[ Page 665 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

On the motion of Mr. E. Wolfe, Bill (No. 75) intituled An Act Respecting Greater Vancouver Regional District Transportation Authority.

On the motion of the Hon. Isabel Dawson, Bill (No. 66) intituled An Act Respecting Hearing-aid Dealers and Consultants.

On the motion of the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second Reading of Bill No. 28, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Land Surveyors Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 28. The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, this is a very small amendment, Bill 28, An Act to Amend the Land Surveyors Act. Last year when this Act was before the House for major revision, quite frankly an error at the time was made. It was the purpose at the time the main Act went through that the prescribed fees of membership, which is true for all professional organizations in the Province, their by-laws, be subject to ratification by Order-in-Council, and through some misinterpretation, it was placed in the Act that the tariff of all fees for professional service payable under this Act would be reported to and passed on by the by-laws through Executive Council.

This is contrary to all fees charged by all professional groups in the Province and was clearly an error…. It might be a good idea, yes, but it is rather unfair just to put it to the surveyors, and not the lawyers, the doctors, the dentists, and all the rest of them. If you are going to do it for all of them they were quite willing, but they didn't like to be singled out as the sole profession. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Bill itself, as we interpret it and as we understand the changes, that it is to take away the necessity of approaching the Executive Council for changes in fees. But then on the other hand, in reading the Act, it would seem that this aspect was put in, in the first place, to protect the public from exorbitant fees that could possibly be charged by virtue of the fact that there is a very grave shortage of surveyors. On that basis, we were wanting to ask the question that, is this a fact, and if it is a fact we feel that this is not being particularly generous to the public that are so dependent upon the services of surveyors. Another thing, too, that is, does this place the surveyors in a privileged position above lawyers, doctors and others of that class?

On the principal aspects of the Bill, we are prepared to go along on that basis, but we certainly want this answered, if the Minister will in his summing up, so that we can prepare ourselves for the Bill in Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: I would like to say that the practice so far as the Pharmaceutical Act, was that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council had to approve by-laws passed by that particular professional group, and it was not a bad idea. Because particularly where a professional group is limited in its number and there is no way that you can get lands subdivided without the services of a land surveyor, for example, and where there is a short supply of that particular profession, then the public interest is supreme, and should be supreme. It seems to me with respect, Mr. Speaker, that this particular amendment should not be proclaimed at this time until the Government and the Corporation of Land Surveyors has remedied the rather severe shortage that now exists.

There is the public interest involved. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is charged throughout the year with protecting the public interest, and I would like to see it remain that way, during this period of shortage of surveyors, and if this is removed it means that they can take advantage of an existing situation, but if it is not removed and this Bill did not proceed, they would have to come to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to justify any changes. I think in view of that shortage, in view of that shortage, in view of the public interest, in protecting the public and seeing that the public obtains the services of surveyors on a fair basis, so that some people don't have to wait for six months or eight months to get a subdivision completed, that this Government should continue to require that they have their by-laws approved, particularly in regards to tariffs or fees, before those tariffs are changed.

I would urge that the Government give further consideration to this while the shortage of surveyors causes considerable public disruption in the Land Registry Offices and subdivision developments throughout British Columbia.

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

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, I thought I covered that Act when I introduced the Bill in the first instance. That section has never been operative. It was put in last year, and it was not, in fact, made operative, and I don't see how it is going to create the changes such as the honourable members have mentioned. But if they will bring in a Bill with the lawyers, the dentists, the doctors, everyone else, that we can control all their fees here, and place these people in the same categories Mr. Speaker, I move the second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 28 be read a second time now. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 29, Mr. Speaker. (Age of Majority Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 29. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Bill No. 29, Mr. Speaker, the Age of Majority Act. The purpose of this Bill is to give recognition to the many mature young men and women in the Province of British Columbia. Many of the members of this House have extolled the virtues of our youth. Sometimes we hear them subject to criticism but I must say, to the

[ Page 666 ]

credit of this Assembly, it occurs very infrequently here. I think too, that of all the members, and there are many, who have been advocating greater freedom, greater responsibility for the youth, I think the youngest member of this Assembly, the honourable member for Delta, should be singled out in this respect.

I think, regardless of our personal point of view, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that young people today are more mature than in past generations, mature in body and mind than they were in years gone by. We will be recognizing this fact by this Bill, changing the age of majority, giving people at an earlier age a greater sense of freedom, a greater sense of responsibility in our modern society.

In trying to determine when this age of majority of 21 first became established, it appears that it goes back to the Norman Conquest in England in the year 1066 or thereabouts. Earlier, in Roman times, the age of adulthood was considered to be age 15, and then with the knights and the business of these heavy suits of armour coming into play, they felt that to don this suit of armour you had to be of age 21. This, in turn, became tied in with knights holding land, land tenure, and this, apparently, is where it was first established at age 21, and this has continued to this day, not only in British Columbia, but in most parts of the world, although in more recent times there had been some changes.

I think, too, that in presenting this Bill at this particular time, and there have been other Bills presented here as well as in other parts of Canada, although I would hope that this would, be the first Bill that will be enacted in Canada to reduce the age of majority, that of the many advances that have been made in this twentieth century, much of the :progress, I suggest, has to be credited to the able young men and women who are making a contribution to our society at an early age. And I think as adults, the greatest tribute we can give to them is lowering the age of majority as has been done in some other countries of the world. There are reports that the members are interested on the subject in England, the Ontario Law Reform Commission, as well, and a study in the Province of Alberta, which was not in any sense a conclusive study, or one that made any recommendations.

But in implementing the age of 19 in this Bill, we are doing it for all purposes. It cuts across all the statutes in the Province, giving them full responsibilities at age 19 where heretofore they have not had that responsibility or that freedom until attaining the age of 21. The Bill provides the recognition of an individual reaching the age of majority of 19, as being the commencement of the relevant anniversary of the date of his or her birth.

In passing this Bill, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia will, I suggest, be setting a precedent in Canada, although I understand that a Bill has been presented before the House in the Province of Saskatchewan in this respect. But in any event, whatever the situation may be in the future in the rest of Canada, this will certainly be one of the precedents giving our young people new freedom and new responsibility, and I take great pleasure in moving it be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition are, of course, most pleased to endorse this Bill, because as the Attorney-General stated, we too feel that the young people today are certainly worthy of having this age dropped to 19. We also feel, of course, as the honourable Attorney-General stated, that there are added responsibilities, of course, with a Bill such as this, and I think it points up two things that will be necessary, and I hope that the Government will follow along with such a Bill.

One thing that does concern us is the status of Government wards. I am thinking of the young people who perhaps are in foster homes today and attending higher education facilities. Now, once the age of majority, of course, is lowered to 19, they are no longer a ward of the Government, and we on this side are concerned over what will happen to these young people. Now we realize at that age they can apply for social welfare, but this is, of course, not what they are going to need at this age. They are going to need assistance from the Government to continue with their education. We think it is most important that as the Government has brought in this Bill which we, of course, approve of, but as Government it is your responsibility to see that this gap you are placing now for educational needs for these young people is filled. We hope that the honourable the Attorney-General, in closing the debate, will give us some idea of what your plans are for these young people who are in foster homes, and I understand there are approximately 600 in the Province today who would fit into this category.

I think it also points out as young people now at 19 may sign all legal contracts in the Province, and many of our young people are just leaving high school at that age, I think it points up the fact that our educational institutions must provide for young people some knowledge of the problems of life when it comes to the signing of contracts in all aspects. So I do hope that the Attorney-General will point out to us how his Government hopes or will intend to fill these gaps. I also feel that it points out here a great responsibility, on the whole, for the Government to take a far greater interest in youth programmes for the adult teenager. Thank you.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is new legislation to the Government, but not necessarily new legislation to this House, and we are most delighted to see that the Government has seen its way clear to bring in an amendment to reduce the age to 19, where it has been at 21 since the days of Charles II.

The honourable the Attorney-General spoke very, very briefly about the history of the age of infancy but, with every respect to the Attorney-General, he didn't go into it either completely, correctly, or in sufficient depth. It is rather interesting to know, Mr. Speaker, that the Romans actually had three classifications of age. One for children under seven, secondly to 12 for girls, and to 14 for boys, and actually the age of majority for the Romans was not 21 years, but it was 25 years.

It wasn't until the ninth and the eleventh centuries when the barbarians came in with somewhat of a more fierce practicality, and they reached the conclusion that a 15-year old had enough tum-tum in him to carry arms, so if he was strong enough to carry arms they decided that would be the age of majority, so 15 was proclaimed as the age of majority at that time. But the armour grew a bit heavier, and as the armour grew heavier they decided that these people had to have a little bit more muscle, so they then increased the age to 21. But they restricted it to one extent, which is quite interesting, and that is that they had a little bit of problem in the labour market, and in order to ensure the stability of the

[ Page 667 ]

labour market they considered the agricultural tillers didn't quite perhaps have the necessary Latin, or what have you, and they kept them at an age of 15. So the agricultural society rides at an age of 15, whereas those who could bear arms and go to war, 21 was the age. Well, that carried on until the days of Charles II, and in the days of Charles II, he quickly plugged that loop-hole and he decided that the military age or the knightly age of 21 was the correct age, and it has been that ever since.

I think the situation of the age of infancy has given legal historians a great deal of difficulty over the years, and Holdsworth, who was the most notable and eminent of them, said this, "It is a grotesque situation that the weight of armour in the eleventh century should govern the age at which a person today can contract, own land, or marry." There's obviously nothing God-given about this age, and things do change, and the question that we've been asking ourselves over the years, has the law been doing the job? Has it been kept up to date with changing times and changing circumstances? And obviously the answer to that is no.

The Honourable the Attorney-General talked about the situation of the responsibility of youth, and I thoroughly concur with the statements he made in the House today about that, because absolutely, and there is never occasion in this House of plaguing the.youth with the standards of the lowest common denominator. We all know that problem people, Mr. Speaker, are problem people and chronological age has really very little to do with it. I think the Bill itself reflects a consistency and a conformity to a trend that has not only been established but, as a matter of fact, that those of us who are of our majority, if we can say we've been of our majority since the days of Charles II, have really seen fit to bring about.

The Bill helps to end the double standard. It does recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the youth of today have the right to ask, say, for the home-owners grant in this Province, they're driving, they're buying and selling, they're employed, they're covered by no end of permissive legislation, they can vote, they can fight and die for their country, many marry, many have children, and no end of them enjoy good livelihoods. I think we have been johnny-out-of-step, really, for too long. This is contemporizing the law. We've got in this Bill not only a change in law but a change in philosophy, and it's a contemporizing attitude.

With the hope and the conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is able to muster enough strength in its own forces and over here to see that this Bill will pass, should that occasion arise I will be most delighted to withdraw my own Bill, which I entered much earlier in the Session.

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

MR. B. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, on this Bill which I support wholeheartedly, I only have reservation on one particular point. I think it's quite an important feature, because for a long time, many generations, it's been noted that wealth being left by a family seldom reaches the third generation. It's quite often the case that this doesn't reach into the grandsons because it's dissipated by a son or daughter.

I think that in respect to this Bill, the Age of Majority Act, that consideration might be given to youths, where their parents die intestate, I think that perhaps it might be in favour of the young people if you could retain the estate until they reach the age of 21, because if they're going to acquire wealth at the age of 19 it is very doubtful whether they'll have it by the time they're 25.

We recognize the ability of youth today in respect to what they were at my own age, when I was 19 or 21, and no doubt the young people today are much better educated and I think they have a much wider knowledge of dollars and cents, although they may not have to work so hard for it. But at the same time I feel that in the case where a parent dies intestate, that this estate should be kept intact until the youth or daughter reaches 21, and I would just leave that observation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish that there was some way I could express how pleased I am with the introduction of this Bill and the discussion of this Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You could vote for it.

MR. WENMAN: Certainly. I think that there's an outside chance that I might vote for this Bill, yes. During the past years since I've been here I've spoken each year extensively on youth and tried to present a positive viewpoint about the majority of youth and that we should recognize them and their responsibility, and I'm sure this receives support not just from one side of the House but from all sides of the House and all parts of our society.

The age of majority is a question, certainly, that is discussed with every society, with every century. I know that 1, too, have prepared the same material about the armour and so forth, so I won't repeat it for the third time, except to agree with my colleagues that this seems to be where the history seemed to develop. I would like to go back just a little bit further, though, and quote a different philosopher and a different society, a traditional viewpoint that has been developed. Aristotle cautioned in his day that there are child prodigies in music and mathematics but never in morals or politics, which take the experience of life to master. I would submit that while this still carries some weight, this is again a different kind of society. This is the society that we have, and we must examine the age of majority in relationship to our own age, and in our own age we have changed because we have moved into the position of universal education, and with this universal education, we hope, comes an enlightenment, an enlightenment that will lead to a responsibility.

I often think, as I am sure do all the members here, that as we have young people visiting from our high schools throughout the Province, as they sit and ask us questions, I'm sure that their questions are as intelligent, I am sure that they are as aware as many or at least most of the adult society that we find around us in our community.

