1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 989 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

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

just like to take a moment of the House's time to express appreciation

to the page boys for the wonderful job that they've done this year.

They've been a very fine group from Reynolds Secondary and I certainly

think they deserve a warm round of applause from the Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

New Democratic Party, I would like to second that motion of

appreciation to the page boys. The only thing I hope is that they're

paid union wages and that the Members of the Social Credit will do a

little more than just that.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply. The committee rose and reported resolutions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, divisions took place in committee

on votes 248, 256, 263 and 224, and the committee requests leave of the

House to have the divisions recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: Dealing first with the divisions that took place

in the committee on votes 248, 256, 263, and 224. Leave will be

required in order to record these divisions in the Journals , Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR SPEAKER: When shall the report be considered?

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of

the House that the rules be suspended and the reports of resolutions

from the committee of supply on February 22, 23, 24, and 25, and March

2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, and 30 be now received and taken

as read.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I move, seconded by the Attorney General,

that the rules be suspended and the resolutions from the committee of

supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that this House doth agree with the committee in the said resolutions. Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the

Attorney General, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House

to go into committee of ways and means.

Motion approved.

House in committee of ways and means. The committee rose and reported a resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: That towards the making good the supply granted

to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted

from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following: $28,226,

553 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March

31, 1971; $1,451, 963,421 towards defraying the several charges and

expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

AN ACT FOR GRANTING CERTAIN SUMS OF MONEY

FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

101, intituled

An Act for Granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money

for the Public Service of the Province of British Columbia.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, by the leave of the House I move the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, by the leave of the House I

move the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to a committee of

the whole House to be considered forthwith.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 101 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): I move we proceed to motions and adjourned debates on motions.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on the order paper before motions and adjourned debates on

[ Page 990 ]

motions there is reading and receiving petitions. Could I have some advice on that?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the choice is the matter of the government leader to call business in whatever order that he may wish to call business.

I'd like the Honourable Member, if he would to refer to Beauchesne,

the Fourth Edition at page 84 which lays out very clearly the

responsibilities and obligations of the House leader in selecting the

day's business.

Motion No. 2. The Honourable the Attorney General adjourned the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, since adjourning this debate

I've had the opportunity of reviewing the matter as well with those

responsible for the official reporting of the debates. I'm satisfied

that there was no censorship of the transcripts in question.

The problem is that only those remarks which are audible when the

microphone is on and are heard are recorded. That is the problem.

Unless it's audible and unless your microphone happens to be on when

you make the remarks, the remarks are not recorded.

I think from observing the recording of the proceedings this year

that the staff have done an outstanding job of recording of points of

order, et cetera, and indeed the full debate. It's not possible to get

all of the interactions in, of course. They may well be audible to the

news media but because your microphone is not on it doesn't appear

recorded in the debates. Hence the motion that's before us, Mr.

Speaker, is not acceptable to the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition will close the debate.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker I cannot …

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, the Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the Attorney General's remarks I would be very brief and only point out that if the Hansard

of this House were distributed and printed within 24 hours of a sitting

of the House such efforts as have been mentioned in this motion would

be noticed on the day following the debate and brought to your

attention immediately.

The motion clearly indicates the need for such a Hansard in this assembly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition will close the debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, speaking strictly to this motion and I quote:

"That 1971 Record of Debates be corrected to correspond with the electronic tapes of the proceedings."

Mr. Speaker, if the portion that was in dispute was inaudible then

it could not have been recorded. It was not recorded in detail until

some months after the session passed. It was brought to the attention

of the newspaper by a former editor of Hansard itself.

Now, the former editor could have been called by the Attorney

General — and perhaps he did. But in the news stories and the news

reports there were charges made by a former employee that the tapes

indeed were edited.

As a matter of proof for that particular point, how could something that was not audible be recorded in detail in the Victoria Times newspaper?

So, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the Attorney

General did not check this matter thoroughly. That there is evidence

that the record was edited and that the excerpts that were taken out

were excerpts that reflected on the behaviour and attitude of the

Premier. I regret that.

The evidence is there and the person responsible for bringing that

evidence to light could be questioned by the Attorney General or could

have been called to the bar of the House or to a special committee on

privileges.

None-the-less the record still stands. The evidence is in. The tapes

were edited, excerpts reflecting on statements by the Premier were

taken out and that's a matter of public knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is on resolution No. 2.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 24.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 24. The Honourable the Attorney General adjourned the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not acceptable

in its present form. As I read it, it would confer jurisdiction on my

department which I suggest could only be conferred by legislation

rather than by a motion.

However, I think the intent of the motion is such that we have in

effect complied with it in one instance this year — in the Statute Law

Amendment Act, when we did alter the name in a private bill. If that is

what the Member has in mind in moving this motion, then perhaps in very

isolated instances we can comply with the intent. But we cannot accept

the motion as it now stands.

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

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): The purpose of this motion

was to try and avoid expensive private bills coming in for very small

changes as a private Act. I think the government has note of this and

section 19 of Bill No. 91 has done exactly what was intended and I beg

leave to withdraw motion No. 24.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3, the Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey) ): Mr. Speaker, I move this motion and the essence of the resolution really contains five points.

Number one, that not only a correct report of the proceedings of the

House be furnished, but that it be a full report. Thirdly, certified as

duly correct by your honour; fourthly, that under the direction and

designation of you, Mr. Speaker, that the debates of this assembly may

either be

[ Page 991 ]

broadcast or televised.

The principle, I think is a very cardinal one, Mr. Speaker, and

that's simply this: that this is the forum of the people. A

legislature, much as the same way as a court, must not only legislate

but appear to legislate.

There's no reason in my mind, Mr. Speaker, why it is not possible in

the Province of British Columbia in this day of technology why the

general public are not entitled to an absolute and correct report of

the debates and a verbatim report of the debates and one that is

happening at the present time.

This is the people's palace, Mr. Speaker, and in essence today they

are prevented from coming within this palace and I think they should be

given full permission to be here and this is one way to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member may agree that the one

section —

section 8 that referred to a typewritten transcript of the

said debates shall be prepared daily under the supervision of Mr.

Speaker — would involve a much increased staff and possibly certain

more sophisticated equipment. Under those circumstances it would

involve the expenditure of public funds and as such the motion could

not be in order in the hands of a private Member. I so rule.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 5. One moment please.

MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. That only deals with that

particular section.

Section 10 does not deal with any expenditure of

public funds whatsoever, and it merely says, Mr. Speaker, that such

persons or persons as you may designate shall be permitted at their

expense — not at government expense or the public expense — to daily

televise or broadcast the debates of the House. Mr. Speaker, as you

well know this was the very origin or Mr.Hansard. He did this at his

own expense and there is a very historic precedent for this…

MR. SPEAKER: It may be unfortunate that the Honourable Member

didn't divide his motion into two separate motions so that they can be

considered separately. But since there is an offending

section within

the motion, the whole motion must be ruled out of order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the

Honourable Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Barrett), that all correspondence,

communications, documents and maps between all departments of the

federal and the provincial governments, any official of the British

Columbia Railway (previously known as the Pacific Great Eastern

Railway) any official of the Canadian National Railways and the

Canadian Pacific Railway and any person with respect to the extension

of the British Columbia Railway from Dease Lake to and within the Yukon

Territory be filed with this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I've been privy to most of the information that's been

handled and it's been in the oral form as between governments. There

may have been some written information that's privy to the railroads

and the officers of the railroads that they've been discussing back and

forth. Without permission on both sides there we cannot give commitment

to table that in the House. The discussions are not finished and

they're privy as they are moving both ways. There'd be no way we could

get that filed at this stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 6, the Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable

Member for Coquitlam, that all correspondence, communications,

documents and maps between all departments of the provincial

government, any official of the British Newfoundland Corporation

Limited and any person with respect to the examinations, investigations

and surveys for hydro power development on the Stikine River or any

other river in the British Columbia northwest be filed with this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests and water Resources.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, as they are working through you

can't file that which is privy to the investigation, which hasn't been

finalized, and which is their document. But anything which is completed

at the moment I am quite willing to file with the House at this time.

