[ Page 779 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

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

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

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government has seen the light this year, and I am delighted that they have, I think great congratulations are due, particularly to the member from Delta, who unfortunately is not in his seat. But this is a measure that I have been pushing for many years, and our party as well. The Government has brought in a Bill, Mr. Speaker, amending the age of infancy from 21 to 19. In view of the fact the Government has a Bill, there is no need for me to have one, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. That is the question that I was going to ask the member, to assist the Chair in withdrawing his Bill. Shall leave be granted? So Ordered. Next order.

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

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have placed this Bill on the Order Paper because it has been my experience, from many of those living in the farming areas of the Province, and particularly in the area which I have the privilege of representing, Yale-Lillooet, that most of the beef ranchers and the crop farmers have not been able to market their crops and be paid for them by the 31st of July. Many of them, particularly the beef ranchers, are very fortunate to have been able to market their crop and have it paid in the Fall, so the old way of paying taxes, the old due date of the 31st of October, was a hard enough grind for them, without moving it ahead until the 31st of July.

It was with this thinking, and after having received representation from many of my constituents, and farmers and ranchers throughout the Province, that I placed this Bill on the Order Paper, and I would ask the House to support it. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, my interpretation of this very short Bill is that it would affect the payment of revenue to the Crown, and therefore, I would submit that it is not in order in keeping with the standing rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I will sustain the point of order raised. When the honourable members examine section 2 and realize that the revenues would be deferred, and the necessary interest thereon, between the months of July and October, I can only sustain the point of order raised and rule the Bill not to be in order. Next order.

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

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the object of this Bill is very clearly explained in the explanatory note and it is to make it mandatory that the report of the Inspector of Trust Companies be annually filed and made available for the whole of the Legislature, rather than just to the two Departments, the Department of Finance and to the Department of the Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this Bill, I would state that had there been a law such as the one that is proposed here, the disgrace of Commonwealth Trust would have never, ever been able to have got off the ground, and at the present time, Mr. Speaker, the Commonwealth situation still hangs like a pall over these two departments, in fact a pall over the whole of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, truth does not require any blinds, there is no reason that I know of why the report of the Inspector of Trust Companies cannot be filed in the Legislature, and as I said, it is a check and it is a balance, and I urge the support of all members of this Bill.

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

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

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

HON. L.R. PETERSON: On behalf of the Minister of Finance I would move adjournment of this debate. The Trust Companies Act comes under his jurisdiction.

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

The Honourable the Attorney-General.

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

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

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple amendment, Bill No. 25. It is an amendment to the Insurance Act and it is an amendment that I think is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, the Insurance Act of British Columbia legislates loyalty, loyalty of an agent to his company. Now there are very few industries in the world where loyalty is legislated by an Assembly such as ours. They are using this Assembly as their tool and, Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite out of line.

So therefore I feel that what is actually happening in practise, what is really happening to the Insurance Department, and I checked with the Superintendent of Insurance of the Province, and he is being inundated with single-case agreements. You see, what an insurance agent should be able

[ Page 780 ]

to do, he should be able to go out and purchase insurance on behalf of his client. Instead of that, the law that he has legislated through this Act, now it is very simple, this very simple Bill, gives a person, one, an opportunity to be a life insurance agent with a principal insurer, but the right to insure through other companies. He can broker a business.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see the companies do if, in fact, they are financing their men and they want loyalty, let them have their own contractual agreements with these people. Let them have their own ways of handling their people. No, I think let it be by Government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very clear, I think that we should support this Bill, and I therefore move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member has pointed out, this can be accomplished now under the existing provisions of the Act through the single-case letter, and a number of agents both in the Vancouver and Victoria areas are working under this kind of arrangement at the present time. The difficulty, of course, is as well, even if this legislation is put into effect, as the honourable member well knows, the companies themselves have the authority and could make the amendment unworkable.

However, I don't want to speak entirely against the amendment, because this is an area that is under consideration. As a matter of fact we now have the whole question of life insurance brokerage, which this amendment really would accomplish, under active consideration on a national basis. The Superintendents of Insurance across Canada are doing some work on this at the present time, particularly because of the impact of mutual funds and the arrangements that are being made now in respect to brokerage on mutual funds.

Therefore I would have to say the Bill is not acceptable at the present time, but I would hope that as a result of the meetings that are taking place nationally, some change may be made in the future in respect to existing brokerage arrangements.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The second reading of Bill No. 25. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the No's have it. The motion is defeated. Next order.

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

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

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I had this Bill on the Order Paper last year, and the honourable the Minister of Health said at that time that he was looking into the matter very closely. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Medical Act so that it would be an unprofessional act on any person's part if they were a party to any restrictive clause which denied any of their members the right to practise in any place in the Province of British Columbia. At the present time we well know that the College of Physicians and Surgeons licensed all the doctors throughout the Province and by that licence they have given them the right to practise throughout the Province. It is my feeling that any of those that have this licence, if they on their own part, or on the part of the group of them, deny any of their members the right to practise, they are overriding the ruling of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The only place I can see that this needs to be is in the Medical Act, and it would make these professional people desist from entering into any agreement which would tie the hands of any one of their members.

This has arisen, of course, Mr. Speaker from the fact that a doctor in Cranbrook, he didn't have to sign any agreement but it was in the contracts or obligations of the clinic, that any doctor that left the clinic could not practise within ten miles of Cranbrook, and he has been denied that right of practising within ten miles of Cranbrook. He did not sign the contract, and he is now practising in the City of Kimberley. The only resident surgeon that Cranbrook has got at the present time is his partner in Kimberley who is a resident surgeon in Kimberley.

The fact that bothers me is that if anything happens in Cranbrook that it is necessary for this surgeon to be called from Kimberley, Dr. Stanton, who has been denied the right to practise within ten miles, and if, through compelling events he felt that it was his duty that he went to Cranbrook to perform an operation, he could be charged with contempt of Court. I think that this is a ridiculous situation in a Province such as British Columbia. Here was a doctor who received his education from the area, he was born and raised in the area, the taxpayers helped to pay for his education, and I do not think that they should be denied the right to have his services at any time.

That is the reason that this Bill is on the Order Paper and I hope that something will be done at this time. I move second reading of this Bill.

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

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: Bill 31 deals in principle with the broad question of restrictive covenant in contracts, and it is well known in the common law that a restrictive covenant, preventing a person from carrying on a trade or a profession, or any activity, for that matter, which is of a business nature, may only apply on a reasonable basis. So insofar as this Bill proposes to deal with the right of a person to practise medicine or anything else across the whole of the Province, it would merely be a codification of what is already the law, because the law says that the restrictions could only apply within a reasonable area.

In this case, the one that was cited by the honourable member, referred to a ten-mile area, so that we are really considering two aspects of this Bill. One, whether we ought to codify the law, the common laws that now stand, and secondly, whether we should over-rule the common law, and say that we shouldn't have restrictive covenants in contracts. I presume that if the principle is a sound one as applying to doctors, it would apply equally to dentists, lawyers — to bring it a little closer to home — architects and engineers, to say nothing of people who operate garages, plumbing establishments, and so on.

Now it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the fact that it does introduce a principle that would apply equally to other activities where there is an effort being made to restrict activities — and I sympathize with the sentiments expressed by the honourable member introducing this Bill — that there may

[ Page 781 ]

be very good reasons for changing the common law, and to say that it is no longer fair or proper that restrictive covenants for the purpose of protecting an established business no longer apply, but it also should be recognized that to introduce and pass a Bill which applied to doctors would not have regard to the common laws applied to others in similar circumstances.

Now if that is the case, it would seem most appropriate that this whole question of restrictive covenant to protect business or proprietary interest, might well become the subject of investigation by the recently instituted Law Reform Commission, and I would think that in the circumstances that it might be well to take this matter up with the Law Reform Commission, on putting the proposition in its broadest form, whether or not restrictive covenants should be enforceable, if at all, and under what circumstances.

For that reason I would suggest that probably the best disposition of this Bill would be to give the Government and the members an opportunity to take this matter up with the Law Reform Commission, and on that basis, I would move adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we argued for years for a Law Reform Commission, and last year the Government brought it in and we are very glad that it did, and we commend the Government for the step that it took at that time.

However, Mr. Speaker, we do not wish to see this Commission either become or appear to become a political vehicle, nor do we wish its results to end up in anyone's desk drawer, and perhaps only come plopping out, if at all, during election year. That is exactly what can happen according to the way the present statute is worded, because there is a complete discretion, Mr. Speaker, in the existing statute to the Department of the Attorney-General and it may indeed be to the Attorney-General himself, as to whether or not the reports of the Law Reform Commission would ever come before the Legislature.

It says, under existing section 7 which this amendment is proposed to correct, it says under existing section 7, "Any programmes prepared by the Commissioner and approved by him, and any proposals for reform formulated by the Commission pertinent to such programmes are to be laid before the Legislature." But it is only under the situation, Mr. Speaker, of approval, so the Attorney-General has a complete discretion as to whether he will or whether he will not inform the Legislature of the results and of the deliberations of the Law Reform Commission, and we do not wish to see the activities and the profits and the merits of this Commission ending up in anyone's desk drawer. We don't wish to see them ending up on the shelf like the Clyne Commission and the Carruthers Commission, and as we view this, Mr. Speaker, it's public money for public purposes. The public are entitled to know the results and they are entitled to an account, and the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to the effect that the Attorney-General shall have to lay before the Legislature the reports that are delivered to him by the Law Reform Commission, and any proposals for reform formulated by that Commission.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my amendment is to make the Law Reform Commission answerable, as it should be, to the people of British Columbia rather than just to the honourable the Attorney-General and I move second reading of the Bill.

