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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 843 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

By leave of the House, on the motion of Mr. R. Wenman, Bill (No. 40) intituled

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act was withdrawn.

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

The committee rose, reported Resolutions 240 to 244, inclusive,

Estimates of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement,

and asked leave to sit again at the next sitting.

The House proceeded to the Order "Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions."

Mr. B. Price moved that Report No. 5 of the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, relative to Bill (No.

53) intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter , be adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, rising to oppose the

adoption of this report, I want to point out that it's a very important

issue that is involved in the committee's report. I'm going to look to

you for some advice, Mr. Speaker. We have a motion of adjournment, of

course, a time of adjournment set already and I …

MR. SPEAKER: Would the House give leave to the Honourable Member to speak after 6: 00 p.m.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. Proceed.

MR. HALL: Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I will take up a couple

of minutes pointing out what I think is happening in this report. The

city of Vancouver asked for change of this charter to give tenants the

right to vote on money by-laws. This corporation felt that that was

important procedure for them to follow, having just been elected to

office only last December with some continuity in the Council. We see

in the report that those provisions have been taken out and I'd like

to, if I may, Mr. Speaker, move adjournment of this debate 'til the

next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. G. Mussallem presented Report No. 1 of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing.

The report was taken as read and received.

The Honourable D.R.J. Campbell, Minister of Municipal Affairs,

presented a Report of the First Citizens' Fund Advisory Committee for

the period June 15, 1969, to March 31, 1971.

By leave of the House, on the motion of Mr. R. Wenman, Notices of

Questions numbered 201, 202, 203, and 204, standing in his name on the

Order Paper, were withdrawn.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

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

The committee rose, reported Resolutions 245 to 254, inclusive.

Estimates of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement,

Resolution 255, Estimates of the Ministers without Portfolio, and 218

and 219, Estimates of the Public Utilities Commission, and asked leave

to sit again at the next sitting.

The committee further reported that, in consideration of Vote 248,

the Committee divided and 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 in Committee on Vote 248

be recorded in the Journals of the House as follows:

YEAS — 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

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

Gardom

Calder

Strachan

Cocke

Clark

Dowding

Hartley

McGeer

Nimsick

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Barrett

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly, Mrs.

Williams, R.A.

PAIR:

Messieurs

Merilees

Brousson

The reports of Resolutions from the Committee of Supply on February

23rd and 25th and March 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th,

19th, 24th, 25th, 26th and 31st and April 1st were taken as read and

received.

[ Page 844 ]

On the motion of the Honourable the Minister of Finance, seconded by

the Honourable the Attorney-General, the Rules were suspended and the

Resolutions from the Committee of Supply were read a second time, taken

as read, and agreed to.

Resolved, That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolutions.

On the motion of the Honourable the Minister of Finance, seconded by

the Honourable the Attorney-General, it was Ordered that Mr. Speaker do

now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and

Means.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Ways and Means.

The Committee reported the Resolution. That towards the making good

the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Public Service of the

Province, there be granted from and out of the Consolidated Revenue

Fund the following: (1) $46,027,335 to make good certain sums expended

for the fiscal year ended the 3ist day of March 1970.

(2) $1,300,692,600 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for

the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1972.

The Resolution read a second time, taken as read, and agreed to.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, Bill (No. 108) intituled

An Act for Granting Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province of British Columbia was introduced, and read a first time.

By leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the bill was read a second time.

By leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the bill was

referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

The bill was committed, reported complete without amendment and, by

leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the bill Ordered to be

read a third time.

Bill 108 read a third time and passed.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills in the Hands of Private Members."