But there's certain investigations proceeding at the present time

which they neither know whether they're going ahead or they're not

going ahead. We're not completely privy to them. We know they're

working on them. There is no commitment and there's no way I can file

that with the House.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 16, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No, 16. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for

Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) the Deputy Leader of the New Democratic

Party in British Columbia, the following standing in my name on the

order paper.

Motion No. 16. That the legislative assembly of British Columbia

welcomes the joint resolution approved by the House of Representatives

and Senate of the State of Washington calling upon the state government

to undertake a study of the problems of pollution control along the

border between the State of Washington and the Province of British

Columbia and urging mutual cooperation between the local, state and

provincial governments concerned, appropriate

[ Page 992 ]

and of the United States, any existing organizations having relevant

authority or experience in the field of international pollution control

and any other appropriate persons or organizations.

And be it further resolved that the special committee appointed on

January 20 to prepare and report lists of members to compose select

standing committees of this House recommend personnel for a special

committee to study the problems of pollution control along the border

between the State of Washington and the Province of British Columbia

and that such committee be authorized to invite the State of Washington

Legislative Council on regional pollution control problems between

Canada and the United States to participate with such special committee

in joint meetings and hearings on the said problems of pollution

control and on such terms as may be arranged by their respective

chairmen.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House that as a result of a visit paid

by the official Opposition in the Province of British Columbia to the

Washington State Legislature and the Washington State Senate, we had

the opportunity of sharing concerns with Washington State legislators

in the State of Washington.

The problem of pollution transcends political lines and transcends

international boundaries. We have mutual problems of pollution in the

Pacific north west and it was through the initiative of the New

Democratic Party in British Columbia and its elected Members that the

first informal talks between Washington State legislators and British

Columbia legislators on joint pollution control management were

initiated.

During our visit to the United States — the State of Washington — we

were graciously received by both the legislative assembly and by the

Senate but more particularly we were received by — with a two-hour

meeting — the Governor of the State of Washington, his Honour, Governor

Daniel Evans.

During that meeting, Mr. Speaker, the Governor shared with the

M.L.A.'s of this House who went on that trip, his deep concern about

mutual problems facing the north-west in pollution control. After our

two-hour meeting with the Governor, we returned to British Columbia and

were fortunate in being able to host a return visit of Washington State

legislators based on the same principles of this motion.

During their return visit, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was

most gracious in hosting the Washington State legislators at Government

House along with representatives of the government party and other

opposition parties. I must say that the Members who did attend were

most gracious in showing their non-partisanship and sharing in the most

generous hospitality of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor who hosted

myself, my colleagues and the other Members at Government House.

The Premier did see the visiting legislators and he too was most

gracious and in conversations with them he discussed his particular

opinions and shared with them his concerns. I was not there at that

particular meeting, on the other hand that's fair enough.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wasn't at the other one.

MR. BARRETT: He wasn't at the other one — that's right, he

declined the invitation to travel to Washington with us although I

don't recall me sending that invitation to him. (Laughter).

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it was well received all around. Despite

the initiatives taken by the official Opposition the Premier did meet

with them in his office and that was gracious.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Twice!

MR. BARRETT: Twice, and he recognised the importance and it was doubly important that he meet them twice.

What the Washington State Legislature has done is pass this

memorial, as they call it, and I will not read it in its entire form to

the House tonight but copies are available and copies were sent early

in January of this year to the Premier.

It is a memorial which in effect is a motion in their legislatures — both legislative bodies, the Senate and the legislative assembly. It's

a joint address, and in this memorial they are praying for the

establishment of a joint committee of legislators in the State of

Washington with the state — with the Province of British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! You've been brainwashed.

MR. BARRETT: Let's understand one thing; there's nobody here

that wants to endanger the sovereignty of British Columbia or Canada

but we all recognise another thing. That pollution knows no boundaries

and we have an absolute responsibility to cooperate with legislators

who are elected freely and democratically in other jurisdictions.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Premier, it's not the problem of

stopping the smoking at the border it's the problem of the wind blowing

the smoke down there or vice versa — up here. That, Mr. Premier, is one

reason why you should support this particular motion.

We have the opportunity of creating a new dimension of international

cooperation. If the House will examine what has taken place between the

United States and Canada in attempts to set up joint pollution control

on the Great Lakes, we can do something similar here.

As a result of this initiative of mine, I've already been invited to

the Yukon, to attend a resource conference there and part of my address

will be related to our experience of attempting to establish

international cooperation on the problem of pollution control.

During my visit to the Yukon, I will be visiting as her Majesty's

Loyal Leader of the Opposition and I will be sharing with the Yukon my

concerns about the need to establish a joint legislative committee

between the Yukon, perhaps Alaska, Washington State and the Province of

British Columbia so that we might even have a total Pacific rim force

tackling the problem of pollution control.

I want to thank the many, many people in the Province of British

Columbia of all political stripes, Social Credit, Liberal and

Conservative, who have written me personal letters, thanking me for

taking this initiative and I humbly submit, Mr. Speaker, that this

initiative has been taken on behalf of the people of British Columbia

as a step forward to a new level of cooperation between all people

living on this beautiful part of the world, the Pacific rim.

I ask the government on that basis, I humbly ask the government, to

sponsor my motion so that we can step forward to international

cooperation.

[ Page 993 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we're all reassured

to know that the Honourable Member who has just taken his seat is

accepting engagements in the future — and even in the distant future — as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Because that is a position

which we hope he will continue long to hold in this Province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, may I say this in respect to the motion that's before

us, that this government in this province will continue to cooperate

with the great and friendly neighbour to the south on pollution and on

any other matter as we have for many years — and that will be a

continuing policy.

However, this motion presupposes that this assembly has formally

before it a resolution of a legislature of a foreign jurisdiction. I

understand the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition has what he

calls a motion from the legislative branch of that government, but

there is nothing before us from the administration branch which would

be essential.

In addition, I suggest that having come from a foreign jurisdiction

the only way it can be formally before us is if it came to us through

the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa. This has not been the

case and therefore I suggest not only that it would be improper to deal

with the motion in its present form but that in itself, this resolution

not being formally before the House would make the motion out of order.

I would invite you to so rule, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, before an argument on the

ruling, whether or not it's in order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that under

the rules of this House this motion is not out of order.

It does not fall under any of the rules of this House. It welcomes a

stated fact, it calls for no expenditure, it is within the framework of

this House. It is not a formal international agreement, it is a matter

of informal arrangement. I suggest that it does not offend any standing

order of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the Attorney General it

would seem to me that the resolution's intent was to refer this joint

address to a special committee. I agree that if the resolution were

adopted it would be inoperative and that it's too late in the session

to have the matter referred to the committee. I don't however find that

offensive insofar as the rules of the House are concerned and do not

find the motion out of order in its present form.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate to the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS-33

Ney

McCarthy, Mrs.

Smith

Merilees

Jordan, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Mussallem

Dawson, Mrs.

Chabot

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Skillings

Price

Williston

Chant

Capozzi

Bennett

Loffmark

LeCours

Peterson

Gaglardi

Little

Black

Campbell, D.R.J.

Jefcoat

Fraser

Brothers

Tisdalle

Campbell, B.

Shelford

Bruch

Wolfe

Richter

NAYS-17

Gardom

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Wallace

Calder

Dowding

Marshall

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

PAIR:

Vogel

Brousson

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 17, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 17, The Honourable Member for Burnaby-North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): Mr. Speaker, this motion I

placed on the paper because of my great concern that the Province of

British Columbia has not taken any real specific action to implement

the many reports of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which

applied provincially.