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

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable members well know, this legislation was only introduced in the House last year and this particular Bill seeks to amend this legislation. The Commissioners have now been appointed under the chairmanship of the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Fulton, and two other Commissioners. They're presently engaging staff, getting to the point where they will shortly be operational. At this stage no reports which would come within the provisions of this section have been received. It may be, once the Commission becomes operational, that further amendments will have to be made to the legislation. I am not in a position to say at this stage. If that occurs then this particular amendment may be considered at that time. I therefore, for this time, would move adjournment of the debate.

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

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

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

MRS. E. E. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to enact legislation which would raise the male minimum wage in the Province of British Columbia to $2 per hour. We are pleased, of course, that it's now going to be $1.50 per hour, but I'm sure that all the members of this Assembly would agree that if we truly believe in the workers of this Province sharing in the good life in British Columbia, it is essential today that the minimum wage be at least $2 per hour, and I would hope that the members of this House would see fit to support this very essential legislation. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I think the honourable member will agree and probably drew the Bill in full cognizance of our Standing Order No. 67, which in simple terms states that in the hands of a private member a Bill such as this, which imposes an impost on a section of our society is out of order in those hands, and must come from the treasury benches. Under the circumstances, there is no alternative left to the Chair but to rule the Bill out of order.

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

[ Page 782 ]

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

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

YEAS — 36

Messieurs

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 42. I must point out, before the debate begins in this instance, because it parallels the Bill previously that, for the same reasons as given under Bill No. 41, the Bill is not in order in the hands of a private member. Reference Standing Order 67 of our own Standing Orders.

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

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

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

YEAS — 36

Messieurs

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 46, Mr. Speaker. (An Act Inquiring into and a Survey of the Extent of Which Marijuana, LSD, Heroin, and Lysergic Drugs Are Illegally Available).

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill that I support very much. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, will enable the House to establish a permanent committee, or not permanent but an on-going committee to investigate the use and to inquire and survey into the extent of the use of marijuana, LSD, heroin, and lysergic drugs which are illegally available.

Some years ago in this House, Mr. Speaker, we did have a committee functioning looking into the problems of the use of drugs. The committee did an excellent job, but its work came to an end with an excellent report, an all party report, submitted to this House some three years ago. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, the problem has expanded in different areas and has created more difficult social problems attached to the illicit use of drugs. One of the most remarkable features about the committee's work was that some of the recommendations they made at their original sittings coincided with the recommendations of a similar committee at the Federal level, but very little action was taken on those recommendations.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to seriously consider having that committee established again, get on with the job and end the hysteria that has grown up through some politicians' statements about the use of marijuana and non-use of marijuana, whether or not it should be legalized or

[ Page 783 ]

non-legalized. There are extreme positions being taken on this on the basis of hysteria, and I say that neither position should be taken without a total and complete examination of all the facts that are available to us.

The social consequences of the illicit use of drugs will not be resolved by politicians taking absolute positions either for or against legalization of marijuana, for example, without having done adequate research or adequate information being made available. I deplore those Federal politicians who have taken the position that it should be legalized, but I also deplore those people who have rushed in on a vacuum and said it shouldn't be legalized. I am suggesting we must find some solutions to this problem that do not include taking rigid positions that enforce the unfortunate victims of the use of drugs into a very inadequate legal and social system dealing with their problems. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this Bill.

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

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the problems that arises in connection with this Bill is the kind of statements that have been made here today that create a doubt as to whether a drug such as marijuana is harmful or is a health hazard or not. In my mind this should not be a case of doubt, and we should do nothing to encourage, nothing at all to encourage the use of marijuana or any other drug by the young people of this Province.

There's no question that this is a serious problem in the Province of British Columbia, and it should not be treated irresponsibly, and that's the point I'm trying to make here.

Furthermore, I think there can be no doubt that this is a problem that is national in scope, not only in terms of the problem, but in terms of the constitutional authority to tackle the problem, and certainly the Federal Government recognizes this fact by the appointment of a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Gerry LeDam, Dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School, which I understand is about to report. I don't believe it has reported yet, at least I have not seen their report. I believe it's to report very shortly, and for that reason alone I would think it would be well to receive and analyze their studies before launching into a programme as suggested in this Bill.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to sections 4 and 10 of the Bill in question, which would involve the expenditure of public funds, and would therefore contravene Standing Order 67 of our Standing Orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Both section 2 and section 4, sub-section 1, offend, not Standing Order 67 but Standing Order 66, involving the expenditure of public funds and, as such, is not in order in the hands of a private member. The Bill therefore is not in order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable members, before that type of criticism gets bandied across the floor, it will be acknowledged that the Chair has always extended the courtesy, even in the full knowledge that a Bill is out of order, to allow a member to speak at length to his Bill, to ascertain whether or not he could raise certain points during his speech that might indicate the Bill to be in order and so that he wouldn't be prejudged. I think in all fairness a reply is indicated.

The Honourable the Premier.

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

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

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill, I think, that is long overdue, and it's quite a number of years now since we first placed on the statute books of British Columbia the Annual Holidays Act with two weeks holiday for all employees after one year of serving an employer. Today we have, with automation and with all the modern technical science that we've got, the amount that one man can produce has been multiplied many times, and due to this fact we have got increasing unemployment around the country.

At the time we placed the two weeks holidays, one of the reasons it was done was to help out in regards to the unemployment situation, and I feel that it's time now that people should have three weeks holiday with pay after one year working for an employer. Throughout the Province I dare say that most of the workers have this right at the present time through their collective bargaining, but there are many people who are working under situations where they have no collective bargaining, no opportunity for collective bargaining and they do not receive the same rights as the person that is in a position, an economic position, that he can bargain collectively and come to some agreement.

I do not see why this privilege of the three weeks holiday should not be extended to all the people, all the workers throughout the Province, not only just those that are under bargaining units and are able to have an agreement. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Notwithstanding the views of the honourable member, this would involve, insofar as employers of the Province are concerned, an impost upon them to increase the amount of annual holidays or amount of holiday pay that would be payable to workmen, and such a Bill in the hands of a private member, in conformity with our own Standing Order 67 as previously discussed, is not in order, and I must therefore so rule.

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

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

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

YEAS — 36

Messieurs

[ Page 784 ]

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

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

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, very shortly and quickly, the concept that the Crown can do no wrong and that the Government is umbrellad from the arm of the law, something that should have perished with the divine right of kings. Mr. Speaker, in my view, the citizen, the individual, is the hallmark in our democratic way of life, and he should be just as fairly entitled to wage his case against Government as Government can against him. Mr. Speaker, Government with its enormous resources, it literally has all of the cards, it has all of the power to defend, and it should no longer be permitted to hide behind the skirts of an archaic concept.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, a Bill similar to the one that's presently before the House was presented at the last session of the Legislature, and was ruled out of order on the ground that it interfered with the prerogatives of the Crown. I would refer you to the 1969 Journals of this House, page 227, and would invite you to so rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Indecipherable remark)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is quite right, that in the hands of the treasury bench, such a motion could be introduced. I would refer honourable members also to the 968 Journals, page 221, which bears a similar reference. I rule the Bill out of order in the hands of a private member.

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

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I placed this Bill on the Order Paper because of the great difficulty that I find many of the girls, the young ladies and the ladies that are not so young, that they find in collecting wages from the hamburger kings of the Province, keeping record of the pay that is due them, and so on.

Now, according to our present labour statutes, if you read it through lightly, it states that each employee should get a statement with their wages whether they are paid weekly or monthly. But then when you go back into the sub-sections, when we go into sub-sections we find that actually they only have to receive a slip, the law only binds the employer to give these girls a slip with their wages if there is some change from the norm. If they are hired at a 40-hour week at $1.25 an hour, $50 a week, they can work there for a year or ten years, and if there is no change to their deductions or no change in their rate of pay, or no overtime, then they get no slips. I had been under the impression that every employer in this Province had to give a slip with each employee's pay cheque, but this is not the case.

Now, today there are many mothers who are trying to raise a family, their husbands may have left them, they may have lost their husbands, they may be widows and they do go out and work and this type of work, working in the cafes, meeting the public, remembering their orders, always having a smile, always being pleasant, is some of the hardest work in the world, and it's often mothers who are doing this to raise their family, mothers who are doing this to try to stay off welfare.

So I think the very least that we can do, even though the Government may rule out this legislation this hearing, I'd like to see them next year bring in an amendment so that every employer will give their employees a slip, stating the pay, the hours they have worked and the pay they have coming. I believe by doing this we will give greater dignity to the work force, and will give….

AN HON. MEMBER: Legislation for the bosses.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, this is bosses' legislation. We know who's lobbied for it in the past. We're campaigning against it and we are prepared to stand up and fight the hamburger kings, and fight for the lackeys of the employers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HARTLEY: All very well, Mr. Speaker, for my friend to say these people are free. Yes, they have the freedom to quit. But, that's a very little freedom when all you have to go to is welfare at the standards this Government has set.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is stepping without the bounds of his own Bill. He must stick to the principle of it. I don't want any further interruptions

[ Page 785 ]

from that corner.

MR. HARTLEY: Very good. I move second reading of this Bill, and I feel this legislation will give greater dignity to the work force of this Province.

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

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker rather, I think it should be observed, in the light of the very offensive remarks of the honourable member who's just taken his seat, that we have in this Province of British Columbia, under our free enterprise system, both big and small employers. There are small employers in this Province who are doing their thing, as well, to stay off welfare, just to make their way in this life and to have three meals a day and a living in this Province, and for the N.D.P. to continually take this position of referring to the employers, both large and small, in such offensive terms offends me, for one, Mr. Speaker.

