1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 779 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills in the Hands of Private Members."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 2, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Infants Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 2. The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the

Government has seen the light this year, and I am delighted that they

have, I think great congratulations are due, particularly to the member

from Delta, who unfortunately is not in his seat. But this is a measure

that I have been pushing for many years, and our party as well. The

Government has brought in a Bill, Mr. Speaker, amending the age of

infancy from 21 to 19. In view of the fact the Government has a Bill,

there is no need for me to have one, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the

leave of the House to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. That is the question that I was going to

ask the member, to assist the Chair in withdrawing his Bill. Shall

leave be granted? So Ordered. Next order.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second Reading of Bill No. 21, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Taxation Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 21. The Honourable the Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have placed this Bill on the

Order Paper because it has been my experience, from many of those

living in the farming areas of the Province, and particularly in the

area which I have the privilege of representing, Yale-Lillooet, that

most of the beef ranchers and the crop farmers have not been able to

market their crops and be paid for them by the 31st of July. Many of

them, particularly the beef ranchers, are very fortunate to have been

able to market their crop and have it paid in the Fall, so the old way

of paying taxes, the old due date of the 31st of October, was a hard

enough grind for them, without moving it ahead until the 31st of July.

It was with this thinking, and after having received representation

from many of my constituents, and farmers and ranchers throughout the

Province, that I placed this Bill on the Order Paper, and I would ask

the House to support it. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, my

interpretation of this

very short Bill is that it would affect the payment of revenue to the

Crown, and therefore, I would submit that it is not in order in keeping

with the standing rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I will sustain the point of order raised. When

the honourable members examine

section 2 and realize that the revenues

would be deferred, and the necessary interest thereon, between the

months of July and October, I can only sustain the point of order

raised and rule the Bill not to be in order. Next order.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 24, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Trust Companies Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 24. The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the object of this Bill is very

clearly explained in the explanatory note and it is to make it

mandatory that the report of the Inspector of Trust Companies be

annually filed and made available for the whole of the Legislature,

rather than just to the two Departments, the Department of Finance and

to the Department of the Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker, in moving

second reading of this Bill, I would state that had there been a law

such as the one that is proposed here, the disgrace of Commonwealth

Trust would have never, ever been able to have got off the ground, and

at the present time, Mr. Speaker, the Commonwealth situation still

hangs like a pall over these two departments, in fact a pall over the

whole of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, truth does not require any blinds, there is no reason

that I know of why the report of the Inspector of Trust Companies

cannot be filed in the Legislature, and as I said, it is a check and it

is a balance, and I urge the support of all members of this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable member move second reading?

MR.GARDOM: ….and I do move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: On behalf of the Minister of Finance I

would move adjournment of this debate. The Trust Companies Act comes

under his jurisdiction.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the

question. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the

Ayes have it. The motion is carried.

The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 25, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Insurance Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 25. The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple amendment,

Bill No. 25. It is an amendment to the Insurance Act and it is an

amendment that I think is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, the Insurance Act

of British Columbia legislates loyalty, loyalty of an agent to his

company. Now there are very few industries in the world where loyalty

is legislated by an Assembly such as ours. They are using this Assembly

as their tool and, Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite out of line.

So therefore I feel that what is actually happening in practise,

what is really happening to the Insurance Department, and I checked

with the Superintendent of Insurance of the Province, and he is being

inundated with single-case agreements. You see, what an insurance agent

should be able

[ Page 780 ]

to do, he should be able to go out and purchase

insurance on behalf of his client. Instead of that, the law that he has

legislated through this Act, now it is very simple, this very simple

Bill, gives a person, one, an opportunity to be a life insurance agent

with a principal insurer, but the right to insure through other

companies. He can broker a business.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see the companies do if, in fact,

they are financing their men and they want loyalty, let them have their

own contractual agreements with these people. Let them have their own

ways of handling their people. No, I think let it be by Government.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very clear, I think that we

should support this Bill, and I therefore move second reading, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member has

pointed out, this can be accomplished now under the existing provisions

of the Act through the single-case letter, and a number of agents both

in the Vancouver and Victoria areas are working under this kind of

arrangement at the present time. The difficulty, of course, is as well,

even if this legislation is put into effect, as the honourable member

well knows, the companies themselves have the authority and could make

the amendment unworkable.

However, I don't want to speak entirely against the amendment,

because this is an area that is under consideration. As a matter of

fact we now have the whole question of life insurance brokerage, which

this amendment really would accomplish, under active consideration on a

national basis. The Superintendents of Insurance across Canada are

doing some work on this at the present time, particularly because of

the impact of mutual funds and the arrangements that are being made now

in respect to brokerage on mutual funds.

Therefore I would have to say the Bill is not acceptable at the

present time, but I would hope that as a result of the meetings that

are taking place nationally, some change may be made in the future in

respect to existing brokerage arrangements.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The second

reading of Bill No. 25. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded,

No. I think the No's have it. The motion is defeated. Next order.

HON. W.A.C. Bennett (Premier): Second Reading of Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Medical Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 31. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I had this Bill on the Order

Paper last year, and the honourable the Minister of Health said at that

time that he was looking into the matter very closely. The purpose of

this Bill is to amend the Medical Act so that it would be an

unprofessional act on any person's

part if they were a party to any

restrictive clause which denied any of their members the right to

practise in any place in the Province of British Columbia. At the

present time we well know that the College of Physicians and Surgeons

licensed all the doctors throughout the Province and by that licence

they have given them the right to practise throughout the Province. It

is my feeling that any of those that have this licence, if they on

their own part, or on the part of the group of them, deny any of their

members the right to practise, they are overriding the ruling of the

College of Physicians and Surgeons. The only place I can see that this

needs to be is in the Medical Act, and it would make these professional

people desist from entering into any agreement which would tie the

hands of any one of their members.

This has arisen, of course, Mr. Speaker from the fact that a doctor

in Cranbrook, he didn't have to sign any agreement but it was in the

contracts or obligations of the clinic, that any doctor that left the

clinic could not practise within ten miles of Cranbrook, and he has

been denied that right of practising within ten miles of Cranbrook. He

did not sign the contract, and he is now practising in the City of

Kimberley. The only resident surgeon that Cranbrook has got at the

present time is his partner in Kimberley who is a resident surgeon in

Kimberley.

The fact that bothers me is that if anything happens in Cranbrook

that it is necessary for this surgeon to be called from Kimberley, Dr.

Stanton, who has been denied the right to practise within ten miles,

and if, through compelling events he felt that it was his duty that he

went to Cranbrook to perform an operation, he could be charged with

contempt of Court. I think that this is a ridiculous situation in a

Province such as British Columbia. Here was a doctor who received his

education from the area, he was born and raised in the area, the

taxpayers helped to pay for his education, and I do not think that they

should be denied the right to have his services at any time.

That is the reason that this Bill is on the Order Paper and I hope

that something will be done at this time. I move second reading of this

Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the Motion, are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Minister of Health Services.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: Bill 31 deals in principle with the broad

question of restrictive covenant in contracts, and it is well known in

the common law that a restrictive covenant, preventing a person from

carrying on a trade or a profession, or any activity, for that matter,

which is of a business nature, may only apply on a reasonable basis. So

insofar as this Bill proposes to deal with the right of a person to

practise medicine or anything else across the whole of the Province, it

would merely be a codification of what is already the law, because the

law says that the restrictions could only apply within a reasonable

area.

In this case, the one that was cited by the honourable member,

referred to a ten-mile area, so that we are really considering two

aspects of this Bill. One, whether we ought to codify the law, the

common laws that now stand, and secondly, whether we should over-rule

the common law, and say that we shouldn't have restrictive covenants in

contracts. I presume that if the principle is a sound one as applying

to doctors, it would apply equally to dentists, lawyers — to bring it a

little closer to home — architects and engineers, to say nothing of

people who operate garages, plumbing establishments, and so on.

Now it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the fact that it

does introduce a principle that would apply equally to other activities

where there is an effort being made to restrict activities — and I

sympathize with the sentiments expressed by the honourable member

introducing this Bill — that there may

[ Page 781 ]

be very good reasons for changing the common law,

and to say that it is no longer fair or proper that restrictive

covenants for the purpose of protecting an established business no

longer apply, but it also should be recognized that to introduce and

pass a Bill which applied to doctors would not have regard to the

common laws applied to others in similar circumstances.

Now if that is the case, it would seem most appropriate that this

whole question of restrictive covenant to protect business or

proprietary interest, might well become the subject of investigation by

the recently instituted Law Reform Commission, and I would think that

in the circumstances that it might be well to take this matter up with

the Law Reform Commission, on putting the proposition in its broadest

form, whether or not restrictive covenants should be enforceable, if at

all, and under what circumstances.

For that reason I would suggest that probably the best disposition

of this Bill would be to give the Government and the members an

opportunity to take this matter up with the Law Reform Commission, and

on that basis, I would move adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the Motion, are you ready for the

question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the

Ayes have it. The Motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 32, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Law Reform Commission Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 32. The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we argued for years for a Law

Reform Commission, and last year the Government brought it in and we

are very glad that it did, and we commend the Government for the step

that it took at that time.

However, Mr. Speaker, we do not wish to see this Commission either

become or appear to become a political vehicle, nor do we wish its

results to end up in anyone's desk drawer, and perhaps only come

plopping out, if at all, during election year. That is exactly what can

happen according to the way the present statute is worded, because

there is a complete discretion, Mr. Speaker, in the existing statute to

the Department of the Attorney-General and it may indeed be to the

Attorney-General himself, as to whether or not the reports of the Law

Reform Commission would ever come before the Legislature.

It says, under existing

section 7 which this amendment is proposed

to correct, it says under existing

section 7, "Any programmes prepared

by the Commissioner and approved by him, and any proposals for reform

formulated by the Commission pertinent to such programmes are to be

laid before the Legislature." But it is only under the situation, Mr.

Speaker, of approval, so the Attorney-General has a complete discretion

as to whether he will or whether he will not inform the Legislature of

the results and of the deliberations of the Law Reform Commission, and

we do not wish to see the activities and the profits and the merits of

this Commission ending up in anyone's desk drawer. We don't wish to see

them ending up on the shelf like the Clyne Commission and the

Carruthers Commission, and as we view this, Mr. Speaker, it's public

money for public purposes. The public are entitled to know the results

and they are entitled to an account, and the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is

to the effect that the Attorney-General shall have to lay before the

Legislature the reports that are delivered to him by the Law Reform

Commission, and any proposals for reform formulated by that Commission.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my amendment is to make the

Law Reform Commission answerable, as it should be, to the people of

British Columbia rather than just to the honourable the

Attorney-General and I move second reading of the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable members

well know, this legislation was only introduced in the House last year

and this particular Bill seeks to amend this legislation. The

Commissioners have now been appointed under the chairmanship of the

former Minister of Justice, Mr. Fulton, and two other Commissioners.