Now I ask that a special committee of the House be set up to study

this and I realise now that we're into the dying moments of the session

— that perhaps this is not practical. But I would like to suggest to

the government that I am not at all satisfied with just having the

women's bureau look into this.

I think a committee to study the import of these recommendations for

the women of British Columbia should include a wide variety of people

from the Province of British Columbia, I would hope that the government

would give consideration to establishing such a committee even if the

House has prorogued.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member may note that if the

motion were passed it would be inoperative and under those

circumstances, would you want the House to vote on the motion or would

you prefer to withdraw it?

MRS. DAILLY: No, Mr. Speaker, I move it.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): I do want to say a word

on the motion. This motion has been on the order paper for quite a

while and if there had been any intention to proceed with it, surely it

could have been called during the session. In view of the importance of

the Royal commission report the fact that this government has taken no

particular interest in seeing what way it could cooperate in bringing

about a recognition of a new and enhanced status for women, it's

regrettable that it should be called on this last day of the session.

In the motion it called for all convenient speed to appoint a

committee and it's a source of pride, I think, to the more advanced

thinkers of this assembly to realise that we have five women sitting in

this assembly who do it credit and

[ Page 994 ]

although we may criticise them from time to time I think…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: That was because of the fact the government has

not recognised their true status. That's the reason. It's a form of

tokenism — it's a form of chauvinism, Mr. Speaker, to appoint three

women to the cabinet and give them no duty.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. DOWDING: As for me, I think it's a tragedy that women are

not given a role to play commensurate with that of the Minister, say,

of Public Works, or the Minister of Education. Surely they have that

much competence. Surely. When you think of it, one of them must have

that much competence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Now the Member must get back to the proper principle of this resolution.

MR. DOWDING: I'm going to say that I hope that some thought

will be given to a continuing committee on this subject by the

government or at least some kind of a special inquiry into the subject

to see how much our statutes, our laws and our institutions are in

line, in keeping with the recommendations of that Royal commission

report.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the motion if it were to pass

would be completely inoperative. And if the Honourable Member is not

prepared to withdraw it under those circumstances then the request is

that the whole matter be studied for the future. I would therefore move

adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 18, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 18. The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I move and seconded by the

Honourable Member for Kootenay, that all correspondence and

communications between all departments of the provincial government,

any official of the National Coal Corporation Ltd. (NPL), any official

of any world government and any person with respect to coal

explorations, potential markets for all types of coal and possible

British Columbia coastal export outlets, resulting from work done on

the Groundhog coalfields since 1970 be filed with this House.

Again it's another straightforward move.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines.

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

government is not against accepting this motion although we do have

nothing pertinent to file other than the applications for coal licences

in the result in orders-in-council granting those licences.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 20, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 20, the Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): The Minister of Immigration has

advised us that Lydia Del Rio Turino will be granted safe asylum in

this country. Therefore I move this particular resolution be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member requests leave to withdraw the motion. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 21, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 21. The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. CALDER: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for

Burnaby North, that in view of the motion accepted by the Government of

Canada on September 8, 1971, that a copy of the Stanberry-Fields Report

be tabled subject to the concurrence of the Province of British

Columbia, this House requests this government to table the said report

in this House, or to signify its concurrence with the tabling of the

said report in the House of Commons.

I would like to make a few remarks here Mr. Speaker.

Several years ago the federal, provincial, and municipal officials

made a study of taxation as it relates to the Indian reserves in

British Columbia and elsewhere. As the governments today are now

consulting Indians on all matters of improvements on reserves we hope

the consultation will relate to discussions on taxation. This is the

reason why a similar motion was introduced in the House of Commons. The

of British Columbia would agree to it. And this is the reason why I

have introduced this motion either to have that report introduced here,

agree that such a report be filed there.

Another reason why I introduced this motion is because we believe

that at least four chapters of this report is already in the hands of

quite a number of interested persons throughout Canada. And we pretty

well know what's in this report.

Again, as far as this government is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it has

already supported and advocated municipal status in the Province of

British Columbia. And on that basis I think the Indians should know

what taxation would mean, especially if they accept say, like the

Village of Cape Mudge municipal status. On that again this would be

consultation and I think the Indians must know what's involved in this

and I would say by all means this government should consider tabling of

this report at this time. And I so move.

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

HON. D.R. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I really don't understand the substance of this

recommendation. I have never been made aware of the Stanbury-Fields

Report. I have never been offered a copy of

[ Page 995 ]

that report, and it's interesting that this request

is coming before this House when the government of this province has

not even been made aware that the House of Commons has made this

request to this government.

I think the Member for Atlin knows that this report is essentially

not the Province of British Columbia's report. And I would therefore,

Mr. Speaker, like to have the advantage of having been officially

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, motions 22 and 25 are both inoperative now, does the Honourable Member wish to withdraw?

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, this motion has been on the order

paper for plenty of time. It was on before the workmen's compensation

amendments were brought in here, and it was promised by the last Royal

commission that it would be considered by a committee periodically.

I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Yale-Lillooet (Mr.

Hartley) that this House authorize a select standing committee on

labour to review the Workmen's Compensation Act with a view to

recommending any necessary amendment to the Act. And that the committee

shall have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to

hear representations from organizations and persons interested.

It may be inoperative now, Mr. Speaker, but I think it's a disregard

for private Member's day, and private Member's resolutions that we

deliberately make these inoperative, and I move that motion.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 25, Mr. Speaker,

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded bi

the Honourable Member for Surrey, that this House authorize a select

standing committee on standing orders and private bills to review the

rules of the House relating to the adjournment of sittings.

When I put this motion on, it was a result of a ridiculous situation

on February 25, when the Members of this House had to sit for 16 1/2

hours doing the people's business, and I think Mr. Speaker our rules

should be reviewed after the adjournment of debates of sittings in this

House, and I so move.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 26.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 26. The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker I move, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs seconds, the motion standing on the order paper in my name.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House deeply regrets the

Pacific North Coast Native Indian cooperative seafood processing plant

at Port Simpson, British Columbia, the application for which project

was made in conformity to the federal-provincial rural development

agreement made between Canada and this province on May 14, 1970: And be

it further resolved that this House urge the Canadian Department of

Regional and Economic Expansion to forthwith re-examine and reverse

that decision in light of representations made.

The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell

the House that immediately following the refusal of the Government of

Canada to assist with this scheme the Member of the federal House

representing the constituency of Comox-Alberni sought to have this

discussed by the federal House. I haven't got the date in front of me

but it was either the same day or the following day that this motion

appeared on the order paper.

Along with the New Democratic Party Members of Parliament he felt as

concerned as the Honourable the Minister without Portfolio. I regret to

inform the House, however Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Government

refused to allow that debate to continue and did not see fit to give

leave for this important matter to be discussed by the federal House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I think it should have been known

to the Honourable the Minister — she obviously knew when she made the

motion — that the federal government had refused to assist in financing

the Pacific North Coast Native Indian cooperative seafood processing

plant. She is the member of the cabinet, she is a Minister of the Crown.

The Opposition is not in a position to amend her resolution to urge

this government to give financial assistance to the desired end of

processing plants for the native Indians in the North Coast. I suggest

to her that she ask one of her colleagues to amend her motion or indeed

amend it herself. We'll support her in an amendment to call upon the

provincial government to give that much needed assistance. It wouldn't

be a great deal of money, but it would be serving a great purpose,

which this government, which has the power to do it, would give that

assistance to the native Indians of our north coast for that desirable

aim.

I'm surprised that she would merely make this sort of an anti-Ottawa

resolution. Because pious regrets from a Minister in a position to

control the privy purse are hardly good enough — it's almost an

admission of failure for a Minister of the Crown to have the temerity

to put a resolution expressing regret that Indians are not getting any

assistance when she is in a position in the cabinet to speak for aid

for these people.

