[ Page 619 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

He Hon. W.D. Black presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. W.D. Black, Bill (No. 70) intituled An Act to Amend the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The Hon. D.L. Brothers presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, being amendments — to Bill (No. 64) intituled An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

The Hon. R.R. Loffmark presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. R.R. Loffmark, Bill (No. 69) intituled An Act to Amend the Regional Hospital Districts Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The Hon. F.X. Richter presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. F.X. Richter, Bill (No. 47) intituled An Act to Amend the Mineral Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of Mr. D. Barrett, Bill (No. 71) intituled An Act to Amend the Coal Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Second Reading of Bill No. 5, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act).

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Bill No. 5 is an Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act. To assist and to ease local taxes on municipal property owners, a Provincial per capita municipal grant was increased in 1968 and 1969, and now in 1970 a further increase of two dollars per capita is proposed. This makes a total of $30 for each man, woman and child in each municipality. It is estimated that this extra amount this year will cost the Province an additional $3,000,000 or a total of $46,700,000 for per capita grants. The amendment provides that the amount of the increase in the grant to be used first to meet the cost of social services in the municipality. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as the Premier has outlined, will increase the local government grant from $28 to $30 by this Government. This per capita grant has been increased, as the Premier said, over the last few years. We're not opposed to the increase in the grant, we welcome it. However, we do not think that it is adequate, and the Premier has announced that the two dollars will go directly to cover the increase in social service cost. What the Premier has neglected to share with the House is the current burden placed on municipalities under this Government's change in the cost-sharing formula for social assistance, and since this two dollars is directed to the application of the cost of social assistance, it will not go anywhere near, Mr. Speaker, meeting the additional burden on the local taxpayer to the social assistance costs.

Last year social welfare costs in British Columbia had to be supplemented from general revenue by $19,000,000. Some years ago the social welfare costs were shared in this Province, 50 per cent paid for by Federal funds, 40 per cent paid for by Provincial funds, and 10 per cent by municipal funds. When that was changed, necessitating the direction of the funds in this Bill, it was changed from 50 per cent from Ottawa, 30 per cent from the Provincial Government, and 20 per cent at the municipal level. Mr. Speaker, in directing this two dollar increase to the per capita grants to pay for increased social service costs, it no way comes near the additional costs that the municipalities have had to burden themselves with because of the backward step by this Government in reducing their share of social services.

Mr. Speaker, I think the citizens should know that, rather than taking a step forward in social services under this Bill by assigning two dollars on a per capita, it has taken a step back, it has forced a retrogressive analysis of social welfare at the municipal level and has done nothing, done nothing, to re-examine the whole method of financing social services in British Columbia. I make these comments, Mr. Speaker, in support of the Bill, only to point out, only to point out that the Provincial Government, through the directing of this two dollars, is still far, far, far short of its fair share of social welfare costs in British Columbia.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a Bill like this, leaves members of our party feeling as though one must give a hungry man a few more crumbs if they are offered. But we say that this kind of financing for cities and municipalities in British Columbia will not bring robust, healthy communities out of the growing children, the cities and municipalities of this Province. This increase is entirely inadequate, even granting that the method of sharing revenues is a satisfactory one because interim receipts this past year were up 23 per cent. In other words the Government, for every $100 it took in last year, it's taking in $123 this year. But this increase to the cities and municipalities is only between six and seven per cent. In other words, based on the income to governments, this grant to the cities and municipalities of our Province is only a third of what it should be.

Cities and municipalities are where the people of the Province live, three quarters of them. This is where the problems are, and if we examine all of the things that are debated on the floor of the House as needing attention of the Provincial Government, nearly every one involves the communities of man which constitute our cities and municipalities. And yet there is no plan, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Government, to restore health in a financial way to these cities and municipalities. You bring them begging every year to the steps of the Legislature and toss out crumbs

[ Page 620 ]

from this heaping table of Provincial revenue.

Mr. Speaker, the time must come in British Columbia when the cities and municipalities are allowed to share in the bounteous revenues of this Province as partners in the development of British Columbia, and not as dependent children who are forced by the Minister of Finance to beg, with the Minister of Finance playing the role of the Beagle, and the cities and municipalities like Oliver Twist coming and saying, "Please sir, can I have more?" and hoping they don't get a caning. And, while the Provincial Government grows fat with huge surpluses, a groaning table of revenues, the cities and municipalities barely get what spills over the edge, and they do get a caning, Mr. Speaker, because it was a caning to increase the welfare costs from ten to 20 per cent.

The member from Burnaby-Edmonds says I keep raising the dickens. Well, I think we should. Well, I think we should, because I don't think the cities and municipalities are the crumbs. No. I am inclined to think it's the people on the treasury benches who won't give them their full share. But this business of increasing the local share of welfare costs from ten to 20 per cent, Mr. Speaker, works a hardship on those communities who are least able to pay, because it's the ones with highest unemployment that have the least revenue at the local level, and they are the ones that are forced to pay the most to carry their welfare cases. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Finance is that fair? Fair to these cities and municipalities? But I'd like the Minister of Finance to know that he is not playing the role of the Beagle here, and that he is not going to be fair, because I don't think that this is being fair, to keep forcing it up at the local level. Some areas in British Columbia aren't so fortunate, some of those smaller communities in the interior. They carry a heavy welfare load and you're making that burden worse, and you're not compensating for it when you've got ample revenues to do so.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is little choice but to give crumbs to a starving man if that's the best that can be done, and we'll support the Bill, but with reluctance.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, like every member in this House I intend to support Bill No. 5, not because of its adequacy, but because it does improve what had become, and is still, an almost intolerable situation for the municipalities.

Just the other day a municipal official accused the Government of a callous disregard of the rapidly escalating costs to the municipalities for social welfare, and from the municipalities in my own constituency I have received comparative figures showing what the municipal costs were in previous years and what the projected costs would be for 1970, or what their costs were in 1969. From the Municipality of North Cowichan, we find that in 1966 the Provincial Government paid $75,000 toward welfare. North Cowichan paid $38,000. In 1969 the Provincial share was $127,000, which was up about less than 50 per cent, but the North Cowichan share had gone up from $38,000 to $108,000. This meant that the Provincial increase in a percentage figure was up 75 per cent, but the municipal figure was up 275 per cent for social welfare costs, and this is the position that they'll find themselves in.

I doubt very much that this two dollar per capita increase will fully cover this rapidly increasing cost to municipalities.

Remembering also, that the municipalities, first of all, are having great additional burdens thrust upon them, and remembering further that the unemployment figures which are now showing up throughout the Province were not available, were not available when these municipalities forecast their expected costs for the year 1970. So that many of them are going to find themselves in a much worse position than they now consider to be the case.

I had two communications from the town of Ladysmith, one which showed that in actual fact 28 per cent of their total municipal budget was going to go to social welfare costs and they broke down the figures, but they sent me an additional communication after the announcement of the two dollar per capita grant increase, and we find that it will still be that the Ladysmith expenditure for social welfare win be far above what it was in 1966, and will still require almost 26 per cent of their total general mill rate. In the City of Duncan the same situation, and making the same comparison, 1967 figures this time, we find that the Government paid $71,000. In '69 they paid $90,000. Their share was up 27 per cent. The city of Duncan in '67 paid $37,000 for social welfare. In '69 it was up to $95,000, an increase of 157 per cent.

There is an indication of the problem that is facing the municipalities and this two dollar figure, while it will help, with their continued increase in unemployment we can expect that the municipalities are going to have a hard time finding the extra money required to meet these social welfare costs.

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

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the second reading of this Bill, I think it might be wise for the House to recall some of the history of the per capita grant in more recent years in British Columbia. Some of you will recall that in 1965 there was a sliding scale for the per capita grant which was $8, $12, $16 and $20. One year later in 1966 which is the census year that was raised— and all of these are very significant increases — that was raised to $12, $16, $20 and $24 on the basis of population plateaus.

When it was not on a plateau basis it certainly, in those two years where you are moving to 8 to 12 to 12 to 16, it certainly helped every community in British Columbia. But, in addition to that, in 1966, because of the change in the census, the Provincial Government met the 1966 census figures as well, so that in 1966, on top of that jump from 8 to 12 to 16 and 16 to 20 and 20 to 24, the change from the 1961 census year was reflected in their budget figures for 1966. It's interesting, Mr. Member, that you've talked about that in terms…. I'm glad, Mr. Premier, that the member mentioned that because the facts of life are that every year since 1964 there have been significant increases in the per capita grant.

But, in 1968, there was another very significant year for the per capita grant and that was the year when all of those plateau levels were wiped out, so then in 1968 the per capita grant, in fact, was raised to $25 across the board, and this made very significant increases to the municipalities, because no longer were there any left along the way. Every man, woman and child in the community was made subject of a transfer payment of $25 with respect to each and every one of the people involved in that community. But that wasn't the end of the road. That only takes us up to 1968.

[ Page 621 ]

In 1969 the per capita grant was increased from $25 to $28. In 1970, now we see another increase from $28 to $30, but I think the members of the Legislature should be well aware that 1971 again is a census year, and the commitments on the part of the Provincial Government, in terms of transfer payments, is indeed a very significant one, and you just have to look at some of the communities in British Columbia to realize what type of commitment that represents.

But what you are forgetting is that from '66 there have been significant increases in the per capita grant in each and every year. What you have perhaps not looked at is the impact of the present $30 in terms of 1966, remember when it was $12, $16, $20, and $24, it is now $30.00 for each and every man, woman and child in the community. So that in making this commitment for 1970, in the year 1970, this is a commitment which goes forward to the new census year, which again is 1971, and anyone who looks at the growth of British Columbia from '66 to '71 this represents a very, very significant increase over the years, and also as between 1970 and 1971.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: I am very pleased to hear the contribution that's been made to second reading of this Bill by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I don't know whether he was announcing redistribution at the same time. I'm not too sure about that. Maybe we'll have an opportunity….

Nevertheless, this Bill is now becoming an annual Bill and for that reason we welcome it and we will support it. Other members have said what they think about the two dollars and how it's going to help social welfare costs, etc. I want to say what I think I said last year to the Premier, that he has, on occasion, usually about quarter to six, expressed some attitudes towards Ottawa about money with strings on it, and yet here we see again in this Bill per capita grants being made with strings attached to them. I well remember the Minister of Finance going into an arm-waving display about money with strings on it, Mr. Speaker, and it's as simple as that, and I want to say this, that if indeed this money has strings on it as contained in the Bill, we should be given the opportunity to find out what happens to those strings once the money goes into the municipal coffers. Instead, we hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs every year about municipalities that aren't doing the right thing, that are wasting money.

I think an examination of the Municipal Affairs Report is the least we could expect in voting for the kind of principle involved in this Bill, then we'd see some review, some review of the municipalities, and what they're doing about providing ambulance services and other things that are specifically mentioned in this Act. Because we have, Mr. Speaker, south of the river, instance after instance where social welfare patients, where old age pensioners were transferring their husbands or their wives from a private hospital to the Royal Columbian and paying ambulance fees, and yet we never hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs whether indeed this money, with the strings attached to it, is being spent in that way.

So all I'm saying to the House in effect is, if you mean what you say in the Bill, then we should have something that follows it. It's as simple as that, and we don't get that. So what you're doing, in effect, is producing a Bill that says the Provincial Government is providing all sorts of money for municipal sewage treatment plants, for ambulance service and so on, and that just doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen. And I think that's what's wrong with the Bill, but as I say, it's becoming an annual Bill now, and I can suggest to the House we're going to get this annual speech, because we should hear what happens to the strings once the money gets in the municipal coffers.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly, obviously to support the Bill, but secondly to point out that there is one problem which has been raised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and that is, since we are using the figures for 1966 which are the census figures at that time, that there is a sort of built-in penalty for those areas which have been growing faster than the other areas throughout the Province of British Columbia. In the recent figures which were indicated, it showed that Surrey, Richmond and Vancouver were the fastest growing.

SOME HON. MEMBER: The Kelowna area is growing much faster.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, I have a slight feeling that if the Kelowna area were the fastest growing area that maybe we might have revised these figures slightly.

I'm querying, Mr. Speaker, the question of whether it is not feasible under this Act, to take into consideration a more realistic figure. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs pointed out, in 1971 there will be a revision, and we are going to have to face a much larger grant at that time, but it does seem only just and correct that, having committed on the basis of per capita, on the basis of individuals, we should be getting as close as we possibly can to the exact number of people in each community.

Now we have more realistic figures and more accurate figures available than 1966, and there is a need in every municipality to provide this amount of money, and if we are saying that we are going to give $30 for every individual in the community, then I think that, rather than face that tremendous jump in 1971, we should be preparing for a more realistic approach, and I was wondering whether it was not possible for the Minister of Finance to endeavour to obtain a more accurate approximation of the exact populations in every community.

The second point I wanted to raise is that the Minister of Finance, in another point that I have raised before in regards to a grant to the Police Academy, suggested that it was covered specifically in this Bill. Now I have looked through this Bill, Mr. Minister, and I do not see where there is anything special applied to Vancouver to cover the cost of the $20,000 that was taken out of the….

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Order.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, Mr. Minister, it was pointed out that this was specifically to cover the grant for the loss of this under the Police Academy, and I do not find it in here, Mr. Minister, and I would ask, Mr. Minister, that rather than say "order" that we find the additional $20,000 which you've taken from my services .

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is out of order.

[ Page 622 ]

The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the Minister of Municipal Affairs did rise and speak to this Bill, because in 1966, when we had this first amendment moved, we found that it did have a particular hardship on smaller communities, the villages and towns. At that time I cited the towns of Hope and Merritt that had been in the $20 category, and I believe at that time moved to $24, and yet they had all the increased costs, and at that time the Minister was good enough to give these, both these communities, and I believe others throughout British Columbia, a special grant, because while the larger urban centres moved ahead from eight, ten, twelve, fifteen, to the twenty and later to the $25 grant, and this meant hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars to the larger centres, but the two dollar increase didn't mean enough to the towns like Hope and Merritt. So through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the Minister of Municipal Affairs has any particular plans for improving the situation in the smaller towns such as Hope and Merritt, where this grant still will not be adequate.

Now, I'd also like to deal with the situation with regard to health services. You know, Mr. Speaker, this group over at this end of the House have continually spoken out on behalf of a proper, well co-ordinated programme of ambulance services for this Province — air ambulance, and more particularly a properly co-ordinated ambulance service between North Vancouver, City of Vancouver, New Westminster, Surrey and all. Instead of having ambulance drivers fighting over victims of auto accidents, that we have a properly co-ordinated programme as part of B.C.H.I.S., an extension of our hospital insurance programme, so that anyone that is hospitalized, or anyone that may have to be hospitalized, knows that when they are moved from an acute care bed to a chronic bed, that those ambulance services would be available.

Now those of us that have been here any length of time will recall the Premier telling how they had an ambulance service on Salt Spring Island, and I think he said he paid three dollars a year and he'd get ambulance service anywhere in British Columbia, but I'd like to point out through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and the Salt Spring Island ambulance service do not get one penny from this Bill, and there are many similar ambulance services. There's one up at Boston Bar that will extend service to any member of this House, any citizen of the Province or nation, anyone travelling Trans-Canada highways, that has the misfortune to have a car accident. If they slip on the black ice, go over the bank, the Boston Bar ambulance service will take them either to the Lytton, the Hope, or the New Westminster Hospital, depending on the severity of their case, and the community of Boston Bar gets no penny.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that's their fault.

MR. HARTLEY: That's what you think. They'll help the member from Cariboo, he often drives this road, Mr. Speaker, he often drives the Trans-Canada highway, and if he has the misfortune to hit black ice, slide along, and go over the bank, I'll just tell the people of Boston Bar what he said.

AN HON'. MEMBER: Leave him there.

MR. HARTLEY: He said, he'll get help. And why? The reason is that the Boston Bar Ambulance and other ambulances similar to the one on Salt Spring Island and Boston Bar….

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I understand that the member is trying to relate the matter of ambulance services as in the original Bill to this amendment, but he is now speaking of the need for ambulance services in unorganized areas which are not contemplated by the principle in this particular Bill. I think I understand the point you're making but, nevertheless, you're not in order.

MR. HARTLEY: Very good, Mr. Speaker. I hope also that the Premier got the point. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the proposal in this Bill is that an additional grant be given to the municipalities on which priorities or, as one member suggested, strings are attached. Now when one looks at the Bill, if you're talking about priorities, the section that deals with the three dollars is definitely confusing, and should really be looked at before we discuss it in committee because, if you're talking about priorities, there's no priorities shown between the use of the three dollars for ambulance service and the encouragement of tourism and industrial development in the municipality. I really don't know how they can say that priority is set out in that particular location.

I join with the member for Lillooet in urging that that money instead be used for the general purposes of the municipality, and that the idea of helping ambulance service be a part built in on hospital insurance. The reason for that is that the municipalities have to operate with that money within their boundaries, and it automatically excludes the good intentions that are implicit in the Act, in this Bill, rather.

The other thing that I would draw attention to is that the Minister can coast along for years underpaying the municipalities by resting his payments upon the census. This makes a delightful situation for him, but means increasing hardship, year after year, to the municipalities until they get to another census, and it's as if that all procreations stop after the census, so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned. That isn't what happens in the real world, and somebody should tell the Minister where babies come from.

On the other question of the social services, a number of municipalities have complained of the fact that they have been bearing the burden of 20 per cent of the cost of social welfare since the Government changed it from the previous 10 per cent, in places like Richmond, they really have something to complain about. The figures that the honourable the member for Cowichan-Malahat read to us a few minutes ago, showing the vast increase of burden in social welfare chargeable to the municipalities, is true in places like Richmond, and true also to some extent in Coquitlam and other fast growing municipal areas. It seems to me the Government in this Bill, and the Minister, have not tried to work out an equitable way of a sliding scale up to take into account the growth in population in certain areas, and I would urge them to take a look at it before we get to the committee stage, although, Mr. Speaker, this is better than nothing, and anything that will aid the municipalities we certainly favour.

[ Page 623 ]

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad all members of the House are going to support this Bill. I'm amused at some of the arguments used, as if we had changed something, and put a census on something that hadn't been there before. This whole idea of per capita grants originated with the Social Credit Government, right from the beginning.

I want to show that very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that reference was made to the great City of Vancouver, that the Provincial Government's payments per cent of the municipal gross general revenue — British Columbia Social Credit Government,, 36 per cent; in Ontario — Toronto, 27 per cent; Winnipeg, 13 per cent; Regina, 11 per cent, where they had a Socialist government for a while; Calgary 17 per cent; Halifax, 16 per cent. Now all I want to say, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Government of British Columbia treats all its municipalities better than any other provincial government in all Canada, and everybody knows it…. And you believe it too, my friend, and that's the reason why your vote's getting less, less, less.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. BENNETT: And that's the reason why the bus was turned into a buck for the Liberal party. (laughter)

AN HON. MEMBER: Enjoy it while it lasts,

MR. BENNETT: The per capita grant — yes, Mr. Speaker, enjoy it while we last, because when we were elected in '52 they said we wouldn't last one year, 18 years, growing stronger than ever, growing stronger than ever and how you're shrinking down, my boy.

Mr. Speaker, the $30 per capita grant gives $25 per capita man, woman and child, $25 per capita grant to the streets, that more than maintains and builds the streets in Vancouver. To the streets, pollution — local pollution costs — policing and parks, and then the five dollar balance supplies three dollars to ambulance services, encouragement of tourism and industrial development for the municipalities, and the additional two dollars is to provide for the increase in rates this year in the social welfare costs.

You must look at the over-all picture, Mr. Speaker. Even in this last decade of the 60's, the amount given for the services to people in the municipalities of our Province in 1960 amounted to $163,000,0000; in 1965, 5 years later, $261,000,000; in the coming year, $653,000,000. No, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia's Social Credit Government leads the way in all of Canada in helping municipalities, and I am very pleased to ask for second reading of this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 5, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act, be read a second time. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 6. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Bill No 6, An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act. This Government, Mr. Speaker, in 1957 pioneered this grant, not only for this Province, for this nation, but for any place we could find in the free world. This Government has reduced the burden of local property taxes on home-owners and encourages every family to acquire their own home.

It especially helps people that own a small home, and today the home-owner grant pays tens of thousands of dollars, and only leaves one dollar for the local person to pay. In other places it pays 50 per cent, other places in the wealthy, large homes, perhaps pay only 10 per cent, but in the real small homes it pays practically the whole bill but one dollar.

The annual grant, when it was first brought into effect, was ridiculed by the press, Mr. Speaker, saying that a Government could never carry that into effect. The original amount in 1957 was $28. It has been progressively raised until it reached $150 last year, in 1969. At the same time the per capita of local government grants in the municipalities have been continued, and they rise upwards, and grants to local school boards for primary and secondary education have increased each year.

To continue the programme started in 1957, this Government proposes to increase the home-owner grant by a further $10 to a maximum of $160 in the 1970 taxation.

It is estimated the additional cost to the Province of the increase this year will amount to $5,500,000 and the total home-owner grant in 1970-71, the next fiscal year, will be $61,100,000. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion.

The Honourable the Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, like the last Bill, it makes some contribution towards changing circumstances. What the Premier said is true. The Bill was introduced in 1957, and the words that he used were that ever since then it has been progressively raised, and that is true. But at the same time, all over the Province, assessments have been progressively raised and, in many cases, the progressive raising of the assessments has more than off-set the progressive raising of the home-owner grant, so that very often the home-owner grant goes up by $10 but we find that on the local level, taxes are going up by $15, $20, $25.

AN HON. MEMBER: It hasn't happened all over.

MR. STRACHAN: It has happened all over.

I've travelled British Columbia, I happen to be an M.L.A. In this Province, and I am talking about what happens here. Of course, not only are the assessments going up, but these Provincial finance departments learn a great deal from the Federal finance department. They learn that without changing the law in any way, you can change the interpretation of the law. So that many homes and home-owners are now finding themselves, especially in the rural areas, that some which had remained comparatively free from taxation are now included within the ever-widening maw of the tax assessor, with the result that in many cases his taxes went up 3, 4, 5, 600 per cent.

This has, as I pointed out before, led to a diminishing, in many cases, of the natural beauty of Vancouver Island, which was based on the fact that there were many small holdings with small patches of timber, but the assessment was put on these small patches of timber, making it impossible for the people to continue to pay the taxes demanded, with the result that they have allowed these small loggers to come in

[ Page 624 ]

and cut the trees, and this adds nothing whatever to the maintenance of the natural beauty of this Island.

We are speaking of taxes and the impact this has on taxes. I would like to ask the Minister to take a look at the assessment practices, and be sure that the assessment practices don't follow a course that does despoil the beauty of this Island, and too, doesn't overcome any advantage that is accruing to the middle home-owner group, which is a vast majority. I agree that there are many with smaller homes who now pay and have, for many years, paid only a dollar, but in the middle home range bracket, their taxes have been increasing year by year, despite the home-owner grant. But as I say, it's one of those Bills where you support it, because it does offset, at least partially, the money that the Department of Finance is taking away through other procedures and in other ways.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the member who has just taken his place says about the matter of assessments. However, in view of the rather disastrous effect we had when the honourable Minister of Finance last dealt with the matter of assessments in this Province, I shudder to think what might be the result if he takes another look. Because the assessment situation, so far as equalization is concerned and it has a direct affect on this grant, because it relates to the taxes that are levied, has required a lot of very extensive change, because of actions taken by the Minister of Finance.

But with respect to home-owner grant, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that again this year we have the regular recurring annual rise to which we should all be, must be grateful, but there is not any proper extension of this grant in aid of taxes to those people who are really carrying the burden, particularly in the metropolitan areas. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the tenants whose rents are based, in part at least, upon the taxes which the landlord must pay, and again we find this Act continuing to perpetuate this separate class of advantaged people, mainly those who own their own homes, to the detriment, I suggest, of those tenants who are treated as in some other class and are disadvantaged in comparison to the privileges that are extended to home ownership in this Province. It seems to me that the time has long since passed when the Government should be considering very seriously…. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come when the Government must give serious consideration to providing relief from regularly increasing municipal taxes, and the burden which is cast upon those who, for one reason or another, are not home-owners, but are nonetheless paying the burden of real property tax. In that group of people who do receive some benefit from the home-owner grant, there is another segment of our society which the Government consistently overlooks, and I speak of those senior citizens, those people who, on pensions or fixed income, have maintained their homes in their own communities that they helped to build, who are faced with steadily increasing municipal taxes, and the steadily increasing impact of school taxes, long after their own children have passed through the school system. They find that they are almost crushed by the burden of municipal taxes, and the home-owner grant allowed to them does not even keep up with the annual rise they are facing.

I would have thought, too, that the Minister of Finance, this year, might have taken to heart the suggestions which have been made from this side of the floor, and indeed from his own supporters, that some special provision should be made for those people who are on pension, fixed income, who might wish to receive an additional grant up to the full amount of their taxes over and above the amount which is provided for in this Bill, and I have no doubt that many of those people who are in that precise situation would welcome the opportunity of receiving an additional grant, even though it were a condition that the excess grant would one day be repayable out of the worth of their property when it is eventually sold, either during their lifetime, or upon their death. This is a simple, convenient, and humanitarian way of looking after those elderly citizens who have built our communities, who live in our communities, and wish to continue to enjoy the benefits of that which they have created.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G. S. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for the fact that the previous speaker has taken most of what I had intended to say. I am very much in favour of increasing the home-owner grant. The policy of this party, as everyone knows, has been to lay strong emphasis on the importance of the home in our society, and as I represent a riding where there are many senior citizens, and elderly persons who are on fixed incomes, I feel that, for as good as the home-owner grant is, I would make a special appeal for the elderly segment of the community.