They're presently engaging staff, getting to the point where they will

shortly be operational. At this stage no reports which would come

within the provisions of this

section have been received. It may be,

once the Commission becomes operational, that further amendments will

have to be made to the legislation. I am not in a position to say at

this stage. If that occurs then this particular amendment may be

considered at that time. I therefore, for this time, would move

adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, are you ready for the

question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the

Ayes have it. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 41, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Male Minimum Wage Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 41. The Honourable the Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E. E. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is

to enact legislation which would raise the male minimum wage in the

Province of British Columbia to $2 per hour. We are pleased, of course,

that it's now going to be $1.50 per hour, but I'm sure that all the

members of this Assembly would agree that if we truly believe in the

workers of this Province sharing in the good life in British Columbia,

it is essential today that the minimum wage be at least $2 per hour,

and I would hope that the members of this House would see fit to

support this very essential legislation. I move second reading, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I think the honourable

member will agree and probably drew the Bill in full cognizance of our

Standing Order No. 67, which in simple terms states that in the hands

of a private member a Bill such as this, which imposes an impost on a

section of our society is out of order in those hands, and must come

from the treasury benches. Under the circumstances, there is no

alternative left to the Chair but to rule the Bill out of order.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I regret that I must challenge you.

[ Page 782 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling has been challenged.

The Speaker's ruling was sustained on the following division:-

YEAS — 36

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Campbell, B.

Ney

Tisdalle

Wolfe

Merilees

Bruch

Smith

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Wenman

Jordan, Mrs.

Capozzi

Kripps, Mrs.

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Mussallem

Kiernan

Chant

Price

Williston

Loffmark

Vogel

Bennett

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Peterson

Brothers

Chabot

Black

Shelford

Little

Fraser

Richter

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R. A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

McGeer

Nimsick

Hartley

Williams, L. A.

Barrett

Lorimer

Macdonald

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

PAIR:

Messieurs

Gaglardi

Clark

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 42, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Female Minimum Wage Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 42. I must point out,

before the debate begins in this instance, because it parallels the

Bill previously that, for the same reasons as given under Bill No. 41,

the Bill is not in order in the hands of a private member. Reference

Standing Order 67 of our own Standing Orders.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I will challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling has been challenged.

The Speaker's ruling was sustained on the following division-

YEAS — 36

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Campbell, B.

Ney

Tisdalle

Wolfe

Merilees

Bruch

Smith

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Wenman

Jordan, Mrs.

Capozzi

Kripps, Mrs.

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Mussallem

Kiernan

Chant

Price

Williston

Loffmark

Vogel

Bennett

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Peterson

Brothers

Chabot

Black

Shelford

Little

Fraser

Richter

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R. A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

McGeer

Nimsick

Hartley

Williams, L. A.

Barrett

Lorimer

Macdonald

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

PAIR:

Messieurs

Gaglardi

Clark

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 46, Mr.

Speaker. (An Act Inquiring into and a Survey of the Extent of Which

Marijuana, LSD, Heroin, and Lysergic Drugs Are Illegally Available).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 46. The honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill that I support

very much. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, will enable the House to establish a

permanent committee, or not permanent but an on-going committee to

investigate the use and to inquire and survey into the extent of the

use of marijuana, LSD, heroin, and lysergic drugs which are illegally

available.

Some years ago in this House, Mr. Speaker, we did have a committee

functioning looking into the problems of the use of drugs. The

committee did an excellent job, but its work came to an end with an

excellent report, an all party report, submitted to this House some

three years ago. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, the problem has expanded

in different areas and has created more difficult social problems

attached to the illicit use of drugs. One of the most remarkable

features about the committee's work was that some of the

recommendations they made at their original sittings coincided with the

recommendations of a similar committee at the Federal level, but very

little action was taken on those recommendations.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to seriously consider having that

committee established again, get on with the job and end the hysteria

that has grown up through some politicians' statements about the use of

marijuana and non-use of marijuana, whether or not it should be

legalized or

[ Page 783 ]

non-legalized. There are extreme positions being

taken on this on the basis of hysteria, and I say that neither position

should be taken without a total and complete examination of all the

facts that are available to us.

The social consequences of the illicit use of drugs will not be

resolved by politicians taking absolute positions either for or against

legalization of marijuana, for example, without having done adequate

research or adequate information being made available. I deplore those

Federal politicians who have taken the position that it should be

legalized, but I also deplore those people who have rushed in on a

vacuum and said it shouldn't be legalized. I am suggesting we must find

some solutions to this problem that do not include taking rigid

positions that enforce the unfortunate victims of the use of drugs into

a very inadequate legal and social system dealing with their problems.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the problems

that arises in connection with this Bill is the kind of statements that

have been made here today that create a doubt as to whether a drug such

as marijuana is harmful or is a health hazard or not. In my mind this

should not be a case of doubt, and we should do nothing to encourage,

nothing at all to encourage the use of marijuana or any other drug by

the young people of this Province.

There's no question that this is a serious problem in the Province

of British Columbia, and it should not be treated irresponsibly, and

that's the point I'm trying to make here.

Furthermore, I think there can be no doubt that this is a problem

that is national in scope, not only in terms of the problem, but in

terms of the constitutional authority to tackle the problem, and

certainly the Federal Government recognizes this fact by the

appointment of a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Gerry

LeDam, Dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School, which I understand is about

to report. I don't believe it has reported yet, at least I have not

seen their report. I believe it's to report very shortly, and for that

reason alone I would think it would be well to receive and analyze

their studies before launching into a programme as suggested in this

Bill.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to sections 4

and 10 of the Bill in question, which would involve the expenditure of

public funds, and would therefore contravene Standing Order 67 of our

Standing Orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Both

section 2 and

section 4, sub-section 1,

offend, not Standing Order 67 but Standing Order 66, involving the

expenditure of public funds and, as such, is not in order in the hands

of a private member. The Bill therefore is not in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: ….makes a speech, then asks that it be ruled out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable members, before that type of

criticism gets bandied across the floor, it will be acknowledged that

the Chair has always extended the courtesy, even in the full knowledge

that a Bill is out of order, to allow a member to speak at length to

his Bill, to ascertain whether or not he could raise certain points

during his speech that might indicate the Bill to be in order and so

that he wouldn't be prejudged. I think in all fairness a reply is

indicated.

The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 62, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Annual Holidays Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 62. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill, I think, that

is long overdue, and it's quite a number of years now since we first

placed on the statute books of British Columbia the Annual Holidays Act

with two weeks holiday for all employees after one year of serving an

employer. Today we have, with automation and with all the modern

technical science that we've got, the amount that one man can produce

has been multiplied many times, and due to this fact we have got

increasing unemployment around the country.

At the time we placed the two weeks holidays, one of the reasons it

was done was to help out in regards to the unemployment situation, and

I feel that it's time now that people should have three weeks holiday

with pay after one year working for an employer. Throughout the

Province I dare say that most of the workers have this right at the

present time through their collective bargaining, but there are many

people who are working under situations where they have no collective

bargaining, no opportunity for collective bargaining and they do not

receive the same rights as the person that is in a position, an

economic position, that he can bargain collectively and come to some

agreement.

I do not see why this privilege of the three weeks holiday should

not be extended to all the people, all the workers throughout the

Province, not only just those that are under bargaining units and are

able to have an agreement. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading of this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Notwithstanding the views of

the honourable member, this would involve, insofar as employers of the

Province are concerned, an impost upon them to increase the amount of

annual holidays or amount of holiday pay that would be payable to

workmen, and such a Bill in the hands of a private member, in

conformity with our own Standing Order 67 as previously discussed, is

not in order, and I must therefore so rule.

MR. NIMSICK: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling has been challenged.

The Speaker's ruling was sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Messieurs

Wallace

Kripps, Mrs.

Chabot

Ney

Mussallem

Little

Merilees

Price

Jefcoat

Marshall

Vogel

Tisdalle

Wenman

LeCours

Bruch

[ Page 784 ]

McCarthy, Mrs.

Black

Skillings

Jordan, Mrs.

Fraser

Chant

Dawson, Mrs.

Campbell, B.

Loffmark

Kiernan

Wolfe

Campbell, D.R.J.

Williston

Smith

Brothers

Bennett

McDiarmid,

Shelford

Peterson

Capozzi

Richter

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R. A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

McGeer

Nimsick

Hartley

Williams, L. A.

Barrett

Lorimer

Macdonald

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

PAIR:

Messieurs

Gaglardi

Clark

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 67. (An Act Respecting Proceedings Against the Crown).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 67. The Honourable the Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, very shortly and quickly, the

concept that the Crown can do no wrong and that the Government is

umbrellad from the arm of the law, something that should have perished

with the divine right of kings. Mr. Speaker, in my view, the citizen,

the individual, is the hallmark in our democratic way of life, and he

should be just as fairly entitled to wage his case against Government

as Government can against him. Mr. Speaker, Government with its

enormous resources, it literally has all of the cards, it has all of

the power to defend, and it should no longer be permitted to hide

behind the skirts of an archaic concept.

I move second reading of this Bill which gives the citizen the right to sue the Crown in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, a Bill similar to the one

that's presently before the House was presented at the last session of

the Legislature, and was ruled out of order on the ground that it

interfered with the prerogatives of the Crown. I would refer you to the

1969 Journals of this House, page 227, and would invite you to so rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Indecipherable remark)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is quite right, that in

the hands of the treasury bench, such a motion could be introduced. I

would refer honourable members also to the 968 Journals, page 221,

which bears a similar reference. I rule the Bill out of order in the

hands of a private member.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 68, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Female Minimum Wage Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 68. The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I placed this Bill on the

Order Paper because of the great difficulty that I find many of the

girls, the young ladies and the ladies that are not so young, that they

find in collecting wages from the hamburger kings of the Province,

keeping record of the pay that is due them, and so on.

Now, according to our present labour statutes, if you read it

through lightly, it states that each employee should get a statement

with their wages whether they are paid weekly or monthly. But then when

you go back into the sub-sections, when we go into sub-sections we find

that actually they only have to receive a slip, the law only binds the

employer to give these girls a slip with their wages if there is some

change from the norm. If they are hired at a 40-hour week at $1.25 an

hour, $50 a week, they can work there for a year or ten years, and if

there is no change to their deductions or no change in their rate of

pay, or no overtime, then they get no slips. I had been under the

impression that every employer in this Province had to give a slip with

each employee's pay cheque, but this is not the case.