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 8,

An Act Respecting A Guaranteed Income for Senior Citizens . The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, this bill, placed on

the Order Paper early in the Session to enable the Members a great deal

of time to review it, will, I'm sure, find great support by all parties

in this House. There has been such a heavy public demand for copies of

this bill, Mr. Speaker, that I was unable to locate a copy for myself

but I want to thank the Member for giving me his autographed copy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very, very simple bill designed to

create a minimum income, a guaranteed minimum income, for the senior

citizens of the Province of British Columbia. It says, "Any resident of

British Columbia, 65 years of age or over, who has a total income of

less than $200 per month, shall receive an allowance sufficient to

bring his or her total income to a minimum of $200 per month." It is

not inconsistent with the Canada Assistance Plan. At the present time,

under the Federal-Provincial sharing grant, the Federal Government will

pay a total of $109, with the direct supplement to the Universal Old

Age Pension and the Provincial Government pays another shared $30 on

that amount. The senior citizen, who is completely broke at the age of

65, does receive close to $150 per month here in the Province of

British Columbia. Now, I'm suggesting that an additional supplement be

instituted by this Government that would require only a cost-sharing,

under the present agreement, of 50/50. There are approximately 11,000

people who fall into the category that this bill would cover. These

people have a total income, at the age of 65, of less than $200 per

month and, if we pass this bill, we would allow ourselves to bring all

of these people up to a minimum of $200 per month.

Mr. Speaker, I have here and I'd like to table with the House,

petitions circulated for signatures throughout many areas of the

Province of British Columbia in support of this bill. This petition

says, "We, the undersigned citizens of British Columbia, humbly

petition the Government and the Legislative Assembly, in special

recognition of the hardships and privation suffered by our senior

citizens, to establish in this year legislation respecting a guaranteed

income, and enacting that any resident in British Columbia, 65 years of

age or over and a total income of less than $200 per month, shall

receive an allowance, in addition, to his or her income to a minimum of

$200 per month." In this Centennial Year, within a matter of a few

weeks, 4,000 people signed these petitions.

Just a word about that, Mr. Speaker, these petitions were circulated

by the young New Democrats. Young people who have an interest in

politics and did something positive by going out and securing petitions

on good, sane, rational, responsible, political action and have

delivered to my office 4,000 signatures of people supporting this bill.

I'd like to table these petitions with the House and urge the

Government to accept this bill that so many citizens of this Province

have indicated they would like to see passed.

By leave of the House, Mr. Barrett tabled a petition relating to Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I am sure that the honourable

Member realizes that a bill which purports to spend public funds would

be at variance with our own Constitution Act and with our Standing Order 66. For that reason, it is out of order.

MR. BARRETT: I am disappointed to hear that, Mr. Speaker.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Second reading of Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 46,

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act . The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I

recognize the Rules of the House and the problem of presenting bills

that cause expenditure to the Crown but this bill, I wish to assure

you, will not cause expenditure to the Crown but, instead, there are

several

[ Page 845 ]

money-saving devices listed in the bill. I'd like

to talk about the money-saving devices, rather than the

money-expenditure devices that it might be liable to.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is going to talk himself right out of order before he gets started (Laughter) .

MR. WENMAN: Oh, fine. Well, in fact, I won't refer to money

at all, then. The first principle that is referred to in this bill

hopes to amend the Public Schools Act

to allow for the continuous school year. In the fast growth areas, such

as Delta, we feel that this would be a very desirable programme. We

have a Committee studying it and we hope that we could put it in the

form of legislation. That is one of the principles of the bill.

Another principle of the bill, one we've talked about often, is that

of recognizing in the Centennial Year Canadian citizenship, recognizing

that the Attorney-General, as a great Swede, has the same right as a

person with British citizenship. This recommends that we strike the

words "British subject" out and recognize Canadian citizens for the

right of those sitting on school boards and, secondly, for those having

the right to vote on school issues.

Another principle involved in this bill relates to sick leave of

teachers and it is hoped that this will give an incentive to teachers

to be in the classroom, unless it is absolutely impossible for them to

be there. I would hope that, through this, we would give them an

incentive to gather their sick leave, to keep it up and, then, give

them a leave of absence. This, I think, would cut down considerably

again on costs. I have suggested that we also employ a public health

nurse to ensure that the health of the teacher be maintained, because

we can't afford to have a $20 substitute in place of a $60 teacher, who

is providing a high calibre of service.

In addition to that, another principle relates to the teaching of

religion in the schools and I would like to say that I feel, while

religion should not, as such, be taught in schools, the Lord's Prayer

and other passages of the Scriptures, as they are now being read and

used, are making a mockery of religion. This should be improved and

could be improved by passing the amendment, making any form of the

Lord's Prayer or Scriptures to be taught as social studies or to be

practical and meaningful approach. I would go further and say that we

should also be teaching the other great religions of the world — Mohammedanism, Buddhism and the other philosophies that have built the

world that we all live in.