I think, also, that we should look at this legislation. You know, when it first came out the first cheer that seemed to go up was, "Hooray, the drinking age will be lowered!" But we must remember that this is not the most important part of this legislation. In fact I would say that, while many people are talking about this, the really important thing that is featured here is that we are recognizing young people, their rights and their responsibility. I think we must remember, also, that this isn't a Bill just for young people. This isn't the sentiment I found as I went back to my community in White Rock which has 35 per cent of the population over 65, and I talked to some of the older people. I sort of wondered if they would go along with my support of this Bill, and I'm pleased

[ Page 668 ]

to say that there's as much encouragement from the older people of our society, from our senior citizens, that we should recognize young people as there is from the young people in our society.

I would say that, just in conclusion, that we have as a Government attempted to and have built a solid foundation for the future of our youth. The future for our youth in the Province of British Columbia and, indeed, in our entire country is indeed promising, and it is fitting that we should show our faith in our young people and recognize the large majority of responsible young people in our society through the smooth and easy passage of this very, very fine legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, it seems that this Bill is quite a popular Bill and there is one point that the honourable the Minister said in second reading, he said that they're more mature today than they were years ago. I don't know whether this is the case, but I think this Bill is probably long overdue. About five years ago I brought a Bill in in regards to marriage in regards to the same issue, but it was turned down by this Government at that time.

But back in the days when some of us were young we were considered it then, when you were 18, I mean you had to go out and work, and there was no case of saying that they were not as mature years ago as they are today. I think that 21 was held over for years, it was a custom almost, and while it may have been set arbitrarily at 21, it probably could have been set at 19, many, many years ago.

I think that it's okay except that I'd like to know, when the Minister closes the debate, whether, as the honourable member for Burnaby North asked, whether this will have an over-riding effect on all those other Acts where a person is covered until they're 21.

The Workmen's Compensation Act, for instance, allows a child compensation until they're 21 if they're attending school. Now would this carry on, or would we have to change this whole set-up, because today, not like it was 40 and 50 years ago, most young people are going to school till they're 21 or 22. It means quite a bit to them, especially in cases of need where their family is on compensation, if they're going to be cut off at 19 now. The Family Court Order, what are we going to put in the place of this, if this Bill means that all these Acts automatically change to 19?

While I agree with the Act, I think these other questions should be considered in view of this reducing the age, because I don't think it would be wise to do it and penalize a large group of people by so doing.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to state that I think the one thing that the young people need today is to be challenged with responsibility, and this will be done by this Bill. I disagree with the honourable second member from Burrard, that in the matter of estates perhaps this could work the wrong way. Certainly some of them are going to abuse it, but I believe one of the most pressing needs has been in the field, particularly where estates are under trusteeship and the young person growing up, very often being cared for by a step-father, needs the money for university purposes to train themselves for their future in education, and I believe that it is a good thing to see this at this time.

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

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Just in reply to a few of the items that have been raised, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the honourable member from Kootenay's remarks in respect to the age of maturity, I think he will find that there is not only personal opinion that our young people are more mature today, but you can find medical opinions to that effect, a study done in England in this respect, and if you want to consider maturity of mind and the knowledge that our young people have today, I think you only have to consider the impact of television, for good or bad. Nevertheless they are much more knowledgeable at an earlier age and more mature in mind today at an earlier age than ever before in our history, so I don't think there can be any argument on that score, notwithstanding the age of which the honourable member went to work.

MR. NIMSICK: I challenge you on that.

MR. PETERSON: In regard to the member for Vancouver-Burrard's comments in respect to estates, of course, if you want your children to inherit at a later age, the way to do that is by drawing a Will so that you do not die intestate. I would think that if we're going to have an age of majority, we can't just pick and choose in this Bill at least, and say that you're going to be an adult for this purpose but not for this purpose because this involves the handling of money.

Now, there are difficult areas. There is the area which I had been considering, also mentioned by the member from Kootenay, of Workmen's Compensation, because here is an area where the payments increase as the child gets older, between 19 and 21 the payments are the highest, when they're going to school. Of course the key there is, I suggest, education rather than simply age. I think any age could be selected in terms of compensation when a person is killed.

I would suggest with respect, however, that that is a matter, as the member for Burnaby North raised with other children, if these are to be attacked, then it should be under different legislation, not under the Age of Majority Bill. I'd suggest that if we're going to move, as I recommend we do, then it should cut across all statutes as far as age of majority is concerned, both for the freedom and the responsibility and not one without the other, and if we're going to make distinctions as far as assisting people with their education where the breadwinner has been killed in an industrial accident, we should do that under other legislation, but not the Age of Majority Bill. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker. (applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 29, Age of Majority Act, be read a second time now. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 30, Mr. Speaker. (Professional Corporations Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 30. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 30 is the Professional Corporations Act. The main purpose of this Bill

[ Page 669 ]

is to extend the benefits of incorporation to professional people, although they do not, through this legislation, have the benefits of limited liability if they should choose to incorporate, but they would have all of the other benefits, without in any way affecting their legal liability or their ethical responsibility, which normally is associated with a professional person. They will be able to incorporate, they will still have the guidance under the jurisdiction of the professional association to which they belong, but it will enable them to use the corporate practice to carry on their profession, without in any way hiding behind the corporate veil that exists in the case of an ordinary corporation where you do get the benefits of limited liability.

The framework of this Bill was adopted by the Bar Association and the Law Society in June of last year, and is generally recommended, perhaps not in every detail but in principle, by the Medical Association as well as the Bar Association, and I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, the explanation that the honourable the Attorney-General gave was a little bit meagre, to my mind, because it doesn't tell you exactly what the purpose of allowing the professional groups to form corporations means. The professional groups today are quite a privileged group of people, groups of people, who set up their own laws. They've got a privilege that very few other groups have, and they've got a right today, as far as I can see, to band together into a corporation without an Act, if they wish to form. Well, anybody else could form together and form a corporation, and you've got one man here can form a corporation, one professional can form a corporation, he can be the director and president and all the rest.

The purpose of it I don't know, and I'd like a better explanation, because we've watched these little empires grow through the Province and I'm not too sure that they are all in the best interests of the people. In this case there may be a case argued for tax purposes or something like that, but as far as I can see, these professional groups have already got their Associations by statutes. They've got far more privileges than anybody else, and why do we want to set up, allowing them to form now, to give them an Act so that they can form corporations? Your explanation did not suffice to give me a good idea of what it all means, and as far as I am concerned I am opposed to the Bill.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I can see no reason, providing the professionals, whether they be in any recognized profession listed, or any one of them, should not, as a business, be entitled to do what the rest of the community does in the community of businessmen, except this — that there must at all times be preserved the individual professional responsibility to serve the public, and if that is departed from in any way, of course, then I say that the very meaning of professionalism has been changed and that should not happen.

I believe that a professional is granted a position and a responsibility that must be a prior consideration in making a living, not merely making a business out of that dedication to his work, and I hope that this Bill doesn't cause some of them who are engaged in professions to regard themselves really as corporate businesses. That is what I feel this step may lead to. So it depends, really, on the individuals who wish to associate in a corporate entity. It may have advantages, I suppose. One of the reasons some of the larger law firms want it, or other professionals, architects firms, engineering firms, is because of the size of their business, and also the difficulties of extricating themselves from their association in a firm. It might help them in that respect. I am sure probably some of the experts in the accounting field have been considering some of the tax advantages that might stem from this.

But I point out something in the Bill that I think needs further thought, and that is there seems to be silence on the question of the names of these firms. I don't know if the Attorney-General is familiar with it in that particular, I couldn't note anywhere….

MR. PETERSON: The governing body of the professional association….

MR. DOWDING: I was just thinking of what could happen if we don't have some restriction on the names of these professional firms. We could end up with the lawyers calling themselves, one company would be called The Ambulance Chasers Limited, and the one that called itself The Speedy Legal Services Limited would probably get all the business. Then you could have the chiropractors setting up a company called The Backbreaker Treatments Limited, Straight Line Services Limited, or Hot and Cold Running Nurses, Limited. There are the possibilities if you don't get some kind of rules in regard to the names of these new professional corporations.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay was quite right, because the Attorney-General gave a summary of the things that the Bill wouldn't do and wouldn't interfere with, but he didn't say what the purpose of the Bill might be. I would assume that it is for tax purposes, and I would assume that it would buy for me a company, that professional groups would get some tax advantage.

Now if we had Benson's White Paper, which the members don't like on that side of the House, so that there was some equity between wage earners and salary earners and professional people and small businessmen with a company of their own, that would be all right. And if we had the Carter Report, it would be even more all right, but we haven't got those things. So I must say that for myself — I am not speaking because I am a professional, I am speaking the very opposite right now — I think there should be equal tax treatment for everybody, whether they earn a salary or professional fee, and that is the reason I am opposed to the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I didn't think it would be necessary in this Assembly to explain to the honourable members the advantages of incorporation from a business point of view, from an administration point of view,

[ Page 670 ]

especially to those lawyers who have been advising clients over a number of years as to the benefits of incorporation. I thought it was sufficient merely to point out one of the major benefits of incorporation, which would not apply in this case, and that is by professional people getting together and incorporating, would not give them limited liability, you couldn't hide behind a corporate veil. You'd still have to carry on the high standards, professional standards in this respect, and be individually responsible in respect to a breach of those standards.

But, obviously, taxation is one advantage of incorporation. As to whether that's going to continue to be an advantage or not is not for this body to say, because there are recommendations in this respect in the White Paper, as the honourable member hag pointed out. So whatever is contained in the White Paper, whether they agree that it will come to pass or not, certainly should not detract from whether or not we are going to give professional people, whether we are going to give non-professional people as well that are referred to in this Bill, the right to incorporate for convenience and ease of carrying on their business.

As far as the name is concerned, the honourable member, on a close reading of the Bill, will find that they have to have a certificate from their governing associations approving of the name, so those situations that you referred to cannot arise.

In brief, professional people have been prohibited by their organizations from incorporating in the past, because incorporating under the Companies Act of this Province gives them such rights as limited liability, which is not consistent with the ideas of professionalism associated with most of our professions, and the standard of care that is required of them in performing their duties. I move the Bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 30, Professional Corporations Act be read a second time now. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 33, Mr. Speaker. (Litter Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 33. The Honourable Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. W.K.KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this Bill, I think it is best understood if we recognize that there are two basic principles incorporated into the Bill.

First of all, it is an expression of Government policy and part of our overall programme to protect and preserve a high quality environment, and this is only one of the many aspects related to the preservation of a high quality environment. I think, also, the Bill comes to grips with specific factors affecting environment quality, and these factors are becoming of progressively greater importance, due to not only increased populations, but increased mobility of populations. We have the ability to get around so much more quickly today than we had in years gone by.

We are attempting to reduce the burden of litter control in our parks, wilderness areas, and on Crown land by making it mandatory that certain types of beverage containers shall be refundable if returned to the place of sale. We further require that all types of containers and other materials that can be classified as litter shall not be dumped or abandoned, but must be disposed of consistent with this Act. In short, we are asking the citizens not only to accept their full responsibility both in litter and sanitary control, but also to spread the message to visitors as well.

We have no illusions that this Bill, by itself, will solve all of our problems in the fields it deals with. I am led to believe, however, there is strong general support for the policy concepts incorporated into the Bill, and with public support we can make this a definite step forward in the broad public quest for protection of our environment.

The objectives defined will not be accomplished without some costs, changes in methods of merchandising, and some improvements in the attitudes of some of our people. Concern has been expressed that commodities of general household use, other than soft drinks, beer, and ale, will be required to be packaged in refundable containers. It is not the intention of the Government certainly at this time, that the refund requirements should apply more broadly than necessary, and for greater certainty section 9 (b) makes provision for spelling out the commodities and containers as set out in section 3.

The operative sections of this Bill will come into force of law by Proclamation. A reasonable period of time will be provided for those who may be affected by the Bill to make the necessary arrangements. I would suggest, however, that no undue delay ought to be contemplated, for the Bill will likely be Proclaimed before mid-summer, at least in part.

It could also be observed that for those who go camping in the wilderness, a shovel will become the most important piece of equipment in their camping gear. On the part of the Government there will be a determined effort to reduce the incidence of both pollution and litter. We are already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year providing facilities for litter and waste control in the Park systems, and we will increase our efforts in this field.

Should actual operation require a further broadening of the Act, I will have no hesitation in recommending further action to this Legislative Assembly next time we meet. Despite any inconvenience that may emerge as a result of the actual application of this Bill as law, I am convinced that it is a measure in the best interests of the public and have no hesitation in recommending it to you.

I might also say that underlying the Bill is a concept of a change in philosophy — a philosophy that pays more attention, not only to the protection of our environment, but recognizes that we all, as individuals, have a responsibility and the best place to begin is with the individual because that's where you get the results. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us is, of course, a popular one. It takes the question of litter that we are all concerned about and legislates simply under section 4, under the general heading Thou Shalt Not Litter. It also takes a whipping boy and whips him around, too. The Minister was quite honest with us when he said that this Bill is a warning, it is a warning for us all to get with it, it is a warning to industry and a warning to packages and so on and so forth. There can be some argument put forward certain sections are redundant, if you take the basic principles of the Bill.

But certainly I can tell the Minister that he is going to receive, as indeed we all are, many deputations from all sorts of industries and all sorts of people, just as they did in the

[ Page 671 ]

Government of Vermont when they introduced a similar Bill some years ago, and then rescinded the Bill two years later.