She should tell us how much they need and why this government is

incapable with $150 million surplus to find a few thousand dollars to

help these native Indians in the north.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Minister of Agriculture): Mr.

[ Page 996 ]

Speaker, in answer to what the Member just said, I

think he should consider for one moment that it would require

cooperation of all groups to make a plan such as this successful.

Remember that the Davis four plan is coming into being pretty

quickly. And this may possibly eliminate further Indian fish boats from

the Pacific Coast.

Of course unless the fisheries department, and the federal Fisheries

Branch do have control of the resources of fishing industries on this

coast, and unless there is cooperation from the federal government,

then I am surprised to see that the Members across the way would give

up so easily in trying to get our national government to give at least

something to the Province of British Columbia. It's no wonder that we

look on the list of projects where 14 projects have been approved on

the Eastern Coast, and not one on the Pacific Coast.

I think it is a disgraceful action on the part of the national

government, and also Members across the way for giving up — that we

can't get the federal government into a position of a joint cooperation

to be of benefit to the Indian people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I think that we're

talking about a subject here with which many people are not familiar.

But actually what went on over the year, it seems that a salmon run

when it starts commences north and then works south. And you'll find

that the run up the Nass, is ahead of the run up the Skeena, and the

run of the Skeena, will be ahead of rivers down the coast, and then

ahead again of the Fraser.

What actually has happened is this, that we've had strikes called by

our friend here, who should be perhaps in another country. But anyway

he calls a strike with the fishermen, and this strike takes the natives

off in the Nass and the Skeena. And the natives for years have been

unable to fish in the north country because of the strike that was

called in the south.

Then as time goes on the strike is finally settled and it's settled

in time to get the salmon catch that's coming up the Fraser, but in the

meantime the native people have been deprived of gill net fishing in

the Nass, and the Skeena.

Finally the native people could take it no longer and they said

"we'll fish anyway and we'll make our own road." But they weren't able

to quite do that, Mr. Speaker, because then the shore workers were

taken off so the catch couldn't be handled.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to impress all the Members of this House just

at this moment to tell them that really the native people have had the

runaround for years that I can recall, and they've had the runaround

first of all by the union then secondly the union has taken out the

shore workers, so that when they decided they were going to fish they

still couldn't market because the fish couldn't be handled.

Certainly I agree with this bill, but I believe that we should get

back to the roots of the evil, which starts with agreements and unions,

and I think the natives in the north should be encouraged to get out

and fish. They used to make a good living at it, until we fouled it up

for them.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 28. The Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to move the motion under my name and seconded by the Member for Atlin — No. 28. That this House recommend that the government consider the

advisability of providing court workers to assist native people

arrested, or summonsed for court appearance.

In speaking to this motion, Mr. Speaker, I may well admit that it

was inspired by a considerable amount of dissatisfaction over the Fred

Quilt case that took place late last year, and early this year.

While there was, a certain amount of help given there in the vast

majority of court cases involving native Indian people the summonsed

person, the arrested person, comes before the court with little or no

knowledge. They are very much afraid to do anything but plead guilty

and get away as quickly as they can.

I think this is a debt that we owe the native people of this

province. I think if we're going to have them value our system of

justice, to have a greater appreciation of our laws, then I think this

is an absolute must, and I would appreciate support from all sides of

the House on this motion because it is a matter of justice to our first

citizens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member, I think,

may agree with the Chair that the employment of court workers to assist

the native Indian people would involve the expenditure of public funds.

And altogether apart from the merits of his resolution the Chair must

declare it out of order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I was going to say we accept the principle of it, but I guess we can't under the circumstances. Motion No. 29, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 29, the Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: Motion No. 29, Mr. Speaker, standing in my name

on the order paper seconded by the Member for Surrey. That this House

recommends that pharmacists be allowed to substitute generic-name drugs

for brand-name drugs unless the doctor specifically indicates otherwise

on a prescription and provided that the generic drug is equivalent to

and cheaper than the brand-name drug.

In speaking to this motion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out

that the laws in Alberta, our neighbouring province, allow a pharmacist

to do this. Most pharmacists, I'm sure, have the consideration of the

ability of their customer to pay and certainly where we have old age

pensioners that do not have the medical card — where they have to pay

for drugs and many of them on a sustained drug programme — it becomes

very, very expensive. Particularly where they receive brand-name drugs.

If the pharmacist was allowed to use his discretion, unless the

doctor specified otherwise — and I say this law is offered in Alberta

and I hope that this Legislature will consider in future parliaments

changing our Pharmaceutical Act so that any pharmacist can do that in

his good, professional discretion in the best interests of keeping down

the high costs of prescription drugs for the citizens of this province.

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

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services and

[ Page 997 ]

Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, this same

subject came up in a different context within the last year, at which

time the pharmacists through their official representation in their

society passed a resolution to the effect that pharmacists would be

given the authority to substitute without limit as I read the

resolution.

The government declined to ratify it by order-in-council which was

required, for the reason that it was sufficiently broad in its terms

that a pharmacist according to that resolution might substitute a drug

which was of the same price or perhaps one of a higher price.

This was a sufficient reason in our judgment to send back for

further consideration and thereafter we had occasion to refer the same

subject matter to a drug prices advisory committee where the matter is

presently under consideration, along with quite a number of other

related matters touching on quality of drugs, labeling of drugs,

pre-packaging and other matters which we hope when they are resolved by

recommendation will produce a lower price for drugs — particularly to

people who are aged and of low income.

Now, having in mind that this matter is presently under advisement

by this drug advisory committee, it would seem to me appropriate in the

circumstances that we left the matter stand over for a while in order

that that committee might bring in their formal recommendation. For

that reason I would move adjournment of this debate until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 31, the Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Bill No. 88 is not being dealt with.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the House leader advise what…?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 30, the Honourable Member

wishes to withdraw. I didn't call it because we weren't dealing with

that particular bill but I will if I may call Motion No. 30 on his

assurance to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well. If the Honourable Member has no objection may we call motion No. 30 first of all?

MR. HALL: By leave of the House I wish to withdraw Motion No. 30 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Now, Mr. Speaker, may I call motion No. 31?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 31, the Honourable first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

seconded by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound motion No. 31

standing in my name on the order paper. Resolved, that this Legislature

communicate immediately to the Prime Minister of Canada and the

President of the United States its opinion that the Trans-Alaska

Pipeline not be built and that an alternative pipeline be built down

the Mackenzie Valley in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, my reasons for presenting this motion to the House at

this time is the urgency of the present situation. The government

report of the United States to the Department of the Environment in

Washington, D.C., stated that the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline might start

within 45 days.

If that pipeline is built, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that

approximately 140,000 barrels a year of oil will be lost in

trans-shipment down the Pacific Coast. I want to match that figure

against the losses of the Torrey Canyon disaster where approximately

200,000 gallons of oil were discharged at the time that ship went down.

It created an oil slick 250 square miles in size, fouled beaches in

England over 100 miles in length, took months and months to clear and

still has left that area of the world suffering from that single

disaster.

The prediction of the Department of Environment reports in the

United States was that we would have approximately one Torrey Canyon

per year on the Pacific Coast. Mr. Speaker, that's a terrifying

prospect and the only way that it can be avoided would be to build the

alternative pipeline in Canada.

If that pipeline is built, Mr. Speaker, it will be the largest

single investment in Canadian history. It will open up the northern

part of British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon on a

scale never before dreamed of. It should become the highest priority

for a Canadian project. Since the time is short, Mr. Speaker, I feel

that this Legislature is duty-bound to do what it can to speed the day

when this investment takes place and to protect our own Pacific Coast.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, speaking to

this motion I would like to say that I am sure that none of us disagree

with the principle of transporting oil by pipeline rather than by motor

carrier or by ship because of the fact that the damage that would be

done in a pipeline leak is generally quickly overcome and quickly

sealed off where in the matter of a giant supertanker today there are

tremendous numbers of gallons of oil that could — in effect would — affect our whole coastline.

