be done to restore the company its Crown grants providing it

paid the taxes that were due.

It was a proposal that was put forward in a bill. There are two

angles to this that bear some consideration since we no longer in this

province give Crown grants — mineral Crown grants — to the citizens of

British Columbia.

It should be pointed out that in April, 1969, the government

indicated that after 90 days these Crown grants would be forfeited to

the Crown — would revert to the Crown — if the taxes were not paid.

That was advertised in the Gazette with the usual notices in these cases under the Taxation Act . So the public as a whole were aware, indeed any lawyer who gets the provincial Gazette

or any of the shareholders — over 800 of them — would have been aware

that their new directors had in effect turned their back on the

property of the company and were allowing the property of the company

to go by default.

Furthermore, a number of letters were exchanged back and forth

between the notice in April and July 23, the key date when the claims

would revert to the Crown, from the taxation branch who did their job

very efficiently in indicating what the state of affairs were in the

company. They sent notices to more than one address, not the one in New

York State but in Vancouver.

So what you might describe as mutual blame could be heaped on the

department that did not give notice to the usual registered office in

Vancouver and the usual business office in Vancouver and for the

department to take the whole blame is an excess of piety in this matter.

The question really comes down to this. What should be done by the

Legislature in a matter of this kind where there is a certain amount of

equity for the 800 shareholders involved who behind their backs had

property go into delinquency and terminate in July by being lost?

The question is in a sense resolved by the fact that the two

wrongdoers — father and son, in this case the Groves — have given back

their shares in the company, although they have not returned the money

belonging to the shareholders. So that the 40 per cent control is now

surrendered for cancellation.

So you're left with a company with nothing in the way of assets

really other than the potential hope that this government will return

the claims in one form or another to them.

Well, I point out to the House that the responsibility for this

matter is on the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council, not on the

Legislature. There is a provision for an order-in-council to restore

these claims. Why should this House be saddled with the duty which

belongs, by statute, under the Mineral Act and Taxation Act to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council?

The second point is since there are competing equities here between

the fault that lies perhaps in the government department and the fault

that lies in all the shareholders who let their company go down the

drain without watching, that it seems to me that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council should re-issue these Crown grants as

leasehold property, the same as every other citizen would get today,

not a higher degree of ownership than any other citizen of British

Columbia gets.

If they did that I cannot see that the equities are unequal. But in

effect by giving them back Crown grants you're rewarding them for what

at best is negligence and at worst was blindness in allowing these

things to happen to the property.

Therefore I would urge first that the government has a

[ Page 966 ]

responsibility imposed upon it by this Legislature

to deal with this by order-in-council and secondly the government

should propose the similar kind of ownership for this land as every

other citizen of British Columbia would obtain, that is leasehold on

these reverted Crown grants. If this were done it would resolve the

situation and it would not involve this Legislature in a process it

should not have been involved in anyway.

So I urge the Minister to give thought to that and perhaps amend the

legislation. Very simply, all he'd have to do on the legislation to

amend it is in

section 1 of the proposal that was put before the

private bills committee, where in

section 1 it says: "Are reinstated

and revested in the name of Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited." Change

that to: "Are reinstated and revested as Crown leases in the name of

Sunshine Comstock…"

If that were done they would be getting no further rights than

anybody else in the province and to me it seems, because of their own

negligence, that should be the way to do it.

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

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

just add one or two words. There was never an explanation as to why

these people should go to so much trouble through the private bills

committee and so much expense to revive these claims. It's a mystery

wrapped in an enigma. What is the value that is sought to be preserved?

We've never had a proper answer to that question.

However, as my friend says, we've been unable to plumb that mystery

so the best that should be done, I think, is as my friend proclaims and

suggests that we should put it on a leasehold basis.

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

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

year we were presented with a bill in this House dealing with the same

matter. At that time, when we discussed Bill No. 86, I went through a

detailed examination of the history of this rather unfortunate affair.

The bill was withdrawn with a wipe of the Premier's hand. The

Minister did not have an explanation at that time to the House as to

why the government was taking this course of action and to my knowledge

the Minister has not made a public statement on his particular position

on this matter to the House.

Now, we do not know, as the Member for Vancouver East has said, what

the purpose of this is. We cannot be expected to support this move. On

the other hand if there has been an injustice to the shareholders, my

good friend the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) has shown a

way out that is clearly fair.

But there has been fault on both sides and considering the recent

history of Howe Street events, there is every reason to have skepticism

on this side of the House as to this whole affair — as to whether or

not light has shone through the committee and indeed through the

committee into this House.

You are asking us, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, to support

something that we feel we have not had all the details on. I ask the

Minister to explain clearly why this course of action has been taken

and why the alternative, suggested by the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds,

has not been followed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I just wish to state

that I was on the committee that listened to the application of the

petitioners and I think there were many questions asked for which we

were not given very clear-cut answers. I felt as the Honourable Members

have said that there seems to be some doubt as to why it should be so

important to restore claims which Mr. Jestley himself said on their own

would be of no value and that there is a projected arrangement to be

worked out with some other mine. At any rate I didn't profess and I

don't profess to understand all the details but I'm going to support

the bill on the basis that there is some very reasonable element of

doubt in favour of the shareholders that I'm prepared to support this

bill.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I

hope I'm not confused. I can understand why the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) might be, he has other things on his mind but I gather that

we're discussing a motion to adopt report No. 5, not the bill at all.

I was not a member of the committee and I'm also concerned that

certain Members would seem to suggest to the House in their remarks

that this was a private bill in which there was a petitioner. It is not

a private bill but a public bill and issued by a Minister of the Crown.