Furthermore, rather than just suggest such a solution to the problem, I would like to draw the House's attention to the situation as it applies in the City of Hamilton, Ontario . In that city, there are two alternatives In that city, there are two alternatives open to the senior citizens. In the first instance, any senior citizen who is a home-owner and who is in receipt of old age security, namely the old age pension, is entitled to a grant up to $100 a year, and this grant is a credit which is not repayable when the home changes hands. The second alternative is provincial legislation for anyone over 65 years of age who owns their own home, and in the case of the alternative for people over 65, there is an allowance of up to $150 per year, but in this case a lien is applied against the property, and when the property changes hands, of course the lien is repaid, the amount which has been allowed over the years is repayable. I think the basic fact which has been recognized, though I should have pointed out that in the case of the old age pensioners receiving this type of assistance, there is a means test which in the case of a single home-owner is $3,200 a year, and in the case of a married couple is $4,000 per year.

But I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that this principle establishes the fact that an extra $10 a year, such as we are now proposing, is really only a very partial solution to the elderly person who not only is on a fixed income, but who finds that her or his income buys progressively less of the goods we all need to survive, and I am talking about as simple and basic a matter as food. It is questionable whether another $10 a year for a pensioner or a person on a fixed income in Oak Bay, is going to go very far to meet the increasing costs which that person has incurred over the past year, not only in terms of property taxation.

The most immediate need, I would suggest, would be met if this Government would consider a close study of the type of legislation which is present in Ontario, in the City of

[ Page 625 ]

Hamilton, and I took the trouble to contact the City Clerk. The House may be interested to know that in the City of Hamilton in 1969 there were 3,453 applications for the type,of grant of $100 a year for those over age 70, and in discussion with the City Clerk, he finds that this is a most accessible and much appreciated policy followed by the city, and he finds, equally, the grant of $150 where a lien is applied to the property, is not particularly popular.

I should just add, that in Hamilton there is also a residential qualification. In other words, the person applying for the assistance must have lived there at least 10 out of the preceding 15 years. The House has frequently heard of the difficulties of people on low, fixed incomes and senior citizens, above all others. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this offers an avenue, in addition to the present avenue, of providing the kind of help for people for which this Government stands.

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: The very idea of this grant originally was to help people of low income and people on pension, and that's the whole idea of it, but from the beginning we want to treat everybody the same. But if in the percentage basis, some places it pays 99 per cent for people on small incomes and small homes, and perhaps only 10 per cent on wealthy people who have a mansion, and that is the way that it equalizes itself up.

We were up against a situation where people, old age pensioners, had two or three dollars increase in their taxes, and so the only way we knew how to stop it, and we studied many different ways was to have this kind of a grant, and it started, and it has been very successful. In fact an old age pensioner that has a small house, pays no taxes at all now, only one dollar a small house. In fact at today's values, a person with a house of $16,000, in this Province pays no school taxes at all, and no place else in Canada will you find that happening.

Of all the measures that this Social Credit Government has brought forward, this one we've helped more real people with it than anything else. I remember that the Liberals ridiculed it, called it trickery, called it just a sham, and the socialists, they voted against it, Mr. Speaker, and were against it.

I want to tell you this, the present Liberal Premier in Saskatchewan came out a couple of elections ago to take part in an election in British Columbia. There he ran across his Social Credit mother in Vancouver, and she said, "What party are you talking for?" He said, "The Liberals." She said, "Go back home. This is the only Government that does things for people in British Columbia." And he said, "Why?" She said, "Why the home-owner grant." And do you know what he said to me? He said, "Before there is another election I am going to have a home-owner grant in the Province of Saskatchewan," and so he has.

Any time these other parties copy some of the good things of Social Credit, it's added to their glory. But they worship afar off, because it's easy to see the amount there compared to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a tremendous reform that we have to help people in this Province, and I would ask now that we have second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 6, An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act be read a second time. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 51

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 12. (An Act Respecting Motion Pictures) The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 12 is the Motion Pictures Act. As the explanatory note indicates, its purpose is to repeal the existing Moving Pictures Act, and substitute therefore the Motion Pictures Act. I think those of you who have taken the trouble to read the existing legislation on the subject, and compare it with this new Bill, will find considerably more change than that. Certainly the application is not as extensive as in the existing legislation. It does not apply to educational institutions, universities, film societies. We have also removed many of the obsolete provisions, which has contributed to a reduction in the over-all size of the Act — cut it in about half from the existing legislation — such provisions as if you are 14 years of age or under you have to be accompanied by an adult to go to the movies at certain times. This is still on the statute books, although it hasn't been enforced for some 30 years or so.

Then there is also the provision which you find in the existing legislation, which this Bill will repeal, which sets out the type of things that the censor is not to allow to be shown; scenes of an immoral or obscene nature, the representation of crime, or pictures reproducing any brutalizing spectacle, or which indicate or suggest lewdness or indecency, or the infidelity, or unfaithfulness of husband or wife or any other such pictures which he may consider injurious to morals or against the public welfare, or which

[ Page 626 ]

may offer evil suggestions to the minds of children, or which may more likely offend the public. I think, under that definition, "The Good Life" is the only film in the country that would qualify.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know the members of this House, from discussions that have taken place in the past, hold very strong views on the desirability or undesirability of censorship as such, and I don't think for a moment that we would be able to gain any unanimity on that score today. But I do think, that if you have read the existing Bill and compared it with the Act which it replaces, we can all be unanimous in finding that it is a great improvement over the old legislation. The main thrust of the Bill is moving from the concept of censorship to the idea of classification of films, but still giving to this office the responsibility of rejecting films for showing to the public. That has not been removed in its entirety.

I think we have to, as well, in considering this legislation, agree that, or acknowledge I should say, the whole spectrum of motion picture content has changed drastically in the past decade. Today the office can only do basic classifications to ensure that the viewing public are fully aware of what is being shown in the theatres, leaving it to them to decide which pictures to see and which not to see. That's the primary philosophy that we are moving on.

I think, too, that we cannot in this day and age be over protective, because since the advent of television we find now pictures being shown on television, coming into your homes, which would previously have been in the restricted categories, so this, too, has to be taken into account, I think the major responsibility of government and government offices must be to classify, to determine the advertising, so that people will be forewarned as to what they might see, and then can govern themselves accordingly.

AN HON. MEMBER: This Act goes further than that.

MR. PETERSON: This Act, as I indicated, does go further than that in terms of still allowing for a rejection of films, not to be shown at all, where they don't have any value, and that is, as I say, something on which I don't think we will get any full agreement on. But the major point is a classification into the three categories of general, which is suitable for all persons; adult, as the term implies being unsuitable or of no interest to persons under age 18; and restricted, as being suitable only for persons of the age of 18 years or over and this latter category to be enforced in those terms.

You will also have observed that the title of Censor is no longer found in the Act. His job title is more accurately described as Film Classification Director, and that is the title that's used here and now, as well as in Ontario, and in the Province of Saskatchewan.

I think it's fair to say that the distributors and theatres throughout the Province have a very high regard for the judgment of our censor, Mr. MacDonald, who will become the Classification Officer under this new Bill. In the past year he did reject some 20 films, but I think it is relevant to point out that none of the rejections were appealed, and there is provision for appeal. The duties of the Film Classification Director are set out in the Act, and probably don't require any further explanation from myself.

The three classifications — although we did at one stage consider a fourth — we have come to the conclusion that the three classifications are broad enough to provide sound guidelines to ensure that the public will be aware of the pictures that are being shown in the theatres in the Province, and then in turn will have responsibility for determining which pictures they or their children will be able to see. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: I think the Minister is right when he said there will be unanimity on one thing, that is the fact that the old Bill will die, the old Act will die, and I can assure him that he will probably get unanimity as far as that is concerned.

This Bill really has two principles, Mr. Speaker, principle one is classification, principle two is censorship. The two things we find together aren't supportable. No matter what we call the gentleman in charge of this Act, whether we call him a Censor or whether we call him a Film Classification Director, has still a pair of scissors in his hand. As long as the gentleman in charge of this has a pair of scissors in his hand we find that we cannot support this Bill. It's just as simple as that. Without the criteria that in order to tell him what to do, the criteria which so far has thwarted the best minds in the world to try and determine what is wrong, what is unpalatable, what is obscenity, what is pornographic, as long as that criteria is not and never will, in my view, be there, then the ownership of a pair of scissors in the hands of one person, or a committee of people, call it what they will, is unacceptable.

I think certainly there's no question about the classification side of this Bill. I think everybody should welcome that kind of move, particularly, as the Minister says, when you realize that films are now being relayed into the homes via television, and that principle, classification certainly gets our full support, our total support. But when you've got one good principle in a Bill and one unacceptable principle, the issue is really clear and that is we can't support it.

Now, in a Bill like this, debate so frequently seems to zone in, and to home in, on the question of pornography and the question of sex, but I don't want to spend much time discussing that, only to say this, that I think that it's fair to say that there are many more things which we can find objectionable than that narrow, limited sphere of debate. There is more obscenity, in my view, in some of the violence we see than there is in some of the movies we've heard debated in this Chamber on previous occasions. We on this side, for instance, Mr. Speaker, have said that we don't believe in corporal punishment because we believe that, in many ways, is obscene. Yet, of course, there is obscenity in the sarcasm that can be used by a senior person to a group of students, and so on. Similarly we feel there is obscenity in violence. We feel there is obscenity frequently in values which are portrayed, material portrayal, ways of life, and so on. We find that whilst all this is going on, to get back to the first point, the principle of a cutting is just untenable.

We intend, Mr. Speaker, just so that we can announce to the Attorney-General, we intend, if second reading of this Bill does go through, to provide a series of amendments to the Bill for discussion in committee, which we feel will then make this Bill a first-class Bill, and one which could be supported by everybody in this Province and everybody in this Chamber.

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

[ Page 627 ]

MR. B. A. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, so that I can clarify the position of our party on this Bill, right from the beginning I would like to say that I am against censorship but for the Bill, and in this sense disagree completely with the member from Surrey, because to oppose this Bill, I feel, is to show support for a Bill that now exists on the statute books of this Province which is antiquated, outmoded, unjust and almost any other word like that you can apply to it. Mr. Speaker, I am in the midst of the ohs and ahs, from that end of the Chamber. I agree that we have two principles here. One is censorship and one is classification, and I said at the beginning I'm opposed to censorship. As far as I am concerned it is not my position to judge what someone else shall watch, and I'm not about to set myself up as that authority.

I appreciate the Attorney-General has gone to great lengths to remove the word censor from the Bill, but he has also been honest in this House in pointing out that the Bill does contain a censorship classification, and it gives the authority to the director to censor. Well, from a principle point of view, Mr. Speaker, therefore the Bill as it stands before us, I think, is supportable on principle, although I would agree that there are sections that I personally would oppose.

On the subject of classification I wish to comment briefly as well, and I don't intend to conduct a long dissertation on this Bill. I mentioned in an earlier debate in this House my views on what was happening in Denmark, where they are perhaps taking the lead as far as censorship is concerned. Although I was somewhat surprised, Mr. Speaker, to learn in Denmark that they have a film censor, and he still has an office and is quite active and in fact censors films, but never in relation to sex. The film censor's job is to censor violence, and when you think about it, it makes a great deal of sense, and when I was in Denmark this past year there was a film showing there that I think many members of this House might have seen. I found it one of the most horrible movies I have ever seen in my life, and that was John Wayne in "The Green Berets," a despicable movie if ever I saw one, where there was great joy and jubilation taken as American helicopters descended on certain people and blasted them into oblivion, and this was supposed to be suitable for young people to see. That particular movie showing in Denmark was censored, and that section was cut out. I found that rather interesting.

I agree with the member from Surrey that the emphasis in censorship or even in classification on sex is one-sided, and I think really misguided, and I would hope that our censor, in utilizing or using his rights of classification, will pay some attention to the violence that is appearing in our movies, particularly violence that appears to glorify war which, in my opinion, is every bit as obscene as anything that has ever been cut out of movies in this Province, if not more so.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the Bill because it is an improvement. I'll oppose sections of it, specifically section five, but other than that I think it is a great improvement and I hope the Censor, or Director as we'll now call him, will exert his powers in relation to classification in ways other than he has done in the past, namely in ways of violence.

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of Bill that people are inclined to be cautious about because of political overtones related to statements that a member may make. Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to this House, under the Attorney-General's Department there was a vote on the movie censor, and consistently for the ten years I have been here, I have been opposed to the role of censorship and my position has not changed. Mr. Speaker, the idea of classifying movies is welcome, but I say let us not be hypocritical, because into every home in this nation television films come in uncensored, unclassified, and can be seen from both sides of the border, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is the parents' responsibility to determine what they want their child to see or not to see, and any parent who allows the state to take that right from them is not in a position to fully raise their children in a mature manner. It was the Prime Minister of this country who said that the state has no right in the bedrooms of the nation.

There are Criminal Code sections that stop pornography if that is the area of concern. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that any step around censorship removes the relationship that must be strengthened between parent and child. Any parent who does not spend time with his child in assisting a child making decisions, and in many instances making decisions for a child, is allowing his responsibility to fall into someone else's hands, Mr. Speaker, and that is a most dangerous concept, I have my bias, as my friend from North Vancouver–Seymour has, about what I wish to see or not see in a movie, or what I wish my children to see or not see, but I don't want anybody else's prejudice or bias imposed upon my children.

I don't like violence in movies. I don't like it being acted out, Mr. Speaker. But I abhor news broadcasts directly from Vietnam six o'clock every day showing the slaughter of children by American troops, my friend, and you think that the censor cutting that out of the movies will stop that from coming into a home? Mr. Speaker, people might as well see what the world is really like, so that we can start getting some basic, fundamental, decent changes in the world we live in.

I don't believe in raising children in a cotton-batten atmosphere defined by the state, Mr. Speaker. If the world is ugly, then it is ugly. The children of this nation have an expression that aptly describes the attitude of opening our eyes to reality. They say, "Tell it the way it is." And I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that no state behind the Iron Curtain or this side of the Iron Curtain has any right to interfere in telling it the way it is. We saw what censorship has done in Czechoslovakia, Mr. Speaker; and do not think that that kind of censorship cannot lead down the same road here in this country. The door is open when you allow one man or a government to determine what my child shall or shall not see. I will decide for myself what my children will see, and if I can't assume that responsibility then the state is saying to me that I am not a good enough parent, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the definition of the kind of movies that are shown, there are many movies that are totally inappropriate in terms of cheap pandering to sell tickets, but how will any child ever know, how will any youngster ever know what kind of decision he wishes to make for himself unless there is a whole basis of moral foundation built in the home, built in the home? Some of the things done in the name of censorship only lead to regressive development and negative construction. This is 1970, Mr. Speaker, and yet all the horrors of mankind are still compounded around us and the only way to overcome those horrors is to liberate the mind,

[ Page 628 ]

and to liberate the mind, Mr. Speaker, means taking filth and goodness on the basis of a personal scale defined by parents whose love and concern for those children will define the scales that they want those children to grow up under.

I have complete faith in the government of the day. I am sure they won't be oppressive in their approach to censorship, but that's not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point is to build up that kind of intense personal relationship between parent and child that teaches the child how to make a choice and how to act on that choice, and when the state interferes with that, it is threatening the very fabric of responsibility between the parent and the child. I go to many movies, but I make the decision with my wife as to what movie we will take our children to. I don't want the state interfering with that relationship that is most important with me, and I am going to oppose the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H. J. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree with a few of the points that have been put forward. We turn around and complain that we must put in censorship on pollution, but we don't want any censorship on the pollution of the minds of the young.

Unfortunately there are too many instances where individuals will take the attitude that they say, "All right, if the censor or the classification officer allows it for public showing, then it must be all right." I think that we can perhaps agree that if people want to see any filth or any violence they want to, they can show it. But it is another story when in public showing, there are great big marquees, and there used to be the time that to entice the public they would show the worst scenes in the movies in the pictures in the advertisements, and now it has gone to the other extreme that they take the few decent scenes in a movie and use them for advertisement of the picture to entice people in to see the trash that is being shown.

You know, one of the members said there was no censorship in TV. I beg to differ. We do not, as a Legislature, lay down the law as to what is permissible for the movie companies to put into a film, but the C.B.C. and the Board of Broadcast Governors do have a control on what can be shown in the home, and sometimes it is not sufficiently applied, and it might be very nice for people to say that the Prime Minister said that the Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, but a Government-supported enterprise, the C.B.C., is spending half of their time there.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a certain responsibility to set certain standards. We set them and we could, in effect, say, "All right, we have no right to indicate or censor what we do with alcohol or with liquor." We could use the same argument as far, and say that, well we shouldn't have the public school system and say what should be taught, just leave it open and free to the teachers and to the students. I think we can take this thing far too far.

I believe that there should be a certain guidance and direction, and particularly if you are going to do classification, let's not monkey around with them, let's put the classification that so many members say, "Tell it as it is." Some of the classifications have been far too weak for the type of movies shown, and what I deplore is that you might turn around and say, "Let anybody see what they wish," but how many times in the past five years has there not been a choice at any of the movie theatres to see an unrestricted film. And I think it is time that some directions were given and given in a much much stronger position than has been in the past.

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

MR. G. H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the Bill, so far as it relates to classification of motion pictures, is acceptable because it is, in effect, the expression of opinion of a movie critic. Whether he is a good critic or a bad critic we are not allowed to judge by any specific thoughts that he may have, in that the mere depiction of a black cat on an advertisement hardly tells you the intelligence or otherwise of the movie critic who happens to be the censor of this Government. I would rather hear an essay from him as to why he thinks the movie is obscene, then we would be able to judge whether he was, in our way of thinking, biased or prejudiced one way or another upon the revelation of the truth. I see no way under this Bill that we are in any way able to judge the critic who has the scissors in his hand, and I am not particularly in favour of critics of any kind who have scissors and the power to, in effect, change the truth as it appears to any man who creates his idea of the truth.

The truth may be to you something distasteful. If, for example, somebody wants to print a book on birth control, there are some people who would say that that is obscene, and there are many cases in the catalogue of the Supreme Court of the United States, such as the Scopes trial, where the question of birth control had been ruled to be obscene. To anyone living today, who has a broad and tolerant aspect, that idea would have sounded like it was medieval, and there are still people today who would say the subject of birth control is obscene. There are people today who have children in school who are seeing movies that are shown in school on sex and sex education who think that the movies are obscene.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Saanich won't even listen to your speech.

MR. DOWDING: I have no doubt. And yet the subject of, for example, does the censor cut out scenes of adultery in movies? Does he cut out? No. I always go to the movies that I judge are the ones that are fit to see in terms of my conception of fitness in art. That may not be yours, Mr. Attorney-General, and you have no right to tell me what movies I will see, and I have no right to tell you.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: I don't intend to.

MR. DOWDING: Well, this is what the import of this Bill is. I said the other day, Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the subject generally, that unless we know what the critic is doing how do we know what he expurgated from the film with his scissors? Now, it is all very well to say that the principle of the Bill is that if you don't like the decision of the censor you don't show the film in British Columbia. Well, that's no answer. It is no excuse to say that if you don't like the view of the censor that you can appeal to an Appeal Board. It still amounts to this, that that decision is by a censor and the censor's decision is final.

I object to this matter on another ground as well, and it is an important ground. The criminal law and the Criminal Code has dealt with the subject, the Federal Parliament has dealt with the subject of what you shall see and what you shan't see when it comes to the public viewing of any

[ Page 629 ]

obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record, or other things whatsoever, or any public exhibition of an indecent show.

Now, section 150 of the Code means that the criminal law has spoken, Federal Parliament has spoken, to determine what is a criminal offence to display. Yet here we have the Province, in effect, setting up as a criminal offence the displaying of anything that the censor has prohibited, and when you read the specific portions of the Bill, you will see that the censor has the power to prohibit, and if you do not get his certificate and you go ahead and display your motion picture you are subject to criminal prosecution by the censor, and I cannot see how this Government can justify two sets of criminal law in regard to the display of what is deemed to be obscene matter. If it is obscene matter under the Federal criminal law, then it is not, in my view, the subject of criminal or quasi-criminal punishment by this Government, and you are intervening in a field that is not yours to intervene in.

Now, this happened before with Social Credit. Back in 1938, I think it was 1938, the Alberta Government tried to pass three Bills, one was on taxing of banks, another to consolidate the credit of Alberta regulations, and the third was called — and this is the one to which I refer — An Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is speaking beside the principle of this Bill.

MR. DOWDING: Well, I would say with respect, Mr. Speaker, my point in mentioning that is that it was a Bill to censor the press.

MR. SPEAKER: This has little to do with the Motion Picture Act.

MR. DOWDING: Now, why I say that the principle of this Bill offends under our jurisdiction and our legal constitutional position is this, that right in that particular reference to the Supreme Court, it made it clear that where the Federal Government has, in the criminal law provided exemptions for newspapers from prosecution or any expression that is printed in that newspaper, it is not for a Province to then lay down punishment for newspapers that do print the news as they see it. It is not for the Provincial Government. Once it has been assumed by the Federal authority, to set out the law and to decide what is criminal in respect to the publication in the newspapers, you get into a larger field than mere civil rights, and you have no right to legislate, according to that decision.

Now, looking at what the principle of the Bill is here, one of the principles is the idea of censorship. Now we have had another case in the Supreme Court of Canada that dealt with broadcasting, and it was held there that the broadcasting, once established by the Federal Government, was not the subject of regulation or censorship within the Province. Now broadcasting includes movies, they are shown within the Province on television…. advertising is sometimes obscene, too…. but the point of it is, that once having occupied that field by a criminal law and having declared what is obscene and what is not, are we to have substituted a different judgment by a court which is not a court, an individual who is not appointed by the Federal Government, to, in effect, supplant the decisions of the courts of the land who deal with the subject of obscenity?

This is where I fear that the Government is offending against a basic principle, and that is they are trying to set up their own standards outside of the standard that the law says is acceptable by a Parliament that has the right to legislate, and I feel that on that ground alone, this principle is abhorrent, both from a standpoint of constitutional position, and from a standpoint of freedom and the right of the individual to decide, subject only to one risk, that if he exhibits or displays anything that is deemed by the criminal law to be unlawful, he must take the consequences. But you do not let him make that decision himself, when he is an exhibitor. Under this Bill, he would be forced to apply and if he is turned down, he can't show the film. If he goes ahead and shows the film, he is prosecuted for not getting the certificate. So it's a devious means or ruse, to say that we are going to legislate and censor the motion pictures.

Now I am all in favour of a proper method of letting the public know and judge what the movies are all about, and which ones may offend against the taste and the ideas and the notions of this particular decade, but all of us in this House are well aware how motion pictures have changed in the last ten years. All over the world there's been a wind of tolerance that in some places has turned into a whirlwind of pornography. Good examples of that may be seen in Copenhagen or Denmark, I am told. But one of the curious things about removing all censorship in Denmark, was the marked and immediate drop in sex crimes, and the change in attitude of the public towards obscenity itself, which is a curious thing about psychology. Although I am not one who looks for movies with black cats on them, sometimes it is better that we know all sides of life in order to know what is good and what is right and what standards should be, and those who want to see movies that are subject to license, will have to decide for themselves what their standards are, but for me to impose on another the right to judge, based upon my concepts of what is right is presumptuous, and for a whole Legislature to do the same, to me is an offense against the integrity and freedom of the individual to make his own decisions.

We have gone through the age that was typified from 1870 on when censorship, prohibition of every kind, enveloped society and every work and field of art. It involved family life, it involved every aspect of the individual. That age has passed. The Courts have dealt with books, they have dealt with movies, they have dealt with pictures, and more and more in an age of enlightenment, Courts have said we must rely on the individual, his own education, his background, his family, to determine what standards he accepts. It's wrong, in my opinion, to go forward on this principle of censorship implicit in the Bill No. 12.

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

MR. B. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm just a country lad and, like many of the M.L.A.s, come from a one-theatre town, if we even have that many theatres in it, and we had heard word, you know, that down at the flesh pots of Victoria and Vancouver the theatres are nothing but garbage cans with seats, and had looked forward, perhaps, to doing a little personal research into the subject. However, the House Leader, in setting out the business, has sort of prevented that with the night sittings, and by the time the weekends roll around they change the movies at the local theatres.

But I can't agree with some of the propositions which

[ Page 630 ]

have been expressed from the other side of the House, with respect to responsibility, and that is that a lot of these films sort of show life as it is, that they show all sides of life. I would agree with the member from Esquimalt in his comments in respect to TV and our C.B.C. I think that in many, they are showing a very small aspect of life and blowing it up out of all proportion, and that in showing these to youngsters and so forth, they are not getting a balanced view of what, in fact, life is all about. They talk about censorship versus classification. We see in one state, in Michigan, where it was proposed in their Legislature that they start taxing on the basis of their classification where under a Bill proposed there, theatre owners would be taxed $50 to show an M-rated film, $75 for an R-film, and $100 for an X-rated film, letting the public purse benefit from some of the trash which is being shown. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, that parents certainly have a responsibility, but so does the Province, and I think that in this Bill it has hit a compromise between classification and censorship and, like one of the members from the North Shore, agree that it is certainly far better than we have now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard

MR. B. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, just a few words on this. I support this Bill, and I do so because I am of the opinion that society has reached the level that it has today by virtue of regulation, and there is no doubt that if we permit complete showing of films without control, unbalance would certainly prevail. As it has already been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, some films are totally inappropriate, and even some of the films that I see over the television, I don't want them in my home, and I very often have taken the trouble to turn them off.

I don't see how anyone could complain about this particular Bill because it has taken away the authority to censor films, and in fact the classifier will not even look at films that are going to be shown at a university, or at film societies, or in educational institutions, and on that basis I fail to see, utterly, why there would be any objection to this Bill being passed. But there is no doubt, as far as I am concerned, that unless there is some classification, the movement will always be down, and instead of having films that are worthy and documentary and films which are going to improve the standard of living, you are going to have something which will break it down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D. G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one thing occurs to me just to begin, and I don't want my remarks to be protracted. But I would like to say that the Liberal position reminds me of a Charlie Brown expression, "How can we lose when we are so sincere?" You know there are two principles, and they admit the two principles, they oppose one principle and they support the other principle. You know, if you are against the principle then how can you support the thing in principle? So it is just a matter of being placed in a position, and we have taken a stand in our party, that because of the position that we are placed in we have to go against the Bill right down the line because of the fact that there is censorship involved. While we agree with the classification, we certainly don't agree with the censorship for two or three reasons.