But I am surprised that the Leader of the Liberal Party would put a

resolution on the order paper and a motion which would in actual fact

cause the Province of British Columbia to deal directly with a foreign

power — that is the President of the United States.

It seems to me that not too long ago we had quite a hassle in Canada

over the very fact that the Province of Quebec decided to communicate

unilaterally and without any recourse to Ottawa with the sovereign

State of France. Everyone took violent objection to that.

I would hope that we would not want to place the Province of British

Columbia in a like position by asking this province to communicate

directly with the Government of the United States and not go through

the Minister of External Affairs or the Dominion of Canada. For that

reason I move adjournment of the debate on this motion to the next

sitting of the House.

[ Page 998 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 32, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 32. The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound,

motion No. 32 on the order paper. Resolved, that this Legislature

recommends that priority be given to construction of the British

Columbia portion of the Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson highway so that

road and rail access to the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline be

established through the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I placed

this motion on the order paper following answers to questions on the

order paper provided by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Black) in

which he said that no date for completion of this highway had been

chosen and that no money was projected for the highway during the

coming year.

But it's been a

well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government had commenced

to build the highway south from Port Simpson towards the British

Columbia border but abandoned its plans and shifted its highway to the

east when it became evident that the Province of British Columbia was

unwilling to fulfill its obligations in this regard.

It seemed a pity,

Mr. Speaker, because with the obvious opening up of the North West

Territories, the desire to gain access to the North Slope oil and gas,

this highway becomes a priority item for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted, of course, to find that

after this motion was p laced on the order paper the government had an

apparent change of heart. Just the other day it announced that

consideration would be given to this highway. But I move the motion

now, Mr. Speaker, just to underline the opinion of this House that

priority should be given and that construction should begin this year.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Honourable Member would agree with

the Chair from his remarks that to undertake the provisions and

requirements of this resolution would involve the expenditure of public

moneys and as such, in the hands of a private Member, the resolution is

not in order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, we proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members. Second reading of Bill No. 38.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE RENT CONTROL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 38. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, this bill is merely a house-keeping

bill in part of my legislative programme. (Laughter). It deals with a

particular aspect of rental regulations that were originally created by

this Legislature in consequence of the termination of the wartime

regulations dealing with housing and rental authority. That particular

Act is still on our statute books and has been invoked in the City of

Vancouver.

There's been some question about the validity of the regulations

made and the rental board set up by the City of Vancouver. The other

municipalities have attempted to invoke a similar pattern as the City

of Vancouver and they've met with some difficulty in this regard so

that my bill is merely to give the councils of all the municipalities

of British Columbia or their respective boards of commissioners the

power to pass bylaws that relate to any of the regulations that are

referred to in this particular Act, and allowing them to create a

rental authority if they deem it necessary to do.

Now, all I'm doing is up-dating the present legislation on the books

to eliminate the question of whether or not one municipality can do it

and another can't. The way it is now, there's a question on that point.

Now, if you have a law on the statute books it should have some

validity. If it isn't a valid one it shouldn't be there. I'm merely

trying to help the government straighten out their legislation because

it's a bit of a mess, you must admit, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, speaking to this Bill

No. 38, I note they refer here to a board of commissioners. There's no

such a thing in any municipality in British Columbia and therefore I

move adjournment of this debate.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. My friend is

trying to contradict me and it refers to a council or board of

commissioners in the Act that is presently on the statute books.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the House is now seized of a motion to

adjourn the motion until the next sitting of the House. You've heard

the motion, are you ready for the question?

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Bill No. 41, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 41, the Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, this is

An Act to Provide for Public Scrutiny.

Section 1, this Act may be cited as the Sunshine

Law. I would not want Honourable Members either opposite or on this

side of this House to confuse this bill in any way with the Sunshine Comstock Bill that we passed a little while ago.

The principle of this bill is contained in its own

preamble, which being brief I will read to the House.

"Whereas the good Government of British Columbia

demands that light should be allowed to shine on the conduct of public

business, so that it be executed without favouritism, or political bias

and in accordance with the highest standards of public morality."

Now, the bill itself is modeled, it's not something terribly novel,

it's modeled on a law in the State of Florida which goes much further

because I have provided exceptions.

But we have increasingly through the years seen public records

hidden, not available for public scrutiny. We have seen bodies like the

labour relations board, for example, of which there has been a

complaint tonight. I'm not judging that complaint but when a board

meets year after year and

[ Page 999 ]

gives no reasons for its decisions so that the people appearing

before it have no way of knowing in what way their case may have been

decided, when the Vancouver Police Commission meets to try people in

secret, when a committee of this Legislature set up to deal with film

classifications sees one of the films in camera. Notwithstanding the

lateness of the hour in the session, Mr. Speaker, there's a very

serious principle behind this bill and I close in the words of the

Presbyterian hymns: Open up your hearts and let the sunshine in.

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

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Amen, amen!

There's one reference in this bill that no one on this side of the

House could take exception to — it's the first sentence: "Whereas the

good Government of British Columbia…."

We can all agree with that on this side of the House and I'm glad the Honourable Member in moving agreed with it too.

He mentioned the open-ness of meetings. I recognise that this is a

prerogative of democratically-elected representatives and I know that

the select standing committee on social welfare and education did

conduct all of its business and hearings without the use of camera, but

to indicate by maybe suggestion here that some democratic institutions

are not capable of handling the matter of democracy and demonstrating

it in their procedures I think is a reflection that is uncalled for.

But I do recognise the good intention of the Honourable Member in

moving this bill. I would suggest that it's something that maybe we

could give more study to and I would move its adjournment.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 63, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE QUEEN'S COUNSEL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 63. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, this is a

very complicated bill — its title is

An Act to Repeal the Queen's

Counsel Act. I expect they'll have full support of the House. The

Queen's Counsel appointments today are quite meaningless. They're

merely appointments that are made by the government, some for people

who are learned in the law and some for friends of the government.

Now, I don't have a Queen's Counsel myself so I can't be considered

to be prejudiced, but I bring this out — that in the year 1972, I

suggest there is no place for Queen's Counsels, in this province.

I suggest that the wording in the Act says that it's for people

learned in the law. I further suggest that a number that have been

appointed in recent years haven't seen a law book in years.

I wish to make it clear that I certainly am not objecting to any

individual appointment. It's a question of appointments in general — the idea of granting certain people a special privilege in our society.

We don't have Queen's doctors or Queen's carpenters or Queen's

mechanics and I can't see any space in our society for a special group

of lawyers to be classed as Queen's Counsels. I am certainly opposed to

the status symbols and to the privileges being granted at the present

time. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to say that

no province has a more distinguished list of Queen's Counsel

appointments than has the Province of British Columbia. That is

recognised across Canada today.

The matter was considered recently by one of the sub-sections of the

Canadian Bar Association on the motion of a Member that the Queen's

Counsel Act be repealed and was defeated. So the representations that

have been made to this House by a learned member of the legal

profession are not fully shared by the lawyers throughout the province.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this bill is out of order in

the hands of a private Member because it affects the Royal prerogative

and therefore requires signification of the consent of the Queen before

being passed. That consent has not been obtained, and therefore in the

hands of a private Member, I suggest, the bill affecting the Royal

prerogative would be out of order.