As I read the report, it is suggested that the circumstances

surrounding the subject matter of this bill warrant that the bill be

proceeded with. Well, I for one, Mr. Speaker, do not know what the

subject matter surrounding this bill is. I'm looking forward to hearing

the Honourable Minister resolve that, because as the Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) has said there is a specific provision in

the Taxation Act whereby the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council has a discretion to exercise by which

any error on the part of the taxation department can be rectified.

I therefore want to know was any application made by this mining

company to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council for the exercise of that

discretion? If there was, was that discretion refused? If it was

refused on what basis?

If that method was not adopted by going to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council and seeking that the powers under

section 163 of the Taxation Act be used why wasn't the company obliged to proceed in that way?

Why instead have we got a public Act coming before this House? Not

only a public Act coming before this House this year but the same Act

came before the House last year and was not proceeded with. What has

happened in the intervening 365 days which makes it better now than it

was then?

There's a great deal of mystery surrounding this company, its

activities and the procedure which has been adopted here. If the

Minister can't clear this up then I for one have to oppose this motion.

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

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

[ Page 967 ]

speak briefly on this because there is one aspect

of the bill that was the reason I support the bill in the House and

having listened to the questions that were brought before the committee

itself there was one significant important point raised. That was on

behalf of the land registry department who at one stage, and I'm

quoting from the notes which they submitted to us on the bill. They

said that:

There was an error that had occurred in the Department. Instead of notice going forward to all addresses…et cetera et cetera.

It is the first time to my knowledge that a department has honestly

admitted making an error and this is an attempt to rectify that error.

In other words they assume the responsibility for the error that had

taken place.

To me this bill is a refreshing sign that a department having

recognised an error in their own functioning, admit it and then

proceeded to recommend the following procedure so that the shareholders

of that company wouldn't be penalised for an error which had taken

place in the department. To me that's a healthy sign of sound

government policy. I certainly commend the Minister and the department.

Too often when we make errors there's a tendency to try to hide them

and cover them up. I think if more departments could be encouraged by

this procedure that they are human beings too and they will make errors

at times. The penalties should not be imposed on the shareholder or on

any other person who's involved. I for that reason, and this was

brought up in committee, Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to support the

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, on that point of

making a mistake, if the government makes mistakes, I'm sure they've

made many mistakes and corrected them by order-in-council because the

statute provides that. I haven't been completely convinced that there

was a mistake.

The taxation department sent numerous letters out notifying the

people that taxes were not paid on the mineral claims. It was gazetted

for 90 days, and it was only after that, at that time, that the mines

department said that they had made a mistake.

Now, if they had made a mistake why didn't the government or the

cabinet honourably correct that mistake like the statute declares? Why

should they place the responsibility on the whole Legislature who don't

know what's going on?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're always saying not to do it by order-in-council.

MR. NIMSICK: Order-in-council in this case is a little different. You're correcting a mistake. You're correcting…

AN HON. MEMBER: "Never do it by order-in-council."

MR. NIMSICK: You're correcting a mistake that's within the

statute. A mistake that's made in the department, and the cabinet have

a better idea of whether there was really a mistake made or not. I'd

like to hear from the Minister too, to explain the whole story.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver Burrard will close the debate.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. The Honourable the Minister of Mines.

HON. F.X RICHTER: (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, before

the chairman of that committee who moved the motion says anything I

think there are some points I should clear up.

Number one. Why was the bill withdrawn last year? For the simple

reason that there was a court case pending. We had not yet discovered

where the balance of shares were at that time. Also Grove, Senior, was

more or less on his death bed.

MR. BARRETT: He died before the bill was introduced.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Well then, he died before the bill was

introduced. But there was a case against Groves, Junior, which had not

come before the courts yet and had to be heard. On this basis rather

than proceed with it at that time we wanted to see the outcome of the

court case.

Now, in all deference to the Member suggesting that this can be done

by order-in-council, our legislation we are advised doesn't indicate

that we can do this by order-in council. This error had occurred at a

stage in which at this point it would be impossible to do so by

order-in-council.

Another point that I might bring up is in deference to the

shareholders, because notices were not sent out to the shareholders at

the time that they should have been done in advising that as of a

certain date the titles will lapse. This was not done and this was

before my time. However, it was an error on the part of someone in the

department in not sending it out to the shareholders which they should

have done because they were assuming that their executive was acting in

their best interests which apparently was not the case.

So when it did revert and these, we must remember, are surveyed

Crown lots and even by reverting they don't become vacant Crown land.

They're still a surveyed lot. So, in this event it was felt that a bill

should come before the House to return these specific Crown-granted

claims to the shareholders.

At least we would put them in the position of being able to secure

their investment — the shareholders, they're the ones we're concerned

with,

What they do with it after that is something that they will have to

determine themselves. But at least it gives the men and women, I don't

know what their means are today but certainly by perusing the

shareholders list today I see many, many innocent people who are going

to be deprived of their investment.

True enough, we don't know what the value is because it hasn't been

mined enough to have any substantial delineated ore body that we could

say, "well, we can place this amount of a value on it." But it would

give them the opportunity of further exploration or if they felt that

through a mining engineer's report that it shouldn't have this value,

fine — they can let it go and it's no fault of the government.

Presently we are at fault in the Department of Mines in that the

proper notices weren't sent to the shareholders when no reply was

coming back from their principals of their executive office.

Now, I think that pretty well lays it out as far as my position is concerned. We admit there was an error.

[ Page 968 ]

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

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

I'd like to make a couple of observations, primarily about the remarks

of the Honourable the Minister. Under the Laws Declaratory Act

for example, the court has the power to relieve from forfeiture. The

Minister has indicated to the House here that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council did not have power to grant the remedy

that is being requested by this bill. With every respect I have to say

categorically that the Minister's absolutely incorrect in that

statement to this House. Because, under

section 124 of the Mineral Act , it's very, very clear, I'm going to read three sections:

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-council from time to time

(

a) makes such orders as are deemed necessary to carry out the

provisions of this Act according to their true intent or to meet the

cases which may arise and for which no provision is made in this Act or

where the provision which is made is ambiguous or doubtful.