The problem here is that there is a bias, and there is a bias in practically every individual. My problem with this Government is the fact that they are going to appoint the censor, the director, and a lot of people say that the current director is a great man and so on and so forth, and they also will appoint the Appeal Board. I notice that the Appeal Board has appointed Chairman and others through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, decides in their infinite wisdom who should be on that Board, this same Government accused us of being Marxist Socialists. That was never censored out of their advertising, and yet it is incorrect and I don't trust them to put up this kind of a Board, that's the kind of situation that I feel that we….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the truth.

MR.COCKE: …that's not the truth and you know it, Mr. Attorney-General. Absolutely.

So therefore, as far as I am concerned, I would like to see our children given an opportunity to be disciplined in this regard by their parents, and not by this Government who is so almighty and so all-knowing — that's our position. I don't think this position of being able to support one principle and not another, is legitimate. I think that that is the situation that we have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I think, in that we are moving in this Bill from censorship to classification, I think that it is a basically sound concept which I can support. However, I think we must do more than just change the name of a censor, indeed if we intend to change his job to reclassification, we should omit the censorship section.

I would say that a point that hasn't been brought forward is that we should be reminded that the film industry today is a cultural art form. I think a very valid cultural art form, and it is being adjudicated constantly, just as other art forms. Be it in the field of sculpture, while one person might find the Michelangelo’s David an obscene statue, another person might find the modern art, where you can't even recognize this form, as a form of trash that isn't worthy of being observed.

Now I think that the current censor that we happen to have is using great discretion and doing a very fine job. I have seen many of the films that he has censored, and I think that in thinking of a film like Romeo and Juliet, he didn't touch this great love film, and as a result, the actors and actresses in the film were able to present this the way the author Shakespeare had intended, and the judgment that he used was good here. But just because he happens to agree with my particular bias, doesn't mean that that is necessarily the right thing, and I would say that I think that when it comes to the discussion of the sections, this is one section that is certainly going to need changes here.

I think that again, while we are taking out of the Act the description to him of the things that he must censor, and certainly they are ridiculous, we again forget the fact that probably more important than cutting out scenes of nudity, certainly I would agree, several of the speakers have mentioned that there is much obscenity in violence and much obscenity in senses of values.

I know that I was at a movie recently called "The Sundance Kid" or something like that. Now that movie, I

[ Page 631 ]

really enjoyed, it was a good movie, but I think perhaps the whole movie itself should have been censored, because of the attitude. It was presented in a very humourous attitude, honouring violence, honouring bank robbers, and a very gory, bloody ending. The same thing, and you could look to the type Bonnie and Clyde type of thing. This is the kind of thing that should be censored if we are going to have a censor, rather than the scenes relating to nudity.

Now another point that I think needs to be made. I am of the opinion that my rights as an individual, my freedom of choice to see and hear as an adult, will be infringed upon here. I think it is not necessary, because the market will regulate itself, and we can see this, because if you look at the ratings of the shows, and if you look at the attendance and the high gross in shows, you find out that the Walt Disney shows are the shows that are making the money, and this is what people want to and are going to see today. If you want to take an example of the excesses of nudity that are being indicated by the restrictive show, if this was so, that this demand was seen as intense as we figured, then certainly the shows down in Blaine would be overcrowded constantly with their….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a funny thing that you should reflect on Walt Disney.

MR. WENMAN: …Walt Disney films are doing extremely well. They are big money makers — yes, they are. Well we can argue that point, but perhaps we should get some statistics, but I think the market will regulate itself. I think that we should look at the film as a cultural art form, and I think that we should move further and further towards the classification of films and away from censorship.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister will close the debate.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in opening the debate on this Bill this afternoon I predicted that there wouldn't be any unanimity in this House on the question of censorship, and I see that that prediction has already come true. I do want, as well, in closing this debate, to acknowledge the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Opposition when he said he had complete faith in the Government of the day in that we wouldn't be oppressive in our censorship. I appreciate that statement, because many of the remarks today made on the subject of censorship have been rather divorced from the reality of the situation as to what applies in the Province of British Columbia today.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do we know?

MR. PETERSON: Well, let me put it this way. You had a statute on the books of this Province, I don't know for how long, it long precedes this Government, but when the honourable member from Burnaby was speaking, he had to go to the Province of Alberta and bring in Social Credit legislation referring it in likeness to this Bill, rather than dealing with the Bill that's on the statute books now and comparing it with the Bill that's before the House today, and here's a great mistake that the N.D.P. are making.

I find it somewhat difficult to; approve of the position taken by the Liberals at all times but I have to, in this particular instance, because they acknowledge that this is an improvement over the existing legislation. The N.D.P. acknowledge it, too, but they say they're going to vote against it, Mr. Speaker, and by voting against it, voting against this Bill, it means that the old Moving Pictures Act remains in full force and effect with much more censorship than this Bill has ever thought of. So that is, I suggest, a ridiculous situation and a great mistake for the N.D.P. In this House, and I want you to know that before you exercise your vote. You know, one would think that if they were totally opposed to censorship in this instance, they would be as some of the other honourable members have pointed out, in other instances. One would think, too, that the Theatre Association of the Province, if there were these dangers that the honourable members across the way talk about, would be opposed to censorship. But I'd like to quote from a brief which they presented to me in which they opposed any easing of censorship. These are the people in the business in the Province of British Columbia showing these pictures, showing these pictures.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're in it to make money.

MR. PETERSON: Well, you know, if they were in it completely to make money would they not want to eliminate all censorship? All censorship? I would think so. But what do they say, Mr. Speaker? They say that, "Any easing of this situation would be an open invitation to irresponsible film makers and distributors to flood B.C. with cinematic pornography that lacks any redeeming social value." They point out that this year, this past year, the censor in British Columbia has rejected no less than 20 films, the highest figure ever in the Province, and for this they congratulate him, because theatre owners are certain that these films are of little artistic worth and do not deserve to be shown.

They also say that as theatre owners who show films in the Province that they do not wish to police their own industry, they want the Government to continue to reject these films that have no artistic value and are simply in the category that I mentioned, or undue violence, in the areas in which the censorship has been exercised in the past.

Mr. Speaker, there will of course, I'm sure, be no agreement on this, but I think, and I reiterate this once more, that surely it should be the objective of all members to at least improve an existing situation in terms of legislation, and that's what we're asking you to do today, and I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 12 be now read a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary, minded, No. I think the Ayes have it.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 13, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 13, An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act. The Honourable Minister.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 13 is an Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act. The main purpose of this Bill, I would suggest, is twofold. One, to extend the benefits of the Payment of Wages Act and this method of collecting unpaid wages to additional workmen, and the second purpose of the legislation, the primary purpose, is to strengthen the means of collecting unpaid wages in the Province.

At present, the Payment of Wages Act applies only to

[ Page 632 ]

employers in certain listed industrial undertaking. Now with this Bill, the amendment, it would apply to all employees, and then subject to certain specific exemptions. So it's just completely reversing the situation in terms of its application, and it will have much broader application when these amendments are passed. This Act has been an effective instrument and has provided effective means to collect unpaid wages on behalf of employees in the Province of British Columbia.

I don't think it's necessary to outline in any detail the difficulty that an employee faces when he has worked for a month perhaps, or even longer, and finds that at the end of his period of service that the employer hasn't the money to pay his wages, money that he has been relying on to make payments that he has committed for himself. Before this Act, it was necessary to either lay charges in the Magistrates Courts, which was not a very effective method of collecting money and was resented by the Bench because they felt this was not an appropriate thing for them to be engaged in. Or the other alternative was to go and see your friendly neighbourhood lawyer and take action in a higher Court.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Where is there a friendly neighbourhood lawyer?

MR. PETERSON: Well, you're sitting between two of them now, Mr. former Leader of the Opposition. I thought you would be kinder to the two people that are sitting on each side of you today than you apparently are.

But nevertheless, now we provide this procedure where you can make an application to the Industrial Relations Board. You don't need a lawyer to represent you. The Board files a certificate. This certificate has the same force and effect as a judgment of a Court, and can be collected in like manner. Through this means, in this last year alone, if you've checked in the Annual Report, we collected $277,370 a total of 135 certificates were issued. But if the amendments which we're proposing now had been in effect, we would have been able to collect substantially more, not only because of the broadening of the application of the Act, but the second major principle, and that is that we will give wages now, in this legislation, a new priority which they have not had before, and that is, "Wages owing under this Act will constitute a lien and charge in favour of the Board, payable in priority over all liens, charges, or mortgages of every person in respect of the real or personal property of the employer, including those of the Crown in the right, of the Province."

This is a very important principle, and it means that in cases where the Crown has had priorities in the past in terms of lien, such as workmen's compensation claims, now, with the passage of this Bill, wages, unpaid wages, will have a top priority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even over compensation?

MR. PETERSON: Even over compensation. We've had cases in the past — we had one where a certificate was filed for some $10,000 for unpaid wages, and we found that others, including workmen's compensation, had priority and therefore we could not collect on behalf of the workman. Another instance, we issued a certificate on behalf of 15 employees for wages amounting to some $2,700 and there was the sum of $22,000 available, but again, because of those who had prior liens, all of this money went for other purposes and not one penny of it to the unpaid wages.

Now in changing the priority, which is a major principle as I said, coming ahead of everything else, we're also changing the time limit both in terms of the limitation period to commence your claim, to bring it before the Board, and also the amount that you can collect. In other words, there haven't been any limitations up till now, but we're changing that to six months. You can only collect six months wages. If your employer hasn't paid his wages and you continue working beyond that time, you either don't collect or you can go to a Court of law to collect, but you can't use this procedure to collect more than six months wages, which I think is a reasonable provision.

Also, the other provision, that you must file your application within six months of the last time he failed to pay you, because we have had instances in the past where people will file, bring forward old claims, and this creates a great deal of work on behalf of the Department of Labour in terms of trying to find the old books of account. Perhaps the employer has quit his business, folded up, gone elsewhere, no records left, etc. It makes it a very difficult job even to determine whether the amount, in fact, is owing. So these are the two limitations that are included in this legislation. I think those are the major principles of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I move the Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this Act as certainly a step forward, and in fact in two of the sections, a great step forward, and I think the Minister should be congratulated on that.

The principles involved are many, and the interesting thing, just before I get into some of the details of those principles, was that when we caucused this Bill, Mr. Speaker, we found that a number of M.L.A.'s on this side of the House had got differing stories to tell as far as their successes in previous years over dealing with the Department of Labour on this business of Payment of Wages Act. I, for one, found that on the two occasions that I had been there I had some success. Others had not had so much success. I think perhaps this Act may, indeed, strengthen the whole situation and, in fact, may see an end to the difference of experience that M.L.A.'s find when they go into the Department for help on constituents' problems regarding the Payment of Wages Act. So that was rather interesting when we did discuss this Bill in caucus.

I certainly think that the inclusion of a deceased employer, the provisions regarding liens, the provisions contained in section 9, are excellent. I am going to ask the Attorney-General if he will, when he winds up the debate, however, or at possibly some future date, to deal with the question of other Acts of Parliament. He mentioned the Bank Act, and I think that's going to be rather important, Mr. Attorney-General. A lot of people are going to read this Bill, a lot of people are going to read specifically that their wages have priority, and I think that maybe you should tackle this thing as soon as possible to get some sort of ruling that we may use, because I don't know how many times M.L.A.'s have phoned up, particularly in the field of small contractors, regarding this problem, and it's as well for us to know that answer before we may mislead anyone.

There are, however, two things in the Bill that we cannot support, and the Attorney-General won't be surprised at that,

[ Page 633 ]

because he's already seen the amendments on the Order Paper. One is, of course, the exclusions; we cannot understand why there are the exclusions contained in the Bill. We know, south of the River particularly, the kind of things that are going on in horticulture, and I don't see in this day and age why those people are protected. I realize it's all part and parcel of other Acts, but I'm not so sure that it's fair to say that those that are included in one particular Act administered by the Department of Labour shouldn't be included in another, particularly when it comes down to something so basic as getting what he's entitled to, getting what he's entitled to. Certainly some of the records — I don't want to castigate the industry by any stretch of the imagination — but some of the wages that are paid and some of the risks that are undertaken by employees in the field of horticulture — I wish the Minister of Agriculture was here — are far too great, far too great. I wish the Minister would deal with that, and we'll have an opportunity of perhaps voting on it in Committee.

Secondly, I'm not so sure that the time elements that the Minister has introduced are really satisfactory, and here again, sufficient to the day, let me say that amendments have been placed on the Order Paper already. In short, Mr. Speaker, we want to congratulate the Minister on two particularly forward looking steps, and we will support this Bill.

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

MR. LA WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the Bill is certainly a move forward and I join with the member from Surrey in expressing surprise that, having moved this far with the Bill, the Minister would have continued to exempt people from the benefits under this Act. It seems to me that in this day and age an employee is an employee, and if an employee needs the assistance of the officials of the Department of Labour in a matter as important to him as securing the payment of his wages, that the fact that he may be in one particular occupation should not be a disadvantage to him. Why you single out the P.G.E., why you single out employees who are in professional columns, farm labourers, I just don't know, and it seemed illogical that you wouldn't extend the rights, which are worthwhile rights, to all employees.

I think, if I may point for a moment to one particular section, section 10, quite obviously the Board has the right to facilitate the payment of wages to the beneficiary, the heirs, of a deceased employee. This is a step forward, because too often, for the collection of small amounts of money, some heirs are being put to some unnecessary expense, but this cuts through that and I am pleased to see this kind of move, and I would really hope that the Minister could explain and perhaps reconsider the exclusions that he has in section 2.

I am a bit concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the extension of the rights of assignment of wages. Now, the Department may have found that it was involved in a lot of extra work in approving assignments which were permitted under the existing legislation, but in many cases I have had occasion to be concerned as to the way in which assignments of wages have been taken by finance companies, people who are prepared to extend credit, and it has been a brake, a protection to employees, when they've been obliged to seek the permission of the Department in order to allow these assignments to go forward. It's sort of given people a second pause so that they could reconsider the advisability of the move. It seems to me that the extension of it may cut down the amount of work which the Department is faced, but it scarcely seems to be the kind of protection that one would expect to wage earners.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about one aspect of this Bill which, in my view, is becoming all too prevalent in the legislation that is being presented to this House. That is found in section 20 of the Bill, and it is a matter of principle, whereby information which is obtained by Departments of Government are not open to inspection by any person or any Court. I really wonder at the non-disclosure provisions which are finding their way into our legislation. Strangely enough, we find that in this particular Bill, offences for breach of the Bill are punishable under the Summary Convictions Act. I would wonder how a conviction can be obtained properly if the information obtained by the Department as a result of its inspections are not open to examination by that Court. There seems to be some conflict.

We also find in this Act an extension of the regulatory power of Government and, indeed, an extension of the status which is given to regulations. No one misunderstands the need in our legislation for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to produce regulations. It's essential to the proper working of many of the laws which are upon our statute books. But we find now, in this particular Bill, such regulations are deemed to be part of this Act and have the force of law as such, and therefore, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is beginning to discharge a function which is legislative in nature.

I would be concerned to know, when the Attorney-General closes the debate, if he would deem a regulation which receives the status of legislation can be changed by regulation, or whether those regulations must be changed by amendment to the Act. I think this is an attitude, a growing one, which we must guard against, and I would welcome some comments from the Attorney-General in that regard.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support both the previous speakers, one with regard to what the member from Vancouver–Howe Sound said with regard to section 20, and what my colleague, the member from Surrey, has said with regard to agricultural and other workers.

One of the things that we have found in studying Medicare, is that while men and women employed in that profession, as professional people may receive some of the highest wages on the continent, but very often the tradesmen and tradeswomen that are working under them receive far lower than the going rate for their trade, for their work. Now why those people should be excluded from the protection of this legislation I do not know. If there is any group in this Province which have trouble getting slips with their pay, collecting over-time and back money, it is the agricultural workers, and they too, as has been mentioned, are excluded.

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, there is a case that you and I discussed under your labour estimates. Just today in the mail I've received a letter from one of the parties involved, stating that their problem goes back until last April, which will soon be a year. Now, according to this legislation, and the six months clause, that we would assist them for the past six months, the immediate six months but not for the year. This party has quit, and is now possibly a little freer to kick up a bit of fuss and go after

[ Page 634 ]

the overtime, and hordes that have not been paid them, so I to would like to suggest that the six months clause be extended to at least one year. With regard to the letter that I'm referring to, and which I just received this afternoon, I plan on photostating it and letting you have a copy, because the overtime in that particular area has not been paid in full.

Now, I'd like to conclude with one question, through you to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. How quickly do you feel that the Department of Labour will be able to act when a mill or an industrial operation goes bankrupt? I'm thinking more of little gypo logging or two by four milling concern, possibly in the interior, where he says, "Well, we just have no money, we can't pay you." I had a case just about the time we came down here. A chap came to me and said, "We didn't get our pay Friday. The boss says he has no money." I said, "Well have you been to Industrial Relations, Labour Relations?" and he said, "Yes, but they told me to hire a lawyer, that we can't act quickly enough in this particular case. You get yourself a lawyer." …And, while my learned friend thinks that's a good idea, but the chap probably couldn't afford to pay law and court presentation on one week's 'wages, so he came to me…Oh, he really got action….

But really, the Department of Labour, through the Department of Industrial Relations, I believe should be able to act as quickly as possible to step in. If this legislation is going to get priority, as it appears that it will, over other people that would have claims on bankrupt concerns we have to be prepared to act quickly and I'd like to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister, how quickly does he feel that the Department could and would act to protect a man who has, wages coming, to protect him over and above other claims?

HON. L.R. PETERSON: As quickly as possible.

MR. HARTLEY: That doesn't answer my question. I guess I'll have to call my learned friends to get in there and place an order of restraint to protect other groups coming ahead, particularly with this section 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, one section of the Bill, I'm not going to deal with sections, but one principle of this Bill that I'd like to voice my objection to, and that is the fact that you have left a number of the employees throughout the Province outside of this protection. I don't think that any workers in the Province should be passed over or placed in the position of second class citizens in this regard.

It's my opinion that in this section 2, that it should cover all workers in the Province and not leave them out at all, because a person that works on a farm or works on horticulture or works other places, and I see where you can exempt any class of employer that you wish throughout the Province in subsection 2, and I feel that anyone that is working for wages should have this protection. Because if he hasn't got this protection it's just as difficult for him to get along if he isn't paid his wages as for anyone else. Why we should say to some employers, you don't have to live up to this Act, and other employers you have to, or to say to some workers you haven't got this protection, and to others that you have this protection in regard to the payment of wages.

It just doesn't seem to me — it's not a complete story, and when you are amending this Bill or bringing in this new Bill in regard to the payment of wages, I can't understand why you didn't go all the way and cover all the workers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 13 be now read a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 14, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 14, An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this Bill represents a continuing endeavour on our part to update and to streamline the procedures throughout the Department, and many of these individual amendments contained in this Bill are for that purpose, and can perhaps be best dealt with in committee when we can deal with it section by section. But such things as the use of the two and a half foot hand seal that we are still obliged to use in the Court Registry, we're finding other means; and the filing of examinations for discovery as part of the Court records, whether they're introduced into evidence or not. This is the type of thing that some of these statutory provisions are seeking to eliminate. Also, to simplify and streamline the various methods by which the citizenry can reach the Court. There is one amendment dealing with that, and I would hope that that will be but a first step, that we might be able to make further progress in that respect as well. I move the Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well I think, Mr. Speaker, that it should be known that the lawyers in this House will rise and congratulate the Attorney-General on taking a step which will make the Supreme Court of this Province more available to the citizens of this Province, and will do anything to cut out the procedures which may have hampered the proper discharge of the business of that Court.

With respect to the seal, I would hope that the Attorney-General would indicate that the seal would continue to be used upon. documents in the form of judgments or orders, because it would be, I think, wrong to use a stamp which might either be obliterated over the passage of time, or indeed which might be capable of being forged. But the seal, I would suspect, is not for documents of that kind.

I notice that the Attorney-General takes unto himself the right to add some other words, and I would hope maybe the Attorney-General would indicate what other words he has in mind to add after the word "Columbia" in the second line of section 8. Like "beautiful" or….

MR. PETERSON: You wouldn't object to "beautiful"? (laughter)

I MR. WILLIAMS: …and certainly we will be able to debate section by section when we get into committee, but I would like the Attorney-General perhaps to ask some of his staff to consider section 4 of this Bill because he might want to reconsider it. As I read the section which is being repealed by section 4, may have an effect on section 73 as well, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, and section 73 is one which deals with the certification of transcripts which have

[ Page 635 ]

been taken by the official reporter. I would think it unfortunate if we lost the right to get certification by repealing a section which would have an effect on other .sections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I hope in committee the Attorney-General will tell us why, when a transcript of the proceedings is made by a court reporter, whether it be in discovery, or trial, or part of a witness's testimony, that should not be filed in the Court Registry carbon copy of it. Because that makes it available (a) to the judge, (b) to the other parties, or to the public. I think, otherwise, it gives an advantage to the persons willing to pay for this transcript, but on the other hand his opponent, who may not have the money to spend in the course of the trial, can't look at the Court copy and see just what evidence the one side has caused to be transcribed, and so forth. There may be an answer, but I think that when one side asks for any part of the evidence to be typed out, I think it should be filed in the Court Registry, and I haven't heard anything that would change my mind up to the present time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby~Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: I think, in the main, we support the second reading of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I do have similar concern over the exclusion of section 72 of the Act. Taking that out, it's going to deprive, presumably, parties from requiring court reporters to make extended notes and transcripts, if you read that section that is being excluded, and it sets out the duties of the official reporter in that section, which is hereby to be repealed. That seems to be the major point in the Bill. The other aspects of it are somewhat in the nature of housekeeping, and certainly are welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: I'll certainly check the point that has been raised about the inter-relation of section 4 with section 73. But in terms of the transcripts and the filing of them in the Registry, the current procedure is that when there is an examination for discovery the original is filed with the Registrar, becomes part of the file, even though none of it may be used or read into the record at the trial itself. From our point of view, from an administrative point of view, this of course creates, you can imagine the bulky files that this builds up in the Registry and that's one reason for eliminating it, but I think the other and perhaps the more serious reservation I have is that this should not be available to the judge and everyone else until it is read in, and….

AN HON. MEMBER: It would form part of the record afterwards.

MR. PETERSON: Well, what is read in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only after it's been read in.

MR. PETERSON: Yes, yes. My understanding is that it applies to the examination for discovery but I will check that point and the inter-relationship of those sections.

My understanding of the current procedure is that these transcripts from examination for discovery are part — the original of those do go into the file — and that's what we are trying to eliminate. I will check the amendment, and if we haven't done so we will want to propose an amendment in that respect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 14 be now read a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 15, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 15, Jury Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the main proposals of this Bill are to narrow the exemptions for persons who can be called for jury duty, and also to simplify the procedure that we are using and have used in the past in terms of the selection of jurors.

Under the new list for selection of jurors the Act provides for a broader social base for persons that can be required to serve on a jury. Basically, every person who is lawfully registered as a voter at elections for members of the Legislative Assembly is qualified and is liable to serve as a juror, unless specifically exempted by the Act, and the list of exemptions is much smaller than that which had obtained heretofore. A person, of course, can always apply even though they are not included in those exempted lists. They can always apply for exemptions on the ground of illness or hardship when they are summonsed for jury duty, and this will often be the case.

The Act also provides for a simplified method of selection of jurors by sheriff. Under the old system, in a series of complicated administrative steps, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the Provincial Assessor for the area, and the Sheriff, were responsible for the selection of juries to appear at the Assizes throughout the Province, and now we will, in this new Act, provide the Sheriff with the responsibility of the selection of jurors.

Recent studies were conducted by the various Bar Association groups, including the Criminal Justice Committee of the British Columbia section of the Canadian Bar, and the Law Society itself. In addition, we have had studies conducted within our own Department in consultation with our Sheriff in the Province, and all of these studies have resulted in the provisions which now appear in the new Jury Act, and I move that the Bill be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

MR. G. B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the principle of the Bill.

There is one item, though, that I would like to again redirect to the attention of the Government, and the Attorney-General in specific, through you, Mr. Speaker, and that is this, that we all recognize the fact that it is the responsibility of a citizen to serve upon a jury, but in many cases the duty is far, far from pleasant. I think for this particular task, these people who are jurors in the Province should be entitled to receive at least equal treatment, and at

[ Page 636 ]

the present time under the new Bill, Mr. Speaker, there is provision made for recompense for the jurors in civil trials and jurors in criminal trials may receive the $10 expenses which is an increase, plus any necessary lodging or out-of pocket expenses, and I think this is a good thing.

But the point that I find somewhat disquieting, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that coroner's jurors are once again left in the cold, and I think that they should be included within the provisions of this Jury Act. There are a number of coroner's juries that have to sit throughout each and every year, and their job is, I think, somewhat particularly unpleasant. It takes a great deal of time and there is no logical reason that I know of why they should not be included to receive some kind of remuneration.

If the Attorney-General would take a look at the Orders of the Day, I have proposed, on Page 17, an amendment to include the coroner's juries, and if the Government sees fit to do that, of course I am most delighted to withdraw the amendment, but I think it is high time. I spoke about this last year, and as a matter of fact the year before. This point has been raised to me by a number of coroners in the Province of British Columbia. If you are selected, or requested, to attend a coroner's jury you've just got to go, the same way as any other jury. These people take their day off work, sometimes their two and three days off work, and there is no reason why they should not receive exactly the same type of recompense that a civil juror does or a criminal juror.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G. H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I think that most of the Bill is a useful attempt to streamline some of the procedure. I point out a number of problems that result from this, from the difficulties in administering justice with juries. One of the problems is that people are really sometimes inclined to avoid the voters list for fear that they will be placed on a jury. It is an excellent idea that they not be summonsed once in more than two years, I should say in less than two years, because it is not too great an act of citizenship to serve on a jury once in every two years. As it works in practice it is seldom anything like that often that one serves on a jury, so I think that is a useful provision. I think it is also a useful provision to allow the Court the discretion to decide whether a person shall serve on a jury, particularly I note under section 28 of the Act. I think that is a useful provision.