Now, today there are many mothers who are trying to raise a family,

their husbands may have left them, they may have lost their husbands,

they may be widows and they do go out and work and this type of work,

working in the cafes, meeting the public, remembering their orders,

always having a smile, always being pleasant, is some of the hardest

work in the world, and it's often mothers who are doing this to raise

their family, mothers who are doing this to try to stay off welfare.

So I think the very least that we can do, even though the Government

may rule out this legislation this hearing, I'd like to see them next

year bring in an amendment so that every employer will give their

employees a slip, stating the pay, the hours they have worked and the

pay they have coming. I believe by doing this we will give greater

dignity to the work force, and will give….

AN HON. MEMBER: Legislation for the bosses.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, this is bosses' legislation. We know who's

lobbied for it in the past. We're campaigning against it and we are

prepared to stand up and fight the hamburger kings, and fight for the

lackeys of the employers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HARTLEY: All very well, Mr. Speaker, for my friend to say

these people are free. Yes, they have the freedom to quit. But, that's

a very little freedom when all you have to go to is welfare at the

standards this Government has set.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is stepping

without the bounds of his own Bill. He must stick to the principle of

it. I don't want any further interruptions

[ Page 785 ]

from that corner.

MR. HARTLEY: Very good. I move second reading of this Bill,

and I feel this legislation will give greater dignity to the work force

of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker rather, I think

it should be observed, in the light of the very offensive remarks of

the honourable member who's just taken his seat, that we have in this

Province of British Columbia, under our free enterprise system, both

big and small employers. There are small employers in this Province who

are doing their thing, as well, to stay off welfare, just to make their

way in this life and to have three meals a day and a living in this

Province, and for the N.D.P. to continually take this position of

referring to the employers, both large and small, in such offensive

terms offends me, for one, Mr. Speaker.

I think it should also be pointed out that under existing

legislation, the Female Minimum Wage Act provides that an employer

shall give an employee a statement in writing, setting out the

employee's earnings for the unit of time for which payment is made,

showing any bonus or living allowance and the amount of deductions and

for what purpose. However, it doesn't require these statements to be

given on subsequent paydays if the conditions remain the same. If the

conditions do not remain the same then, of course, that is a different

question.

This Bill would require these statements on each and every payday.

Now, this would not be a problem for the large employer, this would not

be a problem for those who rely on computers and mechanized services to

produce their pay

section in the pay periods, but it could be a problem

for the small employer who doesn't have a computer at his access, and

could be a chore for the small employers and would not assist the

employees because they have already a statement of their deductions.

Therefore, unless there are further reasons that I am not aware of, the

Government cannot accept this particular Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the member for Yale-Lillooet will close the debate.

MR. HARTLEY: In closing the debate, Mr. Speaker, I'd just

like to refer back to the Estimates of the Minister of Labour. This

matter was raised at that time, certain cases were questioned, and he

indicated that they were solved, or as good as solved. I have had

further correspondence from these parties involved, and they are not

solved and there are many, many more cases that appear to be coming to

light daily, and it is with these small employers where the problem

does exist.

I believe if this one amendment was made, it would give a basis to a

much more relaxed, much easier position in this particular

restaurant-cafe industry. It would give cause for a great deal less

work in the Department of the Minister of Labour. It would make much

less work for the Industrial Relations Officers, and I believe that

section of our work force would be much happier because, as the

Minister says, the present legislation does not state that an employee

must get a slip each week, and that is not asking too much for someone

that has put in at least a 40-hour week.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 68,

An Act to

Amend the Female Minimum Wage Act, be read a second time now. Are you

ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded,

No. I think the No's have it. The motion is lost. Next order.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 71, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Coal Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 71. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a very short Bill, and

it would require every person or company to pay $1 royalty on every ton

of coal shipped, exported, or in any way delivered from the location of

that coal.

The purpose of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to increase revenue to the

Crown, revenue that the Crown of British Columbia and the people of

British Columbia deserve from mineral resource that we are not

presently getting. That coal was placed in the ground by God, Mr.

Speaker, not by any political party, and the people of British Columbia

have been the lucky, fortunate, the happy recipients of the bountiful

placing of resources in this Province, but I regret that in the

management of those resources, Mr. Speaker, that there has not been an

adequate return to the people of British Columbia from their own

resources.

The Kaiser Coal Company will be shipping five million tons of coal

per year. The Kaiser Coal Company will be shipping five million tons of

coal per year and there is no compelling legislation requiring any

royalty, Mr. Speaker, to come to the people of British Columbia from

their own coal. If this Bill was enacted it would require Kaiser to pay

at least $1 per ton of coal shipped, Mr. Speaker, and Kaiser alone,

therefore, would add $5,000,000 to the Provincial general revenue.

There are 18 million tons of coal in all shipped in British Columbia,

and passing this legislation would put $18,000,000 in the hands of the

people of British Columbia to aid in the problem of a shortage of funds

in the construction of schools, hospitals, and rest-homes much needed

in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, in proposing this Bill I do it in a positive

manner, suggesting to the Crown that this revenue should come to the

people of British Columbia through a $1 a ton royalty on coal, and I

move second reading of this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member, I am sure,

and all members will quickly recognize that even from the very nature

of the argument presented by the honourable the Leader of the

Opposition that the intent in

section 1, sub-section (1) of the Bill is

to raise revenue and to establish an impost against a sector of the

employers of the Province, and under those circumstances the Bill,

under our own Standing Order 67, is not in order, and I therefore so

rule.

MR. BARRETT: I won't challenge it, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to help the Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Next order.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to "Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions."

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

[ Page 786 ]

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Resolution No. 19, Mr. Speaker.

"Resolved, That the Clerk of the House be directed to

pay to the Honourable Waldo McTavish Skillings the full allowance and

expenses to which he would have been entitled had he attended all

sittings of the Session, pursuant to

section 68 of the Constitution

Act, being

chapter 71, R.S.B.C. 1960."

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 19. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK: Resolution No. 19, Mr. Speaker, I would move

that motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which refers, of

course, to my honourable colleague who, during the course of his duties

representing the people of the Province at Osaka, found it necessary to

be absent from this House for seven days. Therefore, I believe it just

and reasonable that this resolution be adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister moves the resolution?

MR. BLACK: Yes, I do.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does this amount to in dollars and cents?

MR. SPEAKER: Twenty-four dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'd rather take up a collection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. You've heard the motion. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Resolution No. 2, Mr. Speaker.

"That a verbatim report of the debates of this House

be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker, and that he do appoint

the printing of the same, and that no person but such as he shall

appoint do presume to print the same."

MR. SPEAKER: The House is entitled to its levity. Shall we now come down to earth and discuss Resolution No. 2?

MR. G. H. DOWDING: Point of order here.

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

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to

withdraw this motion, by virtue of another motion that is on the Order

Paper, No. 8.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish to thank the honourable member for

assisting the Chair. I felt that you would have the opportunity to

enter fully into the debate on another resolution. Shall leave be

granted? So ordered.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Resolution No. 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 5. The honourable member for Surrey is absent. Next order.

MR. D. BARRETT: May Resolution No. 5 be called again?

MR. SPEAKER: It won't lose its precedence, if the honourable House Leader wishes to call it again. Hold over.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Resolution No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 6. The honourable member for Saanich and the Islands is absent, I am sorry.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Resolution No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

"That the members of this House express their deep

concern over recent statements attributed to the Honourable John Munro,

Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Prime Minister of

Canada, relating to the smoking of marijuana by Canadians, particularly

considering Canada's international obligations to repress the

unauthorized use of marijuana except for medical and scientific

purposes by virtue of the Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs, 1961.

"And that the members of this House call upon the

Federal Government to fulfill their obligations in regulating and

controlling the use of drugs for any purpose except those permitted

under the Single Convention."

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 7. The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio. Order, please.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The

subject matter of this motion, Mr. Speaker, concerns a problem which

has been raised by the honourable Leader of the Opposition today, and

it is a problem which literally threatens the generation of our young

people, and it is the problem of drug abuse in Canada and drug abuse in

our communities in British Columbia. The motion reads:- (The honourable

Minister read the contents of the above Resolution No. 7).

We are aware, and the Attorney-General has pointed out earlier in

this Session, that the solution to this problem lies within Federal

jurisdiction, and I would remind the House that the statement from

which this motion emanated is the statement made by Health Minister

John Munro and I will quote it. "If we find that a significant minority

of the Canadian people smoke marijuana we would be totally

irresponsible if we did not legalize it." It is because of these

irresponsible statements, Mr. Speaker, emanating from the Federal

Minister of Health, and the Prime Minister of Canada on January 18th,

and I could quote that but I think everybody is rather familiar with

that quotation as well, that this motion is placed before the House

today.

You will note that the motion requests that the Federal Government

honour the latest Narcotic Treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic

Drugs for 1961, to which Canada is a party. The Single Convention has

now been ratified by some 65 countries and the result is that Canada is

internationally obligated to repress the unauthorized use of marijuana

as well as other narcotic drugs and it could not, without renouncing

its international obligations, do otherwise.

I could today present to you many statements from qualified and

professional people who maintain that hardcore drug addicts first

started on their hard drug abuse through the use of this drug that we

are discussing here. I could, too, present many, many statements which

would give the other side of the picture from many others who call

themselves professionals, contrary to the concept of those

[ Page 787 ]

that I first mentioned. But I am not, in this

motion, requesting from this House that they judge for or against

legalization of marijuana, but I will say this, that my personal

opinion is that any experimentation in this area is both dangerous and

disastrous, and too often too many have encouraged experimentation in

the name of freedom, in the name of civil liberties, and in the name of

human rights.

I hope, though, that today, and I think the honourable member of the

Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, expresses the same views as

those on this side of the House, that we keep a calm and unemotional

approach to the whole problem in order to best serve the young people

of this Province who are seeking leadership, Mr. Speaker, and to the

families of this Province who are seeking help.

I would like the House to know, also, that it is not just the Prime

Minister of Canada and the Minister of Health in Canada that have made

irresponsible statements, but there is someone in Ottawa who is opposed

to those statements as well, and that is the Honourable Mr. McIlraith,

who is the gentleman who is the Solicitor-General for Canada, the man

to whom the R.C.M.P. report. Following the statements that were made,

at the same time that we oppose the statements that were made, George

McIlraith had three articles in the Montreal Gazette in opposition to

the Prime Minister and to the Honourable John Munro. I would like to

quote from these, at least from just one little item in regard to it.