That's one section. Now, another one:

124 (1) (g): The Lieutenant-Governor-in-council from

time to time may fix the times for payment of royalties, methods of

collection, provisions for forfeiture on default and methods for

ascertaining quantities of minerals won.

The most important and all-encompassing one which the Minister either had not read or doesn't feel exists is this:

124 (i): The Lieutenant-Governor-in-council from time

to time may by order provide for the extension of any time or time

limit prescribed by this Act.

So when the Minister indicates to the House that the cabinet does

not have the power to make an order-in-council I have to say that's

absolutely, totally incorrect. It does have the power. And the

Minister's shaking his head and he's probably going to say that this is

a new provision. Well, this amendment I should say goes back to 1948,

so surely to goodness would cover the situation.

So, number one, there has never been to my knowledge any explanation

to the committee by your department nor, with respect, by the

petitioner as to why the approach was not made to cabinet. Or if it was

made to cabinet was it turned down or what sort of hanky panky has been

going on?

The second thing is that in the evidence that was brought forth

before the committee I think there was very legitimate arguments on

behalf of the proponents of this bill for the remedy that is sought. I

much appreciated the candour of your department in admitting an error,

which there was. It's an honest error.

Oddly enough, had there been a little, perhaps closer liaison

between your department and the Registrar of Companies the notice would

have gone out to the right place because the Registrar of Companies had

the correct registered office of this company in the Province of

British Columbia.

So, we're faced somewhat with the peculiar situation of departmental

error and an admitted one. A remedy which I think is a fair one to

grant. But the odd thing is why this is coming to this House in the

bill.

Does this mean that every time an individual in the Province of

British Columbia runs into this kind of a situation whereby default has

been made in the furnishing of some notice — government default — and

it's not got through and a forfeiture results, is the Province of B.C.

going to be absolutely swept by a multitude of private bills to cure

the thing? It's silly.

Well, you can shake your head all you want to but the power is under

your Act and you know it's there. You've not been frank with the House

in telling the House why you did not have this thing proceed through

cabinet. Under no circumstances have you been frank.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Honourable Member is making the

suggestion I think, and with every respect I don't agree with you that

this is the type of thing that should continuously come into the House

on the basis of a private bill and go through a committee on the

Legislature. Good grief!

There are hundreds of cases of default throughout the year whereby

cabinet remedies can be offered. That's one of the responsibilities of

a responsible government to do just those kind of things. But what

we've got here, we put these people, we the Province of B.C., and the

Social Credit cabinet, have put these people to an enormous amount of

expense to come in here to try to cure the mistake of government. And

it's come to the wrong forum. I'd like to know why.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Is anybody going to say why??

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I think you

can appreciate that we feel a little chary on this type of action.

Naturally, we ask — why a special bill?

I was rather concerned when the Minister stated that he didn't know

just who all the shareholders were. Mr. Speaker, if a mistake has been

made a mistake has been made. It isn't a matter of whose ox is being

gored. A mistake has been made. Let the government through due process

of law correct that mistake.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you will agree with me that we are chary.

You can remember a year or two ago when widows and pensioners all over

this province — in West Summerland, in Rutland, in Kelowna — throughout

the province had lost their life savings in the Commonwealth Trust this

government wasn't coming forward with any special suggestions to help

those people out.

But when this government comes forward to bail out some mining promoters naturally we should be suspicious of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard will close the debate.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) intimated he said the remedy is fair in this case. I am a

little puzzled as to all this discussion on the adoption of a report

because I think it might more rightfully be heard on second reading.

All we're doing is trying to adopt a report that would give second

reading to this particular bill,

It seems to me that the Opposition are appealing for a change not because a remedy is being righted but because

[ Page 969 ]

they don't appreciate the method that is being

righted. I can assure you that this bill has gone through the private

bills committee. Every avenue has been explored that questions could

lead to and it was the opinion of the committee that this bill should

be proceeded with. I now move that it be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, while the discussion is clear in our minds, I would then call second reading of Bill No. 47.

SUNSHINE COMSTOCK MINES LIMITED (NON-PERSONAL

LIABILITY) MINERAL CLAIMS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 47. The Honourable the Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, I think in light of the debate

the principle of the bill has been very well outlined and I would now

move second reading.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we will not support this bill in

its present form. We have no intention of having private bills like

this or the House be used in the way that it has been used to bring

this bill to the House.

The Minister has to this day still not given a complete statement of

all the details on why this bill was proceeded with. In closing the

debate I expect the Minister to tell us far more frankly than he has in

the previous debate about what the reasons were, why the bill was

withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, this bill appeared on the order paper with all the

knowledge that the Minister showed today. Why was the bill brought in

last year, and then give the excuses that Groves was dying when he was

already dead? You've had 365 days to act on it and you're asking this

House to endorse an action that the government itself is frightened to

take complete responsibility for.

That's true, and I don't think that the Minister of Mines really

knows all the details of this particular issue — he just threw it into

committee. And you're setting a very dangerous precedent in my opinion

with this bill.

If there has been an injustice and apparently our Members in the

committee in reporting to us indicated that there was a valid case,

then do it through existing procedures and give them a lease, not a

complete Crown grant.

That's the dangerous precedent you're establishing with this bill.

And that alone is reason enough to oppose it. But we have not had a

complete explanation of why special treatment, special privileges for a

few, that has been contrary to the professed policy of this government.