I would refer to page 580 of the 18th edition of May as well as to

the decision of the Privy Council in the case of the Attorney General

for the Dominion of Canada vs. the Attorney General for the Province of

Ontario, wherein Lord Watson, delivering the judgment of the Privy

Council, clearly indicated that the appointment of Queen's Counsels is

an exercise of the Royal prerogative which can be and has been by the

giving of Royal assent to the Queen's Counsel Act delegated by the

Crown to the Lieutenant-Governor of the province acting by and with the

advice of the Executive Council.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would invite you to rule that the bill in question is not in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I will sustain the point of order raised by

the Honourable the Attorney General. Is there any discussion on the

point of order? Then I must rule the bill out of order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 64, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LIBEL AND SLANDER ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 64. The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this

bill, I can do no more than read the explanatory note which sums up the

kind of equality sought in this bill. "At common law, it has long been

actionable slander to impute unchastity to a woman, but not slanderous

to imply that a man has been incontinent, unchaste or possessing less

than pure or virtuous morals.

"The purpose of this bill is to establish equal rights

for men and women under the law of slander by giving a man whose

chastity has been impugned a right of action for slander."

The Act is simply equality. It's simply equality that's being

sought. Neither more nor less, equal or unequal and I move second

reading of this bill.

[ Page 1000 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the

section of the Act which

1891, called the Slander of Women Act. .

I wonder if the learned Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

Scotland. (Laughter). Perhaps he might in his wisdom therefore seek to

withdraw the bill on that account alone, Mr. Speaker. But I doubt very

much whether the Members of this Legislature would want to follow the

lead of the first Member for Vancouver East in moving second reading of

this bill. We would not want in any way to revert to the artificiality

of the nineteenth century and I would hope that the Honourable Member

would, after making his point, agree to the withdrawal of the bill. If

not I'm afraid well have to vote against second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 69, Mr. Speaker.

MOBILE HOME ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 69. The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I move that bill be withdrawn from the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 73, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CORONERS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 73, the Honourable Member is not in his place.

HON. MR. PETERSON: It would be out of order in any event. Second reading of Bill No. 75.

AN ACT RESPECTING A GUARANTEED INCOME

FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 75. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. PETERSON: It would likewise be out of order. Second reading of Bill No. 76.

THE ELECTION EXPENSES ACT, 1972

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 76. The Honourable first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this

bill, which is

an Act relating to election expenses, I press it upon

the House even more because the government's own bill, Bill No. 48, has

not been proceeded with and so we on this side of the House offer a

meaningful election Act.

I have already spoken on the matter of limitation of campaign funds

in the interests of some kind of equality of choice, of pre-choice of

the electorate.

I'm quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that the government benches with their

huge campaign funds will vote down this bill as they have always

refused to make electoral reform in any respect that really matters

insofar as real democracy is concerned in this province. I move second

reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Honourable Member — I'm

sure he would agree — that

section 3 of his bill, in which he states

that the chief electoral officer shall reimburse each candidate for

certain expenses — would in the hands of a private Member automatically

put the bill out of order under our standing order 66.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 80, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 80. The Honourable Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). He is not present.

HON. MR. PETERSON: It would be out of order for the same reason, Mr. Speaker. Second reading of Bill No. 83.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AGRICULTURE

CORPORATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 83. The Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government for allowing me to present this for second reading.

There are two major parts in this bill. The first deals with the

licensing aspects and the purpose of this is to prevent the dumping of

products on the markets of our producers at times when they depress the

price the producer is to receive.

The second major

part is the funding for the bill for those people

that are engaged in agriculture and have dwindling borrowing power.

This will allow them to set up processing plants that are badly needed

in this province.

For those who fail to realise the advantages of licensing, might I

just quote from the Quebec Agricultural Marketing Act. It states that

at its meeting of January 26, 1972, the Quebec Agricultural Marketing

Board rendered the following decision: Where it is stipulated in

article 44 of the Quebec Agricultural Marketing Act that the board may

make regulations to prescribe and issue licences to persons engaged in

the marketing of any marketed products.

I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this was one of the

recommendations of the agricultural committee. My concern, Mr. Speaker,

is that we can do everything possible through this corporation Act to

maintain the 19,085 farmers that are in this province on the farm and

this is the intent of the bill. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I think if the Honourable Members will refer to

section 2 of the bill, in sub-section 4, and again in

section 3 of the

bill, sub-sections (b), (

c) and sub-section 2 involving the expenditure

of public funds, the bill in the

[ Page 1001 ]

hands of a private Member is not in order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 84.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE OF

COMMISSIONER FOR GRIEVANCES

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 84. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, this is a attempt to establish the

office of a commissioner for grievances — what is commonly knows as

"ombudsman", and this office is an historic one in many places today

but is sadly missed in British Columbia.

Alberta and Manitoba have both seen fit to establish that office. It

has worked very successfully. It provides a means for the ordinary

person to get redress from the government where other means have

failed. At least, to have a searching inquiry by that person into

what's going wrong with the government — and sometimes these things

that go wrong can be a result of arrogance or ignorance or mere

official intransigence.

At any rate, I have tried in this bill to avoid the problem that

often besets aspiring legislators here of finding a way of establishing

an office without spending any money of the people.

If you can look at this you can see that it's in the nature of a

voluntary duty and that all contributions from the public will be

welcome, to keep the ombudsman working.

Even the committee that appoints the ombudsman from certain

respected citizens of this province — like the chief justice of the

supreme court, treasurer of the law society — they don't even have to

act if they don't want to. I even got around the problem of imposing a

duty on any citizen.

Now, in the light of all that legal legerdemain that I have created

here, surely you'll accept this in principle and we can get on with the

job.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 85, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING PROCEEDINGS

AGAINST THE CROWN

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 85. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, one of the historic failures of

this government in its 20 years in office has been its inability to

recognise we're in the 20th century and to realize that the prerogative

of the Crown that no one can sue the Crown is hardly a matter of theory

any longer that should be even welcome in a society where a government

truck can hit you right off the road or run over you.

Consequently, it's no consolation for the average citizen to talk

about the mediaeval idea that the Queen can do no wrong because the

Queen has over 20,000 employees in the Province of British Columbia who

can do some wrong to you every time they either drive a car or do any

other act that injures another person who is entitled to the

preservation of their life, limbs or property.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. PETERSON: I think that the Honourable Member has

already indicated that this involves the prerogative of the Crown and

hence acknowledges that the bill is out of order.

MR. DOWDING: Well, I wanted to get you to acknowledge that you're not in the 20th century and I've done it.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that the Honourable Member will agree,

as the Chair does, with the Honourable the Attorney General's point. It

may be interesting also to observe that

section 23 which defers certain

revenues to the Crown would also place the bill out of order.

MR. DOWDING: I agree.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 86, Mr. Speaker.

PREVENTION OF RESTRAINT OF PROFESSIONAL

PRACTICES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 86. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

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

Prevention and Restraint of Professional Practices Act and it deals

with practically all the professions. The purpose of it is to make it

unlawful to have restrictive clauses within agreements that restrict

the individual from practising his profession.

This is the outcome of the case in Cranbrook and Fernie and Michel

where the medical clinics have restrictive clauses — both the doctors

that are employed and doctors that join in with the clinic, if they

leave the clinic or are let out by the clinic, they deny them the right

to practice within so many miles.

I'm sure there are many restrictive clauses in other agreements and

if restrictive clauses such as this were in trade union agreements, it

wouldn't take the government long to place bills on the order paper, to

rectify it.

I'm sure that this Act should be accepted by the government. The

Minister of Health last year promised that it was going to be

considered by the law reform group and I had expected that he would

have said something. Maybe he's got some news for me tonight but I move

second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health Services.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, much of the substance of this

bill is now being considered by the medical manpower committee struck

by the government with the cooperation of the B.C. Medical Association

and the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons. I'm sure that

something will come out of that which is significant as far as this Act

is concerned.

I think it would be appropriate that we move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 1002 ]

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 87, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TRUST COMPANIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 87. The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this

bill I do hope that the very bad track record of the government of

acceptance of private Members' bills tonight will come to an end and

this will be the exception, and the government will back this bill. The

object of the …

AN HON. MEMBER: You dreamer!