"In a series of articles to outline his views on legalizing marijuana,

Solicitor-General George J. McIlraith said pot is being distributed

throughout the country by a well-organized professional network which

enlist students to act as pushers. While marijuana may be non-addictive

he argues that it is definitely habit-forming and its effects on the

human body are extremely dangerous. 'I cannot prove it conclusively,'

he says, 'but if a kid uses marijuana for two years that kid is a hard

drug addict.' I am using his words, not my own. He claimed the public

is almost 100 per cent against legalizing pot now except for a group of

academics and he called them smart-alec professors who have an

absolutely abysmal lack of experience with life. He said their

intellectual arrogance is appalling.

Now I would like to agree with the statements that have been made

that no action should be taken until very extensive research is done

into this problem. It is only, Mr. Speaker, this very last February,

February, 1970 that the Federal Government of our country allowed

scientific and medical investigation of this drug to employ human

subjects. Prolonged use has never been gauged, has never been examined,

and we can point to another drug that was not given sufficient research

or adequate research at the time, and we all know the tragedy of that

drug, thalidomide, and the tragedies that it created throughout the

world. So how we can, in the face of that experience and in the face of

all we know and, I suggest, all we do not know, Mr. Speaker, how we can

entertain the thought of legalization at this time of any drug, in

light of such doubt, is alarming.

I have received a telegram from a man who has lost his daughter

through drug abuse. I have received a letter from a father who has lost

his son the same way. They had both experimented with marijuana before

going on to the drug that finally killed them, and I want to share part

of these messages with you and just part of them today. First I would

read the telegram that is dated March 16th, and it is addressed to

myself in Victoria, and I quote, "I completely endorse your stand

against any legalization of marijuana. Comparing it to alcohol is like

saying cancer is no worse than leprosy. Much more needs to be known,

and current synthesis of marijuana enables national mental health

institutes to conduct extensive laboratory tests to find out for the

first time in history exactly how cannabis affects humans. Within a

year these exhaustive tests will give us the basis for a scientific

candid examination, not before. I sincerely hope Canada will never be

the first nation to violate the world agreement signed by 103 nations

to outlaw marijuana. Cordially. Art Linkletter" and dated March 16th,

from Los Angeles, California.

Mr. Speaker, I will just quote from a resident of British Columbia,

and this letter is dated February 27th from Vancouver and addressed to

myself, and I quote, "As a parent who lost his son last October in a

grave tragedy, you can readily understand my feelings if anyone even

partially advocates relaxing the laws we now have with regards to drug

abuse. My son jumped from a large apartment building in the West End in

the City of Vancouver due to the effects of drugs. This son had

considerable to offer society in the future. Unfortunately he was

struck down in the prime of his youth."

Do not be mistaken that this is an isolated case. Many people have

died throughout our country. Naturally, only certain tragic ones reach

the headlines and, if my statistics are correct, 16 deaths occurred

because of drug abuse in Greater Vancouver during October, 1969. Are

these the lucky ones? What about the ones where parents now have

children who are no more than cabbages? What about the parents that

have children that are not at home? They are wandering throughout our

country contributing very little to society and communication between

parents and child is nil. You can rest assured these parents are very

heartbroken.

Mr. Speaker, until proper and adequate research is done into this

drug marijuana, or any other drugs which are listed and which Canada is

a signatory to the Single Convention Narcotics Act, I would say that we

would be very, very irresponsible to move forward in Canada for any

legalization, or to do anything that is irresponsible in advance of

that time. Mr. Speaker, I earnestly ask, in moving this motion, that

this Legislature give unanimous approval to this directive to the

Federal Government through this motion to the Federal Government who is

responsible for narcotic control and responsible for narcotic research

in Canada today.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the honourable the Minister moving the motion?

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: I move the motion.

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Do you have a copy of the motion, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion was given notice of several weeks ago, and was handed to the Clerks at that time.

MR. BARRETT: So, you have a copy in front of you. Is the motion in order?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is in order in the hands of a Minister of the Crown, of course.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, let's

[ Page 788 ]

get something very, very clear. Let's get something

very, very clear. This motion, no matter which way you vote on it, has

got nothing to do with your opinion as to whether or not you want

marijuana legalized. Okay. And I'm making it clear, too, this is a

motion to condemn a' statement made by a Federal Minister.

Now, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. I want to go on the record again,

because of my own personal experience in working in the field of drugs,

that I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana or any other drug

that may be habit forming, or, any other drug that is under control of

the Narcotic Act.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. I just want to modify a term used by

the honourable the Leader of the Opposition, with respect, and that is

the matter of condemning a Minister of the Crown. In examining the

motion before us, I think you'll find that the word is to express "deep

concern" over certain statements. I wouldn't like the message to go

abroad that condemnation of Ministers of the Crown was emanating from

this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Deep concern which, you know, has to be

interpreted. I interpreted it as a condemnation, but it is, at the very

least, a wrist-slapping, at the very least. But nonetheless, Mr.

Speaker, the argument the Minister gave was that we must have more

research. We just had a Bill in the House about that very subject. We

have gone three years without having that committee in this House

continue to study this very important problem, Mr. Chairman. When the

member talks in her talk about the need for research I, too, have the

same attitude. Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree that research needs to be

done, but, that Government over there and that Minister could have

initiated action in research long ago.

In my opinion, this move to express concern over the statement of

the Minister of Health and Welfare is nothing but a political move,

nothing but a political move, and in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, there is

not any one in this House who has stood up and said they were in favour

of legalizing marijuana, not one person. And yet, Mr. Chairman, to ask

for research and not initiate it, but to slap the Federal Minister's

wrist is just playing cheap politics with this issue, just cheap

politics.

I was persuaded, I was persuaded today by the Attorney-General's

argument on this very subject. That's why I didn't call for a division

of my Bill. When the Attorney-General stood up and expressed the

opinion that I am prepared to share with him, and I accept his opinion,

that now that the Federal Royal Commission is prepared to submit its

report, that we just sit tight and wait for it, I accept that

statement. I welcome it from the Attorney-General. I regret that you

haven't taken action but I accept your premise, and I support your

statement very, very much in that regard. The Attorney-General, in

effect, was saying that anything else would be sub judice at this

point, waiting so closely for the Royal Commission report.

We all know that international crime syndicates are involved in the

dispensation of illegal drugs. We all know that. But slapping the

Federal Minister's wrist won't solve that. Corporations like Benguet

and the Bahamas Port Authority and the Mafia are the ones who need to

be slapped and slapped heavily by the law, and must be kept out of

British Columbia and every other area of Canada, because it is those

underworld syndicates, the Mafia, who really are the moneymakers in

this horrible, devastating, social problem on people. I know that the

Attorney-General will not allow the Benguet corporation or others like

it to come into British Columbia, because of the illicit drug trade.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that experimentation is very, very dangerous,

and I urge all people to avoid experimenting not only with marijuana

and other illicit drugs, but avoid experimenting with alcohol, too.

It's just not necessary, just not necessary,

AN HON. MEMBER: Cigarettes.

MR. BARRETT: ….and I think a tolerable level requires

self-discipline in the human being concerned. We can't legislate that

self-discipline.

So, Mr. Speaker, because in our opinion this is nothing more than a

political motion, not backed up with any action, and because I accept

the statement of the Attorney-General to wait for the Royal Commission,

and because we accept the Attorney-General's argument, we will not

support any mild wrist-slapping of the Federal Minister for political

purposes.

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

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: At various times it is said, by

individuals speaking on this subject, that they lack the necessary

background and information to address themselves to the problem with a

degree of assurance. I don't feel any inhibition on that respect

myself, Mr. Speaker, for this reason, that I have access to the advice

and counsel of competent medical health officers within and without the

public service of this Province, within and without the public service

of Canada, within and without the public service in the United States.

I also have access to information and advice from officers and

participants in the International Health Organization as well as the

International Police Authorities, and on the basis of the advice that I

have received and the evidence that is before me, there is no doubt in

my mind that not only marijuana, but a whole long list of other

products which produce the same drug — amphetamines, barbiturates,

chemicals in the same class, are a serious threat to the health and

welfare of this community.

There has been some suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that this might in some

way offend, improperly, the feelings or the dignity of the office of a

politician or a member of a public body in some other part of Canada. I

have no inhibitions on that score either, Mr. Speaker, because if I

must make a choice between the feelings of an individual, publicly or

privately, and the health of thousands of children across Canada I make

no problem, no problem. Unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, marijuana, the

barbiturates, the amphetamines, opium, and heroin are the deadly enemy

of this community. (applause) There's no question about research in my

mind, Mr. Speaker, there's no question about waffling on this matter,

we must say that this is bad, very much restricted by law, and there

are many, many parts of India where they have what we would call a

prohibition law and there the problem of alcohol is practically unknown.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The motion that's before us is not discussing the control of alcoholic distribution.

[ Page 789 ]

MR. LOFFMARK: In British Columbia marijuana, as a broad

problem, hasn't reached that point, but we do have in this Province, by

comparison, a real problem with alcohol and there's a very simple

reason for this, and that is that alcohol is freely available in this

Province as it is in all parts of North America, and marijuana is not.

Now then, let's deal with this question of marijuana. I'll tell you

there's one difference between marijuana and alcohol. Alcohol in this

western community has a history that goes back for thousands of years,

and if we were facing the problem of alcohol today the way we are with

marijuana, I would speak out just as hard. And if you want me to make a

statement, I will tell you that it's my personal view that there's very

little difference in the debilitating hazards involved in alcohol or

marijuana. The great moral issue facing the adults of this community is

being presented to us by the young people, and they say, if marijuana

is bad why don't you stop using alcohol. And we, Mr. Speaker, have no

answer for them — none whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop using it. Stop selling it.

MR. LOFFMARK: I say, Mr. Speaker, that all the talk in the

world about marijuana and its misuse will not be nearly as effective as

a better example on the part of the public to the young people in this

community.

Now let me deal specifically with this problem of marijuana…. Yes,

the question is whether there should be anything, any word written or

spoken that will leave the impression that marijuana is something that

can be dealt with lightly, but I have a different problem in respect to

this motion, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what is involved in the word

marijuana, for this reason, that just as in the case of opium which is

the lowest source of supply, so to speak, for the active ingredients,

and heroin is at the other end of the spectrum, so marijuana is only

one product of many from which it's possible to derive the actual

substance.

Let me give you some of the names under which this product goes.