Then, finally, I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, a

section in the act

that will cause equalization of school grants for the rapid growth

areas of Delta. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure whether the honourable Member moved

second reading of the bill but I think it won't make a great deal of

difference. The bill, particularly in

section 6, is very clearly out of

order in the employment of a public health nurse for one, and in the

extension of certain sick leave benefits to teachers and, under the

circumstances, would be out of order under our own Standing Order 66.

MR. WENMAN: I'll accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 63, Prevention of Restraint of Professional Practices Act . The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): This bill is intituled, Mr. Speaker, P revention of Restraint of Professional Practices Act .

In previous years, I have placed a bill on the Order Paper in regards

to the medical profession. My interests in this bill arose out of the

limitation of the rights of the doctors in my area to practice if they

left the clinic at which they were working. At that time, the medical

profession thought that I was discriminating against them and so, this

year, I brought in one to cover all the professions because, if the

same practice is going on in any of the other professions, it's

limiting the civil rights of a person. Just to give you an idea of the

reason why I brought it in, in the agreements both in Cranbrook, in

Fernie and in Michel… (interruption) .

So did the teachers have an agreement, so do others, but you made

short work of them. "The assistant will not for a period of five years

after the termination of his employment carry on either alone or in

partnership with any other person or persons, nor act as assistant to

any person or persons carrying on or about to carry on a practice, of a

physician, surgeon or general medical practitioner in the city of

Fernie or within 10 miles from a post office thereof, and will for each

breach of the stipulation contained in this clause pay to the principle

the sum of $5,000." Now, this would prevent anyone from signing any

agreement with a restrictive clause or prevent the organizations from

asking people to sign an agreement with a restrictive clause like this

in it. And if it were signed, then, the Court would throw it out but,

to me…. (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: May we have some order, please?

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this is in the professional field

and we pay money to train these people in the educational system. They

go to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the College determines

whether they've got the right to practise in the Province of British

Columbia or not. I don't think that any restrictive clause should

disallow them from practising any place. Just to give you an example,

Mr. Speaker, this doctor in Fernie was working for the clinic. He was

only working for them and when he left the clinic, he was expelled from

within 10 miles of the city of Fernie. He went to work in Michel. Now

Michel hasn't got such an equipped hospital that they can do all the

operating there, so some of the cases have got to go to Fernie to be

operated on. What happened? This doctor couldn't even scrub in the

hospital at Fernie for the doctor that he was working for in Michel (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have some order so that we can get along with this debate?

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I don't think at any time that any

one in the professional field should be limited in this regard. They've

got to qualify to make their practice and they shouldn't be denied nor

exiled from the area. If a union was to exile a worker from an area and

tell him that he couldn't practise down the street, it would be

terrible, and you'd jump right down their throat. You'd immediately

bring in a law to stop it but here is a law … because it protects

business people, business that emphasizes free enterprise and, yet,

they want to build up a little empire. Then, they're afraid of any

competition who go down the street and start

[ Page 846 ]

up. I don't think that that is right, Mr. Speaker.

I think that some of the Members are just being a little bit chintzy

about this deal. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is a violation of human

rights for these people to be denied the right to practise after they

leave the employment of somebody else (interruption) .

They don't sign an agreement. They didn't have to sign an agreement.

The doctor in Cranbrook never signed an agreement. So, don't tell me

that. They can still hold them to it and I feel that something has got

to be done in this regard.

Now, the Honourable the Minister of Health, last year, did promise

me that he would took into the matter and do something. I know he did

look into the matter to a certain point. Maybe, he's got something to

say, again, that they will look further into it. I'm very interested at

this point because I don't think that this doctor who is in Michel now

— and it's difficult to get doctors into a small hospital like Michel — and if he can't even scrub for the doctor who he's with in Fernie, to

me, there's something haywire with our system and haywire with our

business relations throughout the Province of British Columbia. I move

second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable Member

should observe that this bill would nullify the terms of existing

agreements, agreements that have already been entered into and for

which valid consideration may have been paid. On that ground, alone, I

would suggest that the bill is objectionable. However, the subject

matter raised is a very worthwhile question to be raised before this

House and this is the whole question of covenants in restraint of

trade. It's a good question but I think the honourable Member should

recognize that his bill, drafted as it is, should be considered

objectionable to all the Members of this House.