There's no way we can support this kind of action by this

government. Focusing on one particular group's problems when they have

the whole Commonwealth mess in here. And you did nothing about that. We

just don't like the whole approach. It's your responsibility, take your

responsibility. But not this way, and we're going to vote against this

bill.

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

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, I'm always stunned in this House by

the flagrant violation of rules and procedures, and during the course

of debate by the type of statement that is made by the Leader of the

Opposition. In this House, Mr. Speaker time after time he has said that

bills should go to committee, should be discussed in committee, because

out of committee comes a working knowledge and development of the bill

and enables it to become back in the House having received the full

discussion and the benefit of committee.

So what happens in this particular bill? It went into committee, and

during committee the Members of the Opposition — and they're sitting

there at this moment, Mr. Speaker — were unanimous of support of the

bill coming in, and the bill as it presently stands.

I just ask the two Members that are sitting there in the front row,

the Member for Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick) and the Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) how they voted when this bill came into

committee and came through committee. What's the point of throwing a

bill into committee, having a full discussion, agreeing in principle,

and bringing it back into the House so that they can stand up in the

House and say: "We're not in favour of that bill, we oppose it"? Every

question that the Leader of the Opposition suggested should be asked,

was asked by the Members in committee, and they were satisfied,

completely satisfied, Mr. Speaker, or if they were not satisfied why

would they have voted for the bill?

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this type of comment from the

Leader of the Opposition doesn't warrant the reaction to the bill. The

bill is a sound bill, as I mentioned before. It admits an error,

through the bill it is correcting that error. It is protection for the

small shareholder, the shareholders of the company.

I don't know who the shareholders are. But the principle is the

concern, not who they are. It is a question of no special rights for

any group of individuals. It is those people who invested in a company,

as a result of an error made by the department, they lost an advantage

that the company had — the property that the company controlled. The

second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) mentioned that

there was a possibility of a lack of communication as he expressed

between the two departments. But in that, there is also the other thing

that occurs, Mr. Speaker, and it's one thing that this bill does give

me an opportunity to mention.

Far too often the lawyers who are involved, both on bills and in

committee, and even outside the House always assume that everybody in

the province reads the Journals . Even though it's a legal requirement of various procedures that they must be put into the Journals to take the assumption that everybody reads the Journals , picks them up every day constantly…

AN HON. MEMBER: Gazette, gazette.

MR. CAPOZZI: The Gazette I'm sorry, the Gazette .

Already you've got an indication that if I'm not aware of the correct

word how can the average public be aware of that it's in the Gazette , and not in the Journals ?

But, Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out two things, that the real

principle that we are probably now discussing is whether a committee

committing itself in the committee with the Members of the Opposition

sitting in committee, voting in favour of a bill, in favour of

proceeding with the bill, having listened to all the evidence should

then come out and because it is politically expedient — for no other

reason, because it is

[ Page 970 ]

politically expedient — listen to the Leader of the

Opposition who said: "I don't care what you decided in the committee,

in the caucus you must follow my command." That is what he said, he's

on record as saying that.

I'll give you the quote from the New Brunswick conference where he

said: "It is the obligation of every member of a political party to

follow the dictates of the party and vote as the party says they must."

Do you deny that statement Mr. Leader? Do you deny that? Of course you

don't. He's even ashamed to turn around and look me in the eye. He's

ashamed to look me in the eye, sitting there with his back to the

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, I think the Member has made his point.

MR. CAPOZZI: His arrogant display of the comments made, because he…

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one of those eyes do you want him to look into?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Member now get back to the principle of the bill? I think we've dealt long enough with the point.

MR. CAPOZZI: The principle of the bill has shifted slightly, Mr. Speaker. As shifty as the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Now get back to the principle of the bill, or be seated.

MR. CAPOZZI: I am getting back, Mr. Speaker, because I am

stating that the principle of the bill is a question of an error being

corrected in front of the committee, the committee having voted on it

in committee, having made that decision, and then have Members of the

Opposition stand and vote against the very decision that they made

makes a mockery of the decision, makes a mockery of the bill, makes a

mockery of the whole procedure that we're involved in.

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

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there's six facts to be considered here, and no more than six facts and let's consider them.

Fact number one was an error on the part of a department of

government, and that has been admitted and it is a patent error. Fact

number two, this caused these particular claims to go into default.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Quiet! Fact number three, we find a subject is in

the position of having to suffer at the hands of this government. And

fact number four, the correct remedy lay under the provisions of the

Mineral Act, which I read to the House.

It's preposterous and indeed false for the Minister to say that this is not the correct remedy.

Fact number five, there has been no explanation by the government

why the order-in-council route was not taken, nor by the petitioner.

And the sixth and last fact is this. Notwithstanding the wrong route

has been taken, if we defeat this bill we are in essence penalizing the

petitioner for governmental errors. I think the government's

explanation has been shoddy, shabby and weak, but I do not intend to

see that a petitioner who has a valid claim is going to be thrown out

of court and I intend to support the bill.

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

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I think not only is the Honourable

Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) stunned as he admitted, but

he is suffering from amnesia as a result of the trauma.

Because it's an important point that the report says that we

recommend that we proceed with the bill. But how we proceed with it is

the next question to be solved in the House in terms of after second

reading and amendment.

I had rather hoped that the Minister would talk about giving the

equal rights as every other citizen gets in British Columbia, in terms

of once a Crown grant — which was prior to 1957 — has been relinquished

to the Crown, that it be reinstated by lease the way every other one

would be.

Now, I would say yes, put them back in exactly the same position and

I said this in the committee, I said it in the committee. I said: "Put

them back in the same position if the government is entirely at fault

and there is no blame to be attached to the petitioner."