Sometimes it's called marijuana, sometimes it's called pot, rope, texas

tea, Mary Jane, jive, grass, hay, hemp, sticks, reefers, roach, hashish

which is exactly the same product but a little more concentrated. Then

there's sheraff, which is that deadly, deadly product that is lethal,

but it's all the same. What about ganje, keif as it's called, majon,

and interestingly enough, "bang" is another word, and sometimes you

hear people say they get a bang out of something. That's an Indian

word, it's another word for marijuana, Mr. Speaker.

Now the point is this, that all of these products are such, and the

hazard is so great, that I think that the public officers who are

charged with this responsibility in Ottawa should understand that the

members of this Legislature don't intend and don't want to have it ever

come to the minds of the Federal Government that this is a matter on

which we can make statements that are equivocal. The fact is that if

any public officer is going to make a statement suggesting that there

is something acceptable about marijuana, the dangers, the impressions

that it will leave on young people are so serious that there is no room

for equivocation, no room at all.

Mr. Speaker, I support the principles that are associated with this

motion. I will repeat what I've said another time, that if there is any

leadership to be given to young people, now is the time to give it, not

only in words, but more important, example. It's sometimes said that in

respect of these statements that marijuana smoking might properly be

made legal. this is a matter of choice. I suppose for each generation

that's so, but if any person in public office makes any statement of

this kind,

AN HON. MEMBER: He denied it.

MR. LOFFMARK: Whether he made it or not is immaterial.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. LOFFMARK: If there is any suggestion, either by implication or otherwise,

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Is the honourable the

Minister stating that the Minister in question has withdrawn the

statement that he has made?

MR. LOFFMARK: No, I said that as far as I am concerned this is immaterial.

MR. SPEAKER: Well it's material to the motion, very material.

MR. LOFFMARK: I withdraw then, I withdraw. I will withdraw.

Permit me, Mr. Speaker, first of all to accept your advice, which I

appreciate, and I will restate my proposition, and that is….

MR. D. BARRETT: Point of order. Are you withdrawing your statement?

MR. LOFFMARK: Yes, I am.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Will the honourable the Minister be seated for a moment. Point of order.

MR. BARRETT: My point of order is, that is the motion not out

of order now that the honourable the Minister has made a public

statement saying that he did not, in fact, make such a statement, and

we must accept the word of an honourable Minister. It is well known and

broadcast that he did make such a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The point is that the Chair

is neither informed (

a) that the Minister made such a statement, or (

b) that he withdrew it, and until evidence is placed before him in this

respect I am in a very poor position to judge. Proceed.

MR. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for your advice.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we can take note of this,

that the impression is abroad that the smoking of marijuana is

something that might either now, or in the near future, be acceptable

under the laws of Canada, and if this is the case it is quite proper

for this Legislature to register its protest against this so called

common knowledge. The issue is not whether somebody said something or

didn't say something, as nearly as much as it is that there should be

no doubt as to the position of this Government.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, the honourable the

[ Page 790 ]

Minister, with respect, has reverted to his

original proposition that whether or not the Federal Minister made the

statement is not of moment. I say it's of considerable moment, and the

whole purpose of this resolution.

MR. LOFFMARK: I stand corrected again, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Has the Minister concluded his statement?

MR. LOFFMARK: Yes, I will, very briefly and, Mr. Speaker, in

closing my remarks, I can only reiterate what I said at the beginning,

and that is that there is in the Department of Public Health sufficient

information to reject any suggestion, publicly or privately, that

marijuana and the derivatives that are associated with it, are

something that can be dealt with so lightly as to leave the impression

in the minds of young people, the impression that marijuana is

something that can be experimented with.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think it unfortunate that the

Minister without Portfolio who introduced this motion did not check

thoroughly into the validity of the statement which she attributed to

the Honourable John Munro, because when he was out in British

Columbia….

AN HON. MEMBER: Playing politics with marijuana.

MR. McGEER: When he was in British Columbia, both on radio

and at a press conference he denied the very statements which the

Minister this afternoon, in introducing this motion, said that the

motion was based upon.

AN HON. MEMBER: Indecipherable remark. What date? What date?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Would the honourable member be seated for a moment. The honourable the Minister.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I should draw to your attention a press release which states….

AN HON. MEMBER: Date?

MRS. McCARTHY: January 29th, 1970, the Victoria Times, and

it's datelined Canadian Press, Ottawa. "Health Minister John Munro said

Wednesday that 'If we find that a significant minority of the Canadian

people smoke marijuana, we would be totally irresponsible if we did not

legalize it."'

AN HON. MEMBER: He denied it.

MRS. McCARTHY: Now I'll just go further, because the further

statement, Mr. Speaker, would indicate that it is truly a statement

made by the Minister. "Pressed by Carlton University students at the

taping of the syndicated television programme, Under Attack, Munro

said, 'If the report of the Government Commission studying drug use

revealed widespread use of marijuana, it should be legalized even if

that involved some health danger.'" Now I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,

that this was a taped show. This was electronically recorded, and the

statement as recorded by Canadian Press is, in true fact, of the

Minister's statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I've allowed the honourable Minister to make

that statement, because I think it's critical to the regulation as to

whether or not the Minister made the statement and, hopefully, the

honourable first member may have some evidence to introduce which would

indicate that the statement was withdrawn, and if this is the case and

the House and the Chair is well established of this fact, then I feel

that the motion, at that point, is not in order.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister telegraphed me personally, denying the accuracy of that report.

AN HON. MEMBER: What date?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, had I known it was required I could have produced it today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. SPEAKER: Just one moment, please. The honourable member

has made a statement which must be accepted by this House. Everyone in

this House is an honourable gentleman or an honourable lady and his

word will be accepted.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, furthermore, the following week

the Minister was in Vancouver and on Jack Webster's radio show, and in

a press conference from the Bayshore Inn he denied the accuracy of that

report, and I think that it's unfortunate if this Legislature cannot

take cognizance of public statements made by the Minister correcting

the record.

In my opinion, the Federal Government is acting responsibly in

appointing a Royal Commission to investigate this very important

matter. There's no question, nor has anybody raised the question in

Canada, that we are not living up fully to our obligations under the

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and because of these important

aspects not raised by the Minister when she introduced this Resolution,

I think that it's not only out of order, Mr. Speaker, but it's

mischievous.

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

The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or

two here. The motion is not to do with marijuana, it's to express deep

concern over recent statements attributed to the Minister, and the lady

Minister introduced a press clipping, and the Minister has since denied

that he has made that statement, and he has also made other statements

upon the same subject. None of these have been referred to, and the

lady Minister should have got in touch with the Minister, John Munro,

and asked him what he said, and what all he said, before bringing into

this House a motion which is otherwise playing politics, cheap

politics, in a field where we have no right to play politics. I am

opposed to a gratuitous slight to the Minister of Health of Canada

based upon the kind of evidence that's been presented under this motion.

[ Page 791 ]

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my

sentiments to this debate. Number one, I agree very much with the

sentiments that have been expressed by every member that I've heard so

far talk in this debate about marijuana and their condemnation of it.

I've not seen any person in this House stand up, and I hope I do not,

who is prepared to praise the use of marijuana. No one.

But I really and truly think that the honourable the Minister, in

proceeding with this motion, without accepting the denial of the

Minister of Health for Canada is playing, as the first member from

Vancouver East stated, cheap, cheap politics.

I admire the honourable the lady Minister's attitude to marijuana,

which is exactly the same as mine, but this is not the substance of

this motion. And I would think it would be most appropriate, Mr.

Speaker, if the honourable the lady Minister withdrew the motion and

brought in a motion to express the sentiments of the total

representation from all parties in this House, through the people of

British Columbia, of their stand against marijuana. Not to come ahead

and try to build up a man of straw and then shoot him down. And I would

say this, Mr. Speaker, if — if — the honourable the Minister John

Munro's statement that he made — if he made it — if he made it, if he

stands by that statement, I don't stand by him — make no mistake of

that fact! But he has denied it.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: No, he didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he has.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Premier, I understand he's denied it. You've heard the first member from Vancouver–Point Grey state that he denied it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you write him and ask?

MR. GARDOM: What are we doing here, Mr. Chairman? We are

moving on third rate hearsay. Mr. Chairman, with every respect, I feel

that the motion in its present form, and particularly in view of the

remarks that we heard from our own Minister of Health here, his

remarks. The motion is completely out of order,100 per cent out of

order, because he said, Mr. Speaker, he said it doesn't make any

difference whether he said it or whether he didn't say it. That almost

gets back as to whether is Benguet in or are Benguet out?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. While it is true that the

honourable Minister did make the remarks, he did, upon being called to

order, rephrase his statement.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, he did, Mr. Speaker, rephrase his statement.

Twice he fought his way back to dry land, but I can tell you with

pretty wet clothing.

Mr. Speaker, I am as deeply concerned as anybody in this House about

the problem of marijuana, make no mistake of that fact. If the

honourable the lady Minister wishes to introduce a resolution today

saying that this House condemns the use of marijuana, she has my total

support, but I do not think that it is a good thing to go ahead and

come along with a motion such as this which to a degree is — it may not

be the intent — the intent, perhaps at the time was the best of intent.

The denial might not have been carried forward to the Canadian public

at the time the resolution was made, that I don't know. The honourable

lady Minister could help us in that, but since she has now heard of the

denial and it's been stated, I feel that in all grace, in all grace,

she should withdraw her motion.

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

MR. J.D. TISDALLE: Mr. Speaker, at least on a carrying up a

point the honourable leader of the Liberal party and first member for

Point Grey in his definite statement that the Minister, Mr. Munro,

Minister of National Health and Welfare, had denied the statement, it

is interesting to note that when the Prime Minister was appraised of

that supposedly made statement by the Minister of Health, that he

agreed with it. Now has the member from Point Grey, the first member

from Point Grey, heard from the Prime Minister as to did he support the

denial of the Minister of Health, because they are both named in the

resolution. I just….

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Saanich be seated while the point of order is discussed.

MR. McGEER: It is completely irrelevant to whether or not the

Minister has denied a statement he made. Whether the Prime Minister

accepts that or not is of no consequence, but we have no statement from

the Minister who introduced this resolution as to what the Prime

Minister was alleged to have said. She read the press release for

the….

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable member for Saanich be seated, please.

MR. TISDALLE: All right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. McGEER: She read the press release and we had an

opportunity to study the evidence she brought in. This motion as it

stood on the Order Paper she may have brought…. Some of the

statements attributed both to the Minister of Health and to the Prime

Minister that deserved our careful consideration, but the statements

that she has introduced do not deserve our careful consideration, and

that's why I suggested that the motion was out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The point is well made by

the honourable the first member, but let me point out the position of

the Chair. Not only is the honourable the Health Minister involved here

but also the honourable the Prime Minister of Canada, and nothing has

been said thus far as to what statements he may or may not have made,

nor what he may or may not have retracted, and I am in no position

really to rule.