I think it should also be pointed out that under existing legislation, the Female Minimum Wage Act provides that an employer shall give an employee a statement in writing, setting out the employee's earnings for the unit of time for which payment is made, showing any bonus or living allowance and the amount of deductions and for what purpose. However, it doesn't require these statements to be given on subsequent paydays if the conditions remain the same. If the conditions do not remain the same then, of course, that is a different question.

This Bill would require these statements on each and every payday. Now, this would not be a problem for the large employer, this would not be a problem for those who rely on computers and mechanized services to produce their pay section in the pay periods, but it could be a problem for the small employer who doesn't have a computer at his access, and could be a chore for the small employers and would not assist the employees because they have already a statement of their deductions. Therefore, unless there are further reasons that I am not aware of, the Government cannot accept this particular Bill.

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

MR. HARTLEY: In closing the debate, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to refer back to the Estimates of the Minister of Labour. This matter was raised at that time, certain cases were questioned, and he indicated that they were solved, or as good as solved. I have had further correspondence from these parties involved, and they are not solved and there are many, many more cases that appear to be coming to light daily, and it is with these small employers where the problem does exist.

I believe if this one amendment was made, it would give a basis to a much more relaxed, much easier position in this particular restaurant-cafe industry. It would give cause for a great deal less work in the Department of the Minister of Labour. It would make much less work for the Industrial Relations Officers, and I believe that section of our work force would be much happier because, as the Minister says, the present legislation does not state that an employee must get a slip each week, and that is not asking too much for someone that has put in at least a 40-hour week.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 68, An Act to Amend the Female Minimum Wage Act, be read a second time now. Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the No's have it. The motion is lost. Next order.

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

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a very short Bill, and it would require every person or company to pay $1 royalty on every ton of coal shipped, exported, or in any way delivered from the location of that coal.

The purpose of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to increase revenue to the Crown, revenue that the Crown of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia deserve from mineral resource that we are not presently getting. That coal was placed in the ground by God, Mr. Speaker, not by any political party, and the people of British Columbia have been the lucky, fortunate, the happy recipients of the bountiful placing of resources in this Province, but I regret that in the management of those resources, Mr. Speaker, that there has not been an adequate return to the people of British Columbia from their own resources.

The Kaiser Coal Company will be shipping five million tons of coal per year. The Kaiser Coal Company will be shipping five million tons of coal per year and there is no compelling legislation requiring any royalty, Mr. Speaker, to come to the people of British Columbia from their own coal. If this Bill was enacted it would require Kaiser to pay at least $1 per ton of coal shipped, Mr. Speaker, and Kaiser alone, therefore, would add $5,000,000 to the Provincial general revenue. There are 18 million tons of coal in all shipped in British Columbia, and passing this legislation would put $18,000,000 in the hands of the people of British Columbia to aid in the problem of a shortage of funds in the construction of schools, hospitals, and rest-homes much needed in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, in proposing this Bill I do it in a positive manner, suggesting to the Crown that this revenue should come to the people of British Columbia through a $1 a ton royalty on coal, and I move second reading of this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member, I am sure, and all members will quickly recognize that even from the very nature of the argument presented by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition that the intent in section 1, sub-section (1) of the Bill is to raise revenue and to establish an impost against a sector of the employers of the Province, and under those circumstances the Bill, under our own Standing Order 67, is not in order, and I therefore so rule.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Next order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

[ Page 786 ]

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

"Resolved, That the Clerk of the House be directed to pay to the Honourable Waldo McTavish Skillings the full allowance and expenses to which he would have been entitled had he attended all sittings of the Session, pursuant to section 68 of the Constitution Act, being chapter 71, R.S.B.C. 1960."

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

HON. W.D. BLACK: Resolution No. 19, Mr. Speaker, I would move that motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which refers, of course, to my honourable colleague who, during the course of his duties representing the people of the Province at Osaka, found it necessary to be absent from this House for seven days. Therefore, I believe it just and reasonable that this resolution be adopted.

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

MR. BLACK: Yes, I do.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Twenty-four dollars.

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

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

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

"That a verbatim report of the debates of this House be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker, and that he do appoint the printing of the same, and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same."

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

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

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

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to withdraw this motion, by virtue of another motion that is on the Order Paper, No. 8.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish to thank the honourable member for assisting the Chair. I felt that you would have the opportunity to enter fully into the debate on another resolution. Shall leave be granted? So ordered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the members of this House express their deep concern over recent statements attributed to the Honourable John Munro, Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Prime Minister of Canada, relating to the smoking of marijuana by Canadians, particularly considering Canada's international obligations to repress the unauthorized use of marijuana except for medical and scientific purposes by virtue of the Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs, 1961.

"And that the members of this House call upon the Federal Government to fulfill their obligations in regulating and controlling the use of drugs for any purpose except those permitted under the Single Convention."

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

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The subject matter of this motion, Mr. Speaker, concerns a problem which has been raised by the honourable Leader of the Opposition today, and it is a problem which literally threatens the generation of our young people, and it is the problem of drug abuse in Canada and drug abuse in our communities in British Columbia. The motion reads:- (The honourable Minister read the contents of the above Resolution No. 7).

We are aware, and the Attorney-General has pointed out earlier in this Session, that the solution to this problem lies within Federal jurisdiction, and I would remind the House that the statement from which this motion emanated is the statement made by Health Minister John Munro and I will quote it. "If we find that a significant minority of the Canadian people smoke marijuana we would be totally irresponsible if we did not legalize it." It is because of these irresponsible statements, Mr. Speaker, emanating from the Federal Minister of Health, and the Prime Minister of Canada on January 18th, and I could quote that but I think everybody is rather familiar with that quotation as well, that this motion is placed before the House today.

You will note that the motion requests that the Federal Government honour the latest Narcotic Treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs for 1961, to which Canada is a party. The Single Convention has now been ratified by some 65 countries and the result is that Canada is internationally obligated to repress the unauthorized use of marijuana as well as other narcotic drugs and it could not, without renouncing its international obligations, do otherwise.

I could today present to you many statements from qualified and professional people who maintain that hardcore drug addicts first started on their hard drug abuse through the use of this drug that we are discussing here. I could, too, present many, many statements which would give the other side of the picture from many others who call themselves professionals, contrary to the concept of those

[ Page 787 ]

that I first mentioned. But I am not, in this motion, requesting from this House that they judge for or against legalization of marijuana, but I will say this, that my personal opinion is that any experimentation in this area is both dangerous and disastrous, and too often too many have encouraged experimentation in the name of freedom, in the name of civil liberties, and in the name of human rights.

I hope, though, that today, and I think the honourable member of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, expresses the same views as those on this side of the House, that we keep a calm and unemotional approach to the whole problem in order to best serve the young people of this Province who are seeking leadership, Mr. Speaker, and to the families of this Province who are seeking help.

I would like the House to know, also, that it is not just the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Health in Canada that have made irresponsible statements, but there is someone in Ottawa who is opposed to those statements as well, and that is the Honourable Mr. McIlraith, who is the gentleman who is the Solicitor-General for Canada, the man to whom the R.C.M.P. report. Following the statements that were made, at the same time that we oppose the statements that were made, George McIlraith had three articles in the Montreal Gazette in opposition to the Prime Minister and to the Honourable John Munro. I would like to quote from these, at least from just one little item in regard to it. "In a series of articles to outline his views on legalizing marijuana, Solicitor-General George J. McIlraith said pot is being distributed throughout the country by a well-organized professional network which enlist students to act as pushers. While marijuana may be non-addictive he argues that it is definitely habit-forming and its effects on the human body are extremely dangerous. 'I cannot prove it conclusively,' he says, 'but if a kid uses marijuana for two years that kid is a hard drug addict.' I am using his words, not my own. He claimed the public is almost 100 per cent against legalizing pot now except for a group of academics and he called them smart-alec professors who have an absolutely abysmal lack of experience with life. He said their intellectual arrogance is appalling.

Now I would like to agree with the statements that have been made that no action should be taken until very extensive research is done into this problem. It is only, Mr. Speaker, this very last February, February, 1970 that the Federal Government of our country allowed scientific and medical investigation of this drug to employ human subjects. Prolonged use has never been gauged, has never been examined, and we can point to another drug that was not given sufficient research or adequate research at the time, and we all know the tragedy of that drug, thalidomide, and the tragedies that it created throughout the world. So how we can, in the face of that experience and in the face of all we know and, I suggest, all we do not know, Mr. Speaker, how we can entertain the thought of legalization at this time of any drug, in light of such doubt, is alarming.

I have received a telegram from a man who has lost his daughter through drug abuse. I have received a letter from a father who has lost his son the same way. They had both experimented with marijuana before going on to the drug that finally killed them, and I want to share part of these messages with you and just part of them today. First I would read the telegram that is dated March 16th, and it is addressed to myself in Victoria, and I quote, "I completely endorse your stand against any legalization of marijuana. Comparing it to alcohol is like saying cancer is no worse than leprosy. Much more needs to be known, and current synthesis of marijuana enables national mental health institutes to conduct extensive laboratory tests to find out for the first time in history exactly how cannabis affects humans. Within a year these exhaustive tests will give us the basis for a scientific candid examination, not before. I sincerely hope Canada will never be the first nation to violate the world agreement signed by 103 nations to outlaw marijuana. Cordially. Art Linkletter" and dated March 16th, from Los Angeles, California.

Mr. Speaker, I will just quote from a resident of British Columbia, and this letter is dated February 27th from Vancouver and addressed to myself, and I quote, "As a parent who lost his son last October in a grave tragedy, you can readily understand my feelings if anyone even partially advocates relaxing the laws we now have with regards to drug abuse. My son jumped from a large apartment building in the West End in the City of Vancouver due to the effects of drugs. This son had considerable to offer society in the future. Unfortunately he was struck down in the prime of his youth."