MR. GARDOM: A dreamer? I hope not my friend. And the object

of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it must become mandatory that the

report of the inspector of trust companies be made public and filed

with this Legislature. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the only

obligation of the inspector is to file his report to the Minister of

Finance, and with the Attorney General. And with this matter, as with

others we have discussed in this House, it's one of public

accountability.

Had it been mandatory, Mr. Speaker, in earlier days that this

particular report was subject to public inspection and subject to

public scrutiny we would have neve r ever had the disgrace of

Commonwealth Trust.

Truth, Mr. Speaker, doesn't need any blinds and it doesn't need any

covers and I would say, Mr. Speaker, if the government would accept

this amendment to the Trust Companies Act and make it obligatory that

the inspector of trust companies' report is a public report as opposed

to a secret report we will no longer in the Province of British

Columbia ever have to run the risk of another Commonwealth Trust

debacle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. NEY: Mr. Speaker, this bill merits study, but until it's had more study I move adjournment of the debate on the bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 90, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 90. The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: The object of this Act, Mr. Speaker, is to

encourage people to own their own homes. But this principle is

definitely abandoned by the government in B.C….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: No, it is abandoned when you people refuse to

extend the benefits of the home acquisition grant to people who live on

Indian reserves in the province. Now improved housing is definitely the

greatest need of these people, and you, the government, should be

willing — and you're definitely able — to provide the type of measure

that I have suggested. It should be doing everything it can to foster

these programmes and give B.C. reserve Indians the opportunity to apply

for the home acquisition grant.

I well appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this is an expenditure of Crown

funds, and if the objection is going to be on that point I am happy to

sit down. It's going to be on that point only? Then I shall sit down.

But if it's going to be a constitutional objection 1 prefer to carry on.

HON. MR. PETERSON: No, you may sit down. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: If the Honourable Member is inviting a ruling

from the Chair, it will be very quickly given. It is out of order.

Expenditure of funds is required and under standing order 66 the bill

must be ruled out of order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 94.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAXATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 94. The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief on this bill.

It is a very simple matter. You know we have many farmers in our

province — even the strawberry growers that market their strawberries

in the spring are often not paid until the fall. Certainly the beef

producers are not paid until the fall. This bill would change the tax

due date from July 31, until October 31.

This is the way it used to be until this government took over. And

then they raise an extra levy on the farmers by saying, "you must pay

your taxes three months early." And I think that's a great injustice to

the farmers of this province.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I think a point of order is in order with this bill, Mr. Speaker. Delaying revenue to the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think under standing order 67, the Member

might agree that it would defer revenue to the Crown, therefore the

accumulated interest would not accrue and the bill is therefore out of

order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 95, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO EMPOWER THE

GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

TO ENGAGE IN

THE BUSINESS OF AUTOMOBILE

ACCIDENT INSURANCE

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 95. The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, we can be very brief on this one

too. We can sum it up to say that this bill possibly more than any

other legislation we've studied in this session should condemn this

government. Because in all the years that this Social Credit Government

has sat here, they have allowed their thousands of government-owned and

operated

[ Page 1003 ]

vehicles to be insured by other than the 185 car insurance corporations.

They've set up their own fund, they've carried their own pool. And

this year this government saved the taxpayers of this province

approximately $1 million by carrying government car insurance pool car

insurance on their own vehicles. They've saved many millions of dollars

over the year of the taxpayers, by doing this on their own vehicles.

And we submit that if this government really had the best interests

of the car-driving public, the pedestrians, and the passengers, if they

had them at heart, then they would apply that same principle of

publicly administered car insurance — car insurance supplied with the

licence plates, and the driver's licence. They would do this for all

the people. But it just shows how inert and how arrogant this

government is, Mr. Speaker, that they would go on having these facts

and over-taxing particularly the young people.

I'm glad there are some young people in the gallery tonight. Because

they're the ones that are being bled, and they are being bled by the

car insurance corporations — and this government and this Premier, and

this Attorney General is letting them get away with it.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to standing order 67.

MR. SPEAKER: In which reference, Mr. Attorney General?

HON. MR. PETERSON: It requires the appropriation of public

revenue for carrying it into effect — public automobile insurance.

Section 3 for example.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have some order? If the Minister

advises the House and informs the Chair that the formation of such a

corporation will involve the expenditure of public funds then of course

the Chair must accept the Minister's decision in that respect.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I would say

section 3, Mr. Speaker, that

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may appoint persons charged with

administering the Act. That in itself would involve an onus on the

Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: With your assurance that public funds would be expended, the Chair will accept that, and rule the bill out of order.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I should think the payment of the person who is appointed.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, there is no payment involved here. It's merely a normal function of government to meet …

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is making its ruling based on the

statement by the Honourable Minister, that certain appointments that

would have to be made pursuant to the provisions of this Act would

require the expenditure of public funds. The Chair is in no position to

make such a decision, but it certainly must accept the assurance of the

treasury benches.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, as a rule when such a

decision is made the information is provided as to where the

expenditure of funds is involved. The most famous case is when the

expenditure of moneys for postage stamps was sufficient to rule it out

of order. And there has been no indication given.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Honourable the Minister referred to

section 3, of the Executive Council appointing two or more persons, and

has given his assurance to the Legislature that this would involve the

expenditure of funds or payment. Under the circumstances I …

MR. HARTLEY: The point of order is this, Mr. Speaker, that we

have a government-appointed official in the name of the superintendent

of motor vehicles, Mr. Hadfield, that would administer this plan. And I

challenge the ruling in this case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, is the Honourable Member challenging the ruling of the Chair?

MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have a report from the public accounts committee.

Mr. Mussallem of the select standing committee on public accounts

and printing presented the committee's report No. 2, which was taken as

read and received.

(Your select standing committee on public accounts and printing begs leave to report as follows:

Your committee confirms the present government policy that a cabinet

minister when travelling on behalf of or representing the Province of

British Columbia either within or outside the province shall be

reimbursed only by the Crown, and the committee congratulates the

government on this policy; further, the committee requested that the

public documents committee cause a study to be made with reference to

the procedures relative to retention and destruction of documents and

records, and report to the select standing committee on public accounts

and printing.)

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

House to take a very short recess, say about seven minutes. His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor is expected to arrive about 11:25 and he should

be entering the chamber about 11:30.

The House took recess at 11:23 p.m.

The House resumed at 11: 30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Honourable Members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. All rise.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the House

[ Page 1004 ]

and took his place in the Chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT OF THE HOUSE:

An Act to Amend the Evidence Act.

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, 1961.

An Act to Amend the Assignment of Book Accounts Act, 1961.

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

An Act to Amend the Court of Appeal Act.

British Columbia Railway Act.

British Columbia Railway Company Share Capital Purchase Act, 1972.

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954.

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964.

Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act.

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act.

An Act to Amend the Centennial Cultural Fund Act.

An Act to Amend the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act, 1969.

Green Belt Protection Fund Act.

Accelerated Park Development Fund Act.

Accelerated Reforestation Fund Act.

Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund Act.

Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act.

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act.

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962

Gift Tax Act.

An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act.

An Act to Amend the Jury Act.

An Act to Amend the Administration Act.

An Act to Amend the Chartered Accountants Act.

Family Relations Act.

An Act to Amend the Hearing-aid Regulation Act.

An Act to Amend the Litter Act.

An Act to Amend the

Summary Convictions Act.

An Act to Amend the Mortgage Brokers Act.

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act.

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act.

Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act.

Human Tissue Gift Act.

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act.

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

An Act to Amend the Physiotherapist and Massage Practitioners Act.

An Act to Amend the Practical Nurses Act.

Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited (Non-Personal Liability) Mineral Claims Act.

An Act to A mend the Social Assistance Act.

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

An Act to Amend the Trinity Junior College Act.