But I want to say another thing that I wish the Government would take a good look at. Most jurors may serve for less than ten days and therefore some compensation should be made for the loss that they have in wages, and they often lose wages in some occupations. Or if they are self-employed like a plumber or a painter or a small shopkeeper who has no help, they lose so much that the $10 a day proposed will not go to pay the rent for the lost time, let alone feed their families. I'll give you an example, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman. There was a trial of five people which lasted 44 days in the New Westminster Assizes a few years ago. Several of those people in those 44 days went broke. One of them lost his shop, had to close it up, he couldn't pay the rent. There was no way that the Crown was about to compensate him for the loss of his shop in doing his duty as a citizen. He had a small repair shop, radios and television sets, he just couldn't carry on, and you don't get much chance to make other arrangements. If you can't find somebody to take your place to keep your shop going, what do you do. It's all right if you've got a big hardware store, you can manage that, you don't have to be there all the time to operate it. But I am going to suggest that the Attorney-General take a good look at this problem of all those jury trials that last more than ten days, that the juror's pay or remuneration or really compensation be increased to $25 a day and expenses. That's what we get here, and it is little enough for some people who are forced to stay in town when they live some distance away, pay practically all their living expenses, feed their family at home, and you must remember we are not just talking about the metropolitan areas. If the jury trials are out in the country and the juror list is drawn from even hundreds of miles away, in certain counties. So I would suggest that we give serious consideration for this.

It isn't so great a hardship in too many cases, but just enough cases that it is a tragedy to the people involved. Look at the Robert Sommers trial, that lasted over 50 days. There was this assize trial of 44 days recently, and there have been several that I know of, and it is usually one or two a year, lengthy trials. Those juries are condemned just as surely as the accused to a punishment, a penalty, quite an unjustified and unearned penalty, by operation of the Jury Act, and it is,not too late to consider that. I am not saying that a person who serves for ten days or less should not do his duty by his country as every juryman must and should, I am saying that when the state demands that a man give up his occupation to serve as a citizen, and when it starts to cost that man more than his fellow citizen, then we are being unjust to him, and I urge the Government to give that thought.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have just two comments to make about this Act, rushing in to a legal matter, but nevertheless I have long felt that whilst I agree with the Attorney-General and other speakers that the act of being a juror is a responsibility to be taken very seriously, and certainly it is incumbent upon everybody to play his part in this whole business of justice and I agree with the limitation of the exceptions, I do believe, however, there is room in this list of exceptions for one which could be headed "Conscientious Objection." It seems to me that whilst the Attorney-General says that you can make application, presumably to the Judge, for illness and hardship, there is no room, according to what the Attorney-General said, to make an appeal to the Judge on the question of conscientious objection.

I feel that there should be some room for those in society who feel so strongly about a law or about a regulation that no matter how compelling the evidence would be, that they would have no alternative but to find and pass a verdict of innocence, because they believe the law is completely wrong, and I believe we should make some room for those people. I think it should be rigidly looked at, I don't think it should be anything that could possibly be termed escaping one's responsibility. But nevertheless, I do feel that as Governments are growing bigger, as the impact of law is growing on every citizen, with the spread of the quasi judicial boards and groups and committees in society today, ignorance of which, disobedience to which, could eventually lead you to into the Courts, there should be some recourse for the conscientious objection on behalf of one who is called to be a juror. I would ask the Attorney-General to perhaps comment on that

[ Page 637 ]

point of view, and to suggest that that point of view could be accommodated in this Act.

The second point I would like to make whilst I appreciate the views of some of the lawyers that have spoken already regarding jury fees, I am one who, in his ignorance, has always felt that the price of justice is sometimes very, very expensive indeed, Mr. Speaker. Very expensive, and it could be said, I think, that there could be one law for the rich and one law for the poor. And certainly when I see this move to increase jurors' fees, whilst I can see the validity of the argument, when I know that sometimes it costs so much money to start to go to law, and you may finish up by paying $25 a day for his expenses, that's something I can't quite follow, that is something I can't quite support. It seems to me that if the Attorney-General is indeed interested in looking at the whole question of jurors' fees, that he might want to produce within this Act and on the jury business altogether, payments to the jury by the State, and certainly take it out of the questions of the parties involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Civil trials, too?

MR. HALL: That's right. It seems to me that the question of going to law is already far too expensive to countenance any increase in that direction. Certainly I feel that those two points made, with respect, by a non-lawyer — one, a conscientious objection, and the other, on the point of trying to reduce the cost of going to law — could be dealt with by the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, too, that I think the amount given to jurors is very low, regardless of the fact that you are required to do this as a duty of a citizen. There are many working people that have also got a duty to look after their family, and if the trial lasts very long it creates a real hardship on a family who today, if they are only receiving $10 a day, compared to what probably they are receiving on their job of $25 or $30 per day, and I think that this is small.

I want to agree with the honourable member for Surrey that the cost of the jurors should not be loaded upon the individual, because if he chose a Judge instead of a jury trial it would be paid by the state, and in this case it would compel many people to allow their case to go before a Judge rather than before a jury, because they realize it is going to cost them a lot of money, and this I do not think is what we really intend by justice. If we are going to have really justice, then it should be an equal opportunity on the individual as to whether they wish to be heard before a jury or before a Judge, and I feel that the cost of this should not be loaded upon the individual. It should be paid for by the state.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye, Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 16, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 16. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is an Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act.

I think the House is aware that in recent years there has been tremendous growth in consumer solicitation through the direct mail method which ensures that companies, in trying to effect this, they always reach consumers, or potential consumers. I think, too, in the manner in which this direct mail solicitation is conducted, in a very clever manner, it sometimes imposes at least as far as the individual recipient is concerned, an obligation to accept the goods and forward payment to the company.

Now, when we have been discussing some other legislation, constitutional issues have been raised, and in this legislation as well, and I would have to acknowledge that we don't have any jurisdiction over what is sent in the mails in the Province of British Columbia. But we are trying to tackle the problem in another way, by a remedy dealing with the contractual assets of goods or credit cards that are received by individuals in this manner. Unless there has been an express acknowledgment in writing that the recipient intends to accept the item, whether it is a credit card or the goods in question, and unless this is done, then there is no contract and the recipient is then under no obligation to the sender.

I think, as far as credit cards are concerned, that this action on our part should have some effect, at least, against the inflation that we have all been complaining about, because I would hope that people would give serious thought before acquiring new credit cards. Of course this is a matter that is also being dealt with at this time by the Federal Government, but whether it is unsolicited goods, or credit cards, people who distribute these without being requested to do so, will do so at their peril, and there will be no contract unless there is an express acknowledgement by the recipient. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second Reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 17. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in a continuing endeavour to update procedures within the various branches of the Attorney-General's Department, we intend, through this Bill, to streamline some of the procedures within the Land Registry, and this Bill provides certain amendments to the Land Registry Act. We hope that these amendments will help us to provide the public with a speedier service in the Land Registry Office, and simplify some of the procedures which we have been following in the past, as well as meeting the work load somewhat of the staff, with some of these changes that we are making of enabling them to devote more of their hours at work to the service of the people.

I am not going to take the time to detail the various principles contained in the Bill, because they are all amendments to existing sections of the Land Registry Act, and I think they can be best dealt with in Committee of the Whole. I move the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. Are you ready

[ Page 638 ]

for the question? The Honourable the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Land Registry Act is a very precise document and one which requires a great deal of experience in order to follow. But there is in this Act a matter which I think I should raise with the Attorney-General and the House. The proposed change in section 4, under the section which will be number 24 (d), I think is a step in the right direction, and that's a provision which will preclude the use of covenants which restrict sale, ownership or occupation….

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member should not be referring to sections. Let him discuss the principle of the Bill and to discuss the sections, of course, in the Committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I intend to do that, Mr. Speaker, but I was referring to this section because it I believe, is a matter of principle, as to whether or not any Government official should be permitted to receive any document for registration which would involve even the suggestion of a restriction on the ownership of land, resulting from creed, colour, nationality or ancestry.

It would seem to me that the principle would be better served if the Land Registry Act were drawn in such a way as to refuse altogether any document which imparted any such suggestion. We have had in this Province over these many years, a refusal on the part of many registrars of title to accept those covenants and in many cases, for instance in Vancouver, they have already been struck from the titles. But the documents are still being produced which smack of this kind of restriction, and I think that the Act could prevent this altogether and it would be a worthwhile and far-reaching step, and put a stop to this once and for all.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: With regard to part of the honourable member's observation, the difficulty would be that there are already registered in the Land Registry Office, documents which contain such offensive restrictive provisions. To deal with those and any others that may be registered, to have to read the entire document before accepting it for registration to determine whether there is any restrictions on the grounds of race, colour and creed, would do just the opposite of what we are trying to do, and that is to streamline and to speed up the service, and so that is why we have framed the proposal, the principle that you have been discussing, in the way in which we have.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 17 be read a second time. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 18, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Constitution Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 18. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, this Bill purports to amend the Constitution Act. There are two principles involved in the Bill which are clearly outlined in the explanatory note, so I feel absolutely positive that every member has read this Bill and is familiar with it. I move that it be read a second time now.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion, are you ready for the question? The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my personal view on this matter. Customarily these changes in indemnities to members pass through with very little discussion, and under ordinary circumstances they would certainly pass without my contributing to the debate. But when the call for restraint came last fall, I took it seriously, and I don't think it is much to the credit of this Assembly that we undertake measures which increase everyone's cost of living in British Columbia. First of all, with the increase in bus rates, then an increase in insurance rates….

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Would the honourable member confine his remarks to this particular Bill?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to relate it to a lack of restraint.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member must discuss the principle of this Bill.

MR. McGEER: Yes, fine Mr. Speaker. Well I was just coming to the point that we can't expect others to observe restraint, in my view, unless we are prepared to observe restraint ourselves. For a 25 per cent increase to come along, coupled with all these other measures, seems to me untimely. I am not by this suggesting that the stipend is not in order, because for Cabinet Ministers who carry so much responsibility, certainly the amounts provided for are not excessive. But on the other hand, only last Friday, the Minister of Finance was calling on British Columbians to show restraint, and I think if we expect to have people demonstrating restraint in this Province, that we have to be prepared to observe that ourselves.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary-minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 19, Mr. Speaker. (Corrections Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 19. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Bill No. 19, Mr. Speaker, is a new Corrections Act, and the emphasis in this legislation is, as the name of the Bill implies, is on corrections.

All existing legislation will be brought under the umbrella of this one Act, and its intention is to create an integrated correction service in the Province to provide for the continuity of rehabilitative services between the correctional centres and the supervision in the communities. You will find in the Bill the references to the institutions that we now have in the Province, for instance, changing the terminology, the name of Provincial gaols to correctional centres, and as the name change implies, this means a complete organizing of correctional services in the Province.

[ Page 639 ]

I am advised that with the organization and the provisions that are found in this Bill, British Columbia will have the most progressive legislation on the subject in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saskatchewan has.

MR. PETERSON: …Well, that is not the advice of my officials, in any event. We're providing for a flexible type of programme which will enable a prisoner to request leave for medical, educational, or humanitarian reasons. At the discretion of the director, leave may be granted on these grounds, with or without an escort. In addition, inmates can seek gainful employment under work-release programming which enables an inmate to earn monies, and under the guidance of the Warden of the centre, use these wages to earn the dependents are provided for while he is serving sentence, rather than have any of the monies used for other purposes.

The emphasis in the legislation will be primarily on dealing with these people who violate the law, who come in conflict with the law, dealing with them in the community, rather than in centralized institutions. You will observe the probation provision comes first in the statute and comes first in our thinking, because we want to deal with as many of the offenders as possible on probation, in the community, rather than in some institution. Four years ago, we had as many people in our gaols as on probation, and now we have about three times as many on probation as in gaol, so it has just reversed completely the situation in that short period of time, and a much greater use of probation than we have had before.

We are also in the course of providing, and which is in a sense authorized by this new legislation, providing the back up resources for probation such as the Porteau Cove type of training which we hope to put on a year round basis rather than just on the summer programme that it is now on, at least on the week-ends all year round, and this is the search and leadership training programme that's operated at Porteau Cove. The similar type of training on the Island now at Metchosin Ranch, and we hope to get that in operation, and then as well as the back-up resources for probation, where they do require some kind of confinement, we're trying to provide as many alternatives as possible to the traditional method of the maximum security type of institution.

We have developed short, intensive care training programmes for young adult offenders. We have two new camps now doing this type of training, about 300 adults a year. Then, of course, we have the forestry and farm programme. We are in the process now of phasing out the farm aspect of the Oakalla Prison Farm, but we are developing a new one at Prince George in this respect. At the same time, we are phasing out one of our forestry camps of taking the leadership training that's on the Island now and moving that over into one of the Chilliwack camps. We will be closing out the Clearwater Camp up in that area, and developing another one in the Shuswap area. This is a type of on-going programme that is provided for in this kind of legislation.

The Board of Parole is also established now in the same statute, and allows for an effective direction and control of those who were released on parole. I think the major emphasis — there's much more that one could say, especially if you go beyond the bounds of the legislation and deal with each of the regions and the correctional centres that will be established pursuant to the Act, but I think this could be classified as modern-day legislation.

While I gather there may be some dispute as to whether it is the best in Canada, it certainly is much better than any we have had in the Province of British Columbia before, and I am very pleased to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I should give everybody a bit of a warning, I suppose, that I intend to speak at length, and for those who want to get coffee, this is the chance to escape, since I have not spoken on this subject under the Attorney-General's Estimates, knowing that this Bill was on the Order Paper.

I am going to be critical, Mr. Attorney-General, but the criticism is offered in very good spirit and with a sense of charity. The praise is offered with a sense of wonder why it took so long, and the suggestions are given on the same basis that I have given suggestions before in the House. That is, I hope they are implemented over the long haul.

This is not, in my opinion, the most progressive legislation on the corrections in Canada. The Liberal Government of Saskatchewan now has the gold star in this field….

AN HON. MEMBER: What about highways?

MR. BARRETT: …They are pretty good on highways. They are pretty good in gaol, too. I don't know about the Government in gaol, but they are pretty good on gaols, too.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the concepts in this particular legislation is the business of day parole. The Government of Saskatchewan has taken a Bill introduced in this House by an honourable member on a number of occasions, and passed word for word, some sections of it in Saskatchewan, as exactly as that honourable member introduced in this House. I don't want to give you that honourable member's name, but he is a very good friend of mine, and he got it from the State of Wisconsin.

I recall, Mr. Chairman, when I first talked of the day parole concept in this House, and introduced a Bill to that effect, the former Attorney-General said, that it's 40 years ahead of its time. Some of you who were in the House at that time will recall that it was six years ago. The former Attorney-General said it was 40 years ahead of its time, and I got up and I pointed out to the Attorney-General at that time that it has been used in Wisconsin for 40 years prior to the introduction in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this a "Yours truly," again?

MR. BARRETT: No, I won't take credit for a good idea that's been operating for 46 years now in Wisconsin.

But to get to that point very quickly, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has not really grasped the importance of when the parole should be given. Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Attorney-General that gaol unexperienced has a value in terms of being a deterrent psychologically to the offender. Before a person goes to gaol there is a fear of confinement and there is a fear of association inside such an institution that is imaginary and not very real. Once a person goes to gaol, Mr. Speaker, the greatest danger to the community in placing that person in gaol is that the inmate becomes institutionalized. When an offender goes to gaol, Mr. Speaker, he is given three meals a day, a bed to sleep in, and someone to complain to. And you always know who to complain to,

[ Page 640 ]

Mr. Speaker, because the ones in the uniform are the ones you complain to and complain about.

They're having some of their own complaints right now, Mr. Speaker. I understand that they're even taking a strike vote amongst the staff at Oakalla, but that's another matter.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you a description of what I'm trying to say in terms of redefining the thrust of this Bill. Under the present legislation as we have in front of us, a young man who steals $50 is brought to Court and, once appearing in Court, goes through a mysterious series of experiences that have little relationship to the actual commitment of the crime or any understanding that he may or may not have of the process.

Let us imagine, Mr. Speaker, that you were walking down the street, someone hits you over the head and steals $50, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, it never happens to you. But if such a thing did occur, Mr. Speaker — it was after the Session was over and the Speaker had $50 left — unlike the member from Point Grey who will be broke after the Session because he's going to return all his money to the Crown. (applause) Anyway, the Speaker will be hit on the head — because that's what an honourable member would do after that kind of speech — but anyway, you're hit on the head and you lose $50, and you've had, just before you were hit, a glimpse of the man who hit you.

A man is apprehended, arrested and brought into Court, Mr. Speaker, and you are brought into Court or the victim is brought into Court and asked to identify the offender. Now up to now the victim has lost $50, he's losing a day's salary by appearing in Court to testify as to the guilt or innocence of the offender, and the State has incurred a great deal of cost in apprehending the offender and bringing him to Court and the Speaker, or the victim that is, may have a sore head and have incurred hospital bills because of that sore head. No one can accuse our Speaker of being a sorehead, and that's not the point, Mr. Speaker. But after incurring a loss of $50, and a sore head and a loss of a day's wages to come into Court, he stands up in Court and the Judge will ask, "Can you identify the offender?" and at that point the victim will say, "Yes, that is the man who hit me on the head and stole my $50."

Now I'm giving you a very simplified version of what goes on in the Court in the process of the offender. At this point the Judge may say, "I find you guilty, young man and we'll come to your sentencing in a moment." But the victim then stands up and says, "Your Honour, I'd like my $50 back." And he's told that's a matter for civil suit. "Well, I'm out $50, I'd like to get my $50 back now, and I want it back now." The Judge will rap the gavel and say, "Be quiet, or I'll fine you for contempt of Court." So here you have the experience of the man coming into Court, he's out $50, he's got a sore head and he's out a day's wages and he wants his money back and he's told, that's in a different Court. Exit the victim. Exit the victim. From then on he learns to carry cheques in his pocket rather than cash, and to have a negative experience in terms of direct responsibility of the Courts and the State and the offender. The victim will leave with a burnp on the head and a bad experience in Court.

Now the offender. He comes into Court and the Judge says to him, he may say this to him, as this happens on many occasions, "We've had too many people hit over the head lately, we have to make an example of you, the offender, and we're going to sentence you to six months." Now the offender, this may have been his first offence, he's not responsible for everybody else that's burnped on the head, he's responsible for one, but he's the one who got caught. You see these little captions in the newspaper, the Judge stating, through you, Mr. Speaker, "We have to make an example of you to stop this kind of thing, therefore you're getting six months."

Let us look at the offender. He may be a married man with three or four children. He may be earning a marginal income, but as soon as he goes to gaol, Mr. Speaker, then we begin to punish the taxpayer. He goes to gaol and he starts the six months and his wife and children then go on welfare, but we're sending him to gaol to punish him, Mr. Speaker. But you don't send a man to gaol to punish him by giving him three meals a day and a bed to sleep in when his wife is outside, and the rest of the community points to the children in that family, and the kids say to each other, "Where is your old man?" And the kids say, "My old man is in the bucket." Who is getting punished, Mr. Speaker? It is the children of the offender and the wife of the offender. They become the victims of the offence as well as the original victim, and the taxpayer becomes the victim as well. Because he goes in gaol and we're paying a great deal of money to keep him in gaol.

While he's in gaol what are we doing for him? Well, in Oakalla he will learn how to make himself useless at the end of a shovel. There's no more ground in all of British Columbia that has been dug up and refilled more often than the farmyards at Oakalla. You would think that there was a placer mine operation going on there in secret…a strip mining, as the member suggests.

AN HON. MEMBER: Reclamation.

MR. BARRETT: Reclamation, as another member suggests. It makes work, Mr. Speaker, that has nothing at the end of it other than putting in a day and the guard can stand by you in the pouring rain and you just do your thing.

Meanwhile you get in with a whole new group of associates. Unlike the company we have here in this House, Mr. Speaker, there are some people who drink, who take dope, and commit petty crimes, and have learned the tools of petty crime inside the institution, Mr. Speaker. In many instances the first experience that a first offender has with drugs is inside gaol. Research has indicated that young men who are awaiting trial in the West Wing of Oakalla have had their first contact with high drugs while in that institution. I'm not blaming the Attorney-General, I'm not blaming the former Attorney-General. As good as any gaol is, Mr. Speaker, drugs will come in, and I'm not accusing the staff, drugs will come in, in many, many ways that you can't possibly imagine.

I remember when I worked at that institution, Mr. Speaker, we used to do routine checks for what was known as brews. The inmates would devise methods of making their own liquor, and I worked at the young offenders unit and we found a group of thirteen inmates drunk, Mr. Speaker, absolutely drunk, and we could not find out who was bringing in the alcohol, and it was not being brought in by staff, Mr. Speaker, it took us weeks to find out why one toilet was broken. It had an overhanging flush, and it was broken for a long time, and we found by climbing up on top and lifting the lid of this flush a whole mash of raisins, and I won't tell the members of this House the rest of the ingredients because, I don't want any threat to the Liquor Control Board, but I want to tell you it was potent, Mr. Speaker, and it was hard to believe.

[ Page 641 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You tried it?

MR. BARRETT: Only in service to the Crown, Mr. Speaker, only in service to the Crown, and that is not why I was dismissed from my job, Mr. Attorney-General,

AN HON. MEMBER: This ad is not displayed by the Liquor Control Board.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. But despite the humour, Mr. Speaker, what even upset me most, is that all of the young men drinking this were under the legal age to drink, and where were they drinking? Not in a beer parlour, not buying it in a liquor store, but drinking it in gaol, Mr. Speaker, because that's where they learned how to make booze. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is only a natural outcome of bringing together these kind of people under that kind of circumstance, because the name of the game of the institution is to beat the system. That's what it's all about. You're there to beat the system, not to be rehabilitated, and you have no responsibility to get your own meals, to wash your own clothing, or to pay for any of the things that you've caused to get in there. I found that one of the most fascinating things of an institution, Mr. Speaker, is that they even ring a bell when it's time to eat. No matter how good life has been for the rest of us, we've never had the bell ring for us to go and eat.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Cabinet have it twice a week.

MR. BARRETT: That's a morning tea break.

But the point is that the institution's rules crowd in on the offender, he is sheltered within the loving walls of that gaol, and they are loving walls, Mr. Speaker, because once a man goes to gaol we have found a very, very high percentage of people who return for the security of that gaol, because it does provide them with a measure of success in terms of meals, a bed, and someone to complain to.

I warned the members that I was going to be rather long, and I intend to go on a bit longer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this Bill takes one step toward avoiding this experience, and I applaud the Government for taking that one step. The Government is now saying in this Bill, that rather than have the man do the six months, some time after he's been in gaol for a little while, they are going to release him for a day or two or three days to go out to find a job or for an educational experience, or for humanitarian reasons. Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Attorney-General, through you, that having grasped this concept of releasing the prisoner while in gaol, it is my opinion that 70 per cent of the people now going to gaol in British Columbia can be administered under this concept before they get to gaol, Mr. Speaker. They don't quite fall into the category of having probation, but they do fall into the category of a programme, Mr. Speaker, that I have tried to press upon this Government for some time.

Let us go back to the beginning of my example. Let's go back to Court where the young man who was now found guilty of hitting the victim on the head and stealing $50. Let us say to that young man that he is to continue at his place of employment, that as part of his punishment he will pay back the $50 that he stole. Why not? Why shouldn't he pay back the money? He stole it. He should pay back the money. He should pay back the victim's loss of wages for the day, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you get an order for restitution?

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'll explain to you how this will be done. He will pay for the victim's sore head and he will pay…. Don't shake your head my friend, it is being done in Canada, it is being done in the Province of Saskatchewan based on the Huber law passed in Wisconsin some 45 years ago. The member from Vancouver-Burrard even supports me in this, he himself has said Oakalla has been a waste of time.

Now the next thing, Mr. Speaker, is to say to the offender, "You pay back the $50, you pay back the loss of time, and you pay back the medical damages. But you have been irresponsible and you have displayed a lack of ability to control yourself while on the outside." So this is what the State will do, Mr. Speaker. "We won't put you away in gaol, we will make you continue at work, but we will administer your wages, and come seven o'clock Friday night you go to gaol and you stay in gaol until six o'clock Monday morning." You take away his weekends, Mr. Speaker, you deprive him of the social and recreational time the gaol is supposed to deprive an offender of, but keep him outside in the community, meeting his responsibilities during the week.

AN HON. MEMBER: First offenders?

MR. BARRETT: First offenders. Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the consequences of this approach? I'd like to share some with you in terms of detail. During the weekend while he's in gaol, why should the State pay for his room and board? He must pay for his room and board while he's in gaol, $2.50 a day. Pay for his own room and board. He brought himself there, let him be directly connected with his own crime and his own responsibility.

During the weekend you set up a small institution, not centralized in the lower mainland of Vancouver, but a small, older home that need not be fenced, because an escape is not a reality in terms of the kind of pressure he's under. When he's in that small setting over the weekend, you apply your skilled staff to do what is commonly known in gaol, Mr. Speaker, as bugging him. Not with electronic devices, but you sit in a group therapy session and you say to this young fellow during his weekend in gaol, you look him right in the eye and say, "Hey Buddy, you've been spending eight weeks in here. What's your wife doing Saturday nights while you're in here?" Mr. Speaker, that creates anxiety, that creates anxiety. That's the kind of anxiety, that's the kind of questioning, that's the kind of grouper approach that distinguishes very, very quickly for this person exactly what he's faced with in terms of the kind of thing he's giving up outside. Mr. Speaker, you can laugh all you want….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's just plain cruelty.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is not the use of prison to punish, or to comfort? All right. I'm telling you that a group therapy session based on that approach has worked successfully in Sweden, in Denmark, in Norway, in France, and above all in Holland, Mr. Speaker, where I am giving a simplified interpretation of their whole concept of criminal law in Holland, the diminish responsibility concept, where you make the criminal responsible for his crime. Now, while he is working, his funds are administered…and you may not be ready for that, Mr. Attorney-General.