Do not be mistaken that this is an isolated case. Many people have died throughout our country. Naturally, only certain tragic ones reach the headlines and, if my statistics are correct, 16 deaths occurred because of drug abuse in Greater Vancouver during October, 1969. Are these the lucky ones? What about the ones where parents now have children who are no more than cabbages? What about the parents that have children that are not at home? They are wandering throughout our country contributing very little to society and communication between parents and child is nil. You can rest assured these parents are very heartbroken.

Mr. Speaker, until proper and adequate research is done into this drug marijuana, or any other drugs which are listed and which Canada is a signatory to the Single Convention Narcotics Act, I would say that we would be very, very irresponsible to move forward in Canada for any legalization, or to do anything that is irresponsible in advance of that time. Mr. Speaker, I earnestly ask, in moving this motion, that this Legislature give unanimous approval to this directive to the Federal Government through this motion to the Federal Government who is responsible for narcotic control and responsible for narcotic research in Canada today.

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

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: I move the motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 788 ]

get something very, very clear. Let's get something very, very clear. This motion, no matter which way you vote on it, has got nothing to do with your opinion as to whether or not you want marijuana legalized. Okay. And I'm making it clear, too, this is a motion to condemn a' statement made by a Federal Minister.

Now, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. I want to go on the record again, because of my own personal experience in working in the field of drugs, that I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana or any other drug that may be habit forming, or, any other drug that is under control of the Narcotic Act.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. I just want to modify a term used by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition, with respect, and that is the matter of condemning a Minister of the Crown. In examining the motion before us, I think you'll find that the word is to express "deep concern" over certain statements. I wouldn't like the message to go abroad that condemnation of Ministers of the Crown was emanating from this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Deep concern which, you know, has to be interpreted. I interpreted it as a condemnation, but it is, at the very least, a wrist-slapping, at the very least. But nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, the argument the Minister gave was that we must have more research. We just had a Bill in the House about that very subject. We have gone three years without having that committee in this House continue to study this very important problem, Mr. Chairman. When the member talks in her talk about the need for research I, too, have the same attitude. Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree that research needs to be done, but, that Government over there and that Minister could have initiated action in research long ago.

In my opinion, this move to express concern over the statement of the Minister of Health and Welfare is nothing but a political move, nothing but a political move, and in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, there is not any one in this House who has stood up and said they were in favour of legalizing marijuana, not one person. And yet, Mr. Chairman, to ask for research and not initiate it, but to slap the Federal Minister's wrist is just playing cheap politics with this issue, just cheap politics.

I was persuaded, I was persuaded today by the Attorney-General's argument on this very subject. That's why I didn't call for a division of my Bill. When the Attorney-General stood up and expressed the opinion that I am prepared to share with him, and I accept his opinion, that now that the Federal Royal Commission is prepared to submit its report, that we just sit tight and wait for it, I accept that statement. I welcome it from the Attorney-General. I regret that you haven't taken action but I accept your premise, and I support your statement very, very much in that regard. The Attorney-General, in effect, was saying that anything else would be sub judice at this point, waiting so closely for the Royal Commission report.

We all know that international crime syndicates are involved in the dispensation of illegal drugs. We all know that. But slapping the Federal Minister's wrist won't solve that. Corporations like Benguet and the Bahamas Port Authority and the Mafia are the ones who need to be slapped and slapped heavily by the law, and must be kept out of British Columbia and every other area of Canada, because it is those underworld syndicates, the Mafia, who really are the moneymakers in this horrible, devastating, social problem on people. I know that the Attorney-General will not allow the Benguet corporation or others like it to come into British Columbia, because of the illicit drug trade.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that experimentation is very, very dangerous, and I urge all people to avoid experimenting not only with marijuana and other illicit drugs, but avoid experimenting with alcohol, too. It's just not necessary, just not necessary,

AN HON. MEMBER: Cigarettes.

MR. BARRETT: ….and I think a tolerable level requires self-discipline in the human being concerned. We can't legislate that self-discipline.

So, Mr. Speaker, because in our opinion this is nothing more than a political motion, not backed up with any action, and because I accept the statement of the Attorney-General to wait for the Royal Commission, and because we accept the Attorney-General's argument, we will not support any mild wrist-slapping of the Federal Minister for political purposes.

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

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: At various times it is said, by individuals speaking on this subject, that they lack the necessary background and information to address themselves to the problem with a degree of assurance. I don't feel any inhibition on that respect myself, Mr. Speaker, for this reason, that I have access to the advice and counsel of competent medical health officers within and without the public service of this Province, within and without the public service of Canada, within and without the public service in the United States. I also have access to information and advice from officers and participants in the International Health Organization as well as the International Police Authorities, and on the basis of the advice that I have received and the evidence that is before me, there is no doubt in my mind that not only marijuana, but a whole long list of other products which produce the same drug — amphetamines, barbiturates, chemicals in the same class, are a serious threat to the health and welfare of this community.

There has been some suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that this might in some way offend, improperly, the feelings or the dignity of the office of a politician or a member of a public body in some other part of Canada. I have no inhibitions on that score either, Mr. Speaker, because if I must make a choice between the feelings of an individual, publicly or privately, and the health of thousands of children across Canada I make no problem, no problem. Unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, marijuana, the barbiturates, the amphetamines, opium, and heroin are the deadly enemy of this community. (applause) There's no question about research in my mind, Mr. Speaker, there's no question about waffling on this matter, we must say that this is bad, very much restricted by law, and there are many, many parts of India where they have what we would call a prohibition law and there the problem of alcohol is practically unknown.

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

[ Page 789 ]

MR. LOFFMARK: In British Columbia marijuana, as a broad problem, hasn't reached that point, but we do have in this Province, by comparison, a real problem with alcohol and there's a very simple reason for this, and that is that alcohol is freely available in this Province as it is in all parts of North America, and marijuana is not.

Now then, let's deal with this question of marijuana. I'll tell you there's one difference between marijuana and alcohol. Alcohol in this western community has a history that goes back for thousands of years, and if we were facing the problem of alcohol today the way we are with marijuana, I would speak out just as hard. And if you want me to make a statement, I will tell you that it's my personal view that there's very little difference in the debilitating hazards involved in alcohol or marijuana. The great moral issue facing the adults of this community is being presented to us by the young people, and they say, if marijuana is bad why don't you stop using alcohol. And we, Mr. Speaker, have no answer for them — none whatsoever.

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

MR. LOFFMARK: I say, Mr. Speaker, that all the talk in the world about marijuana and its misuse will not be nearly as effective as a better example on the part of the public to the young people in this community.

Now let me deal specifically with this problem of marijuana…. Yes, the question is whether there should be anything, any word written or spoken that will leave the impression that marijuana is something that can be dealt with lightly, but I have a different problem in respect to this motion, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what is involved in the word marijuana, for this reason, that just as in the case of opium which is the lowest source of supply, so to speak, for the active ingredients, and heroin is at the other end of the spectrum, so marijuana is only one product of many from which it's possible to derive the actual substance.

Let me give you some of the names under which this product goes. Sometimes it's called marijuana, sometimes it's called pot, rope, texas tea, Mary Jane, jive, grass, hay, hemp, sticks, reefers, roach, hashish which is exactly the same product but a little more concentrated. Then there's sheraff, which is that deadly, deadly product that is lethal, but it's all the same. What about ganje, keif as it's called, majon, and interestingly enough, "bang" is another word, and sometimes you hear people say they get a bang out of something. That's an Indian word, it's another word for marijuana, Mr. Speaker.

Now the point is this, that all of these products are such, and the hazard is so great, that I think that the public officers who are charged with this responsibility in Ottawa should understand that the members of this Legislature don't intend and don't want to have it ever come to the minds of the Federal Government that this is a matter on which we can make statements that are equivocal. The fact is that if any public officer is going to make a statement suggesting that there is something acceptable about marijuana, the dangers, the impressions that it will leave on young people are so serious that there is no room for equivocation, no room at all.

Mr. Speaker, I support the principles that are associated with this motion. I will repeat what I've said another time, that if there is any leadership to be given to young people, now is the time to give it, not only in words, but more important, example. It's sometimes said that in respect of these statements that marijuana smoking might properly be made legal. this is a matter of choice. I suppose for each generation that's so, but if any person in public office makes any statement of this kind,

AN HON. MEMBER: He denied it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

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

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Is the honourable the Minister stating that the Minister in question has withdrawn the statement that he has made?

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

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

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

Permit me, Mr. Speaker, first of all to accept your advice, which I appreciate, and I will restate my proposition, and that is….

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

MR. LOFFMARK: Yes, I am.

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

MR. BARRETT: My point of order is, that is the motion not out of order now that the honourable the Minister has made a public statement saying that he did not, in fact, make such a statement, and we must accept the word of an honourable Minister. It is well known and broadcast that he did make such a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The point is that the Chair is neither informed (a) that the Minister made such a statement, or (b) that he withdrew it, and until evidence is placed before him in this respect I am in a very poor position to judge. Proceed.

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

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we can take note of this, that the impression is abroad that the smoking of marijuana is something that might either now, or in the near future, be acceptable under the laws of Canada, and if this is the case it is quite proper for this Legislature to register its protest against this so called common knowledge. The issue is not whether somebody said something or didn't say something, as nearly as much as it is that there should be no doubt as to the position of this Government.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, the honourable the

[ Page 790 ]

Minister, with respect, has reverted to his original proposition that whether or not the Federal Minister made the statement is not of moment. I say it's of considerable moment, and the whole purpose of this resolution.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Has the Minister concluded his statement?