But the fact of the matter is, that I outlined earlier, there's some

blame attached to the petitioners. And therefore they are asking for a

remedy not entirely theirs by right. If they were in a court, they have

to come into court and do equity as well as seek equity, and therefore

they must expect the remedy they get will not necessarily be what they

formerly enjoyed as a prerogative that is no longer granted to anybody

else in British Columbia since 1957.

The answer it seems to me, is that they should get back those claims

as a first right over anyone else since there is no one else, we were

told, competing for the leasehold rights for those reverted Crown

grants.

Why would they not be satisfied with that? And why would the

Minister not be satisfied to do it in that fashion by simple amendment

which could go in committee stage, and we could discuss? Which merely

reverts to Crown leases like everybody else. If they could prove that

they had not been remiss in what they did, in their behavior.

Eight hundred people were pretty remiss in letting the thing go the

way it did, they were pretty remiss in not one of them drawing

attention to the Gazette which is more widely read than of course the Honourable Member from Vancouver Centre really knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. DOWDING: Had these things been done, and in view of the

various letters that were sent out which the committee studied, it

became abundantly clear that there had been negligence on the part of a

great number of people, other than just the fellow in New York. And you

know circumstances. I'm urging the government again to consider if this

bill proceeds that it proceed on the basis that I suggest, which is a

very simple amendment, which could be done. I urge the government to

think about that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without

[ Page 971 ]

Portfolio,

HON. G. McCARTHY: (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

there have been a couple of things that have been unsaid in this debate

and one is that in the committee stage, when the committee was

considering the possibilities of assisting the 800 shareholders — who I

suggest are innocent shareholders in this particular case, no matter

what the Member from Burnaby-Edmonds has just stated — we have in this

debate heard from the Opposition really emphasizing more the handling

of the bill itself.

I think there are really only two things that we should concern

ourselves with. One is, how should the bill be handled? — brought out

very well by the Members of the Opposition. And secondly, the

protection of the shareholders which has been the main concern of the

committee, and I serve on that committee with the other Members who

have spoken.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that had the government taken

the other route which the Honourable Member from Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) has suggested is possible — and that is to have gone through

order-in-council — it is quite possible that it could have been handled

that way.

I certainly don't dispute the learned counsel of the lawyer member

from Vancouver–Point Grey, but I suggest to you that the Members of the

Opposition, who have been so vocal in their opposition to this bill,

surely then would have been on their feet.

Instead of saying that we have made an error, an administrative

error, in this government department and that we should take it through

order-in-council, they would have been very, very critical indeed of

this government for admitting a mistake firstly. Then they would have

charged this government with covering up by order-in-council.

It is really I think most important in this bill that the government

was ready to bring it before us, in the light of day, before a full

committee of this House with all parties represented so that the whole

of the bill and the ramifications thereof would have been debated.

I suggest to you had it be handled any other way, Mr. Speaker, that

the government could rightly have been criticized for that manner of

handling a bill of this type. I would suggest to you what we really are

doing here is something that sets a precedent in terms of discussing an

error in government. And I don't take the same viewpoint as the

Honourable Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) does that it is

about time that the light of day was brought on a government's effort.

We are all human and there are errors made within the administration

of every government, and every business. But this committee of the

House has not had to debate at any given time, or handle a suggestion

rising from an error, an administrative error. This is the first time

this particular committee in the past five years has had to consider

such an error, So I suggest to you it should have been brought out

through committee. It is the only democratic way that it should be

handled by this Legislature, and now the recommendation of the

committee is that it be pursued, and I think more so on behalf of the

800 shareholders and I support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that if this

property was returned on a lease basis it would not be correcting the

error, and there seems little doubt that an error was made. In fact the

government, or the Crown, accepted taxes on this property after they

had actually reverted to the Crown. This has all be gone through in

committee. The Members know it, they agreed wholeheartedly in the

committee to the acceptance of this bill's proceeding. Right now most

of the argument that has been put forward is certainly redundant

because they had decided beforehand that the bill was going to be

presented and have second reading.

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

HON. MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable second Member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Price) spoke on some of the points I was

going to speak on.

Number one, this was Crown-granted property, subject of course to

taxation, and through non-payment of taxes naturally it falls into

default. Now to issue a lease on this property doesn't put it in the

same status as Crown-granted property, so you're not really restoring

to the people what they originally had with in advertent loss not

through their fault, that is the shareholders', but through their

executive officers'.

Now under the Department of Mines Act ,

where an error has occurred it is quite clearly indicated that when the

error occurs on behalf of the department, the shareholders will not be

unduly hurt by way of those errors. And this is the reason of putting

this back into the shareholders' hands on the exactly same grounds they

held when the property was in good standing.

Now as far as the order-in-council, I am advised in this particular

case, by the Attorney General's Department, that it doesn't come within

the ambit of the Act — that is they can't give statutory authority for

it. They can do this where it is obvious that such an event is going to

happen but this event is a thing of the past, it happened some years

ago, so it's a case of the Legislature restoring this in its original

status to the shareholders. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 47 be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 47, Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited (Nonpersonal Liability) Mineral Claims Act , ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Report on Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Report on Bill No. 3.

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act .

Bill No. 3 committed and reported complete without amendment.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

[ Page 972 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 3 be read a third time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-30

Mussallem

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Kripps, Mrs.

Jordan, Mrs.

Chabot

Price

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Capozzi

Kiernan

Chant

Vogel

Bennett

Loffmark

LeCours

Peterson

Gaglardi

Little

Black

Campbell, D.R.J.

Jefcoat

Fraser

Brothers

Tisdalle

Campbell, B.