I think the Minister's comments about philosophy and the general question of pollution and waste are really less than adequate, and I was going to spend some time talking about that on this Bill. However, the Minister's colleague has now produced another Bill entitled Pollution Control which will restrict me somewhat, Mr. Speaker. I want to say this, that we have not seen any evidence to date of a real change in philosophy about controlling our environment, and I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that whipping motherhood Bills around like this is going to persuade us, on this side of the House, that there has been much change in philosophy, but as I say, I don't want to beg the question on the Bill that is presented by the Minister of Lands and Forests.

I think the Bill is a good one if it can be enforced. I think the Minister is fair in saying that he is announcing this Bill, he is going to proclaim it in sections to see how things go over the next 12 months. I predict, Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at this Bill again in 12 months time.

I think that the section on litter is much more important than the non-returnable dog that appears to be wagging that litter tail, and I wonder if, indeed, in view of the dislocation of industry — I understand the Premier is going to, if he has not done already, open up a wonderful glass bottle plant at Lavington, and whether or not he has had any conversation or indeed — have you opened that plant yet, Mr. Speaker? The glass plant at Lavington? He may get some comments about the Bill when he gets there, and I would like to know what they said to him. Maybe he can share that experience when he comes back.

Certainly I agree the Bill deserves our support as a step forward. I have got some doubts in my mind about the enforcement of it, and in looking at the Bill again I see that word Peace Officer, and on previous occasions in this House I have made some comments about the duties that we are putting on the police force. The police force is already bedevilled in trying to prosecute the Motor-vehicle Act. Now we've got another example where another social responsibility and a social cost is going to find its way into the police force and I am wondering if, indeed, there is any way we can really handle that. There was a debate the other day, Mr. Speaker, if I may, where people were trying to spend money that was allocated to Civil Defence on various projects, and I think perhaps the money on Civil Defence could have been spent on pollution police, rather than what did happen.

However, I do think the Bill commends our support. It commends our observation, it commends, I think, us to work this coming year to see how it goes on.

The one thing I want to finish up by saying, is that all the evidence I have read up to now shows that the question of the returnable container is not quite as bad as the Minister would have us believe. Whilst it is bad, and I think that it is good to state policy from time to time in these Bills, research indicates that it is not quite such a problem as we would think, and that there are far more, far more dangerous, far more examples of litter that we should be looking at. There have been some research investigations done, I know the Minister has seen them. I realize, too, that sometimes we may fly in the face of the facts in order to do a public job, in order to make a public stand and make a public statement. So that is why I think we will support even that section, although we have some misgivings about it.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, may I say, that as far as the total concept of cleaning up our environment, whether it is returnable bottles, whether it is the various things in the legal definition section of this Bill which, I might add, may lead some lawyers to profit, — may lead some lawyers to profit the legal definition section — we've got all that, and now we are faced with the Pollution Control Act. I think that we on this side of the House will do our best to persuade the Government to make even more aggressive steps, and to show the Government that they have not been tackling this problem the way they should have been doing in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, that's North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly support this Bill. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps it could be a bit of a Pandora's Box, and I hope that when we find the box open, disposable or not, that we won't find we have created more problems than we have solved.

First of all, I would like to ask the Minister if he would perhaps expand a little bit on his comment about regulation with reference to the definition of the word "drinks." I think at this time the public and industry is entitled to hear, perhaps in more detail, what the Minister has in mind in this regard. The word "drinks," in my view, could cover not only beer and ale and soft drinks, it could cover milk, it could cover apple juice, it could cover wine, it could cover liquor and so on, and while obviously this can be done by regulation, by Order-in-Council, I think it would be useful if the Minister could expand at further length on what the Government has in mind in this regard.

Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Bill is going to cause considerable disruption to certain industries, certain firms involved in the manufacture of throw-away bottles and cans, particularly perhaps for those firms that specialize, perhaps do nothing else than can soft drinks. So I would like to ask the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, if he has or if he is going to meet with the members of the industry, and discuss this with them and get their views, and do everything he can to at least aid them in the problems they are going to face as the months go ahead and this Bill is implemented.

I think especially we should have as definite a time set for implementation of the Bill, particularly in section 3, I suppose it is, where I think a definite time with adequate notice should be set out clearly, so that the industry can do what it can to meet the problems it has to face.

I'd also like to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, if the Government plans to carry out in the future any surveys of litter around the Province to determine effectively and accurately just how effective this Bill is in stopping the distribution of litter, or the litter and bottles and cans being left around in different parts of the Province. I would hope that he would do this in the future to determine if the Bill is effective, and if it's not, presumably some action will have to be proposed to take its place.

Another part of the Bill also causes some concern, Mr. Speaker. Many of the lakes and other camping areas of the Province, such as the Skagit Valley, are not developed at present as campsites, but they are used very widely by many thousands of people for camping. I think with this Bill he is

[ Page 672 ]

trying to get at some of the problems of that kind, such as arose last year in some of the lakes near Williams Lake and those kind of problems. But I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the regulations for disposal of garbage and sewage and litter in these areas, burying them under 12 inches of dirt or whatever it is, I hope that these regulations will not in any way be allowed to become a substitute in the Minister's mind for proper development of these areas with campsites, with proper facilities, and that kind of thing, because very quickly in those areas that are being actively used, I can see a lot of little holes dug, covered up with 12 inches of soil, perhaps hundreds of these in a relatively small area, so eventually we will have a pretty thoroughly polluted area in some very beautiful parts of British Columbia. Now, the regulations are fine when you move far into the wilderness area, but in the popular camping areas that are not yet developed, they're certainly going to create problems very, very soon.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government's already indicated it likes to give away prizes. Two or three years ago we offered a prize, I believe gave away a prize for development of a house plan. This year the Premier announced a prize of a quarter million dollars for development of an odour-free pulping process. Now, I'm not especially in favour of this kind of a policy, Mr. Speaker, and I've spoken against it. But seeing it is a policy of the Government to do this, kind of thing, I am wondering if you would like to consider the offering of a prize for development of a truly disposable container for beer or soft drinks, one that would simply disintegrate by weather, one that would return to nature in a short time. This is really the ultimate in this kind of thing. This is the answer that would really solve the litter problem., So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the Government, that they consider a prize of $50,000 for someone to develop a truly disposable container of this kind, and I hope, and I hope that this might inspire the answer.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, to comment on the Bill, certainly the Bill has the approval of myself and I know the colleagues on this side. I know I can speak very well for the member for Columbia also, for he wants to speak on the Bill.

I am concerned, however, with certain aspects of the Bill and am not going to go over in full detail the ground that has already been covered. Pointing out, however, that within particularly section 3, as we solve one problem we may build another, the fact that by implementing this section which allows for a refund on bottles, tins, cans, etc., actually if the tins which at the present time are non-usable, we could in essence be moving people out of tins into glass, and it's a question of whether we consider safety as part of the factor.

Personally, I am far.more concerned with a broken glass, whether it's returnable or non-returnable, on a beach than I am perhaps in a tin on the beach. I am concerned that by putting a two cent return on tins, glasses, etc., we may force the industry, because they are not able to use the tins over again, into glass containers which they will use over again. But this factor does present, again, the type of problem that in solving one, we only find ourselves getting into another.

I am concerned, also, at the moment — these figures are available — that about 90 to 92 per cent of most of the non-returnables and tins find their way, quite normally, into. the family garbage tin, and from there into the dump at the garbage plant. I am a little bit concerned that some enterprising youngster now on the ability to make himself two cents per tin, can then proceed out to the dump, pick up all the tins that somebody has very carefully dumped there, bring them back in, the persons who gets them takes them back out to the dump again. There is nothing in here, for example, that says that they have to be destroyed or even if marked, even if crushed, a tin is still a tin, a container is still a container.

I am concerned that certain of these aspects, Mr. Minister, could evolve from this particular section. I think, somehow, we are creating a particularly large strawman only in the concern of that small percentage, when I must go back and go along with the member from Surrey, that the main concern itself is litter. I hope that this is one section that is considered very carefully before implementation.

I think you've given a good warning to industry, pointing out, for example, that even in the park, even in the park where you would go in to get a cup of coffee and buy it from the stand in the park, and it's poured into a paper container, that the person takes out and then drinks, that according to this they can now go back and demand two cents back on that particular container. To me the responsibility of the individual should be more to put that into the proper litter box that is in the park, rather than to add an additional two cents to everybody, when at the present moment a good 90 per cent of the, people automatically do this in most of our parks, and I'm talking about parks like Stanley Park.

I am also concerned that those people who may drive off even from drive-ins, carrying in their car the container that was given to them for coffee, store it up and then bring it back and allow a refund, so what we are doing in essence, we may be adding on a complete two cents value to everything that is produced.

I would also suggest, Mr. Minister, that there are problems concerned, in that having placed a two cent value on the returnable bottle and on the returnable can, that if the cans are all returned and the two cents that is charged to industry who then charges it to the consumer, the tin comes back, now whoever has them is faced with looking at these tins. Who pays for the cost of taking those tins and doing something with them? So we are not talking about an additional two cent charge for all their property, we're talking about adding maybe three, four, and even five cents on every particular type of container, that we have to solve a problem that is only about four per cent of the total problem at this stage. I think, Mr. Minister, that before that is implemented, that many of these aspects will have to be examined in considerable detail.

I am, of course, pleased to see the section where people are not allowed to discharge, dump, discard etc., on land or fresh water. I would ask the Minister what  steps have been taken to put in the pumping stations that should be on all our major lakes at this time? I am concerned that, for example, in the Okanagan Lake and any of the areas there is no pumping station that a person who does have a boat of this nature can actually go to get a tank pumped out. I would think one of the responsibilities under this section is the establishment of pumping stations, not only along fresh water but maybe we should be concerned about the establishment of pumping stations along our salt water areas.

I point out, of course, and I'm sure you are aware, that the major problem which you are talking about is not in the fresh water lakes where very few boats do have containers or are involved with toilet facilities in the boat, but it is a much greater problem in salt water. It is in this area that we should have a plan of constructing pumping stations or, if not this,

[ Page 673 ]

perhaps a requirement that every service station that supplies fuel oil or gasoline must have a pumping station where an individual can have the tanks pumped out at that particular stage along the coast, that one of the requirements of doing business in selling fuel oil or gasoline could be the installation of a pumping plant in which such refuse could be applied.

I do hope, Mr. Minister, that there will be an extension of this shortly into the salt water areas, because one of the major concerns still has to be the small bays, inlets, particularly in our inland coast, where during the summer months you have huge collections of pleasure boats gathered (a) because of the natural harbour, (b) because of certain attractions of the area, (c) because of the fact that others are there and you get a huge concentration of these particular craft in that one area, and at this stage, in certain of those bays the refuse problem and the litter problem in that bay or that particular limited area becomes absolutely unbearable.

I say, I think the Act is certainly a tremendous step along the way in making people more aware and more conscious of litter, but I would ask very special consideration, Mr. Minister, of the implementation of those areas which may be creating much larger problems by their implementation than we are going to be able to eliminate.

There has been pointed out, and figures are available, that the number of returnable bottles even at two cents in most areas is equivalent to the number of non-returnables that we find. It does not seem at the present moment that the additional two cents will, in essence, eliminate the problem.

I was rather pleased to see that the Minister was saying that he wasn't opposed to the idea of adding even five cents, that was necessary, or additional funds, and that no Bill, as he pointed out very clearly in a telecast recently, is forever. But it would seem that if we reach a stage where we are adding five, six and even ten cents on the sale of a bottle of pop, that we may, by eliminating litter, be actually eliminating the sale of either soda pop or any of these things which I think many of our people would miss, Mr. Minister.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member from Vancouver Centre was more than a little confused. He talked about the danger of adding cost under one section of this Bill in the sale of soft drinks, then he had no compunction about advocating compulsory pumping stations at all places where they sold gasoline or fuel oil, which of course would be a cost item which could only be served to the consumer.

I think what we have to recognize, and we might as well face up to it now in this piece of legislation, that pollution control and litter control is something that is going to have to be paid for. There is just no other way, and we may as well face up to it now.

I think, too, the member may not have read the Bill adequately, because section 1 and section 11 are the only two sections that come into effect on Royal assent, the rest are by Proclamation. And within the Bill itself there are two contradictory sections. There is one principle which says no person shall do certain things, then there is another section later on where, by regulation, the Cabinet may exempt anyone they please or any group they please from that section which says no person shall. So, it's a pretty merry-go-round Bill and a….

AN HON. MEMBER: But you're going to support it.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh yes, yes, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to clean up your desk. It's covered with litter.

MR. STRACHAN: Well now, my desk has on top of it the Bill you are now discussing, and a number of other Bills, most of them Government Bills, and if you want to refer to your Government's legislative programme as litter then, on occasion, I'll go along with you.

However, Mr. Speaker, it does give the Government and the Government agencies the power to move in the field of litter and pollution control in many areas. I hope the power will be used. I recognize it has to be paid for, and I'm quite willing to back the law and the regulations that recognize that fact, and help keep British Columbia beautiful.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to support a Bill dealing with rubbish, (laughter) and I would like to stress the point that the member from Cowichan-Malahat has made that we are all talking and paying lip service to the control of pollution, but if we are not prepared to face the fact that it costs money by one means or another, then we might as well save our wind and not even discuss it. So that this is point number one, and I think we should remember this in any discussion on pollution, whether it's land, sea or air.