MR. LOFFMARK: Yes, I will, very briefly and, Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks, I can only reiterate what I said at the beginning, and that is that there is in the Department of Public Health sufficient information to reject any suggestion, publicly or privately, that marijuana and the derivatives that are associated with it, are something that can be dealt with so lightly as to leave the impression in the minds of young people, the impression that marijuana is something that can be experimented with.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think it unfortunate that the Minister without Portfolio who introduced this motion did not check thoroughly into the validity of the statement which she attributed to the Honourable John Munro, because when he was out in British Columbia….

AN HON. MEMBER: Playing politics with marijuana.

MR. McGEER: When he was in British Columbia, both on radio and at a press conference he denied the very statements which the Minister this afternoon, in introducing this motion, said that the motion was based upon.

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Date?

MRS. McCARTHY: January 29th, 1970, the Victoria Times, and it's datelined Canadian Press, Ottawa. "Health Minister John Munro said Wednesday that 'If we find that a significant minority of the Canadian people smoke marijuana, we would be totally irresponsible if we did not legalize it."'

AN HON. MEMBER: He denied it.

MRS. McCARTHY: Now I'll just go further, because the further statement, Mr. Speaker, would indicate that it is truly a statement made by the Minister. "Pressed by Carlton University students at the taping of the syndicated television programme, Under Attack, Munro said, 'If the report of the Government Commission studying drug use revealed widespread use of marijuana, it should be legalized even if that involved some health danger.'" Now I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this was a taped show. This was electronically recorded, and the statement as recorded by Canadian Press is, in true fact, of the Minister's statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I've allowed the honourable Minister to make that statement, because I think it's critical to the regulation as to whether or not the Minister made the statement and, hopefully, the honourable first member may have some evidence to introduce which would indicate that the statement was withdrawn, and if this is the case and the House and the Chair is well established of this fact, then I feel that the motion, at that point, is not in order.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: What date?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. SPEAKER: Just one moment, please. The honourable member has made a statement which must be accepted by this House. Everyone in this House is an honourable gentleman or an honourable lady and his word will be accepted.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, furthermore, the following week the Minister was in Vancouver and on Jack Webster's radio show, and in a press conference from the Bayshore Inn he denied the accuracy of that report, and I think that it's unfortunate if this Legislature cannot take cognizance of public statements made by the Minister correcting the record.

In my opinion, the Federal Government is acting responsibly in appointing a Royal Commission to investigate this very important matter. There's no question, nor has anybody raised the question in Canada, that we are not living up fully to our obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and because of these important aspects not raised by the Minister when she introduced this Resolution, I think that it's not only out of order, Mr. Speaker, but it's mischievous.

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

The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two here. The motion is not to do with marijuana, it's to express deep concern over recent statements attributed to the Minister, and the lady Minister introduced a press clipping, and the Minister has since denied that he has made that statement, and he has also made other statements upon the same subject. None of these have been referred to, and the lady Minister should have got in touch with the Minister, John Munro, and asked him what he said, and what all he said, before bringing into this House a motion which is otherwise playing politics, cheap politics, in a field where we have no right to play politics. I am opposed to a gratuitous slight to the Minister of Health of Canada based upon the kind of evidence that's been presented under this motion.

[ Page 791 ]

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my sentiments to this debate. Number one, I agree very much with the sentiments that have been expressed by every member that I've heard so far talk in this debate about marijuana and their condemnation of it. I've not seen any person in this House stand up, and I hope I do not, who is prepared to praise the use of marijuana. No one.

But I really and truly think that the honourable the Minister, in proceeding with this motion, without accepting the denial of the Minister of Health for Canada is playing, as the first member from Vancouver East stated, cheap, cheap politics.

I admire the honourable the lady Minister's attitude to marijuana, which is exactly the same as mine, but this is not the substance of this motion. And I would think it would be most appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable the lady Minister withdrew the motion and brought in a motion to express the sentiments of the total representation from all parties in this House, through the people of British Columbia, of their stand against marijuana. Not to come ahead and try to build up a man of straw and then shoot him down. And I would say this, Mr. Speaker, if — if — the honourable the Minister John Munro's statement that he made — if he made it — if he made it, if he stands by that statement, I don't stand by him — make no mistake of that fact! But he has denied it.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: No, he didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he has.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Premier, I understand he's denied it. You've heard the first member from Vancouver–Point Grey state that he denied it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you write him and ask?

MR. GARDOM: What are we doing here, Mr. Chairman? We are moving on third rate hearsay. Mr. Chairman, with every respect, I feel that the motion in its present form, and particularly in view of the remarks that we heard from our own Minister of Health here, his remarks. The motion is completely out of order,100 per cent out of order, because he said, Mr. Speaker, he said it doesn't make any difference whether he said it or whether he didn't say it. That almost gets back as to whether is Benguet in or are Benguet out?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. While it is true that the honourable Minister did make the remarks, he did, upon being called to order, rephrase his statement.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, he did, Mr. Speaker, rephrase his statement. Twice he fought his way back to dry land, but I can tell you with pretty wet clothing.

Mr. Speaker, I am as deeply concerned as anybody in this House about the problem of marijuana, make no mistake of that fact. If the honourable the lady Minister wishes to introduce a resolution today saying that this House condemns the use of marijuana, she has my total support, but I do not think that it is a good thing to go ahead and come along with a motion such as this which to a degree is — it may not be the intent — the intent, perhaps at the time was the best of intent. The denial might not have been carried forward to the Canadian public at the time the resolution was made, that I don't know. The honourable lady Minister could help us in that, but since she has now heard of the denial and it's been stated, I feel that in all grace, in all grace, she should withdraw her motion.

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

MR. J.D. TISDALLE: Mr. Speaker, at least on a carrying up a point the honourable leader of the Liberal party and first member for Point Grey in his definite statement that the Minister, Mr. Munro, Minister of National Health and Welfare, had denied the statement, it is interesting to note that when the Prime Minister was appraised of that supposedly made statement by the Minister of Health, that he agreed with it. Now has the member from Point Grey, the first member from Point Grey, heard from the Prime Minister as to did he support the denial of the Minister of Health, because they are both named in the resolution. I just….

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Saanich be seated while the point of order is discussed.

MR. McGEER: It is completely irrelevant to whether or not the Minister has denied a statement he made. Whether the Prime Minister accepts that or not is of no consequence, but we have no statement from the Minister who introduced this resolution as to what the Prime Minister was alleged to have said. She read the press release for the….

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable member for Saanich be seated, please.

MR. TISDALLE: All right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. McGEER: She read the press release and we had an opportunity to study the evidence she brought in. This motion as it stood on the Order Paper she may have brought…. Some of the statements attributed both to the Minister of Health and to the Prime Minister that deserved our careful consideration, but the statements that she has introduced do not deserve our careful consideration, and that's why I suggested that the motion was out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The point is well made by the honourable the first member, but let me point out the position of the Chair. Not only is the honourable the Health Minister involved here but also the honourable the Prime Minister of Canada, and nothing has been said thus far as to what statements he may or may not have made, nor what he may or may not have retracted, and I am in no position really to rule.

MR. McGEER: The lady Minister who introduced the resolution did not give us that data, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable member for Saanich go on?

[ Page 792 ]

MR. TISDALLE: It does promote a very odd situation where John Munro, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, was more important than the health and welfare statement by the Prime Minister. It's hard to imagine that the first member from Point Grey would take it upon himself to query the statement without going as far as the Prime Minister's good will, too.

But, in due respect to the resolution that is before us, the most important part of it, as far as I am concerned in supporting it, is that the emphasis laid on the last paragraph, "That the members of this House call upon the Federal Government to fulfill their obligations in regulating and controlling the use of drugs for any purpose except those permitted under the Single Convention," and that convention, as Canada being a signatory to it, was definitely opposed to any modification or change of the category of marijuana to being left outside of the qualification of a drug.

I support the resolution in this respect, that this is no time to lend any comfort or encouragement to those who have been made to feel that there is some security in the use of this drug called marijuana, and anything that we do in here to waffle over it, or to say but, or to say I'm opposed to it but we need more research, I think those feelings should have been laid to rest by the Minister of Health and Hospitals this afternoon. Surely within that department, and surely with all the research that has gone on by committee throughout the free world and throughout the areas that have had many, many years, and even centuries, to experiment with this, and their whole population that have had experimentation by trial and error have been to the detriment of the national ability of that nation to perform. Surely that, in itself, is enough for any good British Columbian and Canadian and member of this association, in this parliament, to say that we'll lend no comfort at all. It's not a time to worry about whether we need to have an experience in British Columbia that will cause our feelings to be less in support of this motion.

When we think of down in Ottawa the other day, when the young couple together in the Peace Tower, one throws themselves out the window — commits suicide — the other one is apprehended down below nonchalantly walking away with the evidence of marijuana on their person. We don't have to surmise too much what is happening, and therefore I think that the evidence is very clear that we in this Legislature should lend no credulence, no comfort, no encouragement whatever, to those who would go around with a doctrine that we hear today, encouraging young people to take a roulette chance at using marijuana or any of the other associated drugs that tend to the hallucinogenic atmosphere that we're hearing so much about.

It's important, I think too, in the Legislature that in respect to this motion that this Government, this Parliament, do everything in its power to circulate information that would be acceptable to our young people, to look at the true facts, also, as to the hindrances and the liabilities in associating with the drug world. I think that in that respect that this motion probably should be earmarked towards ourselves, too, to do everything we can to encourage and discourage the use of marijuana, and so I support the motion.

Unfortunately, unfortunately, we have had no contradiction, no denial by the Prime Minister of one of his own Minister's statements on this subject, and so this afternoon we must vote in relationship to what I do have in front of me, and therefore I support the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G. H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, it's a very serious thing, in my view, for a member of this House to take the responsibility of having this whole Assembly move a substantive motion against an honourable Cabinet Minister of the Government of Canada in another House. It's bad enough if you were doing it from Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable lady member state her point of order.