The question that's raised is still a valid one. I want to advise

the Members that this is a subject which the Law Reform Commission has

accepted as a matter for study. I would refer you to their Annual Report

which was submitted to the House, earlier this year, on page 12, under

item 7, Covenants in Restraint of Trade. "There is a wide variety of

covenants in restraint of trade. At one end of the scale, these can be

in the form of agreements by commercial concerns regarding price fixing

or exclusive dealing which may or may not run foul of the combines

legislation. At the other, there is simple agreement, given by a

partner or employee, that he will not compete should he leave the

partnership or employment."

That's precisely what the honourable Member was speaking of and, as

a matter of fact, they refer to the specific case which you cited, the

case of Green versus Stanton, reported in 1969 in the Western Weekly reports.

In that case was the medical partnership case which the honourable

Member referred to. So, this is the subject of full study and I would

hope that, when we get the recommendations of the Law Reform

Commission, then, we would give further consideration to the matter. At

this time, the bill is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): I was very pleased to hear

the Attorney-General's comments on this proposed legislation. I think

the bill proposed by the Member for Kootenay is something that has

bearing throughout this entire Province. I could cite cases of mothers

and families, mothers who go to hospitals many, many miles away because

of some concern with the local clinic and, where there is just one

clinic, it's a closed shop. Because of dissatisfaction certain mothers

and families have received, instead of having their baby in the local

hospital, they're travelling, in the prenatal period, many miles to

another clinic in another community and having that child in another

hospital. So, I was very pleased to hear the Attorney-General's

comments on this. I hope it will be reviewed. This kind of thing is the

very negation of free enterprise and it's doing a great deal to lower

the quality of health care in this Province.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I, too,

would like to support the principle of the bill because I think when

you have, in the professions that are listed, people who set up in

business, in a secondary sense in business, in a primary sense to serve

the public, the bill obviously follows and recognizes those professions

that this House has heretofore recognized as being professions. If a

profession is there to serve the public, then, business considerations

should be second to service to the public. There is the additional

factor that the public finances most of these professions in getting

their start. It wasn't set up to become a monopoly. A monopoly is a

dangerous thing, if it happens to be in a profession, of all things.

I'm going to suggest that the kind of bargaining that may go on

between two professionals in regard to selling or purveying their

services in a given area is not quite the same as if you were in any

other kind of business, because you can't serve the public and make

these kind of private bargains. Now, are we in favour of this kind of

self-restricting monopoly? I say that it should be, and should be

declared to be, against public policy. Merely to declare it against

public policy means that no Court would, following the passage of such

a bill, permit either party to sue in the Courts to enforce a contract

contrary to public policy, as declared by this House. Consequently, I'm

very glad to hear that the Law Reform Commission is giving thought to

this kind of a principle (interruption) .

It happens that we're dealing with a matter of professionalism, and

if you had true competition in this field of professionalism, as you do

in some fields of enterprise, then, it would be possible, Mr. Speaker,

to say let people make their private deals and divide up the market and

say no competition here, no competition there. I don't think that this

House should place a seal of approval on that kind of private dealing

that injures the public. When we give a special right to practise to a

professional, he is dedicated to all the people not to a market. That's

what this bill recognizes and that's why I'm glad to hear the words of

the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to withdraw the bill or do you want to vote on it'!

MR. NIMSICK: Well, I'd like to listen to what the rest of them have to say.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

[ Page 847 ]

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, there's one aspect of the

speech by the Honourable Member from Kootenay that has caused me some

concern. I hope he will consider this because perhaps he can assist me.