A point has been brought to my attention about this Bill which certainly concerns the distributors greatly, and this appears to be related to the fact that unless this Bill is clearly applied in such a manner that the container must be redeemed at the point of purchase, there is indeed a danger that we create more problems than we solve. It took me a little while to understand what the bottlers were getting at, but it seems to go this way, that if Safeway, for example, choose not to accept the containers at their store and refer the customer to a collecting depot, that if there is a limited number of depots and they're not close to the store, experience has shown that the customer is just as likely to take the containers and throw them away elsewhere. Since some of these containers are in fact returnables, which cost a certain amount of money to the distributor, the end result may well be, or could be, that the distributor, in turn, would go over entirely to non-returnable production of containers, since he would be losing a considerable amount of his investment in the returnable bottles.

I don't know if I've made that clear, but there does seem to be the danger that if the retailer has an easy option in regard to the collecting depot, if in fact as section 3, subsection 2 states, that "a person may make arrangements with an agent or a wholesaler or a distributor to provide a depot," the danger seems to be that if this arrangement is rather lax, and if there are relatively few depots, and if the retailer is not obligated in some way to redeem the two cents at the point of purchase when the container is returned, that the distributors may find that fewer and fewer of their returnable containers get back to them. Apparently, on a single economic basis, each returnable bottle has to make an average of eight trips, otherwise the distributor is losing money on his returnable bottle.

I wouldn't profess for a moment to be an expert on the economics of distributing pop, but from the numerous

[ Page 674 ]

contacts that the bottlers have made with myself, and the information they've put in my way, I would say that it does seem a reasonable thought that if someone of the size of the Safeway grocery chain were in any position just to refuse bottles or containers which they had sold, and tell the customer to take them to a depot, that in fact, judging from human nature, these containers might in fact not go to the depot but be scattered far and wide. The end result of this would be that the distributors would cease using returnables altogether, and go over to a complete system of nonreturnables, which would only make the litter situation worse. While this is a point that they claim is not so valid, that it would correct the difficulty, they feel that two things would be a tragedy. They could go out of business if they're no longer in the business of bottling returnable containers, and secondly, they feel that the litter situation might be worse rather than better.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Litter Bill deals chiefly with one aspect of litter, that being returnable bottles. Dealing with just that, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Minister and the Government. I feel that they deserve the strong support from our party and indeed everybody in British Columbia for starting to take definite moves to keep British Columbia beautiful. In their final years they're showing a deathbed repentance in this regard.

But I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the two cents is enough. It used to be two cents when I was a boy, and if we're going to, in this affluent….

Mr. Speaker, the Government will reach it's nineteenth birthday before long, and we hope they show appropriate maturity when that time comes. They're showing a little semblance of it with this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I mean my compliments very sincerely. But we do have the good life — and I've forgotten all the other Clancey phrases, but he's great on the blarney, that Irishman, and he's always got a new one from the Government — and we're doing so well in British Columbia that I don't think two cents is enough, and I would like to recommend to the Minister that he make that four cents or even a nickel. Let's make it worth while for the youngsters of today to clean those bottles up and return them, if our affluent adults just cast them aside.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking that even an airtight system of returning disposable drink containers will, by itself, make substantial inroads into our litter problem in British Columbia. There was a study done in the United States of highways, each two-tenths of a mile long, to find out exactly how much litter lies alongside the highway. The research showed that approximately one cubic yard of litter was accumulated per month for each mile of primary highway, and 60 per cent of that litter — and Mr. Speaker, that's a tremendous amount of litter — was paper, 16 per cent was cans, 6 per cent was plastic and in some ways the plastic is the greatest nuisance of all, and only 6 per cent were glass bottles and jars. So you see, the non-returnable bottles only make up a small minority of the total litter alongside our highways. Put in another way, Mr. Speaker, just taking one average mile of highway litter there were 1,600 items of paper, that's about one per yard, 929 cans, that's about a can every two yards, plastic items 155, that's one item of plastic litter every ten yards, and old tires and various unclassified items about one every five yards. But beer bottles only amounted to about one every fifteen yards.

This is a summary of some research done, nobody wrote it, Mr. Minister, it was a report from the Highway Research Board of the Division of Engineering, National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, done in October of 1969. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the kind of thing that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should be up on, and I think this is the sort of information the Cabinet should be up on. I think I'm wasting time with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, yes, but I would hope'I'm not wasting time with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Because what all of this adds up to, Mr. Speaker, is we have to have containers for litter at regular intervals along highways, in parks, in camping sites, before we're going to make real progress in keeping British Columbia beautiful. And this is the basic problem, really, why we have litter. There are very few people who won't walk a step or two to put litter into a container.

How many times has every member of this House been in a place where there was no litter can or where litter cans in Government parks were seeping over with garbage that had not been collected? Mr. Speaker, I would like to have seen in this Act some regulations stating how many containers were to be supplied for litter and cleaned out regularly in our parks and along our highways, because I think this would really convince us that we were going to make progress. I want to say that the member from North Vancouver–Capilano had a thought about a prize for a truly disposable container. But I am wondering if we mightn't look in other directions, because I'm thinking of the very imaginative devices that the Department of Highways have — and I wish the Minister of Highways were here, or the former Minister of Highways — is to put these garbage gobblers alongside the road, because it's got that little light touch, they're attractive looking containers, and you like to stop and put something in the garbage gobbler.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they work.

MR. McGEER: Yeah, they work, but there are too few of them, and that's the problem, Mr. Speaker, because if there's no garbage gobbler well, you know, somebody is tempted to throw that can or that piece of paper outside, and so it collects. A piece of paper every yard along the highway, and a bottle every ten yards. These are the sorts of things, if you really mean it seriously about getting after pollution, that you pay priority attention to, and as you look at the litter, where it is, and you look at the kind of litter that's there, and you say here's what we have to clean up and these are the measures that will succeed in that.

But instead, with this Bill, we've given priority to non-returnable bottles. I admit that's something that's pretty exposed, you can take a good cuff at it, and perhaps that'll help getting people thinking about putting litter away, but give them the containers. Take only those measures that Government can take to see that progress is made, because you can't expect the soft drink manufacturers to put up garbage gobblers along the highways, you can't expect the beer manufacturers to put up the litter cans in the parks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. McGEER: Because that's Government's job to do.

[ Page 675 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not ours.

MR. McGEER: Not Government's job to look after the parks. Well, that's our basic problem, Mr. Speaker, we can't get across what Government responsibility in this is…. I don't want to spend everybody's money, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to see British Columbia cleaned up, and I think that the Minister is making progress and we shouldn't be too critical. He is making progress, but I'd just like to see priorities well established, a balance of thinking and action.

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

MR. H.J. MERILEES: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, I'd like to speak in support of the most popular Bill No. 33 that this Government has ever introduced. I think it's high time we stopped pussy-footing on this subject of litter. This Act is a positive step forward, along with other litter control Acts and pollution Acts that the Government has introduced in the past, and is introducing during this Session.

I think it's high time we declared all out and total war on the garbage-mongers, I call them, not litter-bugs, they're garbage-mongers, and I think we ought to crack down with enforcement to follow up excellent legislation such as that which is contained in this Bill No. 33. I think this direction has to come from the top, it's from the Provincial authority. It should be made known clearly and unequivocally throughout the Province, through every law enforcement agency, through the cities and municipalities, and through our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, no matter how busy they may be on matters of urgency to do with crime, that at least a part of one working day per month be devoted to tracking down the garbage-mongers and those who pollute the highways and the parks throughout the Province of British Columbia. I don't think anybody's too busy that they can't afford at least one hour a week or one hour a month in this pursuit, and this is what is required to back up the legislation, as well as education.

I would suggest that we adopt a slogan and set aside one day per year to be named by the Minister or the Government, a clean-up day throughout the Province of British Columbia, and the slogan to be used would be to "Keep British Columbia Clean."

Now there are a number of organizations, commercial organizations, many of them, and I won't attempt to mention them, and they should be commended, as all people and all organizations and schools who have programmes of clean-up should be commended. One medal I would like to hand out would be to our B.C. Ferries System for their policy of not selling chewing gum on the ferries. Now, in my opinion, chewing gum is just about as bad as a broken bottle. The White Spot and Radio Station CKWX, and Macdonald's Hamburgers have a policy of cleaning up within about 100 yards of any of their locations, and these people should be encouraged all the way by this Government and the Department.

Finally, those who have been concerned with broken glass and the non-returnable bottles, I think the Minister, along with the Minister of Highways, might do well to follow the continuing study and experiments of the Illinois Glass Company, who are conducting an experiment on highway servicing by using the crushed waste glass that is available in North America today, and the experiments so far have proven to be very interesting and economical indeed.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's obvious that the whole House is going to endorse this Bill, but it does disturb me to see this kind of bubble-gum, Chamber of Commerce approach to the environment, and that's really what we've been getting. I think that's a bit of a blind, and I think it confuses the issue, and I think it's just utter nonsense for the Minister of Recreation and Conservation to say this is a great new philosophy, a great new departure, we're going to rely on the responsibility of the individual, and so on, and this is really going to come to grips with solving the problems of the environment in this decade. That's utter nonsense.

The environmental problems are so complex and so tied to major industrial polluters, and so on, it's almost a major dis-service to the public of British Columbia to suggest that dealing with litter and beer bottles and the like is dealing with the major problems of pollution in British Columbia today. I suggest, you know, as one of the members of this House that attended the day-long teach-in on the environment at the University of Victoria about a week and a half ago, at which some 2,000 people attended, it's clear that these people that are broadly concerned about the environment know that this isn't where the action is, this isn't where the action is really necessary. It's a much deeper problem, and I'm afraid that it's a dis-service on the part of the Minister to suggest that this is a major departure, this is really coming to grips with the problem of the environment, because it simply is not so.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Chairman, one of the basic self-help ideas implicit in the Bill is that no person shall offer any beer, ale, soft drink or any other type of container for consumption off his premises without undertaking to refund to the purchaser, on delivering up of the container, the sum of not less than two cents. Well, of course, right here there is a flaw, what can be termed a fatal flaw, in a Bill unless something is done to correct that particular flaw.

It says, "undertakes to refund to the purchaser." Well, you know, and I know from previous experience that with returnable containers, they have an intrinsic value and an intrinsic use. That's why they are returned, that's why they pay a deposit so they will get them back. When a retailer or the original supplier sends them out he does so with the intention they will be returned because they have intrinsic value. A tin can that's punched open has no value, and I don't see the manufacturers turning over to the intrinsic value containers necessarily. They will rely on the fact that the public, when they purchase a container, will not come back and they will have made two cents thereby on each container.

You know, one of the most infuriating experiences is to have a back seat full of used pop bottles from the Salmon Arm area and try to trade them in in Kamloops. Different containers, they won't return them so you've got to put them in the garbage can, because who's going back to Salmon Arm to trade them in to the vendor from whom you purchased, so the problem is not solved in that particular provision.

[ Page 676 ]

You have got to somehow widen it. For instance, what store owner is going to take your bottles or cans unless he knows he sold them to you, and if it has a brand name, that isn't proof. It says, "shall undertake to refund to the purchaser," and that means the person who sold it to him, nobody else. So it is ridiculous in the terms here. Every company can get around that particular idea implicit in this Act, because you have got to prove you got the container from him. You can't under the wording that the Minister has proposed to the House, unless each of the vendors puts a special signature on the bottle or container, he has no obligation to return the two cents. So he is going to get rich at that rate if he keeps selling them at two cents extra on each bottle, and you can't prove you got it from him. What are you going, to do, sue him for two cents? The way the wording is there, the essence is not the intrinsic value of the container, and the payment of the deposit that you get back and where you go.

You've got to go back to the store that you purchased it from, so it is a bit of a headache. You go to Salmon Arm and you can't trade them in at Kamloops, as I pointed out, so you can't get mad at the store owner in Kamloops, you might be annoyed about the one at Salmon Arm, or vice versa…. You mean that the member for Shuswap is getting restive, but I have a suspicion that he has some information on the subject about how to change the bottles at Salmon Arm.

But I do point out that the vital point is missed in this section of how you make a general common currency that works wherever you go, and whether you go to the same store again or not. That's the beauty of those containers of famous brands that are all uniform, they have a currency value of. their own, like money, and that's why the kids pick them up, that's why you can take them to any particular place and you don't need depots. Any place that sells coke will take the coke bottle, no doubt about it. They don't care if they get 50 bottles back and sold only 25, they know that they have got value in currency. That's what this Bill does not provide.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: The greatest value in this legislation is that it is a start, and for that reason I will support it. I believe, starting in this fashion, if we have an educational campaign amongst the schools it will develop a social consciousness, and I think this is very, very necessary if we are going to make any sort of a start on tackling the over-all problem of pollution.