An Act to Incorporate Vanco Insurance Company.

Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act.

An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965.

An Act to Amend the Pipe-lines Act.

An A ct to A mend the Forest Act.

Safety Engineering Services Act.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE:

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act.

An Act to Amend the Highway Act.

An Act to Amend the Pari Mutual Betting Tax Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

An Act to Amend the Insurance Act.

First Citizens of British Columbia Corporation Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Financing Authority of British Columbia Act.

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

Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act.

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1972.

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act, 1962

An Act to Amend the Podiatry Act.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please your Honour:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative

assembly for the Province of British Columbia in session assembled,

approach Your Honour at the close of our labours with sentiments of

unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government

and humbly beg to present for Your Honour's acceptance Bill No. 101

intituled

An Act for Granting Certain Sums of Money for the Public

Service of the Province of British Columbia.

HON. J.R. NICHOLSON (Lieutenant-Governor): Assented to.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence, and assent to this bill.

HON. MR. NICHOLSON: Mr. Speaker, and Members of the

legislative assembly. In closing this the third session of the

Twenty-ninth Parliament of British Columbia, I desire to express my

appreciation for the care and sincerity which has characterised your

deliberations.

I am grateful that legislation has been enacted which will be of benefit to the citizens of this province.

As this province enters its second century marked by this session of

the Legislature, my government continues in the forefront with the

legislative programme designed for the second century.

The programme carries on the successful economic policies of the

past quarter century, and in addition has introduced legislative

changes designed for the future of British Columbia and the benefit of

all its citizens.

In the economic area, as a result of the financial policies of my

government, no tax increases were necessary. Instead, by reason of the

revenue surpluses built up by careful husbandry of the resources of the

province a number of special funds have been created which will provide

the citizens with funds for a number of creative and substantial

special projects. Among the special funds created by legislation at

this session were: Green Belt Protection Fund Act — $25 million for

establishment and maintenance of green belts in the province.

Accelerated Park Development Fund Act — $10 million to provide

additional employment in the development of parks. Accelerated

Reforestation Fund Act —

[ Page 1005 ]

$10 million to accelerate a programme of reforestation and create jobs.

In addition, my government has increased two of the perpetual funds

— the physical fitness and amateur sports fund and the British Columbia

culture fund by $5 million each. These two perpetual funds are now in

the value of $15 million each. The annual earnings of these funds will

benefit the citizens of British Columbia in the fields of physical

fitness and culture in perpetuity.

My government has also made provision for grants to municipalities

for subsidizing rapid transit systems and for the development of

underground utility lines under the Rapid Transit Provincial Subsidy

Act and the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund Act.

In commemoration of our centennial year a special scholarship of

$5,000 per year was established. This scholarship is called The Queen

Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship.

In addition a further sum of $25 million was authorized to purchase

the outstanding shares of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway which by

legislation has now been renamed the British Columbia Railway Company — a railway system now completely owned and operated by the people of

British Columbia.

In view of the federal government's withdrawal from the estate and

gift tax field, my government has enacted a Gift Tax Act so that our

present Succession Duty Act will continue to be co-coordinated with the

Gift Tax Act in respect of gifting situations, with no increase in

gifting rates.

Moreover, my government has increased the succession duty exemption

to a total of $150,000 value from our previous exemption of $60,000.

In addition, the legislation provides for payment of succession duty

on a family farm or business over the period of 10 years without

interest.

In the constant struggle to combat inflation and preserve the

purchasing power of the people of British Columbia, my government has

amended the Constitution Act, Public Schools Act, Municipal Act, and

the Vancouver charter to restrict salary increases for all sections of

the economy supported in whole or in part by public funds to a

percentage considered economically proper and feasible in light of our

financial resources.

Furthermore, my government has enacted

an Act entitled the Elderly

Citizen Renters Grant Act to pay $50 a year rental subsidy to persons

over 65 years who rent accommodation. Also, an increase in the

home-owner grant by $15 a year to $185, with an additional $50 for

home-owners over 65 years, provides a substantial measure of financial

relief on their home taxes to the elderly citizens of the province.

This, together with an injection of a further $25 million into the

home acquisition fund under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and the

continuation of the older home mortgage scheme for an indefinite period

provides substantial capital requirements for housing developments and

enables thousands of additional citizens to own their own homes.

In the development of the administration of law and in the

improvement of those laws that have an impact on the lives of our

citizens a large number of new Acts have been passed and a substantial

number of amendments in existing provisions have been made.

Notable among these are:

Administration Act — providing new rules for notifying all

beneficiaries in an estate and giving the life estate in a matrimonial

home to a spouse on an intestacy.

Summary Convictions Act — providing for serving sentences of imprisonment on weekends or in broken periods.

Mortgage Broker's Act — providing for disclosure of all bonuses or discounts in certain mortgage transactions.

Motor Vehicle Act — providing for compulsory suspension of a driver

on conviction for impaired driving and for new rules for notifying

another driver or owner of property in an accident.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act — providing for compensation by

the Workmen's Compensation Board for injuries received as a victim of

crime or in assisting a peace officer to prevent crime.

Insurance Act — providing for more expeditious settlement of accident claims and encouraging prepayments.

Family Relations Act — a comprehensive revision of the law of

family relations and maintenance of spouses and children. Recommended

by a committee of this House after introduction by my government.

In the area of health services a number of measures have been enacted, among which are:

Change of Name Act — simplifying the procedures in obtaining a change of name.

Human Tissue Gift Act — enlarging the Act to permit inter vivos gifts of tissue.

Community Care Facilities Licensing Act — enlarging the definition

of facilities, and clarifying municipal responsibility in this area.

The Department of Public Works recommended to the House a complete

revision of the legislation dealing with steam and pressure vessels,

gas and electricity installations which was enacted by my government

under the Safety Engineering Services Act.

Under the Department of the Provincial Secretary, amendments were

introduced to the Public Libraries Act providing for integrated

regional library services and a new Archaeological and Historic Sites

Protection Act was passed to protect and preserve our historic sites

and artifacts.

The Pipelines Act and the Petroleum Natural Gas Act have been

amended to provide the necessary legislative authority to deal with oil

spills.

The Pollution Control Act, 1967 has been strengthened and

administration of air pollution in the Vancouver area was assigned to

the Greater Vancouver Regional District as agent for the Minister.

The Social Assistance Act has been amended to focus the

responsibility for social assistance benefits and procedures in my

Executive Council on the recommendations of the Minister.

In the municipal area substantial amendments have been made to the

Municipal Act containing a wide range of benefits and improved

procedures in respect of the municipalities. The Municipal Finance

Authority Act has been strengthened to improve the consultative

machinery and the marketability of the security issues of the authority.

The First Citizens of British Columbia Corporation Act was passed

for the encouragement and marketing of Indian crafts and Indian arts

and crafts.

New benefits have been made available under the Workmen's

Compensation Act, resulting in this province being in advance of most

of Canada in this protection to our workmen.

In the field of education, amendments to the Public Schools Act set

out procedures for suspension and dismissal and also require ratepayer

approval for school budgets

[ Page 1006 ]

succeeding a fixed percentage increase.

Your approval of supply in the record sum of more than $1,451

million is an indication of the continued growth and prosperity of the

province. It will enable my government to carry out the important and

beneficial programmes authorized by these amendments.

Members of the legislative assembly, I thank you for your earnest

deliberations and your labours, and for the supply granted for the

public service.

Honourable Members, I now relieve you of your legislative duties and

I trust that the blessing of the divine providence will accompany you

to your respective homes.

On a personal note — a joyous Easter to all of you.

HON. WD. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, Members

of the legislative assembly, it is His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's

will and pleasure that the legislative assembly be prorogued until it

shall please His Honour to summon the same for the dispatch of business

and this provincial legislative assembly is hereby prorogued

accordingly.

The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House prorogued at 11:55 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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