[ Page 642 ]

HON. L.R. PETERSON: I only take issue with the last part.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Well all right, deprive him of his home. Well, maybe I shouldn't discuss therapy techniques, it may be upsetting to this group. I don't want to raise any anxieties here, because a lot of us are away from home. But, that's not my intent, Mr. Speaker, and I'll speak to anyone privately in my professional capacity in this regard. Leaving aside the details of group therapy, Mr. Speaker, what I'm suggesting is that the offender be made directly responsible.

Now, when you place him in the institution for the weekend, what do you do in terms of finances? You can begin to close our centralized institutions. If I have to say it a hundred times again I'll say it a hundred times, Mr. Speaker, please, no more gaols constructed in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. We do not need any more gaols. We've got enough gaols in the Fraser Valley to keep us going for a long time.

Now, leaving that concept of weekend prisons, I want to talk about gaols. The Attorney-General refers here, in one particular section, about the use of Matsqui. Mr. Speaker, there were many disagreements I had with this Government in the past, but one thing the former Attorney-General and I agreed upon was that Matsqui was a waste of money, but I did not think…. I suppose I'm boring the members, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. BARRETT: One thing we agreed on was that the Matsqui drug institution would be a failure, and within five years it has proven that it is a failure. It is now officially declassified by the Federal Government as a drug centre, and the Matsqui institution no longer is confined to housing drug addicts. They're taking the general population out of the penitentiaries. So, if the Attorney-General is in need of additional gaol space I urge the Minister of Finance not to give him a nickel to build a gaol. Save your money. Build a hospital, build a school, but not another gaol. Take advantage of the offer made by the Federal Government to use their facilities or go into the camp facilities that are so useful.

In terms of some of the existing agencies, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Attorney-General that the Haney Correctional Institution be closed as a penal institution, and I'll tell you why. Because in this Act you are proposing no clear-cut design of sentencing, unless there is a clear-cut design of sentencing, the very expensive facilities at the Haney Correctional Institution are being wasted. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that it costs over $4,000 a year to keep a man in the Haney Correctional Institution, and let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that $4,000 is wasted per man, and I'll tell you why. The Haney Correctional Institution is designed to give a vocational training to offenders. What offenders? There are eleven vocational shops in that institution, ten of which require three years apprenticeship training on the outside, or more than two years apprenticeship training on the outside.

The only one of those shops that doesn't require that amount of training is the barber shop and, Mr. Speaker, as I've said in the past, we have trained barbers in the Haney Correctional Institution through every institution across Canada. Some of the best barbers in the St. Vincent de Paul, some of the best barbers in the Federal penitentiary system, some of the best barbers across Canada in the prisons are the ones we trained in Haney, Mr. Speaker, because when they left Haney, no work being done there to correct their psychological problems that brought them to gaol, they picked up a trade and they were valued as boarders in other gaols.

Mr. Speaker, I put this question to the Attorney-General under this particular Bill. How can, without proper sentencing, a man who is sentenced to the Haney Correctional Institution receive a complete vocational training? Under this Bill you cannot take into account some facts about this particular institution. The maximum sentence to that institution is two years. The average stay in that institution is nine months. There are 450 inmates in the institution itself, but there is only room in the shop for about 160. The average stay of any man in any shop is four months, Mr. Speaker. How can any inmate receive a vocational training that requires two years or three years? How can they receive that vocational training in four months in a shop?

Mr. Speaker, I even remember a case where we sat advising the parole board that the only way that this man could continue in his particular course was to either drive back into gaol after sentence was over, or else to go out and commit another crime so he could come back in and finish the course. As shocking as it may seem, Mr. Speaker, I will venture to state that less than 50 people have been qualified as tradesmen out of the Haney Correctional Institution since its opening day in 1957. I'm talking about journeymen carpenters, journeymen tinsmiths and journeymen auto mechanics that have been taught in those shops at Haney. The only journeymen that graduate regularly are barbers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what makes that whole experience even more incredible is that the institution was built on the concept of somehow you could cure psychological problems by giving it a vocational training, and you can't do that, Mr. Speaker. It is impossible.

The Attorney-General announced today a concept of treating the offender in the community. There are some offenders that are so sick they must be removed from the community, but they are in a very, very small minority. Those that are so sick that need to be removed from a community need intensive psychiatric care, not vocational training, and those that are out in the community should be given the greatest amount of treatment that's available in the community.

Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting, through you to the Attorney-General, that we just turn the Haney Correctional Institution over to the Department of Education and let it be a residential vocational training school for any normal, healthy youngster throughout British Columbia who wants to come and live down there and take a vocational training free. Why should we spend $4,000 for a criminal offender whose offence is directly related to psychological problems and vocational training is not going to cure that, when we have many young, normal, healthy youngsters in the Province who'd dearly love the opportunity of a free residential vocational training.

So, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, for those inmates who need institutionalization, that we dramatically expand the camp facilities in this Province, and you can even build a maximum security camp at a minimum cost. The example I'd like to give the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, is the mountain prison that was constructed to house the Doukhobors by the Federal Government, and that prison now is housing maximum security offenders from the B.C. Penitentiary, offenders who are far more disturbed or in need of far more correctional care than anything that we have at Haney or Oakalla.

[ Page 643 ]

Generally, generally. We've got a lot of people at Oakalla who shouldn't be there, who should be in a special kind of unit. That's the only unit left to be provided, and we cannot continue to use the Riverside facility for the severely disturbed criminal offenders.

Now, that's the last category. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken up so much time in the House. There is a great deal more than I wanted to say, and I know that every member of the House is deeply interested in this particular problem, but I'll take a few more minutes just talking about the chronic offender who is so severely disturbed that he needs maximum security.

Mr. Speaker, the one institution that needs to be built is an institution housing the chronic offender who is so severely disturbed that he needs maximum security, and that institution should be built close into the metropolitan area and tied in with a forensic clinic, and that forensic clinic should be dove-tailed into the psychiatric services being provided by that new hospital at U.B.C. I ask the Attorney-General, along with the Minister of Health, to use pressure on the University of British Columbia administrators of that hospital to expand its services, with assistance from budgets from your Department, under this Bill, to provide for a forensic clinic treating chronic offenders who are seriously disturbed.

Well, Mr. Speaker, on receiving advice of my parole officer, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.

The House met at 8.30 p.m.

On the motion of Mr. G. B. Gardom, Bill (No. 72) intituled An Act for the Regulation of Cigarette Advertising was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 20, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 20. The Honourable the Minister of Labour.

MR. PETERSON: Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. PETERSON: Bill No. 20, An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to set out new legislation, new ground rules for the relationship between landlord and tenant in respect of residential premises. Many of the members of this and preceding Legislatures have spoken out on the need for reform in this area of legislation, but I think none more vigorously or consistently than the two members for Vancouver Centre, which I suppose is understandable in the sense of the number of people in that area who are governed by the legislation that is presently on the statute books relating to landlord and tenant. Certainly, as evident expansion moves into the 70's, there is an obvious trend to apartment living by many people, and I think the conditions and the rules governing the relationship between landlord and tenant become increasingly important. From the point of view of Government we want to provide the kind of ground rules which will enable a good relationship between landlord and tenant to prevail.

In this respect I want to acknowledge, first of all, that we have benefited from the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which produced a report in December of 1968 which was based on a detailed survey and study of the problems of landlord and tenant in the metropolitan Toronto area, which is an urban area not too dissimilar from some of our urban centres.

The Bill introduces a major new concept and one which, I believe, will assist us in solving many of the difficulties of landlord and tenants under the old law, and that is that residential tenancy agreements can be either oral or in writing. That, perhaps, should be emphasized in the light of the earlier publicity that has been given to this Bill, but these residential tenancy agreements will be treated under the ordinary law of contract rather than the complicated common law rules of landlord and tenant which often created hardships and, as the members know, is based on the old law that we inherited from England.

There are several important results from the application of the law of contract to the relationship of landlord and tenant, and I would like to give a few examples which are set out in the Bill. For example, upon default of payment of rent by the tenant, the landlord will have to sue on the contract in the ordinary way. He won't be able to call upon the Sheriff or the Bailiff to distrain for rent, which is the procedure under the existing law, unless the premises have been abandoned. If the landlord also fails to give possession to the tenant on the agreed date that the tenant is to take possession of the premises, then the tenant has a right to sue as he would on any other breach of covenant in a contract. Again, if the house or apartment is destroyed or damaged and the tenant is unable to remain because of circumstances beyond his control, then the contract can be cancelled. Under our existing law, the old law of landlord and tenant, that lease was still enforceable even where the premises had been burned down.

The rules of breach of contract apply, so that if one party breaks a material covenant in the contract the other party can obtain the release of the contract, and this is also a new provision which follows from adopting the law of contract instead of the old land laws. In the past when a tenant rented premises, additional features related to the tenancy did not run with the land, and where there was an assignment of the lease, features which were not in existence when the lease was made would not be binding on any assignee. For instance, if they agreed to provide parking or laundry facilities or something of that nature that wasn't in existence at the time the lease was made they would not be binding, but now under this under contract law, of course, there is a remedy for the tenant. Previously if a tenant left the premises the landlord was under no obligation to re-rent but could sue for the entire rent plus damage. The landlord now has the responsibility to mitigate his damages under the ordinary law of contract.

The Bill also establishes other conditions that will ease

[ Page 644 ]

some of the difficulties that arise in rental situations. For example, where there is a written agreement, and again there need not be a written agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: There should be.

MR. PETERSON: There need not be…. I agree, that wherever you're relying on contract it is desirable to have the contract produced in writing merely to assist in proving the contract…but nevertheless, under this Bill the provisions will apply whether there is an oral contract or a written contract, but where there is a written contract then there is a responsibility on the landlord to deliver a copy of the written contract to the tenant before occupancy.

There are new provisions relating to security deposits which the honourable members will have noticed. Generally the provision is that — and this is unless the municipality otherwise provides, as say, Vancouver is one that has made other provision — that there will not be any security deposits except for the last month's rental, and then there are also new provisions for interest at 6 per cent to be paid on the retention of such deposits.

There are also new provisions relating to the assigning and sub-letting of the premises which are of significance when we are looking at the changes from existing law. There are new provisions relating to the tenant's right to privacy, that a landlord cannot enter into the tenant's premises at his whim, there must be notice as provided in the Bill, 24 hours written notice. There is a provision which will probably be of interest to most of the members of the House, in that no special restrictions on access to rented premises can be imposed on candidates in Federal, municipal or Provincial elections in terms of candidacy. Also, the landlord or tenant cannot change locks on the premises during tenancy without mutual consent.

In regard to the provisions for and the obligation to repair, you will find somewhat new provisions in this legislation imposing on the landlord the responsibility to comply with all health, safety, and housing standards, and be responsible for keeping the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation. The tenant is responsible for ordinary cleanliness, and repair of damages caused by him while occupying the premises.

The acceleration clauses which now appear frequently in leases, which mean that the whole rent for the entire term becomes due on any default by the tenant, are prohibited in this new legislation.

Then, too, there are some restraints being imposed as far as increases in rent are concerned, and in this respect no increase in rent can be made in the first year of a tenancy agreement, and after the first year three months' notice of the intention to increase rent must first be given by the landlord. Subsequent to the introduction of this Bill in the House it was brought to my attention that, in a number of instances, rental notices of increases in rent were being given trying to get the notices through before this legislation came into effect, and there is an amendment on the Order Paper which is intended to cover that situation.

The Bill also provides, Mr. Speaker, machinery for municipalities to establish a Landlord and Tenant Advisory Bureau. This will enable an independent Board, where it is established, to assist in mediating any disputes and generally to advise landlords' and tenants on their rights. Another important principle in this Bill is the remedy that's provided for both landlords and tenants, and this is intended to provide an easier and a less costly method before the Courts, in coming before the Provincial Court rather than the Country Court, and this should provide a quicker method, a more informal method, and certainly a less expensive method of resolving these disputes.

There are other provisions in the, Bill as well, but I think I've touched on the more important of the principles, and I take great pleasure in moving that the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We welcome the Bill, we think it's a step forward, but I want to just say a couple, of things, one by reminding the Government of a little bit of history in reply to what the Attorney-General said in introducing the Bill. The Attorney-General said, at the opening of his remarks that much of the credit for this Bill must go to the two members from Vancouver Centre. For those who have a short memory, I'd like to remind the House that in 1968 those two members voted against the Bill that purported to do the same thing. It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, what the passage of a couple of years will do to a piece of legislation. How long does it take for conventional wisdom to catch up with power?

AN HON. MEMBER: That Bill was no good,.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker these small steps in reform have to be dragged out of this Government as if it were a clam unaware of public needs. Oh now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier groans. It's not because of a bad supper, it's because of his guilt feelings because his name, too, is here on the books voting against legislation.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Don't attack my wife

AN HON. MEMBER: Call the roll, call the roll.

MR. BARRETT: I'll call the roll. Yeah, I'll call the roll.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Premier couldn't be in a good shape if it wasn't for his wife's cooking, couldn't be in good shape. With the type of political history that's revealed in this book, only his wife's cooking has kept him on base, Mr. Speaker, only his wife's cooking, and we respect that.

AN HON. MEMBER: His wife's cooking keeps him on base, the electors keep him in office.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I won't apologise for the Premier's voting record. I've said that your wife's cooking is the only thing that keeps you on base, and if your wife was in here voting, she would have voted for this two years ago. Now don't hide behind your wife, Mr. Premier, because we have other good ideas to present to you.

In this Bill, I would think it would be fruitful if the Attorney-General would consider outlining a common lease. My fears are in the description that people will give of a new agreement. It's all very well to describe a verbal agreement as binding in the Bill, but when a landlord and a tenant arrive at agreement verbally, and then the passage of time blurs the memory of what was in the Bill, then you're in trouble, Mr. Speaker, then you're in trouble, because even politicians, even politicians have a blurring of the memory, and without a

[ Page 645 ]

written record it's very difficult to find out exactly what was said and what commitment was given.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I feel should be incorporated in the Bill is a new form of discrimination. It's got nothing to do with race, creed or any of the traditional forms of discrimination, but it's a discrimination against children, Mr. Speaker. Many, many people wish to rent apartments but find that they are barred because they have children and cannot rent or find a home for those children.

The other thing I think, Mr. Speaker, that is missing are the reasons for eviction. Reasons for eviction should be given. When someone is asked to leave an apartment, then the landlord should spell out clearly what those reasons are. Too often the M.L.A.'s of this House of all parties have been phoned towards the end of any given month with a complaint from a constituent who say that they are being evicted and they know not why. In many instances they should be evicted, but no landlord should be frightened of putting down the reasons why people are being evicted, so that there is a clarification of a particular difference of opinion.

But missing most of all, Mr. Speaker, and concluding my remarks on this Bill, missing most of all is a plan from this Government to truly bring around good landlord and tenant relationships, and that plan would be the availability of good low-cost housing, Mr. Speaker. Relationships between landlord and tenant break down when the landlord has the whip hand in terms of having a limited amount of space available to rent for a population that is expanding rapidly and competing very heavily for that limited amount. We must have standards of accommodation, we must have availability of accommodation, and this Bill has little meaning unless there is choice for the working people of this Province to find rent at low cost and greater availability than is present in our society.

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

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that all members in this House will rejoice at this Bill, changing as it does laws of this Province which date back to the reigns of William and Mary, and Queen Anne, George the Second, from the late seventeenth century. But in rejoicing at the changes which the honourable Attorney-General has indicated are in this Bill, I think we should also have some concern as to the effect that these changes will have upon the body of law which has grown up in all those years. I think it is to be regretted that the honourable Attorney-General did not bring this legislation before this House much earlier and submit it to a committee so that it could be examined step by step.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member should be discussing the principle of this Bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: The honourable the Attorney-General has pointed out many of its favourable aspects, not the least of which is the suggestion that it now will provide an inexpensive way for landlords and tenants to resolve their difficulties by placing this in the realm of the Small Claims Division. I would only point out to the members that when considering how effective that change will be, they should realize that delays up to three months are now being encountered in that Court, and therefore the quality of the forum that is being offered to the landlords and tenants who do have a complaint may be judged accordingly.

The Attorney-General indicated that these tenancy agreements could be in writing or verbal, and that's the law today. There is not a significant change in that regard, and I would have thought that the Government, when bringing forward legislation of this kind and placing the relationship on a strictly contractual basis, that he would have done what is the sensible thing, and that is to require that they be in writing. Therefore when and if a dispute does arise between a landlord and a tenant there becomes no question of fact which is to be decided by the Court. This would be a real step forward, and having the contract in writing and signed by the parties, it would then follow that the terminations, the terminations of this contract would also be in writing. Then there would be no doubt as between these two segments of our society as to what the rights of the landlord or tenant might be.

AN HON. MEMBER: More work for the lawyers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not necessarily.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know the members always think it is so humorous to suggest it is more work for the lawyers. As a matter of fact, the lawyers don't want this kind of work.

But you can provide in this Act, Mr. Speaker, a very simple schedule of terms which must be included in writing,

AN HON. MEMBER: How about insurance contracts?

MR. WILLIAMS: …and it is a very simple matter that will remove all the doubt that arises between landlord and tenant. When you put them into the Small Claims Court to have contest as to what the facts of the tenancy are, it is only to result in the proceedings becoming more prolix and more delayed, and this causes difficulties both for landlord and tenant, difficulties which need not occur. Because nothing is more certain than to have the document before you which is signed by each of the parties, and then none can say, when the test comes, if a test comes, as to what the facts of the situation are.

We have some other changes in the basic law which were undertaken in England as long ago as 1925, and we should certainly honour that.

I would wonder, however, when we are providing for a Rental Advisory Board, whether the honourable Attorney-General would not consider that the effect of the first proposed new section in Part I does not effectively require the repeal of the Rent Control Act which is in the Revised Statutes of 1960. Because the effect of your first section will be such as to raise doubts as to the validity of the by-law which now exists in the City of Vancouver, and it would be well to have that Act repealed once and for all, so there would be no question, and so that the City of Vancouver, along with the other municipalities, might consider whether or not they should pass a by-law as is to be their right under this legislation.

We certainly will support it as a step forward, but I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the other members, that the landlords and the tenants need not consider that this is going to be the be all and the end all of the law as it relates

[ Page 646 ]

between these two groups in our society, nor is it going to resolve all the problems. Indeed, it may easily create problems which are not in existence today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G. H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I checked around the City of Vancouver and the metropolitan area to determine whether landlords are going in for leases for residential rentals on a term basis longer than a month. The largest landlord organization in Vancouver, with over 2,200 apartments that it leases, does so on a monthly contract. That means the lease can be terminated one month after you have gained possession and notice has been given. This means that unless that aspect of tenancy is taken into account by this Bill it is, in effect, a cruel hoax to suggest that landlords will be thwarted in their desire to increase rents by anything that is proposed by the Attorney-General to date.

I note in the proposal that was given to the House tonight that the Attorney-General is taking into account that a number of landlords have raised the rents upon the intimation that this Bill would be passed through the House, and so he said, I will be equitable and I'll propose to freeze rents as of the date of the tabling of the Bill in the House, which is February 25th. But the fact of the matter is, it's, sort of like a Budget leak. The Speech from the Throne, I note, on January 22nd, indicates to the public that this Government had proposals to deal with the question of tenancies and rental housing, so it seems to me evident, and I received a number of complaints from people who, having heard of the Throne Speech indication of landlord and tenant amendments, found themselves with rental increases in January. I had not known until I got these letters just how many there appear to have been, and they made it clear that landlords were getting ready for this kind of legislation.

So I suggest that one thing that the Attorney-General should give thought to is taking back retroactively the question of freezing rents to the date the first mention was made by the Government of alteration in the landlord and tenant law. I can't see landlords thinking anything else but that their position vis-à-vis their tenants was going to be altered to their disadvantage, simply because anyone who has seen the Landlord and Tenant Act knows that the Landlord and Tenant Act, for 500 years, has been based on the rights of property and not on the rights of individuals. And when I hear the honourable member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound talking about this Bill 1 couldn't help but feel, through his words, the respect for property that he places upon his criticisms of the Bill.

To me, this Bill could be a great step forward. It could be a great step forward if — if — it is to be substance instead of the shadow, and when I read sections of this Bill, and we are talking about it now in principle, what a Bill should say. A Bill should say that not only should a landlord not be entitled to unreasonably increase the rents without a satisfactory period of time in which he must justify that increase, but he mustn't get around the law by firing his tenant this month, raising the rent with the next tenant, and that's what the month-to-month tenancy allows him to do. So it's a hoax, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member will have to withdraw that word.

MR. DOWDING: I am sorry. I shan't say hoax. It is a cruel disappointment. It is a cruel disappointment to say, as it says in this Bill, that no landlord shall increase the rent and no tenancy agreement shall provide for an increase in rent during the first year of tenancy agreement. But if you cancel the tenancy agreement on a notice, there is not tenancy agreement. I would say, build in a further precaution in the wording that makes it clear that you can't get around it by getting rid of your tenant, then inviting in the next tenant and by that time having told him the price for that accommodation is another $25 a month. So that is one aspect that I do not believe, when it is interpreted by the Courts, is going to protect tenancies and going to prevent increases in rent. The only thing that will happen is the increase won't be visited upon the tenant in being, it will be on the next tenant. And it is a one month tenancy, my friends. Well, read the Act. We haven't got to the amendment, we are talking about this Bill in principle. If you can show me — fine, when we get to committee.

The second point is in regard to the question of leases. There was some talk about if you had leases that were in some standard form that you need lawyers. I would say quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. What is needed between landlords and tenants is for the public interest to intervene. There is a stage in all disputes in society where, in the interests of peace and harmony and quiet, that the public interest is involved. Landlord and tenant is a typical example. Any lawyer could tell you of no more problems they have between people than the landlord and tenant, unless it is husband and wife. But if you can draw up a model statutory contract for insurance between the insurer and the insured, which we have in this Province, then I say you should be able to draft a satisfactory statutory lease with the only real term that needs to be altered, of any consequence, is the length of the lease. But the terms of it should be model terms that deal equitably between the two parties.

How many times have you seen tenants complaining about lack of heat, problems of dealing with the landlord, the landlord coming into the premises when they are not at home, landlords that are rent gougers, builds those slum tenancies in the East End of Vancouver, for example, that don't even put ventilation in the bathrooms, that sort of place. The Minister knows what I am talking about, all these welfare cases must have complained to him. These kind of cases can be dealt with by a statutory form so that the tenants have certain rights, the landlords have equal rights, they have certain rights to get rid of tenants who are not prepared to live reasonably and quietly and respectably. These can be worked out in a standard form, just as in an insurance contract. The only open clauses are the sensible clauses that should be open, such as the length or the duration of the lease, or the amount of the rent, and that should be controlled, I think, by statute as I suggested, in such a way that it cannot be altered without a period of time that is reasonable in the light of changing conditions of the economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have a lease form now….

MR. DOWDING: You haven't a standard form now. What a ridiculous statement. You can see that he's been buying some forms from a stationery, and he thinks that's a standard statutory lease, Mr. Speaker. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you'll disabuse him of that. There is no statutory lease form. If the

[ Page 647 ]

honourable the member would look in the statutes he'd see that, Mr. Speaker.

The other point that will be a disappointment to our politicians in the proposals for the right of access during election times by candidates, is that the Act declares, according to the Attorney-General in his opening speech today, that no landlord shall impose any special restriction on access to rental premises by candidates or their authorized representatives. Well, that isn't going to get you far, if the sign on the front of the doors says "No canvassers or peddlers," then that isn't a special restriction for political candidates, it's a general restriction which will eliminate candidates as well as canvassers or peddlers. So I would suggest to the honourable the Attorney-General that he gives some more thought to that, because I am sure half a dozen landlords will rest their case on that wording.

Other than these matters that I have raised, in the main this is a tremendous step forward, a recognition by the Government of what we have been telling them for years, and I certainly am delighted that somehow or other this has got through to them.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: I thought you called it a hoax.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. DOWDING: No, I said that, about that section that deals with the problem of rental increase. I am sure the Minister wasn't listening, so he didn't catch….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. DOWDING: But other than that I think, in the main, this is a hopeful start towards a new relationship, after many years of property ahead of people.

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

MR. H. P. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly on this, of course, because it is an Act which both the second member for Vancouver Centre and myself have been very involved in and very concerned with. I certainly compliment the Attorney-General for bringing the Act in this year, because as it is written it is a tremendous step along the way and has received great acclaim from our area, and I know from other areas of the Province.

There is one aspect, one very small change that I would hope he might consider. Within the Act, the notice of termination of tenancy, which had to be given in writing by the landlord is not required in writing by the tenant, and in all fairness, I think perhaps the two should be given equal basis and a written notice of termination should be required by the tenant also. I can see, if this is not done, where there could be considerable arguments raised in discussion later, with the landlord claiming that he didn't receive sufficient notice, or the tenant changing his mind at the last moment regardless and saying, "Well, I may have given you notice, but I've changed my mind," etc., without anything written, and it seems to me that it should be a written notice. It is not a great requirement but I think it is one that would solve a great deal of problems, and maybe that goes along the line as the member previously spoke about.

I think the concern within the Act of all of us should be the increase in the number of rental facilities, and I think it is only fair at this time, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the problem of increasing the number of rentable spaces in the City of Vancouver has been placed in a certain jeopardy by the budget brought down by Mr. Benson, and if we are concerned with the policing of tenant and landlord relationship, we should be vitally concerned with the amount of rentable space and rentable units that we have….