MR. McGEER: The lady Minister who introduced the resolution did not give us that data, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable member for Saanich go on?

[ Page 792 ]

MR. TISDALLE: It does promote a very odd situation where John

Munro, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, was more important

than the health and welfare statement by the Prime Minister. It's hard

to imagine that the first member from Point Grey would take it upon

himself to query the statement without going as far as the Prime

Minister's good will, too.

But, in due respect to the resolution that is before us, the most

important part of it, as far as I am concerned in supporting it, is

that the emphasis laid on the last paragraph, "That the members of this

House call upon the Federal Government to fulfill their obligations in

regulating and controlling the use of drugs for any purpose except

those permitted under the Single Convention," and that convention, as

Canada being a signatory to it, was definitely opposed to any

modification or change of the category of marijuana to being left

outside of the qualification of a drug.

I support the resolution in this respect, that this is no time to

lend any comfort or encouragement to those who have been made to feel

that there is some security in the use of this drug called marijuana,

and anything that we do in here to waffle over it, or to say but, or to

say I'm opposed to it but we need more research, I think those feelings

should have been laid to rest by the Minister of Health and Hospitals

this afternoon. Surely within that department, and surely with all the

research that has gone on by committee throughout the free world and

throughout the areas that have had many, many years, and even

centuries, to experiment with this, and their whole population that

have had experimentation by trial and error have been to the detriment

of the national ability of that nation to perform. Surely that, in

itself, is enough for any good British Columbian and Canadian and

member of this association, in this parliament, to say that we'll lend

no comfort at all. It's not a time to worry about whether we need to

have an experience in British Columbia that will cause our feelings to

be less in support of this motion.

When we think of down in Ottawa the other day, when the young couple

together in the Peace Tower, one throws themselves out the window — commits suicide — the other one is apprehended down below nonchalantly

walking away with the evidence of marijuana on their person. We don't

have to surmise too much what is happening, and therefore I think that

the evidence is very clear that we in this Legislature should lend no

credulence, no comfort, no encouragement whatever, to those who would

go around with a doctrine that we hear today, encouraging young people

to take a roulette chance at using marijuana or any of the other

associated drugs that tend to the hallucinogenic atmosphere that we're

hearing so much about.

It's important, I think too, in the Legislature that in respect to

this motion that this Government, this Parliament, do everything in its

power to circulate information that would be acceptable to our young

people, to look at the true facts, also, as to the hindrances and the

liabilities in associating with the drug world. I think that in that

respect that this motion probably should be earmarked towards

ourselves, too, to do everything we can to encourage and discourage the

use of marijuana, and so I support the motion.

Unfortunately, unfortunately, we have had no contradiction, no

denial by the Prime Minister of one of his own Minister's statements on

this subject, and so this afternoon we must vote in relationship to

what I do have in front of me, and therefore I support the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G. H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, it's a very serious thing, in

my view, for a member of this House to take the responsibility of

having this whole Assembly move a substantive motion against an

House. It's bad enough if you were doing it from Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable lady member state her point of order.

MRS. McCARTHY: I think that the statement from the honourable

member from Burnaby is incorrect. If you will read the motion it is not

a censure of the Minister of Health more than it is a concern of this

House, and this is the meaning of the motion and in that regard the

motion is put.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member, in stating his case,

expressed regret over a substantive motion being passed by this House

and in no way suggested that w e were condemning the Federal Minister.

Proceed.

MR. DOWDING: I am putting the point, Mr. Speaker, that we are

passing judgment by expressing our concern or anything else, or any way

you want to put it, regrets, or viewed with alarm, at statements

attributed to an honourable Minister in another House. It's a serious

thing to do, and it's well known in our rules that before any member

makes any kind of a criticism of this kind in this motion as to

attributed statements, first, in the motion should have been placed the

statements to which the member referred. But, you look at the motion

and there is no statements there. It just is a vague condemnation of

statements attributed to Mr. Munro — attributed — and I suggest this,

Mr. Speaker, that if the honourable member were on a witness stand with

a bible in her hand, and was asked to swear under oath that Mr. Munro

made the statements that she attributes to him, and the Court asked

her….

Just a minute, just a minute this is very important. We are going to libel an honourable member of another House.

MRS. McCARTHY: That isn't it.

MR. DOWDING: That's what the motion is going to do. Would the

honourable member, the honourable Minister, would she be prepared to

say to a Court that my evidence, that my evidence is a newspaper

clipping?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're quoting from a newspaper all the time. What's the difference with this one?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member care to rise to his feet.

I believe, with respect, that the honourable member for

Burnaby-Edmonds is over-stating his case. We must pay attention to the

actual wording of the resolution, and I don't want the impression to

leave this Legislature that there is any condemnation whatsoever

involved, or that anyone is being

[ Page 793 ]

libeled, and this, in my view, is over-stating the case.

MR. DOWDING: Well, let me say this. That you and I know, Mr.

Speaker, that any member who makes any statement in a motion must take

responsibility for the facts that he states in that motion. Is that not

true? In other words, this House has no knowledge of something that's

before it, other than what the member who states the proposition and

motion says. Those are the facts that are before the House, and the

honourable the lady Minister must take responsibility for the accuracy

of the statement of fact she makes in a motion. That's her duty. I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that she is not prepared fully to take that

responsibility for the veracity of the facts stated in the motion. She

has used a clipping of Canadian Press. We have had a direct

communication, apparently, to an honourable member of the House, the

leader of the Liberal party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you take that as a fact, or not.

MR. DOWDING: No, there's quite a difference. One honourable

member said, "I take responsibility for the truth." The other

honourable member says, "I don't take responsibility for the truth, I

say here's a clipping." That's the difference. What a difference.

In other words what I'm saying is that when an honourable member

puts a motion with facts in it, they must take responsibility for those

facts, and the truth of those facts. I suggest that the honourable lady

Minister is not in that happy position, because had she written to the

Minister and had a communication from the Minister in Ottawa directly,

she would have direct evidence of the facts of the statements

attributed to him and whether they were true or not.

It is not fair to a member of another House to in any way criticize

his conduct or his statements attributed to him, unless you are

prepared to back up those statements of fact. In other words, when we

accept a statement in this House from an honourable member, we do so

because he is an honourable member, but the honourable member must make

it clear that that member backs up that statement as being a statement

of fact before this House should be forced to accept that motion in its

present form.

I am not, therefore, willing in any way to criticize alleged

statements from a newspaper, and I point out that many times in this

House we have forced members to withdraw statements attributed to an

honourable member from a newspaper, and you know and we all know that

sometimes statements in the House or out of the House are paraphrased

and changed by the press for various reasons, some of them conditions

of space, I suppose.

But, I suggest that no matter how worthy the idea may be of warning

the public about marijuana, that is not the substantive point in this

motion, I urge first, the honourable lady Minister, in all fairness, to

withdraw it unless she is absolutely certain that the Minister made the

precise statement she attributes to him from a newspaper clipping. Or,

alternatively if she won't withdraw the motion I urge this House in all

fairness to a member of another House who can't defend himself here,

that we put the question and defeat the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my

concern in relationship to having talked with young people, not to say

that all young people feel this way because I can't speak for that, but

just in term s of young people that have talked to me.

If you start discussing the subject of marijuana, the legalization

automatically comes up, it always does. But I find time and time again,

as I talk to these young people and they start to present their

arguments, they quote constantly, "But my authority," they would say,

"the Minister of Health is in favour of the legalization of marijuana."

I don't believe this is true, I really don't believe it's true. I'm

sure he doesn't. But, I haven't had a strong enough statement, and it

is true that this statement is abroad among our young people. They are

using it as a defence of their position to use marijuana, as a defence

of their position to use marijuana, and that concerns me.

The damage is done in this area, and I don't believe, if he has made

a denial of this statement, that it is strong enough. It is not strong

enough until it gets back to those young people and those young people

say, "Oh, he didn't really say that." But that statement is not there

now and I'm concerned, and all I'm expressing here in this motion is

that I am concerned, and I want him to assure me that he didn't make

this statement. I want him to make this correction. I want him to make

it publicly.

We have had the Minister of Health, in this Province stand up and

make a strong statement. We have had strong statements from many people

in this House on all sides of the House. I want these same strong

statements from this Minister. I want these same strong statements from

the Prime Minister of Canada made publicly to Canadians, to the young

people of Canada because this is most important. I think that the

passing of this resolution will express our concern and we will have

this responded to by a strong statement that will clarify the position,

and our young people will be the better for it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS: Mr. Speaker, while I share the feelings of

all other members who have spoken with respect to marijuana, I think it

has been a custom in this House, that when an honourable member denies

the statement attributed to him, that denial is accepted by the House.

I happen to have heard the honourable Mr. Munro deny the statement

attributed to him on a radio programme, in view of that, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to suggest to the honourable Minister who moved this

resolution, this motion, that she consider withdrawing it and rewording

it, so it will not cast any reflection on the Federal Minister of

Health, and any other person.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the

Question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, no. I think the

No's have it. So ordered.

The motion was negatived on the following division:-

[ Page 794 ]

YEAS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R. A.

Dowding

Gardom

Calder

Nimsick

Cocke

McGeer

Barrett

Hartley

Williams, L. A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Lorimer

Macdonald

Little

Hall

Strachan

NAYS — 35

Messieurs

Wallace

Bruch

Smith

Ney

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Merilees

Jordan, Mrs.

Capozzi

Marshall

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Wenman

Kiernan

Chant

Kripps, Mrs.

Williston

Loffmark

Mussallem

Bennett

Gaglardi

Price

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

Vogel

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Jefcoat

Campbell, B.

Richter

Tisdalle

Wolfe

PAIR:

Messieurs

Clark

LeCours

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion for adjournment to be lost.

The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: We have heard a number of statements from both

sides of the House regarding the truth and the veracity of the various

remarks. I think my mind is made up, Mr. Speaker, and I think that no

useful purpose will be served in exercising this charge of denial and

counter-denial. In fact I think we are doing a disservice to the whole

problem in this Province.

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, the question now be put.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question may now be put. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary-minded, No. So ordered.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, this is that the question, the motion for

the question be now put, which closes the debate, and the question to

be put. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded say

No. I think the Ayes have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker

MR. E. HALL: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. You didn't call for a division on the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker in the House now for a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Would you give me just one moment please. I'll let you raise your point of order.