MRS. McCARTHY: I think that the statement from the honourable member from Burnaby is incorrect. If you will read the motion it is not a censure of the Minister of Health more than it is a concern of this House, and this is the meaning of the motion and in that regard the motion is put.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member, in stating his case, expressed regret over a substantive motion being passed by this House and in no way suggested that w e were condemning the Federal Minister. Proceed.

MR. DOWDING: I am putting the point, Mr. Speaker, that we are passing judgment by expressing our concern or anything else, or any way you want to put it, regrets, or viewed with alarm, at statements attributed to an honourable Minister in another House. It's a serious thing to do, and it's well known in our rules that before any member makes any kind of a criticism of this kind in this motion as to attributed statements, first, in the motion should have been placed the statements to which the member referred. But, you look at the motion and there is no statements there. It just is a vague condemnation of statements attributed to Mr. Munro — attributed — and I suggest this, Mr. Speaker, that if the honourable member were on a witness stand with a bible in her hand, and was asked to swear under oath that Mr. Munro made the statements that she attributes to him, and the Court asked her….

Just a minute, just a minute this is very important. We are going to libel an honourable member of another House.

MRS. McCARTHY: That isn't it.

MR. DOWDING: That's what the motion is going to do. Would the honourable member, the honourable Minister, would she be prepared to say to a Court that my evidence, that my evidence is a newspaper clipping?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're quoting from a newspaper all the time. What's the difference with this one?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member care to rise to his feet.

I believe, with respect, that the honourable member for Burnaby-Edmonds is over-stating his case. We must pay attention to the actual wording of the resolution, and I don't want the impression to leave this Legislature that there is any condemnation whatsoever involved, or that anyone is being

[ Page 793 ]

libeled, and this, in my view, is over-stating the case.

MR. DOWDING: Well, let me say this. That you and I know, Mr. Speaker, that any member who makes any statement in a motion must take responsibility for the facts that he states in that motion. Is that not true? In other words, this House has no knowledge of something that's before it, other than what the member who states the proposition and motion says. Those are the facts that are before the House, and the honourable the lady Minister must take responsibility for the accuracy of the statement of fact she makes in a motion. That's her duty. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that she is not prepared fully to take that responsibility for the veracity of the facts stated in the motion. She has used a clipping of Canadian Press. We have had a direct communication, apparently, to an honourable member of the House, the leader of the Liberal party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you take that as a fact, or not.

MR. DOWDING: No, there's quite a difference. One honourable member said, "I take responsibility for the truth." The other honourable member says, "I don't take responsibility for the truth, I say here's a clipping." That's the difference. What a difference.

In other words what I'm saying is that when an honourable member puts a motion with facts in it, they must take responsibility for those facts, and the truth of those facts. I suggest that the honourable lady Minister is not in that happy position, because had she written to the Minister and had a communication from the Minister in Ottawa directly, she would have direct evidence of the facts of the statements attributed to him and whether they were true or not.

It is not fair to a member of another House to in any way criticize his conduct or his statements attributed to him, unless you are prepared to back up those statements of fact. In other words, when we accept a statement in this House from an honourable member, we do so because he is an honourable member, but the honourable member must make it clear that that member backs up that statement as being a statement of fact before this House should be forced to accept that motion in its present form.

I am not, therefore, willing in any way to criticize alleged statements from a newspaper, and I point out that many times in this House we have forced members to withdraw statements attributed to an honourable member from a newspaper, and you know and we all know that sometimes statements in the House or out of the House are paraphrased and changed by the press for various reasons, some of them conditions of space, I suppose.

But, I suggest that no matter how worthy the idea may be of warning the public about marijuana, that is not the substantive point in this motion, I urge first, the honourable lady Minister, in all fairness, to withdraw it unless she is absolutely certain that the Minister made the precise statement she attributes to him from a newspaper clipping. Or, alternatively if she won't withdraw the motion I urge this House in all fairness to a member of another House who can't defend himself here, that we put the question and defeat the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my concern in relationship to having talked with young people, not to say that all young people feel this way because I can't speak for that, but just in term s of young people that have talked to me.

If you start discussing the subject of marijuana, the legalization automatically comes up, it always does. But I find time and time again, as I talk to these young people and they start to present their arguments, they quote constantly, "But my authority," they would say, "the Minister of Health is in favour of the legalization of marijuana." I don't believe this is true, I really don't believe it's true. I'm sure he doesn't. But, I haven't had a strong enough statement, and it is true that this statement is abroad among our young people. They are using it as a defence of their position to use marijuana, as a defence of their position to use marijuana, and that concerns me.

The damage is done in this area, and I don't believe, if he has made a denial of this statement, that it is strong enough. It is not strong enough until it gets back to those young people and those young people say, "Oh, he didn't really say that." But that statement is not there now and I'm concerned, and all I'm expressing here in this motion is that I am concerned, and I want him to assure me that he didn't make this statement. I want him to make this correction. I want him to make it publicly.

We have had the Minister of Health, in this Province stand up and make a strong statement. We have had strong statements from many people in this House on all sides of the House. I want these same strong statements from this Minister. I want these same strong statements from the Prime Minister of Canada made publicly to Canadians, to the young people of Canada because this is most important. I think that the passing of this resolution will express our concern and we will have this responded to by a strong statement that will clarify the position, and our young people will be the better for it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS: Mr. Speaker, while I share the feelings of all other members who have spoken with respect to marijuana, I think it has been a custom in this House, that when an honourable member denies the statement attributed to him, that denial is accepted by the House. I happen to have heard the honourable Mr. Munro deny the statement attributed to him on a radio programme, in view of that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the honourable Minister who moved this resolution, this motion, that she consider withdrawing it and rewording it, so it will not cast any reflection on the Federal Minister of Health, and any other person.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the Question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, no. I think the No's have it. So ordered.

The motion was negatived on the following division:-

[ Page 794 ]

YEAS — 17

Messieurs

NAYS — 35

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion for adjournment to be lost.

The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: We have heard a number of statements from both sides of the House regarding the truth and the veracity of the various remarks. I think my mind is made up, Mr. Speaker, and I think that no useful purpose will be served in exercising this charge of denial and counter-denial. In fact I think we are doing a disservice to the whole problem in this Province.

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, the question now be put.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question may now be put. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary-minded, No. So ordered.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, this is that the question, the motion for the question be now put, which closes the debate, and the question to be put. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded say No. I think the Ayes have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker

MR. E. HALL: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. You didn't call for a division on the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker in the House now for a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Would you give me just one moment please. I'll let you raise your point of order.

The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I think you stood to a point of order.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order under our Standing Order 46, sub-section 1, that the Speaker can only put the motion providing it is not in abuse of the rules of the House. At the time this motion was recognized, and the division bells were rung, there were three members on their feet who wished to speak to this motion, one of whom wished to make an amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member for Surrey, to a point of order.

MR. E. HALL: I wish to raise a point of order. In that I moved that the question be now put. The question then, of putting the question, was given to the House, and there appeared to be a consensus and a vast majority in favour of the question being put. The Speaker did not then, Mr. Speaker, call for a division on the question itself.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: More than that, he didn't object to the question being put.

MR. SPEAKER: My understanding is that the House is presently dividing on the motion that is before the House. This is the information that I have.

MR. HALL: Thank you for that explanation. As long as everybody knows what they are voting for, Mr. Speaker, that's fine.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. I think, with all due deference and respect to the honourable the first member from Vancouver–Point Grey, that the intent of 46(1) is that the Speaker may not necessarily accept a motion of closure, if he feels that there is an abuse, but on the other hand, and with an equal amount of respect, there has been a very considerable debate on this particular matter. The hour is drawing late, and I think in the interests of Parliamentary procedure, that I don't think the Speaker, in his wisdom, could have felt that a motion of closure was an abuse of the rules of the House. So under the circumstances I can't accept that 46(l) is applicable.

We are ready now to take the division. The division is taking place on the motion itself, Motion No. 7, which appears on the Order Paper.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:-

YEAS — 34

Messieurs

[ Page 795 ]

NAYS — 17

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the Motion carried. So ordered.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Resolution No. 8, Mr. Speaker.

1. That the debates of the Legislative Assembly in the House be recorded by means of magnetic-tape recorders or other suitable recording devices in accordance with the following rules: —
2. That the magnetic-tape record of the said debates shall be under the control and custody of Mr. Speaker and no duplicate or copy of the magnetic-tape record shall be made without the express authority of Mr. Speaker.
3. That the public use, employment, publication, transmission, or broadcast outside the House of the magnetic-tape record of the said debates, or any portion thereof, is prohibited without the express authority of Mr. Speaker.
4. That any person who, without the express authority of Mr. Speaker, offends against sections 2 and 3 of this Order may be considered in contempt of the House.
5. That when any question arises in the House as to the words spoken by a member in its said debates of the House, Mr. Speaker may use the magnetic-tape record as evidence of the actual words spoken by that member.
6. That Mr. Speaker may, on request in writing of any member, use the magnetic-tape record to verify the words spoken by that member or any other member in the said debates; and may, if requested by the member, supply him with a typewritten transcript (not exceeding 25 lines) of the portion of the said debates so requested.
7. That any member may challenge the accuracy of the magnetic-tape record in cases where he alleges that words spoken by him have been attributed to another member or vice versa, and if the House gives unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker shall note the discrepancy in the Journals of the House.
8. That, after the prorogation of the House, a typewritten transcript of the said debates shall be prepared under the supervision of Mr. Speaker, and a copy thereof certified by him shall be distributed to each member without charge.
9. That copies of the transcript of the said debates shall be made available for purchase by any person at cost.
10. That sections 1 to 9 of this Order be, and they are hereby declared to be, Standing Orders of the House, and shall be designated as Part IV of the Standing Orders of the House under the heading "Recording of Debates."