If, when he said that this doctor would not be allowed to scrub as an

assistant in the hospital at Fernie, I wonder if he could, at some

time, indicate to me whether this prohibition arose out of an

interpretation of the contract. On that, I could do nothing more than

suggest that it's possible that attendance at a hospital in Fernie

coming from Michel might not be the carrying on of a practice in

Fernie. On that point, of course, I have nothing more than the

observation of a casual listener on it. However, there's another matter

in which I would have a direct concern and that is whether the

limitations upon his activities in that hospital arose, not because of

an

interpretation of the contract, but because of an

interpretation put

on it by the hospital itself.

Now, if it's the hospital that said he couldn't practise there, that

would be a matter of great concern and one which I would want to hear a

little bit more about. Perhaps the honourable Member might, later on,

assist me on that point. I don't think I'd be prepared.to do anything

other than make the casual comment that I've made here on the

interpretation of that contract as to whether carrying on an activity

in the hospital constituted practising in Fernie, but if the hospital

itself, or the Board, has limited, in any way, his right and privileges

in that hospital as a consequence of that contract, then, I would like

to know about that because that would be a matter in which I would

concern myself.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise on

this because, although the bill is a sort of private member's bill put

in here, there's a very fundamental principle involved. The Member from

Kootenay has suggested that this is a violation of a certain type of

principle, the recognition of what is known as a negative covenant

under law, which is the concept of an individual agreeing for certain

consideration to forego the right of practice, or the right of

operation, of a certain type of either a store or an area in which he

has a vital concern, having agreed in principle to sell either a

portion of his business operation. The right, therefore, not to

practise or the agreement not to practise, in a certain limited area,

must be considered as a very valid part of the sale of such an

operation.

Let's take a very fundamental principle of a man, and we have to

assume that almost every business is built up as a result of a certain

amount of endeavour, occupation, activity …. . Take a barbershop,

where the individual touched the contact of the individual, builds up a

business and people start coming … (interruption) .

He's got it covered under here…come to that business. The man agrees

to sell that barbershop as a going concern, accepts remuneration for

the sale and the goodwill of that particular operation and agrees, as a

result of it, that he will not operate in that particular area because,

obviously, …. . Yes, barbers are included. You've got it in there,

hairdressers, barbers.

MR. SPEAKER: Barbers, chiropractors, hairdressers.

MR. CAPOZZI: They haven't even read the bill. They didn't

even know it was in there. Didn't you realize it was in there? It's the

whole concept of a business operation. If an individual builds up a

trade and then sells it and, then, the next day he opens up a shop one

block away, well, that certainly isn't a very fair principle, I would

suggest, Mr. Member. You are really dealing with the concept of

goodwill and the question of interfering with the person who opens up.

I can follow that to the next practices. I think and, you know, I'm not

trying to go into the particular case of one singular individual, such

as a doctor but I do suggest that, when people build up a trade or

build up a profession, whether it's accountancy or whether it's in the

field even of medical practice, or a lawyer, when he builds up a

practice and agrees to sell out that practice as a going concern, that

he, certainly, if he agrees not to open a practice within one block

away or 10 blocks away…. . The negative covenant under judges, by the

way, has been fairly well protected that they will not grant permission

that you won't open a shop anywhere in the world. They won't give you

permission and they won't protect an agreement that says, "I will not

open a shop anywhere in Canada." You must show specific areas where it

can interfere with that particular business and in that particular

location.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill would, in essence, and I pass

this along even to the study of this, suggest that this would affect

the right of any small businessman to build up a business, sell it to

someone else, and protect the person who buys that business. I think

it's a very bad bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kootenay will close the debate.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Honourable the

Minister of Health this arose from what the doctor told me. He was

working as an employee for the clinic in Fernie. It was within 10 miles

of there. Then he went to Michel when he left the clinic. When he came

back to Fernie with the doctor he was working with in Michel, they

wouldn't allow him to scrub in Fernie. Now, I understand that it was

the clinic in Fernie that wouldn't let him. He didn't tell me that the

hospital had anything to do with it, unless they were working in

conjunction with the clinic. That's what he told me, because he would

be in contempt of this agreement. I don't agree with the Honourable

Member for Vancouver Centre because he is the antithesis to free

enterprise. If we could stop these restrictive covenants, we would have

probably better business relations throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Honourable the Attorney-General

said, and I hope the Law Reform Commission continues to study this, I

will withdraw the bill.