Shelford

Bruch

Wolfe

Richter

NAYS-19

Brousson

Hall

Macdonald

Gardom

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Wallace

Calder

Dowding

Marshall

Clark

Nimsick

Cocke

McGeer

Barrett

Hartley

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Lorimer

Bill No. 3 read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I'd ask

your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Wenman) made a

public statement that he was abstaining himself from a vote on this

bill because he had a pecuniary interest and I refer you to Votes and Proceedings

No. 67, Friday, March 24, 1972, wherein it is recorded that the Member

voted in committee stage of this bill on a particular section.

I ask that if the Member withdraws on the basis of pecuniary

interest from voting on second reading, does that not also apply — if

that is his own decision — to votes during the committee stage of the

bill itself?

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, on examining our standing

order No. 17, it states that: "No Member is entitled to vote upon any

question on which he has a direct pecuniary interest and the vote of

any Member so interested shall be disallowed."

It may well be that the Honourable Member had no particular

pecuniary interest in the particular

section upon which the committee

divided. The House isn't knowledgeable of this, at least the Chair is

not knowledgeable of this.

In any case if the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition is rising

to a point to ask that his vote be not allowed in a particular section,

the House will have to consider that. The Chair itself is not in a

position to consider it.

The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Chair to consider a ruling on that.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention that the Member is

recorded as voting on some sections but also paired on the one

particular

section — which I understand in our rules is a vote in

itself.

A pairing is a recognition that there was a decision around the

vote. So I ask for your ruling and ask for a ruling in writing. Perhaps

the Chair could instruct the Member to put in writing the decision that

he made as announced to the Press so that the House would be advised as

to what his action was.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think if there's any intention on the

part of the House to have the vote of the Honourable Member disallowed

then a substantive motion to this effect should be placed on the order

paper.

MR. BARRETT: Can that be initiated from the Chair?

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

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, in defining the direct pecuniary

interest — at one stage to myself — you limited it to those votes

which, though they may involve the individual in a group, unless the

vote specifically involves him as an individual, it is not a pecuniary

interest as defined in there.

You gave me the quote — I can give you the letter you directed to

me. Though he may feel that he has a pecuniary interest, it is not a

pecuniary interest as defined both in the regulations in May and in the

past procedure where a person for example in this House may vote on his

own salary because he is voting as a general group.

He may vote on other things that involve him both in his industry,

both in his development, as a lawyer may vote on legal matters.

Therefore a pecuniary interest, even though the Member may feel that,

is not under the rules of the House a direct interest. I would ask that

you check that definition first.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well. The Chair has nothing to consider until the motion has been placed before it. It must be done by notice.

The Honourable the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 25, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 25, intituled Gift Tax Act .

Bill No. 25 was committed and reported complete without amendment.

GIFT TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 25 be now read a third time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS—45

Ney

Barrett

Black

Mussallem

Dailly, Mrs.

Fraser

Cocke

Vogel

Campbell, B.

[ Page 973 ]

Hartley

LeCours

Wolfe

Lorimer

Little

Smith

Hall

Jefcoat

McDiarmid

Williams, R.A.

Tisdalle

Chabot

Calder

Bruch

Skillings

Weriman

McCarthy, Mrs.

Chant

Kripps, Mrs.

Jordan, Mrs.

Loffmark

Price

Dawson, Mrs.

Gaglardi

Macdonald

Kiernan

Campbell, D.R.J.

Strachan

Williston

Brothers

Dowding

Bennett

Shelford

Nimsick

Peterson

Richter

NAYS—8

Brousson

Marshall

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Clark

Capozzi

Wallace

McGeer

Bill No. 25 read a third time and passed.

MR. CAPOZZI: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just on the Gift

Tax Act , the same principles, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, would apply

in pecuniary interest as in a person voting as a member of teachers…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Honourable Member take his place?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 89, Mr. Speaker.

KOOTENAY CANAL LAND ACQUISITION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 89. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with B.C. Hydro

building the canal and taking the land from Nelson — expropriating

certain lands from Nelson.

While I realise the urgency there may be of the B.C. Hydro needing

the land, I do not think that the B.C. Hydro negotiated in the best of

faith with the City of Nelson.

I've got a write-up here from the Nelson News and it says that at a

meeting in Nelson, February 19, between Mr. Williston and the City

council…

A basic agreement for the sale of Nelson electrical

system was agreed upon. This agreement was embodied in a resolution

passed by council and forwarded to Mr. Williston.

March 16, Mr. Williston sent Walter Raudsepp, deputy

Minister of Water Resources and Dennis Kennedy of the B.C. Hydro to

meet with council and present a memorandum of Mr. Williston's

interpretation of the February 19 meeting.

Council decided the terms of the memorandum was so

different from the agreement reached February 19, that the city had no

alternative but to reject it. The agreement provided that the purchase

price of the electrical system would protect the present benefits,

direct and indirect, derived by the city from the system.

The government takes the position that the purchase

price should reflect future benefits only. The Minister indicated to

council that negotiations can continue after the expropriation but

council is concerned its position will be substantially weakened after

the land seizure.

And down further in the story …

Mayor Maglio said that it is difficult to place an

assessment on money the city would receive under Mr. Williston's new

sale formula because it is so ambiguous when compared with the one

discussed previously. Nelson, which started B.C.'s first hydro-electric

plant in 1896 has been operating and distributing its own power from

the Kootenay River since 1907. Mr. Williston said the city now has the

option of selling out its plant to B.C. Hydro or continuing to run the

plant.

Now the conditions that Nelson I understand wanted, was to be able

to purchase the extra power they needed from the B.C. Hydro. This was

refused. At the present time they are purchasing their extra power from

the West Kootenay Power and Light.