Now in this start, and I have reason to believe the Minister will be doing something through Parks, or Recreation and Conservation, if we could have a borrow-pit dug in the area of any of the lakes, and I am thinking particularly in the Nicola Valley, there are some 60 odd lakes. Some people will go in with jeeps and in some cases you have to walk in. Well, where you walk in there is not too much of a litter problem, but if systematically we could cover the lakes in B.C. and have a borrow-pit dug, have proper signs put up so that people will know that this is a pit for garbage disposal. Then in the fall, after the camping and hunting and fishing season is all over, if the same crew that had built these pits would go in and with their equipment push the garbage into a pile, cover it and, if necessary, open another portion of the pit, so that it would be there for next year.

Now in connection with the educational campaign in the schools, I believe in the Centennial year, if we had a contest, a Miss Clean and tied in with this, an over-all programme of education in pollution control. We could have a Provincewide Queen contest in all the schools. This would start the young people thinking. When they think, maybe some of us oldsters would do a little thinking too. Now along with Miss Clean, along with the Queen campaign Miss Clean, just to go over the years, we've had Smokey the Bear to prevent forest fires. Smokey the Bear has become international. I believe we could also have Whitey the Bear. Have a Polar Bear designed something after Smokey the Bear, and have the slogan "With Whitey the Bear, Help Keep B.C. Clean." This all helps develop the social consciousness….

HON. L.R. PETERSON: It would be a bad reflection on Smokey the Bear.

MR. HARTLEY: ….I thought you were going to say that we were trying to sabotage you politically, Mr. Attorney-General, I thought you were going to say that we'll probably clean up in politics, too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have allowed an extremely wide range of debate on this particular Bill, but I think we are ranging a little farther than even I intended. Will you come back now to the principle of this particular Bill.

MR. HARTLEY: I do believe that by having slogans, poster contests and so on it would help encourage everyone to be more tidy. Like the second member from Vancouver East, I attended the teach-in on pollution, and after you have listened all day to different speakers, you think twice before you drop a gum wrapper, or a candy wrapper, and I think this is part of the social consciousness that we do need to develop, and I look on this Bill as the first step in that direction.

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

MR. E. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to prolong this debate. I think all members support the Government's intention to do something more than we are now doing about litter, but I am somewhat concerned, as others are, about the implications of the non-refundable bottle sections, and only to add a couple of points. I think what we are doing here is attacking a matter of public convenience, and the fact that some 50 per cent of containers now sold in the beverage industry are represented by non-fundable containers, and of course part of these in the Act suggest that, including the metal containers, there will be a two cent refund involved, and I can see tremendous administrative problems in trying to enforce this particular section.

I think what is more important, as others have said, is that we have an educational programme and more enforcement involved. So what I would just like to suggest, is that we think twice before proclaiming the section covering the non-refundable container.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one or two very brief remarks on this Bill. But you know, the highlight, a Freudian slip this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, a Freudian slip. You know

[ Page 677 ]

we were told by the Minister that we are looking for a high-quality environment, a high-quality environment, and this is a concept of the change of philosophy. In other words, the Government's philosophy has not been up to now for a clean environment, but we are changing our philosophy, thank goodness for that, and thank goodness for the fact we are changing, but I am afraid that we are not going far enough, Mr. Speaker.

The problem, of course, has always been that the massive doses of pollution that we are getting from some of the great polluters of our day, and some of these great polluters of our day….

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member will have the opportunity to discuss pollution under another Bill. We are presently discussing the Litter Act.

MR. COCKE: Well, as far as I am concerned, litter is pollution, Mr. Speaker, and just to get down on to this particular type of pollution then, I would wonder what kind of enforcement we could envisage under this Bill. Are we really going to be changing our philosophy, or are we just window-dressing, Mr. Speaker? I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, where those depots for the bottles are going to be. Are they going to be scattered throughout the whole countryside, or are people going to have to set up depots? What hours are they going to have? Are they going to be convenient? I think we are kidding ourselves when we think that all is right in this matter. I think that we have to have something pretty fundamental to go by.

Two cents, I agree with some of the members in the past who spoke about this two cent business, two cents is not really the amount that is going to really attract bottles to the depots. Two cents was paid 20 years ago, two cents was probably paid 30 or 40 years ago for bottles, and certainly with inflation the way it is, kids are going to be thinking of some other kind of job to do, rather than going picking up bottles, and particularly if they have to take them to some depot that's miles and miles away.

Now there is a half a dozen things here that have to be really tightened up, in my view, and I do hope that we can go a great deal further than this Bill is taking us at the present time. A far more reaching Bill and far more reaching way of implementing these ideas.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I've got a few remarks to make in regards to this Bill. I think there's some very good items in it. One of them is making the people that litter responsible for their litter, but I don't think that we can pay them for cleaning up their litter. I think they should have to clean up their litter. The one in regard to sewage into lakes from campers, and I am very pleased that that is in this Bill. I had an occasion where two American campers with two outfits came up and stopped alongside of a lake, run their hoses right into the lake and run their sewage into it. We got the police, but the police didn't seem to be able to do anything about it, and I hope that this section is proclaimed very quickly, because I think those are the kind of sections that can be proclaimed without any difficulty at all.

But I am dubious about the idea of paying two cents for a smashed-up can, or a returnable can. You are discriminating against the soft-drink group, and yet we've got thousands of people who have pork and beans out camping, and every other thing, and there is nothing said about these cans. I don't think that you will be able to enforce a two cent price, because your Act states definitely that the seller guarantees to pay the buyer two cents if he returns the can. Now some people think that this is going to give children a great chance to make a little pin-money by going around collecting cans, but I don't see anything in this Bill where a store-keeper — he could refuse to accept the can at any time.

To me it's as the honourable member for Burnaby Edmonds said, that the returnable bottles now have an intrinsic value, but things that have no value and we are going to force people to pay two cents to the people to bring their cans in to see that they keep the litter cleaned up, we're going to force them to pay two cents for that. The fellow that is handling these cans will have to raise the price at least five cents in order to handle the whole deal, if he wants to break even on it. So I am going to make a prediction; section 3 will never be proclaimed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN: Just very briefly on this Bill. I wanted to be sure to bring it to your attention that the Provincial Council of Women, the President of whom lives in my constituency, has asked me to bring words of commendation to the Minister for bringing this Bill forward, and it is their intention to make this known further to you.

I think this is an excellent Bill, because it is going to bring home the facts to every individual that the great "they" is actually "we." Everyone I have talked about pollution to have talked about "they," but there isn't one person, really, in our society who doesn't drink a beverage in one form or another, and so therefore everybody is affected. This Bill, in itself, will be an educational programme, just through the enactment of the Bill.

There is going to be lots of problems, certainly, and I would disagree with the member for Vancouver Centre, I don't think that we should delay, because no matter, it's a step that we must take, and I don't want the bottles littering our beaches in White Rock and Crescent Beach and Delta. They are coming from all over, they come in from all over the lower mainland. They are coming from even outside of the Province and the country. But at any rate, no matter when you do it, we must come to this point, somehow that litter has to be picked up, and I don't think it is the taxpayers that should be subsidizing this as a whole, it should be by the person who actually drinks that beverage and discards that bottle.

I was going to say that we could have an educational programme. I am all for an educational programme. I think that's just tremendous, and when our education programme takes us to the point where you and I and our children and everybody else will reach down and pick up that bottle and deposit it in the can, then we won't have a need for this Act. At that point we can redo the Act.

I think it is very good that we have given incentives in many ways, incentives and decentives. We are going to give a reward for the return of the bottles, and if you don't return the bottles we are going to provide a penalty, but one way or another we are going to try to force that litter to be picked up. I think it is very good that the enforcement is broadened, because certainly we couldn't expect this to be carried out entirely by the R.C.M.P. alone.

[ Page 678 ]

I would suggest also, just a first step, and I would hope that we wouldn't have to go to some sort of further incentive of increasing the incentive to say five cents a bottle or can. I don't want to have to do that, and so I feel confident that all of the companies that are sponsoring these litter programmes are going to continue to sponsor them, and they are going to solve the problem both at that level and also at the level of enforcement. I look forward to the day that we can educate every individual and that is the point, we must get back to every individual. It is fine for everybody to cry pollution, but let's get back to the individual and let them realize that they are the polluters.

I'll look forward, just as I am going to look forward to voting for this Bill, I also look forward to the day when I can vote to repeal this Bill, because we no longer have the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

MRS. GRACE McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I wanted to just mention three things in regard to this Bill, and it is in regard to some of the statements that have been made today as to what really is litter and where the problem is in our neighbourhoods and in our communities. In the Canadian Research Services that made a count project in Ontario, of all the material that was counted in a five mile stretch of highway in that Province, 76.3 per cent of it was paper, and in glass and returnable bottles, non-returnable bottles and other, only 1.5 per cent of the total was litter caused by bottles or any kind of container made of glass. It is true that the most dramatic example of litter comes in the cut glass and the broken bottle which we see on our beaches, and I have spoken in the House during the debate on the Throne Speech in regard to this particular problem, and I am delighted to support the Bill because I believe it is indeed a step in the right direction.

But I join with other members in our side of the House who have said that this Bill truly is initiating an awareness of a litter problem that we have in many other areas, and not just bottles. It will focus attention on the problem, and I think that this is tremendously important. I do believe, too, Mr. Speaker, that it is important enough that it will initiate a lot of attention in the municipalities and in our communities where the onus must be placed on the municipalities to provide receptacles and containers for the litter that we, the people of our Province, make, and I believe that it is important that our Government leads and encourages this kind of cleanliness.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, in concluding my remarks on the Bill, that I think it is very imaginative, forward legislation that is going to help fight a problem that is a very large one in each of our communities, and will lead to cleanliness in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Shuswap.

MR. W.F. JEFCOAT: I hear everybody groaning, Mr. Speaker, but I don't know why. I won't take up much time of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. JEFCOAT: But I would just like to say at this time, coming from the Shuswap area where there is a large tourist potential, that I am very happy to see a Bill of this nature come in.

I have heard it said here today that two cents is not enough. Maybe this is so but I can tell you, resort operators in my area last year who, on their own, on their own, without the manufacturing companies assisting or anything else, gave five cents for any bottles etc., that the children brought in to them. I know one large resort gave five cents for any bottles and they had no trouble whatsoever keeping their grounds clean. There is nothing in this Bill that says that we must pay two cents. It is a minimum of two cents, so there is nothing to stop any operator, if they wish to help with this programme, and I am sure that they all will, in giving five cents, if necessary, for any returnable or any empty container that is returned by the children.

I am sure that this is a step in the right direction, and the part that I like about this is that it says no person shall discharge, dump, or discard any of this, and there are penalties for this. I think that if we — it is up to you and I - we are all responsible for pollution, and we all are, so each one of us is responsible for helping to clean this situation up, and I think that with a little education that perhaps added money will not be necessary, but there will be ways and means.

I have no hesitation, in fact I've had letters of praise to the Minister for coming forward with such straightforward legislation as this, and I am sure it is a step in the right direction and that we, too, will get along very well, and that before long we will have a different Province to live in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Recreation and Conservation will close the debate.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had a very interesting discussion on this subject. That little Bill generated substantially more discussion than I had anticipated it would.

I think also, however, that there is some little misunderstanding about the change of philosophy that I was recommending to this Province. The change of philosophy is simply this, "Buster, it's your litter — if you packed it in there, you pack it out!" That is the change of philosophy I'm talking about. And until we have that kind of a change of philosophy there is no Government, there is no organization, that is going to be able to provide enough garbage cans that we won't have the country strewn with the discards of various sorts of packages. So we've got to come back to the individual. "Buster, it's your litter, it's your material. You packed it in there, you pack it out." Now, of course, there are other matters dealt with in the Bill, matters that are of some importance. But really, that is the basic underlying proposition.

Now, on the question of merchandising, it simply says that you, as a merchant, offer this commodity in this kind of a container for sale. By the act of offering it for sale, you have committed yourself to refund that type of container. If you don't wish to refund that type of container, just don't offer it for sale. It may not be an entirely satisfactory arrangement to the keen legal mind, but to the average person that makes sense, I think. If you sell it you are responsible to refund it. If you don't sell it, you are not responsible to refund it.

Now, on the question of enforcement, we are not expecting the peace officers or constables to carry the whole load. Our Conservation Officers, our Park Officers, our Forest Rangers, will have the authority to issue tickets or

[ Page 679 ]

issue summonses for offences, and we are not expecting a massive programme of prosecution, but rather a steady educational programme combined with the fact that if you commit these offences, you are liable to be ticketed when apprehended.

As far as a prize for a fully disposable container is concerned, I would think that the prize that would be available to anyone who could come up with that kind of a container, either a fully edible one or one that would disintegrate after a short period of time and go back to humus, he would undoubtedly reap a tremendous prize because he would have a patent there almost beyond price.

Now, on the question of whether it ought to be two cents or five cents per bottle or container, the two cents is the minimum. There is nothing to prevent any bottler from offering as large a refund on his bottles as he feels is necessary to assure getting them back, and if he wishes to offer a nickel that is quite all right, but they must have a minimum of two cents. Redeem at point of purchase, well, I have already covered that.

Litter along the highways is not primarily bottles and cans, as one person noted. That may be true, but nevertheless the bottles and the cans represent one of the most hazardous forms of litter, and while it was noted by the leader of the Liberal group that the Act deals primarily with bottles and cans, in fact that is only a comparatively minor portion of the Act. The Act deals with the broad question of litter generally, and the individual's responsibility for its disposal.