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 8. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, Resolution No. 8 has stood on the Order Paper for some time, and in order to deal with the matter with dispatch, I shan't read it or develop it at too great an extent. I just want to say that under the direction of the Chair, this experiment has taken place up to this moment, and whether or not it continues to be an experiment, the fate of this motion will decide.

However, let me make it very clear, that as far as my understanding of the motion is concerned, and what is intended in the verbatim reporting electronically, that has been done throughout this entire Session. Number one, the Throne debate is recorded, number two, the Budget debate is recorded. The Committee stages of Bills in the Committee is not recorded. It may have been recorded, but I am talking about the resolution, that's what I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Estimates?

MR. BLACK: No, not the Estimates that's what I mean, Committee of the Whole House. There stands the motion, Mr. Speaker, there stands the motion and I move the motion standing in my name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a mockery.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: May I ask, on a point of order, whether the House would be agreeable to debating the motion seriatim, that is paragraph by paragraph, so that they could be dealt with as separate propositions?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe it is just one resolution.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): What a farce. What a mockery. To allow the people of this Province to think that they are going to get a complete verbatim record of the debates of this House, only to find out that the formal debates will be recorded, but the real guts of the Session, the real meat and the heart and the meaning of why we come to this Session, why we question the Ministers, what the issues are, are to buried and to be kept hidden from the people of this Province.

Especially at a time when a Session has taken place when there has been a great newspaper strike in this Province. When the vital issues affecting the lives of every citizen of this Province have been debated in detail, when every member has come here to do his duty and has done his duty, there is to be no record for those citizens who pay the bills, Mr. Chairman, no record. We played a little game in a little closet and the Government's line in this particular motion is, let there be no light. Let there be no light.

Mr. Speaker, this is 1970, this is a year when the Government boasts we spent 31 per cent of our Budget on

[ Page 796 ]

education. This is a year when we asked people to participate in politics, to participate in democracy, to understand the living, breathing mechanism of Parliament and how important this institution is to preserve freedom and democracy. After making those kind of high flying pronouncements, we rip the heart out of any drive to inform the people of British Columbia about what is going on in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed of any single word I have said in this House. I'll stand by anything I have said, anytime, and I request, on behalf of the people who pay the bills and who elect us, that they have the right to own the recordings and have the published proceedings of every single word that is said in this House. To alienate that right, Mr. Speaker, is to admit that a Government has gone mad with its overwhelming majority, and the subsequent consequence of that madness is to believe the myth that somehow you are plugged into God and you are not responsible to the people, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is shocking, absolutely shocking, to lead the people of this Province to believe that you were going to give them a full record of this debate, only to find that there will be secrets kept from the people of this Province at the whim and request of this Government which refuses, absolutely refuses, to publish the proceedings of this House. Shame — shame I say, on this Government. It flies in the face of its responsibility to people of this Province. It flies in the face of responsibility in terms of developing a free society.

There is no reason, no reason to keep this information from the people except an arrogance by a Government that is so big it has now gone beyond elections and it thinks it has the divine right to rule. We won't buy it. It's sick, and it's an insult to the people of British Columbia.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this is the 29th Parliament in British Columbia's history, and it is the 29th Parliament that has hidden itself from public view. This isn't our Legislature. This is the people's Legislature, and by denying the people of this Province the right to hear what their elected members have said, to see their elected members in action, to read what their elected members have said and indeed, Mr. Speaker, to deny those who are in the public galleries today the right to take out a pencil and a piece of paper and write down what we are saying at this minute, is a shame on the Government. What have you got to hide? What is so shameful about your actions over there and your words that make you wish to keep those words from the people of British Columbia? With your overwhelming mandate and with this, the only Legislature in Canada that lacks a Hansard, your shame should be overwhelming for maintaining the dark ages in this Province of British Columbia as far as the Parliament and the Legislature is concerned.

One day, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a Legislative renaissance in British Columbia when we will look back with shame on the record of this Government and your unwillingness to face the public of British Columbia and hold themselves to account for words in this Legislature, by seeing these words displayed in their entirety before all the people of the Province and giving the citizens of this Province the right to come and take down those words and hold you to account for them. Any Premier and any Cabinet….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The matter of someone in the gallery taking down the words is not a question now. We are dealing with Resolution No. 8. That was the matter of a motion at the beginning of this Session. It is not a matter of debate now.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, Resolution No. 8 does not open this Legislative Assembly fully to the people of British Columbia. Any Premier or any Cabinet Minister or any member of this Legislative Assembly who is ashamed to see in full his words displayed before the people of British Columbia should not be sitting in this Chamber, because this is 1970, the 29th Parliament, the hundredth year of our Province's existence, and still we are unwilling to do those things which are as old as Parliament itself. More shame on the Premier. More shame on his Cabinet Ministers, and more shame on his backbenchers for permitting this intolerable situation to continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very unsatisfactory things about this resolution. I don't know whether the Government has really given much thought to it.

I have made some proposals on the Order Paper by way of an amendment to it, and I think that they are sound proposals, and they are done after studying replies I have received from different other Legislatures of Canada who looked with some care at the proposals in Resolution No. 8. I just want to mention a few points with regard to the present resolution that is before you that sets out the proposals for a partial recording of debate.

When you look at the paragraph 6 which says, "Mr. Speaker may, on request in writing of any member, use the magnetic-tape record to verify the words spoken by that member or any other member in the said debates, and may, if requested by the member, supply him with a typewritten transcript (not exceeding 25 lines) of the portion of the said debates so requested." Well, it appears that this is a very cumbersome way of verifying what was said. To have to go through this type of formality and to limit it to 25 lines, it seems to me an abuse, right in that proposal, that you'll have members trying to snatch 25 lines from some other member's speech to use, you know, for political purposes, without really quoting the member in full or giving the member thereby the opportunity to state his full position. So that's dangerous to have any such limitation.

A second thing that is obviously quite wrong with the proposal is that the debate would be taped but a daily transcript would not be made available. That's absolutely ridiculous. The reason is that if the transcript is kept, as it were, on tape until the end of the Session, it is going to take the Speaker a complete run through of those portions of the tape that are recorded in the Throne Speech and the Budget Speech — and he's going to have to relive the Session, as it were, himself because the resolution requires the Speaker personally to certify the transcript. Why are you going to put the Speaker to that kind of work? Surely it's enough that it be certified by an official reporter who transcribes a daily transcript. It would be a lot more sensible than that method suggested in Resolution 8.

Now, it is fairly useless and in fact rather dangerous to wait until the end of the Session and then wait a lot longer for a typed transcript to be sent to you by the Speaker, because by the time that you get it and read it over and see

[ Page 797 ]

errors, whether they be in names that you have used, when there is a misspelling of a name or a place, or there is improper punctuation to becloud your statements, you are going to be much too late by the time you receive a transcript to correct the errors that are perhaps manifest to you and maybe not to the transcriber.

That can be a rather ridiculous situation, and that argues against that proposal and argues in favour of a daily transcript, so while the matter is fresh in the minds of the House the members can be supplied with a daily transcript. They can check it with the Speaker to determine whether it is accurate, and if there are manifest errors there should be no problem with the Speaker in correcting those errors in the transcript. It makes it easy to produce because it is done daily. A lot of work at the end of the Session is very little work if it is done as a daily task by one reporter who transcribes from the official tape. So I urge some consideration to that very important factor that will be otherwise not solved.

I am just wondering whether the Speaker is prepared to accept the onus put upon him of sitting through part of this Session all over again, having to listen to the tapes or read the transcript. Are you prepared to impose that task on the Speaker? I am not. I think it is wrong.

Now, I have a motion to amend the Motion No. 8, Mr. Speaker, and I would move, seconded by the honourable the member for Cowichan-Malahat, the amendment standing in my name on the Order paper, number 11, this is the amendment number.

Speaking on the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I propose that in Clause 2 of the motion that we add after the word "debate," in line one the words "including proceedings during Committee of the Whole" and delete all the words after the word "made" in line 3, so that the amendment would read, "That the magnetic-tape record of the said debates, including proceedings during Committee of the Whole House, shall be under the control and custody of Mr. Speaker, and no duplicate or copy of magnetic-tape record shall be made without the express authority of Mr. Speaker." I want it to be clear to all members. They may not want to read and try to fill in those words here and there.

The intent of it is to make sure that all the debate, all the statements that are said in this House are recorded. I think that's vital to the whole conduct of Parliament. It otherwise becomes a mockery to have set speeches that you deliver without any of the thrust and play of debate. At the opening of the Session, in the Opening Speech from the Throne, or the Budget Speech, which are purely formal debates, to have them recorded, and then the real business of Parliament, the real debates that take place that are the really interesting thing to both the members and the public, should be denied to the public. Now the honourable the member for Point Grey has indicated that, and so has the honourable the Leader of the Opposition, I won't belabour that point.

The second thing is in Clause 3, to delete all the words after the word "prohibited" in line 3, and that would make the motion then read "That the public use, employment, publication, transmission, or broadcast outside of the House of the magnetic-tape record of the said debates, or any portion thereof, is prohibited." Now, I don't think that the Speaker should either give or have the right to give authority for them to be broadcast outside the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that three times.

MR. DOWDING: This is a different amendment than Clause 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the tape.

MR. DOWDING: This deals with the right of the Speaker to take those tapes out of this House and broadcast them at his pleasure and as he would want, and I think that is wrong. The Speaker shouldn't be put in that position. He shouldn't be put in that position. That is why I want that deleted, that part that allows him to do that outside the House. The place for the record is on the page and the place for that page is in the hands of the public. Then in Clause 6….