I think there's somewhat of a moral issue here too, Mr. Speaker, in

the fact that Nelson was the first place in British Columbia to develop

public power. And I think that in a case like that they should be

treated in a very favourable manner. These negotiations for the

purchase of the power plant that the government is talking about going

ahead with after the expropriation of this certain land, is all very

well. But I think in the meantime if we are negotiating in the fairest

way the government should have offered, or Hydro should have offered,

to sell them the power they needed until the negotiations were

complete. It may take a long time.

But don't forget that the West Kootenay Power is a private company

and they're not being taken over. But the first public power operation

in the Province of British Columbia in the business since 1896 we can

run rough-shod over them. But we don't run rough shod over the West

Kootenay Power. We allow them to continue on.

Hydro also sells huge blocks of power to private industry for

distribution. Why shouldn't they sell a block of power to the City of

Nelson for distribution to their people if they so need that extra

power? I'd say if this was done then you could consider that

negotiations were carried on in good faith.

But with the method that they've used, of not carrying out what

Nelson thought was an agreement to the resolution, and Nelson rejects

it, and then they move right in with a bill asking the Legislature to

expropriate this land and taking away the only argument that Nelson had

in regards to trying to get the extra power, then I think that it's not

negotiating in good faith.

I would like to see the government, or B.C. Hydro accede to Nelson's

demands in regards to power. As far as expropriation of the land goes — expropriate it, and then negotiate afterwards. But don't negotiate with

an axe over their heads that, "we're not going to sell you any power if

you need the power you have to sell us the plant, " if the people need

extra power they'll have to sell the plant to B.C. Hydro.

I don't think this is good business, and not the way the City of Nelson should be treated.

I appreciate the position of the Honourable the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Black) being a representative of that area. I appreciate his

position, and he may have every faith that they're going to continue

negotiations in a just manner but he may not be here always, and some

of the rest of us may not be here always, and the people that make

these agreements may not be here.

I think that just telling them that you must consider that

[ Page 974 ]

we're going to negotiate in good faith is not good enough. And I

think that Nelson should be allowed to go ahead and then negotiate from

a position of equality.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 89 be read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS—34

Ney

McCarthy, Mrs.

Smith

Mussallem

Jordan, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Marshall

Dawson, Mrs.

Chabot

Weriman

Kiernan

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Williston

Chant

Price

Bennett

Loffmark

Capozzi

Peterson

Gaglardi

LeCours

Black

Campbell, D.R.J.

Little

Fraser

Brothers

Jefcoat

Campbell, B.

Shelford

Tisdalle

Wolfe

Richter

Bruch

NAYS—17

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGEER

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

PAIR

Vogel

Wallace

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 89, Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 98, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, 1967

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill

No. 98,

An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act, 1967. The Honourable

Member for Surrey adjourned the debate.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Examination of

this amending bill indicates that one of the greatest messes that there

is in the province is in the pollution control branch. The principle of

this bill seeks to clean up the mess that's in that department since we

passed the Act in 1967, and received a number of progress reports from

the Minister every year since then.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that in 1971, four years

after we passed the statute, we had on staff in this province for this

government for pollution control approximately 35 people. Twelve months

after we moved an amendment seeking to insist on people reporting

discharge effluent and other things, Mr. Speaker, we got the grand

total of 35 people on staff. One year following that we had increased

our staff to 85.

It still isn't enough and now we envisage increasing it to 185 — slow recognition of the principle in this bill that we had to do some

work.

Sixty seven we passed the act, '70 we said was the reporting date,

'71 we had 35 people on staff and now we seek to extend the time almost

retroactively by one-and-a-third years, and that simply isn't good

enough Mr. Speaker.

In an effort to cure the administrative problems of this department

we are now suggesting as a second, and I think most offensive, part of

the bill to give temporary approvals — short-circuiting the very

procedure that we have laid down in our statutes, the procedure to

allow people to know what is going on, the procedure to allow people to

act as watch dogs and guards of our own community. In fact, to respond

positively to the Minister's plea of some years ago that we should all

be guards, we should all be watch dogs. And here we have by edict, by

administrative ukase, the ability of the pollution control head to

allow temporary permits.

When the Minister announced this bill he said that it was for

purposes of administrative convenience. To allow events to catch up

with the passage of time. Mr. Speaker, while supporting definitely the

widening of the definition of the

section and the air control measures

in the Greater Vancouver area as the only people who are possibly able

in this stage and time, and with this government to do the job, I

cannot support this bill because of this principle of extending time.

It's a sad record. I've read it out, I will repeat it slowly for the last time for this Minister.

That we moved the Act in 1967, we had 35 people on staff by the

spring of 71. We increased it in effort to catch up. We've fallen

behind, now we seek to clean up the administrative boondoggle by

putting this Act before us.

I cannot support it, Mr. Speaker. I think it speaks ill of the

administrative expertise of this department which has for years prided

itself on its administration. But obviously this is low priority on the

totem pole of that overworked Minister.

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

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, or at least on

that same area. In these changes I see nothing that really encourages

John Q. Public, John Citizen to become involved as a citizen in the

area of water pollution.

Unless you or I or John Citizen has water rights in the area

involved you cannot become involved. Unless you are a scientist or a

chemist and you feel that something that a mine or industry is doing in

your community, unless you have sufficient academic training and

talent, then you really cannot defend the sanitation of the environment

of your community before a hearing.

I'm disappointed that these changes have not broadened the scope of

our pollution control legislation so that more and more people will be

encouraged to be interested and involved in the interest of a better

environment, of cleaning up the environment.

When other legislation has been brought in a few years ago, when the

Litter Act , was brought in the Premier and the Minister who brought the

Litter Act in stated that this was

[ Page 975 ]

to involve people and to encourage them, I hoped that it would. I

felt that if we start with little things, picking up the bits of paper

and so on, this is good.