I think, however, that throughout the debate this afternoon it became very apparent that there are no simple solutions to these problems. We talked about public education. We've talked about enforcement of litter regulations, and it will have to be a combined programme of public education, enforcement, provision of additional facilities, and I'll only say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I feel this Bill is a step in the right direction, and move it be read a second time now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill No. 33 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. 35, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Adoption Act).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 35. The Honourable the Minister of Welfare.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Adoption Act to allow a person to adopt another person over the age of — 21 years, but only under certain circumstances. The person in question has to be brought up by the ones who wish to adopt him, and this is for a number of reasons. There are not, perhaps, too numerous cases that would fit, but yet it is a Bill that has been requested for some period of time.

Then it also permits an official or a social agency outside the Province to give valid consent to the adoption of a child in the Province under certain circumstances, and it also empowers the Court, in dispensing with the consent to an adoption, to accept the written report of the Superintendent about the facts required under the sub-section (6) of section 8. I move the second reading of this Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to adopt anybody in this House excepting the Honourable the Minister of Highways! That'll cost you, my friend, that'll cost you!

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of amendments in this proposed Bill that we approve of. We still have some question about the absolute statements of the Superintendent of Child Welfare. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the honourable Minister that when these kind of rare adoption arguments take place, that he routinely ask his Department to keep him informed, so that just in case any kind of situation boils up monthly or yearly, that the Minister knew ahead of time. Because he can find that the Superintendent may move, in all good faith, only to have made a move into an adoption where all the information might not have been available. I am not suggesting that the Department didn't get all the information, just that it wasn't available at that time and there can be disputes afterwards.

I would like to share with the Minister a concept towards adoption that could be incorporated in a Bill like this. I am suggesting to the Minister that with the shortage of adoption homes and the delay that takes place in placing a child in adoption, that new approaches be innovated by the Department toward adoption. I would like to see the Department, under this Bill, go on a Province-wide recruitment campaign for good adoption homes.

There are many people, Mr. Speaker, out there who want to adopt children but do not have the financial wherewithal to adopt. In the past, when this Act has been amended in the House, I suggested to the Government that the legal fees for adoption be absorbed by the Government. This suggestion was taken by the Minister's predecessor and is now, in case, the fact. The Provincial Government will pay the adoption fees.

I would like to now extend to the Minister even a further concept. Out there, Mr. Minister, there are literally hundreds of homes that have good family life, good stable situation, that could easily handle another child except for the limiting factor of not having enough funds. I suggest to the Minister that approaching the idea of purchasing a loving home on a permanent basis and broadening the adoption plan on that concept. What I mean simply is this, Mr. Speaker, is that when you go out to recruit an adoption home, suggest to people that the home that they have to offer the child is worth $60, $70 or $50 a month, even after the child is adopted, because a family that is on a marginal income may want to adopt a child, but find that the income is not sufficient enough to handle that child.

I believe further, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to the Minister the concept of purchasing home life, placing with two or three children…. (not recorded at this point)….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the Honourable Minister.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: I would just like to suggest that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is straying from the purpose of the Bill. I believe, although his points are very interesting and well taken, I am very interested in what he has to say on this problem, but I think they could be well taken up under the Estimates of the Minister of Social Welfare.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I appreciate the point of order raised by the honourable the lady Minister without Portfolio, but I would point out to her that this is an Act to Amend the Adoption Act. The Adoption Act deals with the placement on a permanent basis of children in adoption homes, and I

[ Page 680 ]

am suggesting that there….

AN HON. MEMBER: This Bill deals with those over 21.

MR. BARRETT: I know that. I am suggesting there may be people over 21 that need a permanent home, too, I know a lot of them around. But if the Minister would just prevail, or wait a few moments, I will finish anyway, and I am within the Act.

I am suggesting that the expansion of adoption should include the recruitment of adoptive homes with the idea of purchasing the service of that home, even after the adoption takes place. There are working families, men and women, working families who don't have enough money, they would like to adopt a child. If the Government would subsidize, under the Adoption Act, rather than under foster care, we could make the permanent kind of adoptions on a broader base under an expanded Act that is necessary with the surplus of children and a shortage of homes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Minister's point was well taken that we are debating Bill No. 35. The Honourable Minister closes the debate.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, the points that have been raised have been well taken, and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition has had some experience in this field, but I'd like to move now that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the whole House for consideration….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, we haven't passed it on second reading.

MR. GAGLARDI: I move the Bill now be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 35 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. 36, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 36, An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act. The Honourable Minister of Social Welfare.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: This Bill, and there are these amendments, merely give the child or the person in question more protection.

There are a couple of things that are considered under this Bill. These amendments provide for a swearing out of a complaint within seven days, a period of time has been set, and then, (b) to clarify the grounds upon which the Judge is to act. This is giving him further guidelines. Then to provide a review of an order of committal under the Juvenile Delinquent Act of Canada, and then to provide for a notice being given before a hearing under another section of the Bill, and this is more protection, and more guidance to the Judge, more protection for the child, and I would move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have amendments on the Order Paper which I will not refer to other than to suggest that members of the House would be well advised to read those amendments on page 17 of the Orders of the Day.

Avoiding the specific amendments that I have suggested, I'd like to point out to the Minister that the amendments herein deal with the simple matter, or the not so simple matter, of a child welfare worker going into a home and removing that child because the child has either been abused or neglected by the parents.

Mr. Speaker, the removal of a child from a home, no matter how bad that home is, is a traumatic experience for that child, and if it is handled properly there will be a minimum of emotional scars left from that experience, but if it is handled badly, the removal of a child can create a particular incident in that child's life that will mar his development towards a mature person throughout most of his life.

The Minister has announced that the complaints will be spelled out, and that's good, Mr. Speaker, but in the past I have asked the Department of Welfare to consider, that when the complaints are spelled out to a Judge, that the parents or parent or guardian of that child should have a copy of that complaint as a matter of routine, Mr. Speaker. Let me say this in defence of the Department. It is a very, very rare thing that a child is apprehended, and the Department does not move unless they are absolutely sure they must move.

But what happens is the parent, in rationalizing his own neglect or failure with that child, oft times visits the child and does not tell the child the details which led to the withdrawal of that child from the home. Because the parent himself is never confronted in writing with the reasons why the child was removed, and I think that's a mistake, Mr. Speaker. If the Department is going to prepare a report for the Judge, a copy of that report should go to the parent, so the parent is confronted with the real reasons why the child was withdrawn. If the child then is being played with as some kind of game by a parent who is trying to overcome his or her fault, the parent will at least be able to be brought back to reality by the social worker in terms of having the same report that the Judge has, in front of that parent.

Now, the other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that there must be a process of appeal written in this Act, to you the Minister of Welfare. The parent should be given a system of appealing the Welfare Department's decision, and because most of the children who are brought in to care by the Government are from families of marginal incomes, the Government should provide an independent lawyer for those parents.

Every avenue should be blocked off that would permit the neglecting parent the opportunity of rationalizing to the child that the — Government is a big bad Government out to separate the child from its parent, because I know — the Minister has been told by his staff, I am sure — that there are children who have been in foster homes for six, seven, and eight years, and who still resent the fact that the Government is caring for them, simply because at the time they were brought into care there was not a proper handling of the parent to stifle all of the misinterpreted ideas of why the child was brought under care. So I am suggesting that there should be a system of appeal and that the Government itself should provide the lawyer for the appeal.

In the other section relating to the swearing out of complaints and the complaint being sent in writing to the Court, let me suggest that the complaint should also go again

[ Page 681 ]

here to the parents. I'd like to point out to the House that the section as it stands now is one that was advocated in Committee some years ago in this House, and I regret the delay that it took this long to catch up.

Without going into any more detail, I'll have the greater debate during the time of the sections, Mr. Speaker, but let me point out that again an opportunity presents itself to this House to move forward, by amending this Bill, to suggest that every child coming into Court should have a complete physical and psychological examination. I don't want that opportunity missed and I will say no more because the amendment that I propose covers that. But let's not pass up these opportunities to really do some basic child care and child protection.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. The Minister has a very tough job. His Department goes far beyond just the matter of social assistance, and I am sure he's finding out that it's not an easy Department to carry. The Minister and those who have preceded him know full well that the most difficult part of all is administering the Child Protection Act. Through no fault of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, this Act will now be affecting 13,000 children in the Province of British Columbia. We have the highest number per capita of children in care in all of Canada, a statistic that not even Social Credit wants to brag about. But because of the rapid deterioration of family life in North America and the emphasis on that deterioration here in British Columbia, we must examine this Act even more fully, 13,000 children's lives depend upon this Act, and I ask the members to read the amendments that I am proposing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister closes the debate.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 36 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. 34, Mr. Speaker.(An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 34. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's a very minor amendment, and I think the explanatory notes pretty well make it very clear. All it does is allow groups to establish animal hospitals, etc., and to hire veterinarian help. Then the other principle involved is that action against veterinarians would be limited to one year, that is, proceedings would have to start within one year, which is in line with Ontario and Alberta and most other professional Acts. With that I would move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY: On behalf of the member from Yale-Lillooet, I move adjournment of this until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that we adjourn debate. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 37, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Forest Act. The Honourable Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively minor amendment to the Forest Act. It involves only two or three sections therein. The first clarifies a situation wherein individuals engaged in research activities in the forest and Crown lands are exempted from reservations and restrictions which happen to be attached thereto.

There is reference made to a changed situation when a farm is sold, with the status of its associated wood-lot, and when this Bill is in Committee an amendment will be introduced at that time to bring clarification of the matter. There was confusion concerning a portion of the farm or what portion would constitute continuation of the farm, and that reference is being eliminated in the amendments which will be brought forward. In all matters of dispute in timber areas, at the moment where malpractice or some dispute may exist and the person is ordered to stop operation, the Act has allowed a period of three months or approximately 90 days, and it's felt that 30 days is adequate for such notification in future.

For many years now we have been scaling wood in the cubic and in the foot board measure, and it has been at the discretion of the operator which scale would be used. Now we are on almost universally a close utilization management scheme. The cubic scale measurement, along with weight scaling, has become almost universal in practice, and we are removing the opportunity for the operator to determine the type of scale, and the Minister shall determine, in certain instances where we still have obligations going back to the foot board measure situation, wherein that may be continued in the future.

The major item in the change, Mr. Speaker, reflects to a management section in the Forest Act concerning the setting aside of specific recreational areas within sustained yield managed units. This is in total in keeping with the land use committee, the designation of the best use of certain areas of land. There are many areas within our forest lands which are opened up, through access roads and things of that nature. Whereas they may not be park areas as such, but if given proper treatment, particularly around lakeshore areas and when access has been provided, that by prescribing the type of activity which will take place thereto, the recreational amenities of these designated areas may be preserved for all time. In the Forest Service we have placed, also, a recreational officer whose job it is to co-ordinate the various recreational potentials within the different forest areas and to co-ordinate this work with the rangers and the people in the various forest districts.

These are the only matters, Mr. Speaker, that are dealt with in this relatively minor amendment to the Forest Act, and I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I agree the bulk of

[ Page 682 ]

the changes are reasonable, and a form of housekeeping that should be done.

The question of farm wood-lots and various Crown land arrangements with holders of land in fee simple is something that maybe deserves more detailed attention at some other stage. People that have the use of Crown range lands and so on are really in much the same category. What happens often is that the public's asset is traded with the private asset and is capitalized, in fact, in the value of the private asset. The statute at least makes it clear that it still is a public asset, but in fact it gets traded privately like most of the Crown resources of this Province.

As to the business of establishing recreation uses within the Provincial forests and within the sustained yield units, I think, in principle, one would have to agree that that's a reasonable idea. But often what one would agree with in principle turns out to be very different in practice, and that really should be a reason to pause for a few moments, at least, in relation to this proposed amendment. Because, Mr. Speaker, the Parks branch of this Province used to be apart of the Forest Service and they just had forestry officers essentially handling the parks function. Until the establishment of the Department of Recreation and Conservation, that was the situation, this was a branch of the Forest Service.

I feel, you know, to some extent there is still interdepartmental rivalry between the Forest Service and the Parks and Recreation Department, and one can't help but wonder, while this is reasonable in principle, will it end up being used, in fact, to abuse the parks' recreation-conservation function further in the Province of British Columbia, because the history of the Government is really none too happy with respect to recreation and parks. It's clear that if there's an officer within the Forest Service that is concerned about recreation, that he's going to have to be dealing in a line department with Forestry Officers, not Recreation Officers at all. So it seems clear that the first sway in these huge forest reserves is clearly going to be with the industry at bat, because the Department really, primarily, works closely with the private forest industry of British Columbia.