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member must confine his remarks to the principle in this particular Bill.

MR. CAPOZZI: Well I am, Mr. Speaker, because I think the principle….

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it is related to the national budget.

MR. CAPOZZI: ….The relationship between landlord and tenant, and I am trying to point out how difficult it is for the landlord at this time to provide additional spaces for tenants, and I think that the new budget, which makes it impossible for….

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a matter of the principle of this Bill.

MR. CAPOZZI: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly accept your ruling on this. I was trying to point out that in relationships of the tenant costs that it is only fair to point out that in regard to the control of rent which is in here, and the possibility of raising or increasing rents, that we should be aware of the tremendous pressure that is placed on the landlord today in increasing rents, and one of these is the fantastic cost of money. Now we have placed in this Bill a restriction as to three months, and a year in the case of the first increase, once the tenant has moved in, but I think everyone should realize, that every time the interest rates go up one per cent, that, in essence, is adding $10 a month to every rent or every rental for an average $12,000 suite, and I think….

AN HON. MEMBER: Mortgages don't go up every month.

MR. CAPOZZI: The question of mortgages nowadays, the minimum mortgage is usually three to five years, with re-writes up to three to five years, and I am pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that within this we should be concerned with this. I am trying to indicate that an Act which is fair on both sides has to take into consideration the tremendous pressures which are being placed on the landlord as the cost of money rises, and that our main concern in trying to lower rents, should be concerned with the cost of money that is available to the landlord, so that he can, in essence, finance his building at a lower rate. Again, Mr. Attorney-General, I certainly extend our congratulations and assure you that you have our 100 per cent support of this Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome this Bill, as other members on this side have done, because it marks the beginning of the road to do something about a problem that we have discussed in this House so many, many times before.

The Attorney-General, when he introduced this Bill on

[ Page 648 ]

second reading, I thought was less than generous in his remarks regarding the genesis of this Bill and the principle contained therein. Like the Leader of the Opposition I, too, remember the previous first member for Burrard — the current leader of our party, not in this House — who introduced this Bill, containing the principles of this Bill, in 1968. I well remember the remarks of the then Attorney-General, when lie moved adjournment, and we know what that means, Mr. Speaker, when he moved adjournment of the debate, in which lie said that the member for Burrard has many good ideas and the principles he espouses were correct, an adjournment is what we got. However, the following year, when the same Bill was presented, the same principle contained therein, that is, protection of the tenant, it is interesting to see….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not the same Bill at all.

MR. HALL: Oh yes, it was the same Bill. The same Bill was presented again, Mr. Speaker, on April 2nd, and on that occasion the Bill was negatived, and I want to remind the House that the brave and valiant members that the Attorney-General referred to, voted against that Bill.

There are two things I want to say, in addition to those remarks about the Bill, Mr. Speaker. The first one is that the Bill has to do, without question, with the rights of tenants. I am very interested in this Bill because in my area, as different from previous years, the question of tenants and tenancies is a growing concern. Right now, Mr. Speaker, you will be interested to know, I'm sure that they're on the blue-prints of development companies, plans that would see as many as 7,500 tenants dropped in the riding of Surrey on the corner of one street, 7,500 tenants. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and I have shared many conversations in the past, and he will know, I am sure, because he is a great one for figures, that that's more than the number of votes that I got when I first ran for election, and I am sure that many members in this House will be interested to know of development plans like that.

I think that the problems of tenants is growing all over the Province, not the least to say that area south of the river. One of the rights, I think, that tenants should have, Mr. Speaker, is the rights of association, the rights of free assembly, but already we are finding, since this Bill was introduced — and here again let me say to the Attorney-General he was less than kind in paying tribute to the genesis of this Bill, but he didn't mention the tenants' associations over this Province — and already, Mr. Speaker, we are finding restrictions, and I will chapter and verse these to the Attorney-General privately, where landlords are saying to tenants, you will not, you shalt not join tenants' associations. I think that any Bill that deals with the rights of tenants must have, as a basic through that Bill, the right of assembly and the right of free association. Now I agree it may be better still in another Act, but I want to mention that because that is what is happening today.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to strengthen the remarks of my colleague, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, because one of the principles of this is when it starts, and it starts, Mr. Speaker, according to the Attorney-General in his opening remarks on the day he introduced the Bill, February 25th. I, too, want to draw to his attention, the chapter in the Speech from the Throne, which is now called the Opening Speech, on page 9, this simple statement, "You will be called upon to consider amendments in legislation to protect further the rights of individuals in relation to rental housing." But I would like to ask the Attorney-General to comment, if he will, when he winds up the debate, on how many phone calls he got that prompted his introduction of the amendment relative to February 25th, and how many phone calls he got that were relative to the period January 22nd to February 25th. I want to say that I have taken the step, and I trust you will support me, in putting on the Order Paper an amendment, to take the retroactive date back to January 22nd.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

MR. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, just one or two comments. In the first place, the proposal that all tenancy agreements be required to be in writing; this is a principle that I could not subscribe to for the simple reason, that in my opinion, it would not be followed by all the landlords and tenants when you are renting on a weekly tenancy, and then if you didn't have an agreement none of the provisions of this legislation would apply. The principles of this legislation will apply whether it is in writing or whether it is an oral tenancy. I would expect that there would be an increase in the number of written contracts that will follow this legislation, and certainly my advice and my recommendation would be for tenancy agreements to be reduced to writing. But nevertheless, I would suggest that it would be a great mistake for this legislation to say if it's not in writing, you have no rights, and that, in effect, is what we would be doing if we were to adopt that suggestion.

I am pleased with the support that is not generally received in this House, when measures are introduced and made retroactive, even retroactive to the introduction of the Bill. It seems to me that I recall, on other occasions, Mr. Speaker, that this principle of retroactivity has been very severely attacked.

Then, too, Mr. Speaker, the idea that the Bill introduced by the Opposition back in 1968 contains the principles of this Bill. I have the Bill here and I was just in the course of going through it — it's only 15 sections, it's not very long — of the Opposition's Bill, but I can say this, it certainly does not contain the principles that are in this Bill that we have been asked to vote on tonight, and if any of the members of the Opposition are sincere in their belief that that Bill anywhere approaches this Bill, then they should vote against this Bill and re-introduce the Bill that they introduced back in 1968. For one thing, they apparently want security deposits. This Bill that they introduced provided for security deposits. Is that the policy of the N.D.P.? And so on, Mr. Speaker.

I was more than frank and sincere when I said that I pay tribute to the work of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, and if any of you have taken the trouble to read the report of that Commission, and compare its recommendations with the recommendations that are to be found in this Bill, you will find where this legislation came from. Not from any tenants' organizations, or anyone else. The tribute is primarily due and I paid that tribute when I introduced the Bill, to the Ontario Law Reform Commission, and I am pleased to move that the Bill be now read a second time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 20, An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act, be read a second time. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

[ Page 649 ]

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

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 22, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 22. The Honourable the Minister of Labour.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 22 is An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act. The major principle of the amendments is to authorize the accreditation of employers' organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining. One of the major frustrations to effective collective bargaining procedures, especially in the industrial field, has been the inadequate role played by employer organizations. There are quite a few industries where employers' organizations do exist, and do bargain on behalf of their members, but the problem appears to be the most acute — and this legislation stems from the acute problems that have appeared in the construction industry — where there are a number of industrial and building trades organizations. Generally, in the past, there has been little co-ordination among them, there have been fragmented bargaining procedures which have led to instability in that industry. It is the undesirable effect of having so many organizations with the unrestrained freedom of members to opt in or opt out when collective bargaining is under way that requires some measure of control, and that is the primary purpose of this amendment.

Then, too, trade unions who are bargaining in situations of this sort, on many occasions they start their bargaining thinking that they are bargaining with the employer's agency, that other employees and other companies are involved. They may have been involved in bargaining in the past, but because there is no statutory authority and procedure set up for accreditation, they find at the time when they are going to sign the collective agreement, they've come to terms, that such and such an employer decided not to go along with it. It leads to instability in bargaining, it leads to mistrust, and there are many instances of where that has occurred in the past. I can recall one, not associated with the industry, in the shipbuilding industry in which I had taken part where I understood that they were all in agreement, but it turned out when it came to the signing, that that was not the case.

In any event, this Bill provides for the accreditation of employers' organizations, and when they become accredited under the Act, then the organization is given exclusive authority to bargain on behalf of the employers named in the accreditation, and to bind them by collective agreement. It should be emphasized that unlike a union, where union gets the support of 50 per cent of the employees then they are certified to bargain on behalf of all the employees, and the remaining 40 odd per cent or whatever the percentage might be, even though they haven't indicated a willingness to be represented by that union, are bound to be represented by the union and bound by any collective agreement that that union enters into. This same principle of compulsion has not been applied in respect of employers' organizations, and the only way an employer would be involved as a member of the employers' organization is by consent. It doesn't apply that when you get 50 per cent of the employers, say in the construction industry or something of that nature, that the remaining percentage are going to be bound by the actions of the employers' agency that is certified.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is still a unit vote in the Unions.

MR. PETERSON: Well, not necessarily, not in the certification, there is not necessarily a vote. You don't have a vote if you have a majority of the members in good standing in a bargaining unit. You do not have to have a vote to determine that the union's going to represent all. This is an important distinction I think that should be made, because there were studies done on this which, again, I want to pay tribute to and say that we've benefitted from them, studies by Carl Goldenberg and a Dr. Crispo, who made recommendations. This resulted from their studies in the construction industry in Ontario, in the Centennial project of the Canadian Construction Association. But they recommended that employers' groups be accredited by law as the sole bargaining agents for the respective sectors of the industry, and this Bill does not provide for this all-embracing proposition, or the compulsion that once they have a majority that they bargain on behalf of all.

Now I know, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat will know, I am sure, the problems that have existed in this particular industry, and I think this will be a step forward in terms of future collective bargaining, particularly in the construction industry, but of course it can apply to other groups as well where employer agencies are in existence or where they want to bring them into existence.

Another important principle in the Bill is that, under our existing law, under the present Labour Relations Act, where collective agreement is in force and employees wish to change their bargaining representative, an application for a new certification may be made by trade unions only during the eleventh and twelfth months of the agreement, and during

[ Page 650 ]

the last two months of the term of agreement. These are normally periods where the parties are engaged in collective bargaining, where they are trying to renew a collective agreement. Collective bargaining, by its very nature, presents a sufficient number of problems without injecting further conflict and uncertainty into the area by providing for a change in representation of the employees at that particular stage, and so there are changes proposed in legislation in this respect. The Bill is intended to provide for the transfer of certification, where collective agreement is in force, to a more appropriate period during the terms of the agreement when the parties are not concerned with the important issues of collective bargaining, and this, I would suggest, will also remove some of the frictions and uncertainties that have prevailed in the collective bargaining process in the past.

There are some other amendments and further amendments to the amendments on the Order Paper. I think these are self-explanatory, and if any clarification is required I'd be glad to try and provide that when we are in committee dealing with the Bill section by section. I move the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I remember the day the Minister of Labour introduced this Bill and I went for a copy of it, and as is my wont, I turned to the back page and read the explanatory notes which simply state that, "The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Labour Relations Act to authorize the accreditation of employers' organizations under the Act for the purpose of collective bargaining." And I, in my innocence as a fairly new member, thought that this was the beginning of the real introduction of the Nemetz Report. I thought it was the beginning of labour relations bargaining that we have, on this side of the House, asked for many, many, many times. However, then I started on page one of the Bill, and I found that the explanatory note — and I should have listened to some of my senior and elder colleagues — was not quite all, not quite all that I required to understand the Bill.

The Bill contains the principle which, on the face of it, Mr. Speaker, is the principle that sounds like "a good thing." But then you read the clauses, then you read some of the real principles and you realize that it's once again like Bill 42, like Bill 43, like Bill 123, like Bill 33, a thumb on the scale, a thumb on the scale again. We on this side don't agree with the thumbs on the scale. We on this side don't agree with the tilting of the balance. We don't agree on this side with the interference of this kind of legislation in what, essentially, is the collective bargaining procedure.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has got far-reaching ramifications. It's safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that we could, I suppose, within this Bill, and I would be guided by yourself, that we could go really through the whole of the Labour Act, because this strikes very much at the core of one side on one side of the table versus the other side on the other side of that table. Many, many questions were unanswered by the Minister, not only in his remarks to the press, but his remarks to those people who have come to see him about the Bill.

There is much that is happening in business, management, labour relations today which can be achieved mutually, and I think it's fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a move that's been mutually agreed to by labour and management, to move along this line, but not quite in the way that the Minister outlines in this Bill. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, would like to have seen this Bill referred to committee before second reading, or at least referred to the committee for some time, if necessary given, as was given the Workman's Compensation Act a couple of sessions ago, a year's hoist, if that's the correct expression, so that we can find out what is written, as we've learned to suspect and research, Mr. Speaker, what's written between one or two of these lines.

I'm told, Mr. Speaker, as I move about the Province over the weekend, that this Bill was requested — I don't want to state that categorically, but I'm certainly going to state it in a general sort of way so the Minister of Labour can reply — that this Bill was requested by the Construction Labour Relations Association. The alacrity of response to that request is almost alarming, almost alarming, when we think of some of the things that have hung around this Session and this Government year in and year out, year in and year out.

The next thing I hear when I go around the other corner is that this Bill has been two years in the making, two years in the making. Well, we could have put in a committee, surely, for another six months, for another nine months, and found out what was really the score on Bill 22, Bill 22. This Bill needs very careful handling, there is no question about that, because there are some good principles on the face of it. But as I say, I detect, I detect that just like the old butcher that my mother used to tell me about, the thumb is in the scale again, the thumb is in the scale again. I've heard it explained that it's really called the Swedish system. Isn't this what Rae Eddie used to talk about? Isn't this what the trade unionists talked about? Isn't this what the C.C.F. and the N.D.P. talked about, and the answer is no. This isn't what happens in Sweden. They still take unit by unit vote in Sweden, on both sides of the table, on both sides of the table, employers and employees.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us provides for accreditation of employees' associations as bargaining agents. If I thought that the Minister had in the back of his mind that this would put an end to whip-sawing, as the trade unionists say, I think I might even be prepared to congratulate the Minister on it, but I see no evidence of that because whip-sawing, as we used to know it, is already finishing. If this Bill provided Provincial certification on one side of the table and Provincial certification on the other side of the table, I think we might be prepared to support it. But I could take the Minister tomorrow morning to the office of say the Retail Wholesale Department Store Union, which has to spend every year thousands of dollars fighting one Provincial company in negotiation for the same essential bargaining unit. There's just one in Vancouver, one in Prince George, one in Penticton, and so on and so forth. Here you are loading the scales again. You are giving the employer Provincial certification on the one hand, and you are making the employee fight through every single one of those negotiations on the other.

It's significant that this legislation was requested by employers' groups and the request was granted. Changes that are requested by the labour groups in this Province don't receive the same kind of speedy treatment, the same kind of speedy treatment, and this is a shame, this is a shame. Nobody agrees with everybody all of the time, and nobody on this side agrees with everybody all of the time, but surely one of these fine days we could have found sauce for the goose as well as sauce for the gander. But it's never that way, it's never that way. We have all sorts of reasons to suspect that consultation isn't given to one side like the consultation is given to the other.

Right now just as I say the scales are weighted — and other

[ Page 651 ]

speakers will deal specifically, I am sure, with some of the problems — just as I say the scales are weighted we see tonight, even at the eleventh hour, so to speak, the Minister standing up on his feet, and in my view, Mr. Speaker, deliberately confusing the question of certification and the question of bargaining by talking about 50 per cent plus one.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I have not deliberately confused certification with accreditation, and I'd ask the honourable member to withdraw the allegation that I was deliberately confusing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be so touchy.

MR. SPEAKER: If this is what the member has stated then he should, of course, withdraw because he's imputing improper motives to the Minister.

MR. HALL: If I'm imputing improper motives naturally, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. If I said inadvertently, I didn't want to say advertently, because I thought that might cast some reflection on the Minister's prowess; however, I do think that the Minister has confused the question of certification and the question of bargaining. Once the 50 per cent plus one is in, that's it. That's the bargaining unit, and thereafter that union represents that total number of people and there's two events taking place, and the Minister should not allow that confusion to remain, and I hope he corrects it when he stands up.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this Bill should have gone to committee. I feel this Bill should have got the consultation of all the labour movement, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Teamsters and the Fishermen, and those other units outside what we call the house of labour. That not being the case, I believe that we on this side of the House and you on that side of the House should have an opportunity to question both employers and employees on what they thought about this Bill which goes to the very core of collective bargaining. As I said before, if I thought as I did when I first read the Bill's explanatory note, that this was the Swedish system, then I would have been happy. But I find, just as Bill 33 came the day after the Nemetz Report was tabled, that I found myself up a sylvan glade thinking what I read in front of me was the case, when in actual fact, when in actual fact I found that when I read the Bill in detail, that was not the case.

Once again, to sum up, Mr. Speaker, we've seen this Government, in its eighteenth year of office, in its eighteenth year of office, introduce legislation which is designed to strengthen the position of the large employers of this Province, and to reduce the effectiveness on the other side of the bargaining table. And Mr. Speaker, really, when I read what the Premier said the other day about the newspaper dispute, when he said he doesn't want to do anything to interfere with the free collective bargaining procedures in this Province, this Bill he couldn't support either.

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

MR. D.M. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't find myself able to speak with quite the same expertise or perhaps the same close associations on this Bill as the last speaker. However, I would like to say a couple of words on behalf of the construction industry which is, I think, of all the industries affected by this Bill, that might have needed in recent years just a little touch of the thumb on the scales to even up the balance which the last speaker was referring to.

Mr. Speaker, the construction industry is certainly pleased to see this Bill introduced. Actually, as I think the Attorney-General knows, this Bill really codifies and supports what is actually now, this year 1970, taking place within the construction industry. This is an industry that in British Columbia ranks third in gross product. In Canada it is the largest, the major contributor to the gross national product, 20 per cent of the total gross national product of Canada goes through the construction industry. But they have some very special labour problems that I would like to define just a little bit for the House, when you consider in relation to this Bill.

At the present time, as the last speaker referred, there is an organization called the Construction Labour Relations Association. It has nearly 600 members, In the industry in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, there are something like 30,000 employees under labour agreement, that's roughly the same size in British Columbia, as in the forest industry. About two-thirds of these, 20,000, are now being bargained for by the Construction Labour Relations Association in 22 different trades, 22 different trades, 22 different negotiations. While they have something of the order of 550 to 600 member firms in the association, in all these 22 different trades there are literally thousands of firms, potentially members, in the Province, so that we have just an unlimited degree of fragmentation.

At the present time, Mr. Speaker, there are 16 different negotiations going on in this one industry. Already expired: labourers, bricklayers' helpers, operating engineers, and teamsters. Expiring at the end of March: bricklayers, cement masons, inside electrical workers, linemen, glass workers, boilermakers, insulation applicators, ironworkers, machinists and painters; and at the end of April, the plumbers and the carpenters. Sixteen different trades in negotiation right now between January and the end of April. A completely fragmented industry, Mr. Speaker, with a very few large companies and with literally thousands of small companies, and some very independent operators among this group.

They have two basic problems in the past, first because a strike in this industry can very easily bankrupt many of the small firms, and because when the wage bill goes up in the construction industry, the contractor just passes it on. He doesn't have to meet a competitive situation of a world market, or even a national market as a rule, so he passes the wage bill on when he comes to his next estimate on a contract. It is therefore a great temptation — because he can pass it on, as the manufacturer perhaps can't — there's a great temptation to settle quickly with little resistance to the demands of labour, regardless of their fairness or of their effect. Thus if the construction industry were to be irresponsible, some savage wage increases could be granted which would have far-reaching economic effect. At the same time, because the contractor must pass on such increases, the end result is obviously what? Higher cost of schools, hospitals, pulp mills, manufacturing plants, and so on. The construction industry, Mr. Speaker, must be responsible, but I am sure you can see the difficulty when they negotiate a labour contract, and where they need help.

The other problem is the temptation, Mr. Speaker, for a firm to stay outside the bargaining unit, outside the association, if you like, and he makes his own settlements. Consider a firm with a contract 90 per cent finished, just as a strike is about to begin. Such a firm can, and does very often

[ Page 652 ]

in the past, make a quick settlement with the union, on a plan whereby they say, we will agree on whatever is finally settled on between the union and the employers, and so this contractor is unable to finish his contract and get on with the next job. Alternatively, they may even set up a special firm to look after that contract only and disappear, that firm goes bankrupt, or is wound up immediately following the completion of that contract. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the union has gained a substantial advantage in its negotiations with the other employers.

Now this kind of situation is not normal in most industries, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very real problem in the construction industry because it is so fragmented into all of these different sub-trades. Thousands of firms, thousands of employees in 22 different sub-trades, so the industry badly needs help to resolve this problem in its labour relations.

Mind you, Mr. Speaker, the only way to solve these two problems is not only to accredit the employers' agency organization as a collective bargaining agent, but also to make it compulsory that the agency, once accredited by a majority of the employers in a particular trade, should become the representative for all of that particular trade, just as a union, once accredited by the Labour Relations Board, bargains for all the employees, not only its own members. Now this presumably, Mr. Speaker, and rather obviously must be for the future, but I would hope, once these present amendments have been in effect for some time, that the Government might consider going further in this direction to implement such a programme, so that the construction industry might have an opportunity to maintain some degree of labour peace and to maintain a continual record of responsible settlements of these kinds of negotiations. I hope perhaps the Minister would comment on this again before he closes the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the honourable member for North Vancouver, I can well see now where both the Liberals and the Social Credit stand in regards to dealing with this problem of bargaining. I am sure that the honourable the Minister, when he spoke on second reading, kept his tongue in his check when he was telling us why this legislation was brought forward. I am certain that this legislation was brought forward at the request of the employers, and when he talks about the problems of the employer, I would like to know who really has suffered in any strike in the Province of British Columbia. It's the worker that usually suffers in the strike.

When the honourable the member for North Vancouver spoke about fragmentation, and how the poor construction industry is troubled with bargaining with so many units, I would like to say something about the I.W.A. In my area, when they went on an eight month strike. The reason they had to go on that length of a strike was because the trade unions and the separate units had to vote separately. There was no compulsion there that if the majority of the I.W.A. members voted for strike action in the collective of all the units that they represented, that all the units would have to go out. You had the Kicking Horse unit, you had Revelstoke, you had Castlegar, you had different ones that were separated from the other group, and they kept working because they voted to stay at work, and the others voted to go on strike. You kept that strike going for eight months on account of that, and never was there any attempt made at any time to see that the workers could bargain in the same fashion as you're suggesting now that the industry should be able to bargain.

What affects industry is that they are afraid that the trade unions could make a deal with one industry and that would have an effect on all the other industries. But you don't talk the same way when you are talking about trade unions making a deal, that it should go with all the others, and to me the way you talk you would think that the industry had no backbone at all. The honourable member for North Vancouver, he talks about this poor construction industry, and how they need something to strengthen their backbone, to stand up against even unions. I can't understand it, because it seems rather ridiculous and any time that this Government or the Liberal party are out to try and benefit the workers, boy I tell you, you want to look behind the scenes, because regardless of how you try and put the picture up, when you spoke on the second reading, the proof was right there.

It was the industry that asked for this legislation, and then they only had to ask for it once, and you quickly acceded, because you figure that you are going to put unions in a straight jacket because you are not giving them the same privileges throughout the Province….

AN HON. MEMBER: The member just said it took two years.

MR. NIMSICK: No, he said somebody told him that it took two years, but he said also he thought it had come immediately. But it didn't take any two years, because this Government will bow very quickly to the requests of industry. This is just another step, this is just another step in the direction to try and put the squeeze on the workers of the Province.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly participate in this particular debate, but I do, because I agree with the Minister when he made reference to the fact that in the construction industry we had a great deal of trouble getting the employers to work together or to sit down together, so that there could be built an approachable relationship between the industry as a whole. But over the years I have realized, and let me tell you quite frankly, the longer I sit in the House the more I realize that human relations cannot be legislated. And this is basically what we are talking about, are human relations, relationship between an employer and an employee, and this is a basic mistake this Government has made in the great field of employer-employee relations, in that they have believed that human behaviour can be controlled by legislation. In the past they had no reluctance whatsoever to pass legislation which directed, controlled and affected the mass of the workers, even though the mass of the workers opposed that legislation, because they were trying to legislate human behaviour and human perfection.

I don't know whether the employers asked for this legislation or not, they may have, they may not have. That doesn't alter the fact that once you start up this road to try and legislate human perfection, without being willing or able to accept the fact that as long as human beings are involved

[ Page 653 ]

there is bound to be disturbances and trouble. Then you brought in this legislation, perhaps at the request of the employers, perhaps of your own initiative, I don't know and I don't care. The fact is that just as the labour legislation which you brought in did not create labour peace, so this legislation, even though it may primarily affect employers' organizations, contributes nothing toward the real needs of labour-management relations in British Columbia.

This is the failure of this Government, because I have always believed that it was the duty of Government to create the climate, the proper and adequate climate so that labour and management themselves, without direction, without legislation, without enforcement, without interference, could reach for that Utopia, which must be the objective of human endeavour, to achieve understanding and to achieve cooperation. But unfortunately, every time you pass a piece of legislation affecting human relations, where there are two adversaries, or two groups who have been adversaries, when you put a piece of legislation on this side, you upset them, you make them less inclined to be cooperative and understanding. Every time you put your thumb on the scales some more, you affect it, and what we have before us today is a photostat up this road of trying to legislate human perfection, and you simply can't do it.