But when it comes down to the real nitty gritty of a hearing with

regard to what a mine, a mill, or a community is going to do with its

effluent then only those that have sufficient academic expertise in

that field are allowed to present a paper, or those that are directly

involved by water rights and so on. I think in future we should keep

this in mind and do what we can to broaden the scope so that any and

every citizen has a right to present a brief in lay language.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this pollution question, the

question the Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley) just

spoke about, created quite a bit of confusion up in my area when the

pollution board had a meeting up there, dealing with the mining

effluent. They only wanted briefs that had technical information.

But this issue covers a far wider scope than just those that have

the technical information in regards to the pollution. Because the

people have got to live with much of this pollution. And I think that

when you have a seminar or a group such as this getting together that

we should hear from the ordinary person as well as just those with the

technical information. Many times, people with just technical

information are not interested in the basic problems of pollution. And

I think it is high time to end the talking about pollution and do

something concrete in putting action to all the words that have been

expressed. We must stop the further encroachment of polluting our

streams, our air and our land.

I would suggest that the pollution control board bring in

legislation that will put some real teeth in the legislation and not

leave it so wide open that whenever there's a back lash from the

orders, then the pollution control board runs away from the real

problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 98 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

THIRD READINGS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 29, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 29,

An Act to Amend the Chartered Accountants Act .

Bill No. 29 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 30, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 30, Family Relations Act .

Bill No. 30 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 49, Mr. Speaker,

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act .

Interruption.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will someone have that lady

removed from the gallery before all galleries are cleared? This House

is recessed until the galleries are cleared of that lady.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the bill

complete with amendments. A division took place on

section 2 as amended

and the committee asked leave to have that division recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: Dealing with

section 2 which was amended in the

committee and upon which a division took place, leave will be required

in order to record that division in the Journals . Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): With the consent of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seemed to me that the division that was taken in the House was on the

section as amended?

MR. SPEAKER: Didn't I so state?

MR. STRACHAN Oh, I understood it to be on the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: I did intend to say

section 2 as amended.

MR. STRACHAN: Fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, is it agreed then that the bill be read a third time now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 65, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 65

An Act to Amend the Forest Act .

Bill No. 65 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 68, Mr.

[ Page 976 ]

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 68,

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act .

Bill No. 68 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 70, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 70, Criminal Injuries Compensation Act .

Bill No. 70 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 71, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 71,

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act .

Bill No. 71 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 72, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 72,

An Act to Amend the Highway Act .

Bill No. 72 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 77, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 77,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act .

Bill No. 77 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: I understood there were some committee reports but do you wish to adjourn?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, with leave to consider a committee report after the hour.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Price from the select standing committee on standing orders and

private bills presented report No. 8 which was read as follows and

adopted:

Your select standing committee on standing orders and private bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the

preamble to Bill No. 52 intituled

An Act to Incorporate

Vanco Insurance Company has been proved, and the bill ordered to be

reported with amendments.

Hon. Mr. Peterson moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I'm very happy to announce to

the Members of the House that one of our Members (Mr. Strachan) was

extremely honoured tonight at dinner by the fourth estate making the

Member along with the clerk and myself an Honorary Member of the Press

Gallery. This shows that no matter what he says in the House the Press

interprets it in the right way. They appreciated his great contribution

that he's made in the 20 years and I know all the Members of the House

will join in our appreciation.

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

a non-member witness at that evening introduction ceremony and I just

have this to say — that the reporting of that event will be as

inaccurate as everything else that takes place in this House. They were

complimentary of both the Premier and the former leader of the

Opposition. Because of these compliments, both were inaccurate, and I

want to say that the new conspiracy has taken place. The dean of the

clerks, the Premier and the former Leader of the Opposition are now in

the same group and woe betide the Province of British Columbia.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, Mr. Speaker, I was at a loss for words when…

AN HON. MEMBER: Never, never! (Laughter).

MR. STRACHAN: …this presentation was made to me this

evening. It's not often that I'm surprised. I've always prided myself

on an acuteness and awareness in reading the signs. But this time I was

busy on another project and didn't see the signs.

It is, I believe, a real honour to be made an Honorary Member of the

Legislative Press Gallery because while on occasion we may be critical

of the Press, while on occasion we may wonder at their reasons for

giving stress or front-page coverage to events, the Press have played

an important role in the development of our society.

I hope they will continue to do so, and to be made an Honorary

Member is what it means — a real honour. Publicly I want to say to the

Press and to the public who made it possible thank you very much.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 977 ]

THIRD READINGS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Continuing committee on Bill No. 77, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 77,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act .

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I leave the House now to join the Press gallery to report the proceedings. (Laughter). Accurately!

House in committee. The committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division took place in the committee on

sections 20, 27, 28 and 29 and the committee asked leave for the

divisions to be recorded in the Journals ,

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, the divisions that took

place on sections 20, 27, 28 and 29 will require leave in order to be

recorded in the Journals . Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Bill No. 77 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Committee on Bill No. 67, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 67, Safety Engineering Services Act .

Bill No. 67 committed, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 74, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 74,

An Act to Amend the Pari Mutual Betting Tax Act .

Bill No. 74 committed, reported complete without amendments, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 78, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 78,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Act .

Bill No. 78 committed, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 79, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 79, First Citizens of British Columbia Corporation Act .

Bill No. 79 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 81, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 81,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority Act .

Bill No. 81 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed,

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 82, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 82,

An Act to Amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1968 .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, a division occurred on

section 14 and the committee asked leave to have the division recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: The division that took place in the committee on

section 14 will require leave of the House in order to record it in the Journals .

Leave granted.

Bill No. 82 committed, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:46 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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