So we probably face the prospect in the future in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, of probably no major Provincial parks ever being declared, because the argument will be that we have this aspect of the Forest Act, and that within the forest we can have a multiplicity of uses including recreation, but in that kind of situation, Mr. Speaker, there is no question about who is going to be the loser. The recreational user in all of our forests is presently the loser, and even with the recreational officer, I'm afraid he will probably continue to be the loser. So one can endorse the principle, but the facts of life in terms of the administrations and the different points of view within each administration are such that there's little prospect of major progress, even though one could endorse the principle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 37 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. 38, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 38, British Columbia Professional Foresters Act. The Honourable Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, this is a complete re-write of the Foresters Act, which has stood the test of time in British Columbia now since 1927, I believe it was first introduced, and has been modified, but briefly, since that period. The present Act, basically, is an updating of the professional aspects of the Act. It takes into consideration the changes which have automatically taken place. For example, when it was first enacted there was no provision made for forestry students, foresters-in-training, and the wider scope of the Act now brings all of these people into professional association.

When the Act was first proclaimed the Association had no assets and so had no real reason to enact provisions for the control of those assets and the administration of those assets, but they, like other groups, have grown over the years and they do have assets now which require fairly careful administration, and provision is allowed for that. The disciplinary procedures as they affect professional foresters has been spelled out now in the Act. The appeal section has also been added. The procedures are there for all to see. They cannot be modified by regulation or by-law that are not a part of the over-all statute.

One of the interesting changes is that the Act will provide for registered foresters to be recognized with the initials R.P.F. after their names, which is roughly equivalent to the professional engineers' designation and the other professional designations which are allowed by statute. Foresters, as such, have just been known by this term. In future they will be under the term Professional Forester, with the initial designation. There are basically no. major changes, Mr. Speaker, other than the updating, consolidating of the provisions of the Act, and I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. Carried.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 39, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 39. An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act. The Honourable Attorney-General.

HON. L.R: PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the principles contained in this Bill are fully set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill and I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly simple Bill and I don't see how any member of the House could take exception to the idea that the members of the law profession should have every kind of protection possible in the way of insurance to protect their clients from their errors and omissions. That seems to be the principle provision in the Bill, other than making provisions for investigation work and

[ Page 683 ]

expense connected thereto, where a member of the profession is being investigated by the Bench in relation to his professional duties, and I find no objection to this forwarding into second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 39 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. 40, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 40, Mineral Processing Act. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. F.X. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, in Bill No. 40 the Government has recognized that natural resources should be processed to the greatest degree possible in the Province, The spirit and intent of this Bill is to encourage the establishment of smelters and to ensure a supply of feed to such operations in the Province of British Columbia. It embodies ministerial discretion through an Arbitration Board to ensure that the source of the supply is fed over a number of producers, so that no one producer will be unfairly burdened with an order to supply an excessive amount of feed to a smelter. The Board may also act as an arbiter on matters in dispute between producer and smelter in relation to any directive of the Minister. Retention of ownership of minerals is maintained by the producer, subject to the payment of agreed charges for processing or assigning, and I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER: I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 43, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 43, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: A. Speaker, this is an annual Act which covers the errors of commission and omission on the part of a number of municipalities in the Province of British Columbia, and it also has one or two enactments which are self-explanatory. I would draw the attention of the House to the first section of the Bill, which seeks to extend the enactment of last year which was to encourage Indians to run for municipal office, even although they were only on the current list of electors, and this extends this privilege to 1970. There were quite a number of Indian people who took the opportunity last year to get on the list of tenant electors, and in one or two instances were elected as a result of having the possibility of running for office while they were only on the list of electors for one year. This extends that principle, as I've said, for two years into 1970. I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER: I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 44, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 44 has been extensively explained in the explanatory notes, and I therefore move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 45, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 45, An Act to Amend the Medical Act. The Honourable Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: This amending legislation covers several details but, taken together, present an identifiable principle in that, first of all, the College of Physicians and Surgeons is having conferred upon it additional powers in respect of such things as the bringing into practice of fourth year medical students. It permits an extension of the registration system to permit what is called a Limited Register of Practice. It also provides a system of appeal, or extends the system of appeal where there is disciplinary action taken.

It also appears to have been the case in the past, where the Council was in the process of examining the fitness of a doctor to continue practice, as for example where there's some evidence of mental disorder, addiction to drugs, or misuse of alcohol, that the composition of the committee was restricted to members of the Council, and they are asking here to be permitted to bring on to the committee not only members who are not members of Council, but also to provide for committee membership to include psychiatrists.

There's also provision which prevents what we've sometimes called, in the teaching profession, write-out colleges, which operate out of Reno, Nevada or some such place as that. Then there is an anticipation clause in section 15, which limits the right of doctors to incorporate under names which are unsatisfactory. Those, I think, taken together, state the principles involved in the Bill. I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for

[ Page 684 ]

Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I would move the adjournment of this debate, and thank the Minister for his explanation, but we have to study it a little longer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is to adjourn. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L. R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 47, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 47, An Act to Amend the Mineral Act. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. F.X. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, the principle involved in this Bill has to do mostly with housekeeping amendments. Some parts of the Act were redundant. We're revamping it a little and bringing it up to date. Probably the most important section of it has to do with the surface right title in relation to mineral claims, and that area of a mineral claim that may not be required for the purpose of the claim, which then can be acquired rather than through the statutory figure that is in the Act presently of $5 an acre. That that's required for the mining will be done on the basis of undeveloped land through the Department of Lands, the balance then can be applied for either by the mineral right holder or anyone else, but at a price more realistically than for mining purposes and commensurate with its use. And that is the main principle of the Act, and I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion to adjourn. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 48, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 48, An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The Honourable Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK: Mr. Chairman, the principle of this Bill is extremely simple. It does one thing and one thing only, that is to give increased pensions for the persons receiving allowances under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and applies to those who were granted allowances or pensions before the ist of April, 1968. How many people are involved? 2,400 people. What is the cost? Half a million dollars. What does it mean? The key word is 10 per cent.

I'm just waiting, I just hope nobody's going to adjourn this one, because it's so simple, and it assists the people on small pensions in that the minimum amount of increase will be $15 for those receiving $150 or less, and of course $30 per month for those receiving $300 or more. Now I went farther, Mr. Speaker, than outlining the principle, I did all the clauses, too. I move second reading of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary makes this Bill sound like a very generous proposition and it certainly does appear to us to be a step in the right direction. It has been amended in the past on three or four occasions prior, and a 10 per cent increase. One of the things that concerns me is the fact that there is a maximum and I would wonder about that, but I think this is a kind of thing that we can discuss in committee and I would certainly support an increase in this regard.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Just a question to the Minister. Is there any provision here for opting out if an employee wishes to set something up for himself? Can he opt out of it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: I would just like to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this move is contagious and may be transmitted to the teachers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister closes the debate.

HON. W.D. BLACK: I would suggest, with respect, that you have a look at the Civil Service Superannuation Act in which the participation is clearly outlined. Can you opt out? No, you can't opt out, but when it comes to accepting whatever adjudication you want at retirement age,then the opportunity is extended to the individual to take two or three different courses. The only opting out is that if you cannot put in ten years of service under the plan, obviously you are not going to get any pension at all. So I don't know if opting out really applies in this plan. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill No. 48 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. 49, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 49, An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK: This one, likewise, Mr. Speaker, is extremely simple. As I have said on previous occasions, the purport of the Bill and the reason it is amended is that these suggestions come from a committee of employer and employee, both of which have been unanimously recommended.

The first principle of the Bill is to take under the jurisdiction of the Bill, the Registered Nurses Association as a legal entity or a bargaining agent as it presently is. Of course, the Nurses Association will pay employer and employee contributions, and they will be taken under the Act just the same as we do have under other Acts. For instance, the

[ Page 685 ]

people of the Government Employees' Association, by paying employer and employee contributions, come under the Civil Service Act, and so on. So the principle that has been extended to people such as these, to this organization, and has the unanimous agreement of, as I said, the employers and employees.

The second principle, of course, it extends the death benefits, or at least extends the in service benefits to the dependent of a female employee to a widower. Such was never in the Act before. If a male is solely dependent upon a female who pre-deceases him, then the male who has been 100 per cent dependent on her, receives the benefit of whatever may have been chosen. It's the ten year requirement, of course, before the male can take part in the benefits of the particular section. Again recommended by both sides. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is another Bill that can be discussed in Committee, certainly with the endorsation of both the employer and employee. There would be very little we have to say other than the fact that I would wonder about their carrier, it seems that the employees of the municipalities for some years have been somewhat discouraged with their pension plan, and now by hook or crook you have managed to attract a new customer. Congratulations, and we will discuss it in more detail in the committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the amendment to the Municipal Superannuation Act, this is probably the only chance that the Government or anyone else will be able to affect the pensions of about 1,000 pensioners that went on pensions under the Municipal Superannuation Act prior to April, 1957. I said this many times in this House since 1957, and the circumstances are very well known to the Provincial Secretary, as to the pathetic position of all of these 1,000 people who have been on pension for quite a long time, I just quote one here that I see, a man with 36 years….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are dealing with the amendment that concerns mainly, the adding of the registered nurses and their beneficiaries, the principle of the Bill. We are not discussing the legislation in total. 

MR. PRICE: Well, I am discussing the need to take further care of people who have been on pensions for a long time, and I think it is within the qualifications of a member to speak on this particular Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The principle of the Bill is now under debate and the principle here enunciated is to add the registered nurses and their dependents, and that is basically the principle of that Bill.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, I will conform to your wishes, by all means. I wouldn't say anything unless it was with your permission.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There have been occasions that a member can bring something like that. It's not a matter of this being the only occasion that you can bring up that matter, because this is the reason we have the Throne Speech debate, the Budget debate, and the Minister's Salary Estimates.

MR. PRICE: And this is the last time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am afraid, however, the principle of this Bill must be adhered to.

MR. PRICE: Very well. I merely hope that during the committee stage the Minister may see fit to bring in some amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: On that point, the title of the Bill is the Municipal Superannuation Act and I don't understand why you can't debate the principle of municipal superannuation under this Bill, because there's times you'd never have an opportunity of suggesting amendments to the particular Bill unless you did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows full well the rules of the House. The Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I have no particular objection to the proposed amendment, but I do point out that one occasion the Speaker, when he had this very question, he pointed out that you can discuss what should have been put in the Bill, what you think should be there, and I think in that respect the honourable the second member for Burrard is not that out of order in dealing with matters that he thinks should have been included, and were somehow omitted from the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister closes the debate.

HON. W.D. BLACK: I, likewise, wouldn't want to offend the Chair, but I can assure the honourable member that I got the message and I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 49 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. 61, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 61, the Vancouver General Hospital Act, 1902. The Honourable Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to revise the charter of the Vancouver General Hospital. Generally speaking, the Act contains only the necessary broad powers and provisions. All the details of provisions such as membership in the hospital corporation, size of the board of trustees, procedures at meetings, and so on, will be left to be dealt with by by-law. This will do two things. First of all, it will bring in line with all other hospitals in the Province the procedures for bringing in and altering

[ Page 686 ]

by-laws of the corporation, and will eliminate the necessity of coming back to this Chamber for a multiplicity of amendments which relate to changes in the months during which the meetings will have to be held, such things as annual membership dues, and changing the number of trustees, and so on.

I think that it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that this follows, in principle, the provisions which are to be found under the Societies Act, these are for this type of organization, and just as in the Societies Act the broad outline of powers are provided for, and the details of administration are left to be drawn by by-law, in all instances, of course, to be approved by the Minister. I think in this respect the very substantial improvement in the legislation is to bring the Vancouver General Hospital Act in line with what one would find in the Societies Act. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I would move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House to consider more carefully.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House. Ali those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 64, An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act. The Honourable the Minister of Education.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS: This is a straightforward Bill that has 26 sections in it, most of them are house cleaning sections. There is a major difference, however, in that we've got together the sections, we've compiled them altogether regarding the colleges. Up to now they have been known by many names, District Colleges, Regional Colleges, Community Colleges. We've brought them together under one heading and we brought together a number of sections dealing with the Colleges. I think that most sections are self-explanatory, and I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 69, An Act to Amend the Regional Hospital Districts Act. The Honourable Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: The Regional Hospital District system was brought in a few years ago under the guidance of my predecessor in office, and working very closely with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. By and large, the Regional Hospital District system has worked well, although the intervening period has indicated that there are a number of occasions and a number of situations where some improvement in the legislation might be made. For example, it appears that the duties of the Chairman of the Regional District are so extensive as to indicate a real necessity for having a Deputy Chairman who could function in the office of the Regional Hospital District, as distinguished from the Regional District.

I think, too, that in a number of instances it hasn't been entirely clear that hospital property, both in use and that which is being held for the purpose of hospital construction, should be exempt from property taxes in the normal course, nor has it been entirely clear as to the basis upon which levies for hospital purposes should be imposed, and these matters are now spelled out in this legislation.

There are a number of instances, too, of considerable interest, particularly in the Vancouver area, where a hospital is capable and willing to participate in the capital construction of a hospital project. There is one hospital, for example, the one hospital society in the Vancouver area that does have considerable amount of cash on hand, and they are willing to participate in the capital cost. Now rather than have the total cost of a hospital construction project abated, with the Provincial share being reduced proportionately, it seemed appropriate that there should be legislative power which would permit the hospital to relieve the community of its share, so that the 40 per cent that would be payable by the community would be abated proportionately. We think that this is a legitimate request and are prepared to enact enabling legislation which would permit that sort of thing. There are other situations — there are two situations, one where the hospital society could contribute all of what would otherwise be payable by the Regional District, the second situation where they would make a contribution of something less than the 40 per cent that would be payable by the Regional District, and this then permits that.