By leave of the House, Bill 63 was withdrawn.

MR. PETERSON: Would you like to do the same, honourable Member, for Bill 64, in view of the other legislation?

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is

included in a bill by the Government I also, although I'm very pleased

that it was included, will withdraw this bill, with the leave of the

House.

By leave of the House, Bill 64 was withdrawn.

MR. PETERSON: Would you like to do the same for Bill 65? Second reading of Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 848 ]

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Annual Holidays Act .

This is our Centennial Year, a year that we have got a great deal of

unemployment in the Province of British Columbia. A number of years

ago, we placed a law on the Statute Books where two weeks was the

required holiday that every employee received for one year's work. That

was done, not only to assist the employee, but also to give more work

throughout the Province. Now, at that time, most collective agreements

already had two weeks' holiday with pay and the law that was placed on

the Statute Books only gave the other people, who didn't have

collective agreements or didn't have the organization that managed to

have collective agreements with their employer, it gave those people

the same right as people who had collective agreements. Today most

collective agreements are three weeks' holidays with pay. Therefore, I

think that, in order to keep pace, and at this time with automation the

way it's been going with the increase in unemployment, I think, that we

should make it three weeks with pay, after one year of employment. I

move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the honourable Member

realizes from previous decisions that have been handed down by the

Chair that the bill is out of order in the hands of a private Member.

MR. NIMSICK: I'm still living in hopes.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 81, Credit Information Protection Act. The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

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

are a number of principles involved in this bill, all dealing with the

collection of credit information, a subject that has been much debated

in this House. Very briefly, the principles included are that any

person who is collecting credit information would be obliged, under

this act, to tell the person about whom they are collecting the

information, what they are doing, so that no citizens, Mr. Speaker, in

the Province would have files accumulated on them without their

knowledge.

The second principle I would draw to the Members' attention, Mr.

Speaker, is that it gives the citizen the right to examine his credit

information file, having been notified that a file is being

accumulated. It makes it mandatory for the agency collecting the

information to give the citizen the right of examination. It then goes

on to give the citizen the right to determine where the information

contained in the report came from and that is important.

Mr. Speaker, it then continues to give the citizen the right to know who has received the credit information.

Mr. Speaker, another principle of the bill is that the credit

information agency would be obliged to correct inaccuracies in their

file that had been brought to their attention.

Where inaccurate information is found by the citizen and where the

citizen and the credit reporting agency cannot resolve their

differences, the citizen is given the right to include in his file his

side of the story.

Another principle, Mr. Speaker, is that information contained in the

report must be up to date and one of the sad facts of life is that many

files on citizens in this Province and elsewhere contain information

that is grossly out of date. It would restrict the transmission of the

information so that the citizen knew where it was going and, finally,

it would keep information that is accumulated within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a subject of great importance to all citizens

in the Province and, I'm sure, even to those Members across the way. I

have received assurances during the course of this Session from the

Attorney-General that it is under consideration. In view of that, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask permission of the House to withdraw the bill.

By leave of the House, Bill 81 was withdrawn.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 84, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 84,

An Act for the Establishment of Agricultural Farmland. The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. WENMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The basic principle of this bill, Agricultural Parkland ,

certainly, has been recognized by the Legislative Assembly during this

last Session. We did recognize the plight of the farmers as they

experience diminishing returns as higher costs consume their

productivity. We recognized it to the point that we formed a committee.

"We understand this problem," we have said, "now, we must find a

solution." As a great person in this Province always says, "It's easy

to identify the problems but to find the solutions is another thing." I

think the principles in this bill do offer… (interruption) .

At any rate, certainly, we have recognized the plight of the farmers.

In high density areas, this problem is particularly accented as farmers

and open space areas are being taxed out of existence by the pressure

of major agricultural, recreational, industrial and residential

pressures.

The constituency of Delta is certainly a fine example of this. The

agricultural land is being consumed by residential, as Ladner,

Tsawwassen push out across the farmland, as the superport gobbles more

and more land, as the recreation interest and the farmers and the

industries attempt to encroach on Boundary Bay. Certainly all of these

things are in close conflict and are wanting to consume our land and

our open spaces. Something must be done, now. If we're going to live

with a population of 7 million in that area, we're going to have to

have a place to breathe, a place to stand.