The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I think you stood to a point of order.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of

order under our Standing Order 46, sub-section 1, that the Speaker can

only put the motion providing it is not in abuse of the rules of the

House. At the time this motion was recognized, and the division bells

were rung, there were three members on their feet who wished to speak

to this motion, one of whom wished to make an amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member for Surrey, to a point of order.

MR. E. HALL: I wish to raise a point of order. In that I

moved that the question be now put. The question then, of putting the

question, was given to the House, and there appeared to be a consensus

and a vast majority in favour of the question being put. The Speaker

did not then, Mr. Speaker, call for a division on the question itself.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: More than that, he didn't object to the question being put.

MR. SPEAKER: My understanding is that the House is presently

dividing on the motion that is before the House. This is the

information that I have.

MR. HALL: Thank you for that explanation. As long as everybody knows what they are voting for, Mr. Speaker, that's fine.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. I think, with all due

deference and respect to the honourable the first member from

Vancouver–Point Grey, that the intent of 46(1) is that the Speaker may

not necessarily accept a motion of closure, if he feels that there is

an abuse, but on the other hand, and with an equal amount of respect,

there has been a very considerable debate on this particular matter.

The hour is drawing late, and I think in the interests of Parliamentary

procedure, that I don't think the Speaker, in his wisdom, could have

felt that a motion of closure was an abuse of the rules of the House.

So under the circumstances I can't accept that 46(

l) is applicable.

We are ready now to take the division. The division is taking place

on the motion itself, Motion No. 7, which appears on the Order Paper.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:-

YEAS — 34

Messieurs

Wallace

Marshall

Mussallem

Ney

Wenman

Price

Merilees

Kripps, Mrs.

Vogel

[ Page 795 ]

Chabot

Bennett

Capozzi

Jefcoat

Peterson

Skillings

Tisdalle

Black

Chant

Bruch

Fraser

Loffmark

McCarthy, Mrs.

Campbell, B.

Gaglardi

Jordan, Mrs.

Wolfe

Brothers

Dawson, Mrs.

Smith

Shelford

Kiernan

McDiarmid

Richter

Williston

NAYS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R. A.

Dowding

Gardom

Calder

Nimsick

Cocke

McGeer

Barrett

Hartley

Williams, L. A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Lorimer

Macdonald

Little

Hall

Strachan

PAIR:

Messieurs

LeCours

Clark

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the Motion carried. So ordered.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Resolution No. 8, Mr. Speaker.

That the debates of the Legislative Assembly in the House be

recorded by means of magnetic-tape recorders or other suitable

recording devices in accordance with the following rules: —

That the magnetic-tape record of the said debates shall be under

the control and custody of Mr. Speaker and no duplicate or copy of the

magnetic-tape record shall be made without the express authority of Mr.

Speaker.

That the public use, employment, publication, transmission, or

broadcast outside the House of the magnetic-tape record of the said

debates, or any portion thereof, is prohibited without the express

authority of Mr. Speaker.

That any person who, without the express authority of Mr. Speaker,

offends against sections 2 and 3 of this Order may be considered in

contempt of the House.

That when any question arises in the House as to the words spoken

by a member in its said debates of the House, Mr. Speaker may use the

magnetic-tape record as evidence of the actual words spoken by that

member.

That Mr. Speaker may, on request in writing of any member, use the

magnetic-tape record to verify the words spoken by that member or any

other member in the said debates; and may, if requested by the member,

supply him with a typewritten transcript (not exceeding 25 lines) of

the portion of the said debates so requested.

That any member may challenge the accuracy of the magnetic-tape

record in cases where he alleges that words spoken by him have been

attributed to another member or vice versa, and if the House gives

unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker shall note the discrepancy in the Journals of the House.

That, after the prorogation of the House, a typewritten transcript

of the said debates shall be prepared under the supervision of Mr.

Speaker, and a copy thereof certified by him shall be distributed to

each member without charge.

That copies of the transcript of the said debates shall be made available for purchase by any person at cost.

That sections 1 to 9 of this Order be, and they are hereby declared

to be, Standing Orders of the House, and shall be designated as

Part IV

of the Standing Orders of the House under the heading "Recording of

Debates."

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 8. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, Resolution No. 8 has stood on

the Order Paper for some time, and in order to deal with the matter

with dispatch, I shan't read it or develop it at too great an extent. I

just want to say that under the direction of the Chair, this experiment

has taken place up to this moment, and whether or not it continues to

be an experiment, the fate of this motion will decide.

However, let me make it very clear, that as far as my understanding

of the motion is concerned, and what is intended in the verbatim

reporting electronically, that has been done throughout this entire

Session. Number one, the Throne debate is recorded, number two, the

Budget debate is recorded. The Committee stages of Bills in the

Committee is not recorded. It may have been recorded, but I am talking

about the resolution, that's what I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Estimates?

MR. BLACK: No, not the Estimates that's what I mean,

Committee of the Whole House. There stands the motion, Mr. Speaker,

there stands the motion and I move the motion standing in my name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a mockery.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: May I ask, on a point of order, whether the

House would be agreeable to debating the motion seriatim, that is

paragraph by paragraph, so that they could be dealt with as separate

propositions?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe it is just one resolution.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): What a farce. What

a mockery. To allow the people of this Province to think that they are

going to get a complete verbatim record of the debates of this House,

only to find out that the formal debates will be recorded, but the real

guts of the Session, the real meat and the heart and the meaning of why

we come to this Session, why we question the Ministers, what the issues

are, are to buried and to be kept hidden from the people of this

Province.

Especially at a time when a Session has taken place when there has

been a great newspaper strike in this Province. When the vital issues

affecting the lives of every citizen of this Province have been debated

in detail, when every member has come here to do his duty and has done

his duty, there is to be no record for those citizens who pay the

bills, Mr. Chairman, no record. We played a little game in a little

closet and the Government's line in this particular motion is, let

there be no light. Let there be no light.

Mr. Speaker, this is 1970, this is a year when the Government boasts we spent 31 per cent of our Budget on

[ Page 796 ]

education. This is a year when we asked people to

participate in politics, to participate in democracy, to understand the

living, breathing mechanism of Parliament and how important this

institution is to preserve freedom and democracy. After making those

kind of high flying pronouncements, we rip the heart out of any drive

to inform the people of British Columbia about what is going on in this

House.

Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed of any single word I have said in this

House. I'll stand by anything I have said, anytime, and I request, on

behalf of the people who pay the bills and who elect us, that they have

the right to own the recordings and have the published proceedings of

every single word that is said in this House. To alienate that right,

Mr. Speaker, is to admit that a Government has gone mad with its

overwhelming majority, and the subsequent consequence of that madness

is to believe the myth that somehow you are plugged into God and you

are not responsible to the people, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is shocking, absolutely shocking, to lead the people of

this Province to believe that you were going to give them a full record

of this debate, only to find that there will be secrets kept from the

people of this Province at the whim and request of this Government

which refuses, absolutely refuses, to publish the proceedings of this

House. Shame — shame I say, on this Government. It flies in the face of

its responsibility to people of this Province. It flies in the face of

responsibility in terms of developing a free society.

There is no reason, no reason to keep this information from the

people except an arrogance by a Government that is so big it has now

gone beyond elections and it thinks it has the divine right to rule. We

won't buy it. It's sick, and it's an insult to the people of British

Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this is the 29th Parliament in

British Columbia's history, and it is the 29th Parliament that has

hidden itself from public view. This isn't our Legislature. This is the

people's Legislature, and by denying the people of this Province the

right to hear what their elected members have said, to see their

elected members in action, to read what their elected members have said

and indeed, Mr. Speaker, to deny those who are in the public galleries

today the right to take out a pencil and a piece of paper and write

down what we are saying at this minute, is a shame on the Government.

What have you got to hide? What is so shameful about your actions over

there and your words that make you wish to keep those words from the

people of British Columbia? With your overwhelming mandate and with

this, the only Legislature in Canada that lacks a Hansard , your

shame should be overwhelming for maintaining the dark ages in this

Province of British Columbia as far as the Parliament and the

Legislature is concerned.

One day, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a Legislative renaissance

in British Columbia when we will look back with shame on the record of

this Government and your unwillingness to face the public of British

Columbia and hold themselves to account for words in this Legislature,

by seeing these words displayed in their entirety before all the people

of the Province and giving the citizens of this Province the right to

come and take down those words and hold you to account for them. Any

Premier and any Cabinet….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The matter of someone in the

gallery taking down the words is not a question now. We are dealing

with Resolution No. 8. That was the matter of a motion at the beginning

of this Session. It is not a matter of debate now.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, Resolution No. 8 does not open this

Legislative Assembly fully to the people of British Columbia. Any

Premier or any Cabinet Minister or any member of this Legislative

Assembly who is ashamed to see in full his words displayed before the

people of British Columbia should not be sitting in this Chamber,

because this is 1970, the 29th Parliament, the hundredth year of our

Province's existence, and still we are unwilling to do those things

which are as old as Parliament itself. More shame on the Premier. More

shame on his Cabinet Ministers, and more shame on his backbenchers for

permitting this intolerable situation to continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very

unsatisfactory things about this resolution. I don't know whether the

Government has really given much thought to it.

I have made some proposals on the Order Paper by way of an amendment

to it, and I think that they are sound proposals, and they are done

after studying replies I have received from different other

Legislatures of Canada who looked with some care at the proposals in

Resolution No. 8. I just want to mention a few points with regard to

the present resolution that is before you that sets out the proposals

for a partial recording of debate.

When you look at the paragraph 6 which says, "Mr. Speaker may, on

request in writing of any member, use the magnetic-tape record to

verify the words spoken by that member or any other member in the said

debates, and may, if requested by the member, supply him with a

typewritten transcript (not exceeding 25 lines) of the portion of the

said debates so requested." Well, it appears that this is a very

cumbersome way of verifying what was said. To have to go through this

type of formality and to limit it to 25 lines, it seems to me an abuse,

right in that proposal, that you'll have members trying to snatch 25

lines from some other member's speech to use, you know, for political

purposes, without really quoting the member in full or giving the

member thereby the opportunity to state his full position. So that's

dangerous to have any such limitation.