Also, the Act permits the setting up of executive committees by Regional Hospital Districts. It extends, too, in a very modest way, the powers of the Regional Hospital District to borrow money where they are in the midst of a construction project. Now the time is a six month period and we think probably a 12-month period would be more practical. There are also some provisions which will facilitate the financing of the Regional Hospital District's current activities by permitting them to receive the monies from the municipal members with a little more ease, and also spelling out the way in which the municipalities, which receive money on behalf of the Regional District, would be required to pay it over.

There's also a definition of those persons who are entitled to vote, and also a spelling out — and I don't think in a new way — of the basis upon which the tax will be levied as between municipalities. All it does is to define the basis of assessment, so that there will be no inequalities as between districts. I move second reading of the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: I would ask leave for adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 687 ]

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have it, and the motion is carried.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 63, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act, 1967).

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests, Bill No. 63.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act, 1967. This amendment has certain very fundamental changes associated with it which I think are of.rather far-reaching importance, and I'll deal with the major principles that are found in the Act.

The main purpose of the Act, of course, in the amendments, is to extend control and regulation over industrial air pollution throughout the Province. Many persons have worried about whether this was a shouldering on regional districts or municipal districts or whatever it happens to be. It is bringing within the jurisdiction of the Pollution Control Board industrial air pollution in the Province of British Columbia. These amendments were forecast, of course, in the report brought in by the Pollution Control Board last July, which was fairly widely circulated throughout the Province, to secure recommendations from all who might be interested in the matter. It also secured a great deal of general publicity at the same time.

It points out in this Act that air pollution, Mr. Speaker, from domestic and commercial and institutional sources, and from such activities as the burning of leaves, the burning of land clearing, land filling, land draining, all of these general items are exempt from the basic licensing authority under the Pollution Control Act. It is very obvious to anyone who thinks a bit about it the complete impossibility of handling these items through centralized Pollution Control Board. However, it is visualized that municipalities — and insofar as the Pollution Control Act is concerned the municipalities include regional districts — it's visualized that municipalities will regulate and control these minor matters of air pollution within their own jurisdiction and by their own by-laws.

As has been pointed out before, that the air pollution from motor-vehicles is not controlled under this Act, but it will be controlled under the changes in the Motor-vehicle Act and, as a consequence, we have spelled out specifically the fact that it is not a part of this legislation.

Of particular significance is the fact that all new industrial contaminant emissions will require permits from the Director of Pollution Control effective on January the 1st, 1971. In other words, this year, for the balance of this year, in the nine months that we have left to us, is the formation of the control facility within the Pollution Control Branch and the setting up of the mechanisms thereto which will enable such action to take place. That's the new emissions, Mr. Speaker. All of the present emissions insofar as air pollution are concerned will become the responsibility of the individual operations to register them as of December 31st, 1971. This merely puts back into proper scope the amendments which are taking place insofar as the Pollution Control Board is concerned in its regulation of all other discharges into water and onto land.

Effective and spelled out and this is the first time we have come to grips with date-lining, Mr. Speaker, but effective also in the Act insofar as discharges are concerned and new sewage and waste discharges in water and on land effective — and this is backdated to January 1st, 1970 — throughout the Province, we have just extended our operations throughout the Province in the last year.

All new discharges will be subject to permit regulation as of January 1st this year,. It has been, but this is spelled out legislatively, and during the course of this year all emissions become the responsibility of the individual and it will be widely advertised and points made thereto that all people discharging a waste effluent will have to record this fact with the Director of Pollution Control prior to the 31st of December, 1970, and then on a priority basis an action taken as we move through group by group in taking up the job of correcting all past discharges. The philosophy has been to bring all new discharges under control, and then the major older discharges which have been associated with pulp mills and community situations, and then moving now to the general scope of past discharges which will be subject to registration and action as we move ahead in the months which are immediately before us.

The penalty section in the Act and the penalty section, Mr. Speaker, will apply both for the registration of the discharge of the effluent and for the actual operation under permit control, have both been increased fairly substantially in the amendments to the Act.

There has been in people's mind a degree of confusion and the reason being for this of the specific responsibilities as carried out by the Department of Health and the Pollution Control Board, and the action and responsibilities of both groups are being codified and set forth to effect a system of checks and balances which we think will be in the public interest. In future it will be the responsibility of the Department of Health to establish the basic standards both in receding waters and in air insofar as health matters are concerned.

The Pollution Control Board must further than this take into consideration the other matters as affecting pollution, because they affect other things besides, particularly air with the obscuring of visibility for airport use and things of this nature, which basically have very little to do with health measures but do have to do with the matters of pollution of the atmosphere. But it's the responsibility of the Department of Health to set the standards, it's the responsibility of the Pollution Control Board to incorporate the standards in the permits, and it is then the responsibility of the Department of Health to monitor — and this is the check and the balance effect — to monitor the results of the installation in the public interest to ensure that they do, in fact, measure up to the requirements as have been stated by the Department of Health. They will be pre-eminent in the monitoring capacity and put the check and balance situation insofar as the public interest is concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who will do the monitoring?

MR. WILLISTON: The Department of Health will do the monitoring work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who in the Department of Health?

MR. WILLISTON: In the engineering services section in the Department of Health.

I'll say this, Mr. Speaker, that they will have the people required to do the particular jobs that are set forth in the

[ Page 688 ]

standards which they happen to enunciate, and that will be provided as we move forward.

Certain actions in the new Act, Mr. Speaker, will set out the nature of the objection which may be taken to the granting of permits, particularly the new permits which are required insofar as air pollution is concerned. It defines the area of interest and the people who must be given accommodation by the Pollution Control Board in the consideration of any objections to a permit which may be granted. It has been the function in the Pollution Control Board to require all interested parties to comment on any application made for a Pollution Control Board permit, and by that I mean the Department of Recreation and Conservation, Health, Water Rights, Agriculture, Municipal Affairs, in fact any branch of Government which has a particular interest in any way in the permit which may be granted. This was a matter of regulation and is a matter of procedure. We have spelled this out as a matter of legislative responsibility to be sure that the requirements of all these branches be taken into general consideration insofar as this situation is concerned. It's of general interest, Mr. Speaker.

We've heard a great deal of discussion in the House about areas of environmental concern, of doing it this way, that way, and the other way, but you'll notice that in the Canadian scene at the present time the unification of general controls as they are being brought together under the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers and the unification that is taking place in the various provinces and will be also part of the Federal Government's concern. This, too, has been unified within the Honourable Mr. Greene's department, and is under the general Water Rights section in the new Canada Water Act in the Federal legislation, and will have its counterpart as we move across Canada. Although there's been much discussion and debate centered, this general scheme of administrative organization is proving, both in the States and now has been adopted Federally and across Canada, as being the most efficient manner in which to co-ordinate the problem and deal with the whole subject.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions carried out in this amendment are going to be very, very difficult to police. We are in a field where there is a limited amount of expertise at the present time. The next eight or nine months in gearing up in the general field of air pollution and industrial air pollution, and setting the basic standards, because it's not only necessary to set the standards when you are in a Province such as British Columbia, you also have to tell the individuals or give them some indication as to how they are going to be able to meet those standards. Anyone can sit down and write out a set of standards and say there they are, meet them or close down.

In the Province of British Columbia this can be a very serious matter indeed, and it's for this reason that we have enunciated and brought forward what was described to be a gimmick by some, the general contest insofar as kraft mill effluent is concerned. And, Mr. Speaker, within the next day or so I will issue the terms under which this general competition will take place for kraft mills, and it may interest the members of the House to know that we have had inquiry, and this fact has been written up in practically every country of the world since it was announced in here very recently, and we have had inquiry and letters from people who think they may have the answer who are asking for the specification. They have come from South America, they have come from India, they have come from Japan, they have come from West Germany, they have come from the Scandinavian countries, they have come from England, they have come from throughout the whole area as well as locally.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the fellow from North Vancouver get in touch with you?

MR. WILLISTON: And it's right through. As a matter of fact from the people who are anxious to move into this. There's lots of smart ideas about this, Mr. Speaker, there's lots of smart ideas about this, but this is one of the most serious problems in the kraft pulp industry throughout the world. There are lots of people who have got smug answers, and we'll get them here, as to what may be done, but this is one of the most serious things we have moved into and we have been able to get, when you read these specifications, we have been able to get the best brains in the kraft pulp industry to set up the specification which should be met and exactly where they should be met, and they've entered into this, forest industries and all, with a great deal of alacrity because they know as well as everyone else knows, that this problem has to be resolved.

It's one thing to set a few standards, it's another thing to get these put into positive action. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of these amendments to the Pollution Control Act, I honestly believe we've moved into a section of Provincial administration which is going to be in public administration one of the most difficult and yet most rewarding that will face us as administrators and as politicians. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: The Bill was only available to us yesterday morning, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could move, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have it, and the motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 70, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Elderly Citizen Housing Aid Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 70. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 70 is simplicity itself…. It's simplicity itself, I repeat, Mr. Speaker. Under the present Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act there is no categorization of the type of accommodation for these elderly citizens but, however, in fact there are two categorizations, the self-contained unit and the boarding house unit or the boarding unit. One will notice from this Bill that the types of units are categorized, number one — the self-contained unit, and number two — the boarding unit. In the boarding unit no change from the present Act is made, where the financing is 10 per cent by the local sponsoring organization, plus 33 1/3 per cent from the Provincial Government on a progress estimate basis, the rest being financed through C.M.H.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: You say that was a boarding unit?

[ Page 689 ]

HON. W.D. BLACK: No, that's the self-contained unit. Did I say boarding? I apologise. The self-contained unit. Now that did apply under the old Act to the boarding house type, it did apply.

Now all this Act does is to, number one, categorize the two, and number two, change the formula for the boarding units only. Instead of the sponsoring organization being required to put up 10 per cent, they'll now be required to put up 15 per cent and the Provincial Government will put up 35 per cent, making a total of 50 per cent for the boarding type only, so as to give them at least a 50 per cent equity, cash equity, in the whole scheme, because they are having great difficulty in financing in this market and under these schemes. So that's all it's being done for. The other will remain exactly the same. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my motion is simplicity itself, I 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 Ayes have it. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on Bill No. 19. (Corrections Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 19. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks on this Bill, I wish to impress upon the Attorney-General the consideration of expanding the concept of parole to have the parole take place before a man is incarcerated in the adult institution, and have him spend his time in gaols on weekends. I suggest that he continue at his place of employment and his funds be administered by a parole officer, and I further suggest that this particular approach will stop the rising cost of keeping people in gaols.

While the Premier is here, Mr. Attorney-General, please don't build any more gaols, it's a waste of money. All we need is a remand centre downtown and a holding unit for seriously disturbed offenders with an integrated programme to a forensic clinic, attached to the university. I know the Attorney-General will be guided by the conservative hand of the Minister of Finance, and when he knows that this side of the House will applaud the Minister of Finance in restraint in building gaols — they're not needed, but an expansion of the camp system would be much more worthwhile.

The last comment that I wish to make about this Bill is that I want to share with the House that the Attorney-General might well consider the concept of a permanent advisory committee on corrections to help the expansion of this Bill over the years. I would suggest here that this would be a new concept in legislation, that it would be very, very worthwhile, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, to bring together those citizens in British Columbia on an advisory capacity to serve with suggestions on the administration of this Bill, and one of the people that I have in mind is the retired E.G.B. Stevens, who was the first Probation Officer in this Province and who did an outstanding job in pioneering probation in this Province. Along with E.G.B. Stevens, I would suggest the use of the Provincial Parole Board to advise in these matters, and to have the Board travel around the Province as well as sitting here in the lower mainland.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not as progressive as the Attorney-General might be of the opinion that it is. We have a long way to go. We are no longer the leaders in Canada. The Province of Saskatchewan is now leading in corrections, not British Columbia, and that's a boast that we could make in the past. And last but not least, through you, Mr. Speaker, the salaries of the prison employees are below the Federal Government salaries, and unless you increase the salaries you won't be able to get the standards that you hope for in this Bill.

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 4, Mr. Speaker.

Bill (No. 4) intituled An. Act to Amend the Provincial New-home Building Assistance Act was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, amendments to Bill (No. 20) intituled An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

On the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, the following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

Bill (No. 73) intituled An Act to Amend the Summary Convictions Act.

Bill (No. 65) intituled An Act to Amend the Securities Act, 1967.

The Hon. D.R.J. Campbell presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of the Hon. D.R.J. Campbell Bill (No. 74) intituled An Act to Establish the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of Mr. B.A. Clark, the following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

Bill (No.76) intituled Credit Information Protection Act.

Bill (No. 77) intituled An Act Respecting the Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

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

The following Bills were committed, reported complete

[ Page 690 ]

without amendment, read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 5) intituled An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act.

Bill (No. 6) intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act.

Bill (No. 10) intituled An Act to Amend the Income. Tax Act, 1962.

Bill (No. 11) intituled An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act.

Bill (No. 12) intituled An Act Respecting Motion Pictures.

The House continued to sit after midnight.

Bill (No. 13) intituled An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act was committed, reported complete with amendment. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting.

The House adjourned at 12.12 a.m.