There are three basic concepts and, again, I was so pleased in this

Session to hear our Premier speaking on this concept, as he spoke about

farms, parks and open space. He talked about the apple growers in the

Okanagan. He talked about park space and he mentioned open space and

this will be recorded in the second reading of Bill 15 for the Members

to reflect on during the year. He understands this concept in building

a greater and better British Columbia.

The farm, again, we cannot justify tax release for farm purposes

only. It will not stand in the mind of the public and the Government on

that basis alone. Nor can we justify it merely for open space areas

alone but when you combine agriculture, parkland and open space into

the term of agricultural parkland, you come into a concept that is

acceptable and can be agreeable and necessarily agreeable to the people

of the lower mainland. The definition of agricultural parkland is a

broad definition and it includes other uses — golf courses, watersheds,

ecological preserves or other such open space areas and these open

space areas need not necessarily be left as a barren open space with

grass but they can be planted with trees. It is my hope that the

[ Page 849 ]

superport, during this year, in cooperation with

the Federal-provincial programme, will find itself entirely surrounded

by woods or groves of trees. I look forward to attempting that

implementation of a green belt around the superport as a step towards

agricultural parkland, this year.

An important principle of the bill is that dedication is permanent

and, if dedication is going to be permanent, that is going to mean a

great reduction in the speculative value of the land. Again, it will

only have a value in relationship to speculation for golf courses,

recreational units, this kind of open space usage, and it will be

limited relating to residential and industrial, which is a higher price

return.

For this limitation, if the farmer is going to accept this

limitation, he, in turn, is going to have to receive a benefit, the

benefit being that he will not be taxed out of existence and will be

exempted from property taxes. That relates to the municipality only, of

course, not to the Provincial Government. In addition to this, there is

the principle of the regional district involved and that is necessary,

as well. The Premier of the Province of British Columbia has stated

that, in the next decade, he wants to make British Columbia an even

better place to live in relationship to its environment. Most of the

people in British Columbia live in the lower mainland and I say to the

Government it's time to start this year, because next year and the year

after, the land will be gone and there will be a point of no return. I

move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm sure the honourable Member

realizes that

section 8A of the bill will offend our Standing Order 67

and, under such circumstances it is out of order.

MR. WENMAN: Does that include municipal taxation as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. WENMAN: Thank you.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 87,

An Act for the Provision of hearing Aids .

This vote is simply an itsy-bitsy obligation on the Crown, Mr. Speaker,

to provide free, without charge, hearing aids and batteries under our

health services. I'm sure it's the way we ought to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Batteries without charges.

MR. MACDONALD: But somebody will get a charge out of it, anyway. I move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Standing Order 66 doesn't specify "itsybitsy",

but it does say bills to spend funds are out of order in the hands of a

private Member (laughter) .

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 90, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 90, The Commonwealth Parliamentary Conferences (Delegates) Act . The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I have, as you know, on

occasion, expressed some concern over the lack of reporting about our

membership in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Last year, I

presented a bill, which would have amended

an act of the Legislature

which you, in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, pointed out to my attention I

had offended not one but I think four of the standing Rules of the

House. Accordingly, I went back to the drawing board and I produced

this bill, which I don't think offends anybody and clearly states a

principle that we want in this Legislature to hear about our

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We want to be able to feel free

to support and select and know who is our delegate to that association

and receive from him the reports that he's obtained while he's away

around the world, as he goes from time to time. Simple bill, simple

principle. I'm sure it's going to unanimous endorsation. I move second

reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Member has improved the bill from last year but, in

section 2, he has …

AN HON. MEMBER: (undecipherable remarks) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! He states that the Legislative

Assembly shall elect and shall send a person or persons as a

representative, which, of course, would be a cost to the Crown. As

such, such a bill would be out of order in the hands of a private

Member.

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

Mr. J.R. Chabot presented the Report of the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries.

The report was taken as read and received.

The House adjourned at 11:33 p.m.