What your responsibility, Mr. Minister, is to try and create the kind of climate, the kind of understanding, the kind of encouragement between labour and management, a situation of trust where both labour and management will feel that the Department of Labour and the Minister of Labour is unprejudiced, unbiased, and completely fair, and that the minimum of law, the minimum of law directs the negotiation and the relationship between the two groups. Anything more than that is asking for trouble, and already in this past 15 years we have seen, step by step, interferences in the human relationship between management and labour, and recognizing the problems that we have had in the past, I also recognize the failure of the Government to take an unprejudiced attitude.

I feel that this particular step, even though in some areas of management-labour relations it may be of help, and it is quite likely that in some areas it might be of some help, in other areas it will not be of help, and the over-all picture and the over-all weight is, I believe, on the side of the employer. For that reason I feel I must vote against the Bill because, as I say, I don't believe you can legislate human perfection, and because the Government and the Minister has failed to lead the way in creation of the climate, I don't think more legislation will help bring about management-labour understanding and labour-management cooperation.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the Official Opposition this evening have been so mild contrasted with previous legislation that's been introduced in this House that I can almost take that as an endorsement of this Bill.

I want to assure the honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat, in closing this debate, that we're not trying to legislate human perfection in terms of this legislation, but what we are trying to do, and what we feel is necessary, is still to provide some of the grand rules to enable collective bargaining to take place in the Province. Now if it is the attitude of the N.D.P. and if it is the position of the N.D.P. that we don't need laws governing certification, laws that say when a union represents the majority of employees then they represent them all, if we don't need a Labour Relations Board to certify unions, let them come out frankly and say so, because this is a step in terms of the collective bargaining process, of having an employers' organization accredited.

Now the member for Kootenay brought up a point in terms of voting. He likened it to the situation in the I.W.A. where they voted each plant separate. But I want to tell the member that there is provision now in the Labour Relations Act, if you refer to section 10 of the existing — not the Bill, Mr. Speaker — the existing Labour Relations Act, if trade unions and the employers, through the use of this section, want to join together on a voluntary basis there would be just one bargaining unit covering all the employers and all the employees and there would be one vote. Why I'm telling you about this provision, it's in the Act now and it's not being deleted by this Bill, and there'd be one vote of all the employees and one vote of all the employers. So this is a situation that can prevail now under existing legislation.

I was disappointed in the remarks of the member for Surrey in leading off the official position of the N.D.P. on this Bill tonight when he dealt, not with any specific criticism of the Bill, but dealt in vague generalities of thumb on the scale and this sort of thing, that the scales are weighted against the union. This, as I say, Mr. Speaker, is mild in comparison to the wild predictions that have been made about all the other legislation that's been brought into this House relating to labour-management relations.

But I would say this one thing, I don't think it's necessary for me to refute these kind of unsubstantiated general accusations, without any positive argument in support of such statements, not borne out by the provisions of this Bill at all. Nor do I have to refute them because the facts of the situation refute them in terms of weighting the scales against unions. How you can peddle this kind of argument today when you see in the labour force of this country that we have the best paid workmen in all Canada, the best paid workmen in all Canada. When you find that they're working under the best conditions and the shortest work week. You just can't peddle that kind of advice in the Province of British Columbia today, because the workmen, the union men just won't buy it They know it's not so. I move the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is the second reading of Bill No. 22. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have it.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 23, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Chiropractic Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 23. The Honourable the Minister of Health Services.

HON. R. R. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, this Bill in its social consequences is of modest proportions. It rearranges the name of the Chiropractic Association to bring it in line with what is common to a number of other professional organizations in the Province. The third section relates to the powers of the governing bodies to appoint a vacancy in the examining board of the Association, and the fourth section relates to the improving or upgrading of the standards applying to persons who are seeking admission to the

[ Page 654 ]

Association. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've heard the motion that Bill No. 23 be read a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 26, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 26, An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act. The Honourable Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, this Act, while it is relatively short, I don't think that I can attribute to it the same significance that I applied to the Chiropractic Act, or the amendments to it.

Now the background of this legislation arises out of a concern that the Federal Government has in respect of the present law applying under the Criminal Code to suicides, and as honourable members will remember, under the Criminal Code as it now stands suicide is a criminal offence. Along with that, of course, as a practical matter the administration of the Criminal Code under that heading is of limited application and it only relates to certain civil consequences that apply to the estate of the suicide, but as far as a practical application of the criminal law is concerned, I am sure that all members would agree that is of very little significance.

However, there is another aspect of the same Criminal Code regulation that does have some substance of significance, and that is that the suicide being a crime under the Code, an attempt at the same act falls into the same category and it, too, is a crime. Now, this is a very unsatisfactory state of the law as it is looked upon by the Federal authorities, and it is proposed to ameliorate the present law found in the Code, and to strike out suicides and attempted suicides as crimes under the Code, and with this I think there's pretty general agreement.

Now that raises the question, of course, that in the event that the Code is amended to strike out those provisions, what alternatives should be available to public officers and others where they are dealing with an attempted or threatened suicide? What is proposed is this, that this Act should — and incidentally it is being introduced here at the request of the Federal Government and as we were advised is intended, along with similar legislation in other provinces, to offer a practical and a much more humane and understanding substitute for the onerous provisions of the Code. It is proposed that in the event that this Bill is approved by this House, that its operation should be postponed until such time as the Criminal Code is amended, and this would be a complementary step. Now the effect of the Bill is to permit a police officer to take in a person not only in a public place, as the law now stands, but to strike out those words "in a public place" so that the apprehending can take place some place other than a public place.

Now lest the members be concerned that this is an undue invasion of one's, personal liberties, I would hasten to remind members that this does not permit a police officer to take a person who is suspected of suffering from mental illness to some place, for example, such as Riverview or a hospital, no such a thing. All that this does in this section is permit a police officer to take the person to a doctor, and the doctor then will be in a position to examine the patient and take whatever steps are appropriate, but beyond that it does not go, and I would hesitate to recommend this legislation to the House if that had been the case.

So, very briefly, this provision will not be brought into force, will not be proclaimed, until the correlative sections of the Criminal Code are introduced and have become law, and I believe that this reflects a good deal of forward thinking in many quarters of the community where there is a: genuine concern, and I think a proper one, that we should look upon people who are suffering from mental illnesses which manifest themselves in an impulse to take one's own life, and that this will go a long way to remove the criminality which now exists, and I move that the Bill be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR., D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the statements of the Minister and I don't expect there will be any opposition to the bill in the House. It is a fine thing that the Criminal Code is to be amended around suicide, because after all how can you prosecute successful suicide? That's very, very difficult, and we've never found any law to go into the great beyond. As to the idea of prosecuting attempted suicide, it's been completely absurd. Somebody who has attempted suicide is obviously mentally ill, and haven't even been competent enough to commit the act fully, and there is even psychological studies saying that a successful suicide is at the time of the act more sane than the unsuccessful suicide, the argument being that the unsuccessful suicide is incompetent even to complete that particular act with a degree of success.

There are concerns that I have in terms of practice around this very business, and I ask the Minister of Health to consider this as a matter of advice or a matter of opinion only. Many times when a person is apprehended, obviously in an unfit mental state, the arresting officer is very kind and is considerate and uses a minimum of restraint under very trying circumstances, but sometimes the medical profession itself will not cooperate when asked by local police to examine immediately someone who has been arrested. I've found this to be the case. Some doctors are reluctant, specially in a smaller town where they may know the person intimately, and the conditioning that goes around the basis of the intimate knowledge or the personal relationship interferes with the professional diagnosis.

I'd like to suggest to the Minister of Health that, in cooperation with the Attorney-General, possibly doctors in a local area could rotate say duty calls with the local police department, or agree amongst themselves which one of them is most competent to handle this kind of situation. I don't say this in a negative attitude towards the doctors. It becomes a bit of a problem. In the instance, too, in a local community of a police officer now under this Act, when it's proclaimed, going into a family squabble. There are instances, Mr. Speaker, that a family quarrel can lead to temporary loss of sanity — some honourable members might feel mostly on the wife's part — but I want to tell you in my experience it's been fifty-fifty. Fifty per cent of the time it's the wife's fault, but fifty per cent of the time she's provoked. But aside from that particular comment, there are situations when a domestic quarrel reaches the point of loss of control that may only be temporary, but it does need a manner of restraint, and police officers have gone in only to be the victim of attack by one

[ Page 655 ]

or the other of the spouses — or both, right, or both — depending on the security of the marriage and how threatened they are.

So I'd like to urge caution, for the police are now being asked to take on a new dimension in their police role, and it might be very, very worthwhile for the Department of Health to print a mimeographed sheet to police officers who are now asked to take on a new role, and give them some instruction in writing about the best way of approaching these kinds of situations. Now all situations are not predictable. The standard marriage argument is kind of a predictable situation, and forewarned is forearmed, especially for the single policeman, Mr. Chairman, who has not had the opportunity of having personal experience with domestic bliss that is not functioning. So I'm suggesting that the police officer get a kind of a description of what to look for and what not to look for.

The other thing, Mr. Minister, I would hope that some evaluation will be made on the spot rather than make a commitment as an automatic thing by the doctor. It might be worthwhile to have a few hours cooling-off period, and I know that the number of hours listed in the legislation are a protective thing and those hours must be, on a civil liberty point of view, rigidly adhered to. But I think that if a police officer comes into a domestic quarrel and the husband is drunk, just his removal and his sleeping it off and a doctor viewing him at that point, would eliminate an unnecessary commitment if an improper diagnosis is made. That kind of flexibility is the kind of thing that I am hoping for out of this Bill, and we endorse it with the great hope and great expectation that some of the unnecessary clash with institutions can b e avoided with the change in the Criminal Code, and with the corresponding Bill that we have before us tonight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 26 be read a second time now. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 27.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 27, Land Act. The Honourable Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

HON. R. G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 27, An Act to Amend the Land Act, represents a major revision to this statute. As a matter of fact there has not been a major revision to this Act since 1888, so it's served pretty well to govern land transactions within the Province since that time. It has been amended from time to time, but this is a general re-writing of the Act. It's a general statement in terms now of actions which are carried out under the Land Act and which have, in fact, been practised for some time. Introducing the Act this evening it is just my purpose to mention a few highlights in the Act. Because of the very many specific items mentioned I think the best place for debate will take place when the Act is being considered in committee.

Having to do them with some of the basic considerations and changes in the Land Act, one of the vital ones is that pre-emptions as we have known them in the Province of British Columbia are being done away with. In our original days as a Province, to encourage settlers on to the land, there is a provision by which a person might file on 160 acres of land for $2 and if he cleared it, developed it, cultivated it, and lived on the land for a period of five years, he was entitled on payment of a $10 Crown grant fee, to obtain title to that particular piece of property. Over the years, preemptions as we have known them have practically passed out of existence and in last year, 1969, even if the application were bona fide or not, less than one per cent of the applications under the Land Act were for pre-emption, and some of them, as I have indicated, were not followed through and were not considered to be bona fide applications. Because of the lease-develop-purchase programme which is now followed, a person with limited means is able to acquire a holding and to develop it now and pay for it on a fairly easy basis.

The second major change in the Land Act has to do with the whole procedure of making application for purchase or lease of Crown land. At the present time there is some anomaly here. For someone applying for Crown land that has been surveyed there is no requirement that that application be advertised to the public, but if an application is for vacant Crown land that has not been surveyed, the applicant must go through a posting and advertising procedure in every instance before he even makes application for the land. This has caused a great deal of difficulty and a great deal of waste time on behalf of the applicant, for the simple reason that last year again, for an example, of something like 2,000 applications which were advertised in the usual way, appeared in the Gazette, and by the time they formally came to the Land Branch for processing, one-half of them before they proceeded any further for one reason or for another were disallowed at that stage. The people had been placed in the position of going through the procedure of advertising which has been law in this Province ever since 1879. This procedure now will vary according to the location, and in some instances all applications will be advertised, particularly if there is a basic interest in the landed area in which the application has happened to be made, and it will refer both to land which has been surveyed and land which has not been surveyed. This is just one of the basic changes in the form of application which is being introduced for the acquisition of Crown land and, as I said before, much of this can be dealt with when we take up the Act in committee, section by section.

There has been an anomaly in the Land Act as we have known it over the years between the classifications of timber land or forest land, and they have varied in the Land Act as being different with the Forest Act. In the Land Act, forest land has been interpreted as land that had merchantable timber or milling timber in excess of 8,000 feet board measure west of the Cascade Mountains, and 5,000 feet board measure east of the Cascade Mountains per acre, and this factor, to spell out whether land actually was forest land in the general meaning of the Forest Act really meant very little in terms of today's land uses. Timber land in British Columbia today is more or less land which can be managed in perpetuity for purposes of raising timber crops, and the definition as it appeared in the Land Act was deficient, and by eliminating this definition it is going to lead to a great deal more flexibility.

There have been Acts passed — all of our interests rates and lease rentals and things of that nature have been on the basis of a recognized interest rate of 4½ per cent heretofore, and the change in the Act will bring the interest rate more in keeping with the present worth of money and has been set at 8 per cent.

Alt surveys of Crown lands at the present time have had to be gazetted in four consecutive issues of the Gazette

[ Page 656 ]

after the survey was completed. In the old days the surveys were not that accurate, and it was felt that in the four insertions that it was possible for all interested people to become aware of new surveys, to inquire about it and to check it out for themselves. Today all surveys of Crown land are run through the computer, the errors today are infinitesimal, and it has been found really not necessary to go through either this time waste nor the expense, and one insertion in the Gazette from this time forth will be all that is required.

An interesting thing happens. There are many clauses in the Act that have to do with so-called squatters' rights and clarification of squatters' rights. In British Columbia, squatters' rights have never been recognized by law even though many people have been under the impression that either under British law or some form of statute, by squatting they did, in fact, have rights to the land. This has never been recognized in British Columbia but it has never been spelled out in statute, and it is spelled out in the provision which is before you at the present time. There is also opportunity now given for control of Crown land in certain designated areas. At the present time the procedure, if someone squats on Crown land, of taking any action concerning those people is very, very cumbersome and very difficult indeed. The new statute will allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that is the Cabinet, to proscribe certain designated areas and prohibit the use or any specific use in that area. Now this has very wide significance and really was brought to the fore by the member from Alberni last year and the problems that they have had in the Long Beach area insofar as the summer residents were concerned. This will allow for the listing of designated areas, and in designated areas you specify non-uses of the Crown land there and give us some legal rights for taking action at the time.

That happens to be, of course, only one of the situations, but for example at the present time the Health Officer may post a beach as being polluted and dangerous for swimming. Under the Land Act this will go one step further and allow us to designate it as a specific area and to prohibit swimming from the area. At the present time that cannot be done just through the posting of the situation. We also have areas where the shellfish at the moment in the Coastal area have become polluted and a danger for persons to eat. We have no real way of preventing people, other than the general warning that the shellfish may not be suitable for human consumption, and yet they go in and consume them. If it is considered to be dangerous under the designated area, prohibition can be placed against people entering and using shellfish from particular areas which may in fact be dangerous to their health. The same is true for swimming areas, not only from the standpoint of pollution but dangerous areas for swimming from the standpoint of tidal currents or natural difficulties which may happen to an individual if they are unaware of the conditions which happen to exist.

As it happened in other places, the age limitation has been reduced and people will be able to carry out all legal matters under Crown land at the age of 19.

Areas for purchases or lease of Crown lands on the lease-develop-purchase system are limited now in particular areas to 1,280 acres in a single application. In line with this, and because of practices we have had, well, in several different instances the law is being changed to allow the Director of Lands to inquire of financial feasibility, to demand the provision of development plans for a particular area, and the feasibility of the individual being able to carry out those plans before an adjudication of the claim happens to be made. In the Peace River at the present time there are people under single names with their brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, everything else, going into the literally tens, twenties and thirties, each applying for two sections of land under a single individual name. It will be possible for the Director of Lands to inquire into the whole organization of the application, including the financial background thereto, to make sure it is an absolutely bona fide claim that is being registered insofar as the lands are concerned.

There has been some publicity given to the fact that under Crown lands, issuing of Crown lands in the Province from now on, that you will be required to have your Canadian citizenship to purchase Crown lands. Now no one, Mr. Speaker no one is naive enough to think this will prevent the passage of lands, once they have been acquired and sold, from one set of persons to the other but it will, I think, indicate from the standpoint of Government that we are desirous of people who do come into the Province and acquire our lands, at least in the first instance that the opportunity is there to be afforded first to Canadian citizens. People will be able to lease land, as has been heretofore, but they will not be able to proceed towards the Crown grants without their Canadian citizenship.

The last item tonight, Mr. Speaker, I think I might deal with is the fact that the new Land Act makes provision for the activities of the Land Use Committee and the technical sub-committee which will report to the Land Use Committee. This is going to, for the first time in the Province, put on an official basis a rather wide-ranging set of opinion and professional expertise concerning the best use of land in the public interest. Incorporated in the Land Use Committee are all of the basic land use departments in Government, and this committee is already a functioning part of our administration, but this committee is to be given official status under the changes in the Land Act which you will be debating.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I would take nearly every section has to do in one way or another with basic changes which have taken place insofar as either survey requirements or land matters are concerned. I have just indicated some of the broader aspects of the change, but in all there are more than 100 general changes which have taken place in the administration, and as I said before, they had best be debated as we deal with this Act in committee section by section. I move second reading of Bill No. 27.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Second Member from Vancouver East.

MR R.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are pleased that this really opens up a discussion of the question of land in our society and the use and allocation of Crown land in particular. It is important, Mr. Speaker, because I think most of us forget that land is the platform of all human activity on this small globe, and that it is a crowded world and that we in British Columbia are well endowed.

But you know, since the honourable the Minister refers to the fact that this is the first significant change in the land statutes of this Province since the 1880's or something of that nature, it makes one wonder. You know, many of the early land statutes of North America were guided by the railroad lobbies of North America, the early and continuing land barons of this continent, and the real estate lobbies are the modern railway barons, and in fact the railway barons themselves are in fact the real estate lobbies in this country. So it's worthwhile to consider the question of how we handle this

[ Page 657 ]

platform that we all use.

It is unfortunate that the Act doesn't go further, needless to say. It is unfortunate that the Act doesn't look at the whole question of private land ownership in our society, because British Columbia, down in the southern end of British Columbia, here on Vancouver Island and in the lower mainland, is a very crowded part of the globe. The lower mainland is the same as the Netherlands, the lower mainland is as crowded as Holland. In this area where the early 1880's land tenure system still applies is where the great problems of the future in British Columbia will reside, and it is unfortunate that southern Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, and the lower mainland are not being looked at, at this time in terms of land tenure and how we handle this precious resource that we all use, but I think the pressure will be on the Minister before very long to look into this area.

This Bill will probably, in fact it has been noted in the press primarily as a Bill dealing with the question of non-Canadian ownership of Crown land or acquisition of Crown land, and that's probably unfair, because that's only one section of the statute. But beyond that I think we should consider this question of absentee, non-national ownership in British Columbia, and this Act only scratches the surface of the problem. It only scratches the surface. The honourable Minister admits that the likelihood is that Crown land can be acquired or will be acquired and thereafter transferred possibly to non-national absentee owners, and that would be unfortunate, and it would seem to me a simple thing to simply make it clear that any land that the Crown now alienates we would no longer allow to be transferred to non-nationals, to absentee landlords. I think that's clear…. No, we just had a change in the Land Registry Act, or the second reading of the Land Registry Act. We could well see to it that this kind of covenant prevailed, that land titles in British Columbia, hereafter at least if not retroactively, would no longer be allowed to be transferred to non-national absentee owners, and it's unfortunate that the Minister only pays lip service to the principle. It's really only lip service, because non-national owners can form British Columbia companies and acquire Crown land in British Columbia. It's a simple dodge. If non-national absentee people are going to get control of Crown land in British Columbia they can do so through a private company that they incorporate in British Columbia. So it's clear that the newspapers may say this is a Bill dealing with non-national absentee owners, and in fact it isn't at all, it's simply an updating of an old, old statute. So it's rather weak in that regard, Mr. Speaker.

The question of how we should dispose of Crown land also is dealt with in this Bill, and I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that no land should be allocated in British Columbia that isn't first bid on, and that is not set out in a final, clear way in this Bill at all. I think the people of British Columbia should always know what the resource is worth when it's being traded, and the only way to find out is to find out what people are willing to pay when the land is offered, and that is not established finally in this Bill, because the Minister or the Director of Lands can sell on the basis of application, so that's unfortunate. The party that believes so proudly in the market place is really unwilling to test the market place at the time the market should be tested.

In addition, it puts a terrible burden on the Director of Lands, Mr. Speaker, this statute, and if any one civil servant had to have the responsibility it's reasonable that the Director of Lands should be the man, but you know, if a proper job is to be done in terms of analysing the highest and best use of Crown land, and that's really in effect what the Bill suggests, underlying it, that's one of the principles that is being worked toward, presumably, in this Bill, then it puts a tremendous responsibility on the Director of Lands. He's to be, in effect, the final arbiter of the highest and best use of this platform of human activity in British Columbia, that is the Crown lands, which are 95 per cent of all of our land. But the point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Director of Lands doesn't have a staff. He doesn't have the kind of staff that he needs to do that kind of job. So his problem may well be that he will only be able to pay lip service to that particular principle.

The Bill moves us a little bit forward in terms of our water bodies in the Province, and I would gather from reading the statute, and maybe the Minister can confirm this, that it brings back into public ownership any water bodies that have been allocated heretofore, and whether the E. and N. land grant here in the southern end of Vancouver Island would be included in there he might comment, because here in the southern end of Vancouver Island a good many of the lakes and so on are owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that is the lakes themselves are owned by this great real estate lobby, this great early railway land baron.

I think, Mr. Chairman, to an extent the statute reflects the bias of the Minister toward timber and to some of the base industries of the Province, because it clearly sets aside these timber lands and mining lands in a separate way.

It's unfortunate in this day and age that the statute doesn't set aside say recreation land first, that is sites that are unique and prime recreation lands in British Columbia should be set aside first in this day and age, and in this statute there isn't even passing reference, not even passing reference to recreation and park lands, and it's not surprising. It's not surprising at every turn that every time this Government has had to make a choice it takes the old work ethic, the old work ethic and sees to it that if a modest number of industrial jobs can be created, it's willing to wreck a recreational area, land that in the long haul could be….

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's not nonsense. That's not nonsense.

The problem is there hasn't been the kind of watchdog job done on recreation land in British Columbia by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and it's unfortunate that that's the case. We wouldn't possibly have to look to the Land Act as means of preserving the recreation lands of British Columbia. It's very clear that this statute looks first at timber lands and mining lands in a special way and ignores recreation lands, and once again the Minister of Recreation and Conservation seems apparently happy to live with this situation. Part of the team, yes.

There is a significant major loophole also in the statute, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of leasing Crown land. It simply gives the power to the Director to lease Crown land, it doesn't limit the term of the lease, and it also gives the Director the right to lease with an option to purchase. So that's, in effect, the same kind of thing as all the rigmarole of procedure of acquisition, you know, and this is really a huge loophole and it makes one think about Cypress Bowl and other parts of British Columbia. It should, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, be the critical part in the whole statute, because the honourable the Minister still accepts the principle of fee simple ownership forever and ever in perpetuity. Surely at

[ Page 658 ]

this stage, in 1970, on this globe, we should be talking about some limit to the tenure period on the globe. You know, one man's lifetime, at least, should be the limit. Isn't that a reasonable idea?

Many of the real problems in terms of land management in the world today are tied to this business of tenure, and it's the reason there are revolutions in Asia, it's the reason that there are revolutions in South America, in fact. So it's no minor social problem, and I don't suggest that it's going to be to that degree in this part of the world for decades and decades to come, but we are feeling it very much in the southern lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island even now, and it's reflecting in the need for statutes like the Landlord and Tenant statute that we considered earlier tonight. The root of the problem is tied to this question of tenure and ownership in perpetuity and it's unfortunate that the Minister takes such cautious steps, such cautious steps at a time when it's clear that bold steps arc needed.

There's not even a confirmation in the statute, Mr. Speaker, of a principle which I think was an administrative one established by this Government some years ago, and that's the business of not allowing the transfer of the Crown's rights in perpetuity to shoreline lands, that is where there remains Crown land ownership here in the Gulf and up the Coast, the principle is established that it should be on a leasehold basis only. Not leased with option to purchase, as suggested in this statute, but leasehold only. It seems to me that was a major and important step by this Government some years ago, and I commend the Government for it, but surely, Mr. Speaker, it's time to codify it. Surely it's time to write it into the law books and say that's our policy and there it is in the books, and I don't see that in the books here today. It should be announced proudly, and should be confirmed.

Then there's the question of exchange of lands, Mr. Speaker. Some of the most infamous land deals that this Government has been involved in have been the exchange of lands or rights within the public parks of British Columbia. Here was a chance to clean up a messy, tarnished image, a chance to confirm the fact that the public parks would be inviolate in British Columbia. This was a chance for you to say no more will we have a Cape Scott–Strathcona land deal transfer. This was a chance for you to say no more will we have a Wells Gray–Rathtrevor Beach transfer because in every one of these transfers the people of British Columbia almost lost their shirt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You're wrong. Oh…. oh….

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, my friend, my friend, the kind of trade that was made was 80, 80 square miles of timber rights for 100 acres on Vancouver Island. Now if that was a good trade — even the Minister doesn't, even the Minister doesn't accept responsibility for that particular boondoggle. That's what the basic trade was, the basic trade was that…. Well, we have all the files, the Minister was kind enough to give me them.

There's another interesting section of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and that's the business of checking the bona fide of applicants, and it's very interesting that the Minister of Lands and Forests should now at long, long last be interested in checking the bona fides of people that want Crown land. It was this very Minister, Mr. Speaker, that just a few months ago wasn't concerned about the quality or the kind of money that was coming into British Columbia with respect to Cypress Bowl. Money is money, my friend, a buck is a buck, even though the Attorney-General said something a little different with respect to that. But it's interesting that maybe the honourable the Attorney-General's had some effect on his colleague, and if he has, well more power to him, because there's a good many of the remainder of his colleagues that could use that kind of advice.