A second thing that is obviously quite wrong with the proposal is

that the debate would be taped but a daily transcript would not be made

available. That's absolutely ridiculous. The reason is that if the

transcript is kept, as it were, on tape until the end of the Session,

it is going to take the Speaker a complete run through of those

portions of the tape that are recorded in the Throne Speech and the

Budget Speech — and he's going to have to relive the Session, as it

were, himself because the resolution requires the Speaker personally to

certify the transcript. Why are you going to put the Speaker to that

kind of work? Surely it's enough that it be certified by an official

reporter who transcribes a daily transcript. It would be a lot more

sensible than that method suggested in Resolution 8.

Now, it is fairly useless and in fact rather dangerous to wait until

the end of the Session and then wait a lot longer for a typed

transcript to be sent to you by the Speaker, because by the time that

you get it and read it over and see

[ Page 797 ]

errors, whether they be in names that you have

used, when there is a misspelling of a name or a place, or there is

improper punctuation to becloud your statements, you are going to be

much too late by the time you receive a transcript to correct the

errors that are perhaps manifest to you and maybe not to the

transcriber.

That can be a rather ridiculous situation, and that argues against

that proposal and argues in favour of a daily transcript, so while the

matter is fresh in the minds of the House the members can be supplied

with a daily transcript. They can check it with the Speaker to

determine whether it is accurate, and if there are manifest errors

there should be no problem with the Speaker in correcting those errors

in the transcript. It makes it easy to produce because it is done

daily. A lot of work at the end of the Session is very little work if

it is done as a daily task by one reporter who transcribes from the

official tape. So I urge some consideration to that very important

factor that will be otherwise not solved.

I am just wondering whether the Speaker is prepared to accept the

onus put upon him of sitting through part of this Session all over

again, having to listen to the tapes or read the transcript. Are you

prepared to impose that task on the Speaker? I am not. I think it is

wrong.

Now, I have a motion to amend the Motion No. 8, Mr. Speaker, and I

would move, seconded by the honourable the member for Cowichan-Malahat,

the amendment standing in my name on the Order paper, number 11, this

is the amendment number.

Speaking on the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I propose that in Clause 2

of the motion that we add after the word "debate," in line one the

words "including proceedings during Committee of the Whole" and delete

all the words after the word "made" in line 3, so that the amendment

would read, "That the magnetic-tape record of the said debates,

including proceedings during Committee of the Whole House, shall be

under the control and custody of Mr. Speaker, and no duplicate or copy

of magnetic-tape record shall be made without the express authority of

Mr. Speaker." I want it to be clear to all members. They may not want

to read and try to fill in those words here and there.

The intent of it is to make sure that all the debate, all the

statements that are said in this House are recorded. I think that's

vital to the whole conduct of Parliament. It otherwise becomes a

mockery to have set speeches that you deliver without any of the thrust

and play of debate. At the opening of the Session, in the Opening

Speech from the Throne, or the Budget Speech, which are purely formal

debates, to have them recorded, and then the real business of

Parliament, the real debates that take place that are the really

interesting thing to both the members and the public, should be denied

to the public. Now the honourable the member for Point Grey has

indicated that, and so has the honourable the Leader of the Opposition,

I won't belabour that point.

The second thing is in Clause 3, to delete all the words after the

word "prohibited" in line 3, and that would make the motion then read

"That the public use, employment, publication, transmission, or

broadcast outside of the House of the magnetic-tape record of the said

debates, or any portion thereof, is prohibited." Now, I don't think

that the Speaker should either give or have the right to give authority

for them to be broadcast outside the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that three times.

MR. DOWDING: This is a different amendment than Clause 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the tape.

MR. DOWDING: This deals with the right of the Speaker to take

those tapes out of this House and broadcast them at his pleasure and as

he would want, and I think that is wrong. The Speaker shouldn't be put

in that position. He shouldn't be put in that position. That is why I

want that deleted, that part that allows him to do that outside the

House. The place for the record is on the page and the place for that

page is in the hands of the public. Then in Clause 6….

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. PETERSON: The amendments that the honourable member has

already moved would involve substantial addition to staff and

expenditure of public funds involving, as they do, recording and

transcription during Committees of the House, and also issuing

transcripts on a daily basis. I would therefore invite you to consider

Standing Order 66, which specifically covers this and would make these

amendments out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must agree with the point of order and rule the amendment out of order.

MR. DOWDING: Speaking on the motion, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you challenge that ruling?

MR. DOWDING: All right, we'll challenge the ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

All those in favour of upholding the ruling of the Chair will please

indicate by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have it.

The ruling of the Chair was upheld on the following division:-

YEAS — 35

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Wolfe

Ney

Tisdalle

Smith

Merilees

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Marshall

Jordan, Mrs.

Capozzi

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Campbell, D.R.J.

Vogel

Peterson

Brothers

LeCours

Black

Shelford

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

Little

Campbell, B.

[ Page 798 ]

NAYS — 15

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R. A.

Strachan

Cocke

Calder

Dowding

Hartley

McGeer

Nimsick

Lorimer

Williams, L. A.

Barrett

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly, Mrs.

PAIR:

Messieurs

Gaglardi

Clark

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Declare the ruling of the Chair upheld. So ordered The question on Motion No. 8. The Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I am almost, for me anyway,

speechless when I heard the Provincial Secretary announce that we would

only receive the recordings and the transcripts from the formal

debates. I found that very hard to believe, and I found it almost an

insult, Mr. Speaker, to the House, to the people of the Province, and

to the legislative democracy and traditions which we have enjoyed and

to which we pay homage so often. I think perhaps the crowning act in

this Session was to see the Premier instruct the Provincial Secretary

in this way, to make this statement when he, the Provincial Secretary,

perhaps more than any of the other side, is the Minister who

understands democracy and the traditions of this House.

I cannot understand, and I should like some explanation, why this

Legislature of the third most populous Province, the Province of

tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, cannot do that which other Provinces do. Other

Provinces have managed for years now to produce a record which is

complete, complete from day one to the last day. I can't for the life

of me understand why we should be expected to take that 15-word

statement from the Provincial Secretary and honour it in the name of

democracy as we stand here assembled as a Legislative body.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is part of the problems which are

besetting this Government now and which will continue to beset this

Government — that they've forgotten what it's all about, they've

forgotten what it's all about — and if anybody was correct in

predicting that the kind of majority the Government got last August was

a bad thing for the Province, then this motion today must prove it,

must prove it. I think that we should be entitled to an explanation as

to why this House cannot do what the other nine Legislatures do and

produce a full Hansard and a full recording, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why this

Government hasn't brought this resolution before this House earlier

during the Session. Once they had decided that they were only going to

record the Throne debate and the Budget debate, the House should have

been informed. At no time did you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone, and we asked

at different times whether the proceedings of the House were being

recorded, and at no time were we informed that they were not being

recorded. Now to come out and tell us that the only debates that were

recorded were the Throne debate and the Budget debate, shows that it

was much more than that, but that's all that we're going to get. What

are you going to do with the magnetic tapes of the balance, then, if

you did record it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to use them?

MR. NIMSICK: What did you do? I think that if they've

recorded the other debates then we have a right to have those debates

recorded, if it's on magnetic tape. I don't think that the magnetic

tape should be the sole responsibility of the Government, to use as

they like. Now it comes out that there's more than the Throne debate

and the Budget debate was recorded.

I thought, Mr. Speaker, that we would be informed, because when we

requested from you what we were going to do in regards to the debates

and in regards to this resolution, and whether the recordings were

going on, we were informed that we would be kept informed as to what

went on, and we never heard any more about it, until the last day of

the Session, and then you bring forth this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was on the Order Paper.

MR. NIMSICK: Sure it was on the Order Paper, but who can call

it? We can't call it. The only ones that can call it are the

Government. It doesn't say there are just the Throne debate and the

Budget debate.

Another point, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think is right is to give

even you the right to make a duplicate of that magnetic tape. Once that

tape has been printed, that tape should not be duplicated by anybody,

even with your permission. Mr. Speaker, that tape should not be

duplicated even with your authority at any time. Once it's duplicated,

how many times do we know from there on where it'll be duplicated?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The member is perfectly in

order, but because the Speaker is so deeply involved in the resolution

that's being discussed, I would like you to understand the difficulty

that it is to transcribe from one tape. It means that only one

stenographer, for example, or one typist would be able to do the

typing, which would be an interminable delay, and hopefully, there will

be a number of tapes taken from the master tape so that a number of

typists could proceed with the typing. Otherwise, I really don't know

when we would be able to produce the tape. I mention this, so that

you'd understand the problem that will be placed upon the Speaker were

the House to agree with the suggestion that's being made. You're not

out of order at all, but I wanted you to understand my problem.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, Mr. Speaker, it says here the

magnetic-tape record of the said debate shall be under the control and

custody of Mr. Speaker, and no duplicate or copy of the magnetic-tape

record shall be made without the express authority of Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. NIMSICK: The point that I'm getting at is, that once you start duplicating these tapes, that you've got authority to

[ Page 799 ]

duplicate these tapes, where do they go from there?

I feel that the original tape is the only tape that should remain, and

that it should never be duplicated at any time, even regardless of the

fact that you say that you want more than one stenographer typing the

tapes, because a tape is only so big anyway. During the report of the

Session you've had a number of tapes, I'm sure, you didn't put it all

on one tape, nor all on a dozen tapes, and so I don't think that the

argument there would hold water.

What I'm afraid of is that once these tapes get out, once you start

duplicating tapes, there could be no end to the duplication of tapes,

and you can leave out and you can add on tapes, too, if you want to. I

think that it's a dangerous procedure in that regard. To me the whole

set-up — to come here the last day of the Session — is a violation of

the principles of this House, and one that I don't feel as though I can

go along with, to endorse a dictatorial attitude of the Government in

forcing upon us and trying to appease the public in the fact that they

are having a Hansard by such a resolution as this, or such a restricted

Hansard as you are proposing here today. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is a

real mockery of the parliamentary system that we all claim to uphold.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, here on the last day of this

Session, once again the massive majority of this Government is making a

mockery of Parliament, and the man who would play God is making a

mockery of Parliament, and we refuse to take

part in this destruction

of Parliament that we see today.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, are you ready for the

question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion

is carried.

The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, if the House would remain at ease.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable members, it will require something in

the order of fifteen minutes for the attendants and Public Works' staff

to make certain changes in the House so far as our sound system, and so

on, is concerned. The House is therefore recessed until between ten

after and quarter after five, and I'll ring the bell at that time. In

the meantime, the House stands recessed.

The House recessed at 4.58 p.m.

The House reconvened at 5.15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Members of the Legislative Assembly. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the Chamber. All arise.

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Pray be seated.

MR. E.G. MacMINN (Clerk Assistant):

An Act to Amend the Contributory Negligence Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act.

An Act to Amend the Provincial New-home Building A