But, you know, the honourable the Minister referred to the Land Use Committee and suggested that this was a major step forward and a major reform in terms of the way we approach the use of land in B.C., and I'd suggest that potentially it is, potentially it is. At the hands of this Minister I have some doubts, because where is this Land Use Committee, this inter-disciplinary group that involves several of the Cabinet Ministers, several of the Deputy Ministers, several of the senior staff people at the sub-committee level, where is it included in this statute? Is it included in some central place so that the Director of Lands is automatically tied into it, so that he automatically has to take the advice of this, I suggest, senior committee? No, it's not. The section it's covered under, Mr. Speaker, is miscellaneous, miscellaneous. That's the approach of the Minister. Miscellaneous for what should be a whole new approach to managing land in British Columbia.

It's clear, Mr. Speaker, it's clear, Mr. Speaker, that a new statute's going to be needed before long, and we've waited for 80 or 90 years for a change in our land statutes. This is a significant improvement over the old statute, but 80 or 90 years is a long time to wait.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this is an important statute, a most important statute, and I think it's unfortunate that it couldn't have been considered by a committee of the House where we might have heard various people from around this Province on this question. There's the new Regional Districts scattered throughout the Province which arc starting to play a fundamental role in terms of how we manage land in British Columbia, and I suggest that if this Government stays in power much longer they may well be the significant groups in terms of managing the land of British Columbia, and it would be as well to hear from groups like the Regional Districts who are developing an expertise of their own.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this particular statute is of such significance that it deserves the time of the House on a fairly significant scale, and in view of the hour I would move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Nays have it.

The motion to adjourn the debate to the next sitting of the House was negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Messieurs

NAYS — 33

[ Page 659 ]

Messieurs

PAIRS:

Messieurs

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the honourable the Minister indicate, in opening this debate, the restrictions there would be upon the persons who might apply for Crown lands under this new Act, and I would just ask him if he would very carefully consider Sub-section 3 of section 7, and perhaps he might wonder whether or not his statements would bear careful examination.

It is also interesting, Mr. Speaker, when you compare the interpretation section of this legislation with the section which deals with the disposition of Crown lands, when you find that a corporation is a person who may be an applicant and, of course, a corporation cannot in any sense of the word comply as a Canadian citizen, and therefore I suspect that these assurances from the honourable the Minister, are much like many of the other assurances that he gave to us in opening this debate.

It is a new Act, it is a very long Act, but I agree with the last speaker that it could be a much better Act if we had had the opportunity for some extensive deliberation in committee, and I am surprised the Minister didn't direct the statute to such a body for careful examination.

I am concerned principally about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because as I recall in the Opening Speech in this Session, we were promised an Act which was going to streamline the procedures for the disposition of Crown lands and I must say that this Act has lived up to the letter of that concept, because what it has done is to streamline the provisions of the Land Act in such a way as to give to the Director of Lands the widest possible power, the widest discretion in dealing with this essential asset of the people of this Province. section after section after section, Mr. Speaker, gives to the Director of Land the right to impose terms which he considers advisable, the right to do what he considers advisable with regard to the publication of notices which we had been led to expect in the disposition of Crown land. Section after section after section, filled with discretion to this public official, without any indication as to the standards to which he must obtain, as to the advice which he must seek in determining how his discretion should be exercised, and it leaves me to wonder what is going to happen if that discretion is exercised improperly, and who it might be, Mr. Speaker, who would encourage the Director of Lands to accept one particular position or the other.

We've had too many instances in the past and some recent ones which have been the subject of debate in this House, which indicate the fallibility of some of the officials in the Department of Lands, and I have real pause when I consider the extent to which that fallibility, exercised under this new Act, could have upon the future of Crown lands in this Province.

I think the honourable the second member from Vancouver East has said that it stands out in this Act the bias that the honourable the Minister has with regard to his responsibility in the area of forests, and he sets out that the forest industry, the forest use of lands is to receive first consideration. I think this is wrong when we are dealing with a Land Act, and it points out one of the inadequacies of combining these heavy responsibilities with regards to land, with those with respect to other resources under the control of the Crown.

The honourable the Minister said that when we were dealing with surveyed land in this Province and when the Director had to be dealing with unsurveyed land, that the matter of what notice need be given was to be treated differently. And yet, strangely enough, as I look at the section of this Act which deals with the matter of notice, there is no difference given between lands falling into these two categories. Indeed, as in these other sections, it is the Director who considers whether or not it is advisable in the public interest to cause notice to be published of intentions to make application for the disposition of Crown lands. And this is the kind of situation that we had, it seems to me, in October or November of this past year, when there was a certain oversight to publish notices in respect of certain leases in Cypress Bowl. Now we find that it is enshrined in the legislation that a senior official in the Department of Lands can suddenly make a decision as to whether or not he need publish. This, in my view, is not the kind of application procedure which I believe we need when dealing with this extensive resource.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister if he would not consider, following second reading of this Bill, whether or not it might be hoisted for further, more careful and exhaustive examination.

I am concerned too that the mention of the Land Use Committee is placed in the miscellaneous section, and I am concerned that Land Use Commission is not even given the status of initial capitals to give it some position of credence and authority under the Land Act of this Province. But more than concerned about its position in the Bill, and the fact that it may not have a title worthy of the responsibility which it should discharge, I am more concerned that the words used in the establishment of the Committee, and the words used in its responsibilities and the way in which it carries out those responsibilities, are framed in the permissive. Whether the Land Use Committee is to exist or not, and if it does exist, what it is to do and the way in which it discharges its function is permissive. It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that what we need in this Province is a Land Use Commission, the establishment of which is mandatory, whose terms of reference are clear, and the obligations to carry them out, and the way in which it performs its function are equally clear and mandatory.

We only have so far as concerning ourselves with the use

[ Page 660 ]

to which land in this Province may be put, the information which is slowly being presented to us from the studies being made under the Canada Land Inventory. It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that what we need in this Province, under a Minister charged specifically with the responsibility for the land resource, a Land Use Committee whose purpose it will be to supplement and reinforce and accelerate the kind of study that has already begun under the Canada Land Inventory. There is no reason that we should wait for the Federal Government to conduct an inventory of our lands in British Columbia. It is vital that we know the potential and best use of the lands with which we are charged to administer…

AN HON. MEMBER: Including Roberts Bank?

MR. WILLIAMS: …including Roberts Bank. And it is essential that we know this as soon as we possibly can, and it is essential that when we have this information we begin to establish land disposition policies based upon studies and research of this kind and, Mr. Speaker, I would hope — and it may be a vain hope — but I would hope that one day, under a strong and aggressive Minister concerned with the future of this fundamental resource, that we might have a committee which would carry out this study, so that the disposition of land, for once and for all, could be made upon informed, competent, and reliable opinion, but we don't have it here. Yes, the Act is better than we've had before, but I would have thought, in view of the challenging words in the Opening Speech, and in view of the difficulties that have from time to time arisen in the administration of land, and in view of the remarks that were made by the Minister when he opened this debate, that we would have had a far better, far reaching Land Act brought before this House in this Session.

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the Minister a concept about land use as the member has spoken of and also to urge upon him to accept the idea of the second member from Vancouver East.

I do think this Bill is important enough to go to committee. I think this is the one kind of Bill where a committee could sit year around, throughout the whole Province of British Columbia, and have the legislators of all parties on that committee visit the local communities concerned and have the local communities, in turn, come in with their particular knowledge about the land in their area and their particular affection for that land shared with the committee. It is difficult for us as legislators, at this time of night and this kind of debate, to really give the Bill the justice that it deserves.

One of the things that I would like to see incorporated in the Bill, Mr. Speaker, is the concept of looking upon the land as a treasure. Looking upon the land as something that must be guarded and cared for and protected as much as possible by legislation. I think, Mr. Speaker, we must reach the day when we consider an offense against the land a criminal offense. I think that there must be standards of care of lease land in terms of what people do with it in unorganized territories, the question of dumping garbage, that is industrial garbage, or personal garbage. I think we have to look upon the care of grazing lands, the care of what people are doing when they use the land either for agricultural purposes or logging purposes or anything else. Minimum standards of care, because it is indeed a treasure.

The improper use of the water, or the polluting of water on lease land for example, Mr. Speaker, in Cypress Bowl when logging was carried out on the creek, or in the Bowl itself, when the lake and the creek suffered, and there is no minimum requirements of protecting the land on that basis. We have had the problem of flooding in the member's riding in West Vancouver, the Squamish area of West Vancouver–Howe Sound, when the residents of that particular creek — I think it was in Lion's Bay, Mr. Member — where the land had been violated by loggers and because there were no minimum standards in this Bill, that kind of violation led to other problems and to severe property loss and personal damage, and the Minister was held liable in the opinion of some of the residents in that area.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, this issue is very, very important for all citizens of this Province, and there will be little harm done in taking this Act by committee throughout the whole Province of British Columbia. There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when this Government's proudest slogan was, "Keeping the people informed." They have forgotten that slogan and they have forgotten the meaning of keeping the people informed.

My friend, the member from Salmon Arm, who I constantly praise in this House as being the independent fighter for the people in his area, that great spokesman with his fighting, dynamic speeches that he gives in this House, he too, would welcome the opportunity of this committee going up into the Shuswap area so that people of that area could sit and watch the committee at work, hear briefs and deliberations, and hear the member fight against the water diversion and the effect that that would have on the land in that area, because he's given those dynamic speeches here in the House. There are other members, the member from Cariboo, he has a particular knowledge about the land use in the Cariboo that others in this Chamber do not have, and he accumulates that because of his vast personal experience of representing the people in that area and their problems. There are members from the Peace River. This great, diverse Province of British Columbia, with its peculiar land problems related to each one of the areas. Dewdney too, Dewdney too. It shares in common a concern of two of us in this House, the member from Dewdney and myself. The member from Dewdney and myself, we on occasion have to cooperate against big Government, but….

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I hope he won't praise me too much (laughter).

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member gets embarrassed in strange places, and when I speak of him his thumbs turn red. But I want to say that we have our differences of opinion, but we are mature gentlemen and we do not go overboard in our criticism especially when we are concerned about land, the Land Act, and proper land use in the Fraser Valley area…. I don't believe what I'm saying? What an incredible statement. What an incredible statement. Mr. Speaker, is there anything wrong with this Bill going to committee? Is there anyone in this House — put up your hand all the members that have read this Bill section by section?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I won't ask them to do that. I withdraw. I withdraw that threatening question.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be advisable,

[ Page 661 ]

at the very least, if we can't have this Bill go to committee to adjourn the debate, and I so move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is unacceptable to the Chair in that no intervening business has taken place since the last motion of adjournment. So unless you have the unanimous consent of the House, the motion will not be in order.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to ask leave of the House to move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? Are you ready for the question?

MR. BARRETT: Is my motion out of order?

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has forfeited his right to speak.

MR. BARRETT: By asking for leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: I see.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think when the intention of the Government was announced during the Throne Speech to bring in a Land Act, many members in the House took heart. Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was the big news of that Throne Speech, and we expected wisdom, because this past decade has been a decade of record plunder of the land in our Province. We plundered our land to the Americans as we are doing today with the Libby Dam, and as we propose to do with the Skagit Valley. We've plundered our land for Crown corporations on a staggering scale as we've done behind the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and will do behind the Mica Dam. We've plundered from park land, alienating part of a park at the doorstep of the City of Victoria. We've plundered our land for private corporations, as with Cypress Bowl. We've plundered our land for the benefit of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, there just is no wisdom in this Bill. The fact that it's been brought in late at night, adjournments have been refused, is further indication, Mr. Speaker, that the whole idea of this Bill is to give it the once over lightly debate which is so customary.

I want to compliment, Mr. Speaker, if I may, the Minister of Mines when he brought in a Bill involving a fairly sensitive aspect of land use, namely strip mining in British Columbia, he referred his Bill to committee. The Minister of Lands and Forests was a member of that committee, and it was improved as a consequence of that deliberation. I'm disappointed, of course, that the Minister of Mines didn't himself go down or send his committee down to Tennessee and to West Virginia to see how the land had been plundered there, as a way of our escaping similar despoilation in British Columbia. I don't think we can be certain yet that it won't happen in this Province, because again in that Bill as in this Bill, where no wisdom was produced, it was left to the Minister's discretion.

Mr. Speaker, that's the problem. We haven't considered it adequately. The ability, obviously, is not there in the Cabinet, in the Minister's hands, or in the Civil Service, to draw up a proper Act for this Province. That's why so much of this Act, Mr. Speaker, is at the discretion of this mystical man, this Solomon who will never arrive on the scene, the Director of Lands. How is he supposed to suddenly develop the wisdom that can't be found anywhere in the written legislation, by himself? No guidance, because the Minister who drew this Act up didn't know what kind of guidance to give, or if he did know what kind of guidance to give, he didn't know how to write it down in an Act. Mr. Speaker, we have to do better than this. The record of the past decade has been too dismal.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: Your record has not been dismal, it's been blacked out.

MR. McGEER: And, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is illustrating his own depth of mind, his depth of consideration of this subject, parallel to his thoughts about his own Department.

But, it isn't good enough, Mr. Speaker, we need to have this Bill considered by a committee of this House where people can be called to lend their guidance in drafting good legislation for future generations of British Columbians.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, this is the proposal in this Bill that will set out how people are going to acquire land, but right from the onset the Bill talks about people in two senses, people as corporations and as persons. Of course we have our Interpretation Act in our statutes, but it's not in relation to that that the definition section of this particular Bill has reference, it sets out its own interpretation of an applicant, and it says it can be a person or it can be a corporation. You look over further into the Bill to see how that applicant, be it a person or a corporation, obtains a Crown grant or other disposition of land, and to your amazement you find that the draftsman has changed his mind. He says further on in the Bill that no person who is not a Canadian citizen pursuant to the definition under the Federal Act of a Canadian citizen, under the Canada Citizenship Act, shall be entitled to a Crown grant. Now, how can you reconcile that kind of draftsmanship, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I know how difficult it is in a large Bill of this kind to speak to the general principle, but I think we shouldn't be quoting sections from the Bill and discussing them in detail.

MR. DOWDING: Well, only for the principle of who is entitled to land in British Columbia. That's the only reason I draw attention to any specific part. In Alberta they have this problem with regard to trying somehow to prevent the acquisition of vital areas of the economy in the hands of non-Canadians. The best example you can find in that regard is the Alberta Trust Company Act, and they not only deal with who can be directors or have status in Trust Companies, but they also indicate who cannot, and it refers to either companies or individuals, and how they avoid the corporate entity coming in to acquire or take assignment of land, but in reality being a non-Canadian group in charge of such

[ Page 662 ]

corporation. I think a little more consideration of that, if that is the object and a basic principle that appears to be set out in this Bill, then the draftsmen and the Government have failed in their duty if that is what they were seeking to achieve.

Now, I would have thought that if a Government were going to try to preserve as sacred the lakes and bodies of water for the public enjoyment in the future, that some consideration would have been given where the parcel of land surrounds a lake or other water, to preserve a reservation in the Crown to permit access to that lake or body of water to the public. But no such provision appears in those matters that deal with the acquisition of bodies of water or land surrounding bodies of water. Surely that improvement, if the Government is serious about preserving water for recreational use, should have been built in to any new Bill.

One of the most curious and I think, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I can only say arrogant provisions contemplated in this Bill is one that makes the Director of Lands, in effect, the judge. It is given to him as a basic right, the power to decide after a claimant claims any right, title, or interest in or to Crown land, to make the decision on his own providing a claimant files a statement of claim with him within a specified time. You go on to discover that the Director who is, in effect, on one side of the matter, ends up being the judge. Well, I think this principle is a very dangerous one.

It seems to me that if there is any dispute over the title, right, or interest of any person to land where the Crown may claim a right, where a private individual may claim a right, the proper place to adjudicate that is like everything else, in a completely impartial forum. I would suggest, of course, the Courts were set up for that purpose, and one of the basic purposes over the history of the judicial process has been for the Courts to settle disputes over land. So, to see it plucked out of that context of impartiality and have the one side of it the judge in his own cause, is an incredible idea or principle.

Then, of course, something that has been very customary with this Government, in the same line, says not only will we be the judge in our own cause, the Director of Lands, but you will be barred and prohibited from bringing any action against the Minister, the Deputy Minister, or any of the employees of the Department of Lands with respect to any act or omission in regard to your dealings with that department over the land, and I find that incredible. Why should they arbitrarily prevent a person from settling a legal question between him and the Lands Department when the issue appears to be any act or omission done or omitted in good faith in the performance of a duty imposed on an authority conferred under the Act.

I point out, Mr. Speaker, the danger is this, that if a civil servant makes a mistake, he is the one who can prevent an action against himself by simply saying he did it in good faith. What a ridiculous situation. The civil servant doesn't issue fiats, the Attorney-General recommends them to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I haven't heard of any being issued, Mr. Speaker. Then, just to make sure that this is law gone wild — no certainty to it, complete anarchy — it is provided, as one of the basic principles of this Bill, that the Lieutenant-Governor can do practically anything to redraw the legislation to suit his heart's desire from time to time without consulting the Legislature. It's an incredible provision! And no matter what he does, every Regulation and Order made under this section of the particular Bill shall be deemed to be part, of the Act. Incredible! You can all stay home from now on, ladies and gentlemen, you are not needed here.

Those are some of the paramount points in regard to the technical sides of it. You have heard from the honourable member from Vancouver East who has spoken on the more philosophical aspect of it. We cannot see how the Bill in committee could go forward without some improvement, but it certainly should go to committee to get down to the specific details that we are unable, to some extent, to deal with specifically. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I didn't like to take any part in this debate at this time of the night on such an important Bill, but there are certain things that I have got to say that you cannot say in committee, that are not covered in this Act so you cannot cover it in committee. To start with, I am very surprised that the Bill that covers the most important resource in our Province, that nobody of the Government members have spoken one word on this Bill. Not one word on this Bill, Mr. Speaker. Maybe behind the scenes some place you might have talked, but you are not talking on this Bill out here in the open.

Mr. Speaker, when we heard about this Bill coming before this Legislature at this Session, I had hoped that it was going to be the outcome of some of the ARDA reports that investigated the land use problems of the Province. I had hoped that it would come out with some of the things that are so necessary if we are going to preserve this resource, not only for ourselves but for future generations of this country.

But when you look at the Bill it takes away, as the honourable member from Burnaby-Edmonds says, it takes away the right of the disposition of land in this Province from the Legislature, and it places it in the hands of practically one individual in this Province, and not an elected individual at that, and that would be nothing more nor less than a land czar in the Province of British Columbia, and I don't think that this is good, because land is becoming more important every day. With the progress of civilization as it is today, it is high time that we did something in regard to land use in regard to the future of the Province of British Columbia.

In the first place, I don't think that the Social Credit Government has got the monopoly on all the intelligence in the Province in regards to land disposition. And by bringing this Bill to this Legislature without letting the public or people concerned having anything to say about it, is nothing more than arrogance to the public itself. We had the Compensation Act, we had the Mining Act, the Forest Act, we had Acts that were less important than the Land Act turned over to committees to consider, but here is the most important Act of all, and we haven't had a discussion on it at all.

The honourable the Minister gave a report on it in second reading and he wouldn't even let it be adjourned. He wouldn't even let us adjourn it tonight, the leader of the House wouldn't let us adjourn it tonight….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member should proceed with the principle of the Bill.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, that's all right, but I say this, that after the report of the Minister then we should have had a chance to consider it again, to consider it some more. I say that it is an insult to the public of British Columbia that their

[ Page 663 ]

most important natural resource, and the public will have no say about how it is going to be handled.

We should have incorporated in this Act some planning, and as the honourable member for Vancouver East stated, in regards to recreation there is nothing in this Act. There is no reference at all to reserving some of the land in this Province for recreational purposes, and with our methods of getting back into the hinterlands it is time that we give consideration to preserving some areas of our Province so that the flora and the fauna will be preserved as it was when the white man first came into this country. We have got the whole East Kootenay, and there isn't one wilderness area in the finest recreational area in the Province, and not one wilderness area has been set aside in that area. The timber barons are gradually forcing further and further until the time will come, very shortly, when there will be no area that you can reserve as a wilderness area and say it is a wilderness area.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got the Assiniboine.

MR. NIMSICK: The Assiniboine is up in the main part, and that's not necessarily so in the Assiniboine the way they are hauling the logs through that country there from the Kettle River. The Assiniboine is a long ways to the north, but we should have a part down in the other area, further south, a wilderness area such as the Top of the World that they are asking for, around Fish Lakes. I say that this planning should be done now, not wait until it is too late, until the machines that we've got today will penetrate to every section of the Province and there will be no area that we can set aside as an area by itself, so that the people will have the right and our children will have the right to go into those areas of the Province. And when you talk of one park in the East Kootenay, I think the honourable member for Columbia should be ashamed that we should only have one park, one wilderness area in the whole East Kootenay, in the whole East Kootenay….

…Well, this is a long ways up into the northern part, it is interwound with the Banff National Park, and I think that it is time that we set aside an area in the southeastern part of the Province. Mr. Speaker, I wish the honourable member for Columbia, if he wants to speak on this Bill let him get up after me and speak on it, but I don't think he should be interrupting or interfering in the discussion in regards to this Bill. He hasn't the courage to get up on his own because….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Interruption is not unknown in this House, and I am sure the honourable member is aware of it. Shall we proceed with the discussion of the principle of the Bill.

MR. NIMSICK: I realize it is not unknown, Mr. Speaker, but it just shows you that some people don't want to say anything themselves, but they like to interrupt.

There is another point, Mr. Speaker, that we should consider in this Act, and that is access. We have got many areas in this Province, and a few years ago we had an Access Committee. This Government, to appease the hue and cry that went across this Province for access, they appointed an Access Committee. They brought in a Bill, an Access Bill, and that Bill never was brought to the floor of this House. The committee was dispersed and nothing has been done since in regard to access to many areas of this Province. It should be written into the Act that when land is sold that there should be access across that land to get into the hinterland, and there is nothing in this Act that says this.

Mr. Speaker, this access problem is very important. Along the sides of streams, around lakes, there should be reserve of certain areas back from the shoreline of a lake and back from the shoreline of a creek so that people could walk down the creek without having to ask permission or without having to be accused of trespassing on private property. This is what's going on all the time. Where creeks are running through private property people cannot even walk down and fish, because the private land runs right up to the creek.

The Land Use Committee that this House has set up should have some say in the disposition of land. Their authority should be enshrined in this Act. We've got problems in this Province with big game and grazing problems. These are questions that should be considered on the whole land problem of the Province.

To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this Act, the way it is now, it is brought in and brought in late at night because they realize it isn't the Act that it should be, they realize that it should be gone out to public consideration and, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that this Act had to be dealt with, not only at this time of the night, but to be rushed through on second reading without the consideration it deserves.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The honourable the Minister will close the debate.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, when I introduced the Bill this evening, and believe me I had no way of knowing it was coming as we proceeded through the day, until this evening, when it was going to finally arrive for debate, so to have had this all anticipated well in advance was showing some clairvoyant vision that I don't happen to have.

I indicated that most of this debate would take place by members of the House when it was in committee, because all of the sections of the Act could not be dealt with nor placed out, and it is obvious that many members — and I don't expect them to have read the Act in that much detail at this stage — but the last member from Kootenay, for example, was speaking on a matter of access, Mr. Speaker, and I recognize I didn't mention access when I was dealing with the introduction of the Bill. But those things of which he was talking and that is why I was laughing and smiling, those have been incorporated right into the survey requirements of the Act, if he had read it in some detail, and it is the new sections and they are in there.

MR. NIMSICK: Not along side the creeks.

MR. WILLISTON: They are in there for the access back into the hinterland, and things of this nature have been now incorporated into the Act that is coming, and that is why I began to doubt. That is in by regulation of matter, because it is not automatically that every shoreline, if you are going to put it by statutory, it is not automatic that every shoreline or every body of water automatically should be reserved. Some of the swamp areas and some of the alkali lake areas and things of this nature, if you did it by statute and had it in that type of provision, would make no sense whatsoever. It is in there. It is a part of the Regulation that is carried on by the Department, and that's a section.

To give you another instance of debate at this time, when the member for Vancouver East was speaking about the great powers of the Director insofar as his powers that should be settled by Court, whether he could or couldn't determine.

[ Page 664 ]

This section happened to do with a tax — Vancouver East, that's right — had to do with lands that came up in tax sale and whether anyone had any right towards those lands, and it is only the people who could show to the Director that they had a vested right in that land which had already gone up for tax sale and was being sold whether, in fact, it would not return to the Crown. Now whether you are going into a full stage Court case every time you've got a tax sale notice to determine that vested interest, such as the member said there, I don't know.

The member from Vancouver East, when he was dealing with many matters in his start of a whole concept of this, he was really, in part, when lie was on to private land, and the Land Act deals with Crown lands and once they are alienated they become subject to the Land Registry Act, of which he is well aware as I am, or even more so, insofar as this is concerned. But how you would get those two functions and the administrative procedures of those into the one and the same Land Act, quite frankly I don't know how it would be done for an administrative affair that is handled by one group of administrative officials.

A great deal has been made about the powers of the Director of Lands on the one side and then another matter about the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. But if you will follow through the administrative procedure in it, you will find that the Director of Lands and those functions which he has carried out is, in turn, underneath the basic directorship, in his own Department, of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council which sets him the policy, and when you come to the administrative detail that makes it flow within his compass he carries out his duties as the Director of Lands.

Mr. Speaker, I think we'll end the debate on the various sections of this where it should be, and debated by all members of the House. It is obvious it is going to be an interesting debate at that time, and so we'll proceed with today and not tomorrow I move second reading of Bill No. 27.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have The motion was agreed on the following division:

YEAS — 42

Messieurs

NAYS — 5

Messieurs

PAIRS:

Messieurs

The House continued to sit after midnight.

The House adjourned at 12.02 a.m.