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. PETERSON: The amendments that the honourable member has already moved would involve substantial addition to staff and expenditure of public funds involving, as they do, recording and transcription during Committees of the House, and also issuing transcripts on a daily basis. I would therefore invite you to consider Standing Order 66, which specifically covers this and would make these amendments out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must agree with the point of order and rule the amendment out of order.

MR. DOWDING: Speaking on the motion, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you challenge that ruling?

MR. DOWDING: All right, we'll challenge the ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of upholding the ruling of the Chair will please indicate by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have it.

The ruling of the Chair was upheld on the following division:-

YEAS — 35

Messieurs

[ Page 798 ]

NAYS — 15

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Declare the ruling of the Chair upheld. So ordered The question on Motion No. 8. The Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I am almost, for me anyway, speechless when I heard the Provincial Secretary announce that we would only receive the recordings and the transcripts from the formal debates. I found that very hard to believe, and I found it almost an insult, Mr. Speaker, to the House, to the people of the Province, and to the legislative democracy and traditions which we have enjoyed and to which we pay homage so often. I think perhaps the crowning act in this Session was to see the Premier instruct the Provincial Secretary in this way, to make this statement when he, the Provincial Secretary, perhaps more than any of the other side, is the Minister who understands democracy and the traditions of this House.

I cannot understand, and I should like some explanation, why this Legislature of the third most populous Province, the Province of tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, cannot do that which other Provinces do. Other Provinces have managed for years now to produce a record which is complete, complete from day one to the last day. I can't for the life of me understand why we should be expected to take that 15-word statement from the Provincial Secretary and honour it in the name of democracy as we stand here assembled as a Legislative body.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is part of the problems which are besetting this Government now and which will continue to beset this Government — that they've forgotten what it's all about, they've forgotten what it's all about — and if anybody was correct in predicting that the kind of majority the Government got last August was a bad thing for the Province, then this motion today must prove it, must prove it. I think that we should be entitled to an explanation as to why this House cannot do what the other nine Legislatures do and produce a full Hansard and a full recording, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why this Government hasn't brought this resolution before this House earlier during the Session. Once they had decided that they were only going to record the Throne debate and the Budget debate, the House should have been informed. At no time did you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone, and we asked at different times whether the proceedings of the House were being recorded, and at no time were we informed that they were not being recorded. Now to come out and tell us that the only debates that were recorded were the Throne debate and the Budget debate, shows that it was much more than that, but that's all that we're going to get. What are you going to do with the magnetic tapes of the balance, then, if you did record it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to use them?

MR. NIMSICK: What did you do? I think that if they've recorded the other debates then we have a right to have those debates recorded, if it's on magnetic tape. I don't think that the magnetic tape should be the sole responsibility of the Government, to use as they like. Now it comes out that there's more than the Throne debate and the Budget debate was recorded.

I thought, Mr. Speaker, that we would be informed, because when we requested from you what we were going to do in regards to the debates and in regards to this resolution, and whether the recordings were going on, we were informed that we would be kept informed as to what went on, and we never heard any more about it, until the last day of the Session, and then you bring forth this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was on the Order Paper.

MR. NIMSICK: Sure it was on the Order Paper, but who can call it? We can't call it. The only ones that can call it are the Government. It doesn't say there are just the Throne debate and the Budget debate.

Another point, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think is right is to give even you the right to make a duplicate of that magnetic tape. Once that tape has been printed, that tape should not be duplicated by anybody, even with your permission. Mr. Speaker, that tape should not be duplicated even with your authority at any time. Once it's duplicated, how many times do we know from there on where it'll be duplicated?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The member is perfectly in order, but because the Speaker is so deeply involved in the resolution that's being discussed, I would like you to understand the difficulty that it is to transcribe from one tape. It means that only one stenographer, for example, or one typist would be able to do the typing, which would be an interminable delay, and hopefully, there will be a number of tapes taken from the master tape so that a number of typists could proceed with the typing. Otherwise, I really don't know when we would be able to produce the tape. I mention this, so that you'd understand the problem that will be placed upon the Speaker were the House to agree with the suggestion that's being made. You're not out of order at all, but I wanted you to understand my problem.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, Mr. Speaker, it says here the magnetic-tape record of the said debate shall be under the control and custody of Mr. Speaker, and no duplicate or copy of the magnetic-tape record shall be made without the express authority of Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. NIMSICK: The point that I'm getting at is, that once you start duplicating these tapes, that you've got authority to

[ Page 799 ]

duplicate these tapes, where do they go from there? I feel that the original tape is the only tape that should remain, and that it should never be duplicated at any time, even regardless of the fact that you say that you want more than one stenographer typing the tapes, because a tape is only so big anyway. During the report of the Session you've had a number of tapes, I'm sure, you didn't put it all on one tape, nor all on a dozen tapes, and so I don't think that the argument there would hold water.

What I'm afraid of is that once these tapes get out, once you start duplicating tapes, there could be no end to the duplication of tapes, and you can leave out and you can add on tapes, too, if you want to. I think that it's a dangerous procedure in that regard. To me the whole set-up — to come here the last day of the Session — is a violation of the principles of this House, and one that I don't feel as though I can go along with, to endorse a dictatorial attitude of the Government in forcing upon us and trying to appease the public in the fact that they are having a Hansard by such a resolution as this, or such a restricted Hansard as you are proposing here today. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is a real mockery of the parliamentary system that we all claim to uphold.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, here on the last day of this Session, once again the massive majority of this Government is making a mockery of Parliament, and the man who would play God is making a mockery of Parliament, and we refuse to take part in this destruction of Parliament that we see today.

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

The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, if the House would remain at ease.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable members, it will require something in the order of fifteen minutes for the attendants and Public Works' staff to make certain changes in the House so far as our sound system, and so on, is concerned. The House is therefore recessed until between ten after and quarter after five, and I'll ring the bell at that time. In the meantime, the House stands recessed.

The House recessed at 4.58 p.m.

The House reconvened at 5.15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Members of the Legislative Assembly. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the Chamber. All arise.

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Pray be seated.

MR. E.G. MacMINN (Clerk Assistant):

An Act to Amend the Contributory Negligence Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act.

An Act to Amend the Provincial New-home Building Assistance Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act.

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act.

An Act Respecting the Purchase of Unissued Shares of the Capital Stock of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company.

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954.

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964.

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962.

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act.

An Act Respecting Motion Pictures.

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act.

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

Jury Act.

An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act.

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act.

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act.

Corrections Act.

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act.

An Act to Amend the Chiropractic Act.

An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964

Land Act.

An Act to Amend the Land Surveyors Act.

Age of Majority Act.

Professional Corporations Act.

Litter Act.

An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act.

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act.

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act.

An Act to Amend the Forest Act.

British Columbia Professional Foresters Act.

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act.

Mineral Processing Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

An Act to Amend the Medical Act.

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act.

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act.

An Act to Amend the Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company Act.

MR. E.K. DeBECK (Clerk of the House):

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company.

An Act Respecting Yorkshire Trust Company.

Vancouver General Hospital Act, 1902.

An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act, 1967.

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

An Act to Amend the Securities Act, 1967.

An Act to Amend the Regional Hospital Districts Act.

An Act to Amend the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act.

An Act to Amend the Summary Convictions Act.

An Act to Establish the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia.

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act.

An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act.

An Act to Amend and Repeal Certain Provisions of the

[ Page 800 ]

Statute Law.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these Bills.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, in Session assembled, approach Your Honour at the close of our labours with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and Government and humbly beg to present for Your Honour's acceptance Bill No. 85 intituled An Act for Granting Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province of British Columbia.

MR. E.K. DeBECK: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence, and assent to this Bill.

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly: Your deliberations during this First Session of the Twenty-ninth Parliament of British Columbia have been of great benefit to the citizens of this Province. I express my appreciation for your achievements.

The legislation enacted at this Session has continued to provide increased financial benefits for all citizens through a number of significant measures. Amendments have been made to the Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act to make it easier for municipalities to qualify for assistance under the Act.

The Province's grant to municipalities has been increased by $2 per capita for social services in the municipality, making a total of $30 per capita under the Municipalities Aid Act.

Supplementary to the assistance presently provided for the purchase or construction of a new home, the Provincial Home-acquisition Grant Act gives assistance to a tenant toward the purchase of an existing home. A tenant now has the option of a grant of $1,000 or a loan of $5,000 for a new home, or a grant of $500 or a loan of $2,500 for the purchase of an existing home. The Provincial Home-owner Grant Act provides for increases of $10 per home, for a total of $160 per home.

Authority has been given to invest up to thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) in the unissued stock of Pacific Great Eastern Railway, which will enable the railway to make provision for substantial new construction and expansion of services to the people. Provision has also been made for increasing the borrowing authority of this railway company by fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) for the same purposes.

Likewise, the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority has been given authority to expand its borrowing by two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) to allow for expansion of its facilities throughout the Province. Under the Succession Duty Act the exemptions under the Act have been increased for annuities from $1,200 to $3,000 per annum and a family home has been completely exempted from succession duties.

Great advances have been made during this Session in the enactments relating to the administration of justice. A completely new Corrections Act and Jury Act have been enacted, providing the most advanced legislation in these fields. Amendments to the Supreme Court Act and the Land Registry Act have streamlined the operation of the courts and land registry systems.

A new Motion Pictures Act provides the legislative framework for a practical and enlightened system of film classification and review. A new Part 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act has been enacted, which brings the law of landlord and tenant out of the Middle Ages and into the era of modern urban life and it will resolve many of the problems and inequities of this field of the law. The Motor-vehicle Act has. again been amended to deal with constantly changing problems of our automobile culture, including the problem of air pollution caused by automobiles.

One of the most significant measures enacted by this House was the Age of Majority Act, which reduced the age of majority from twenty-one years to nineteen years for all purposes. This legislation is unique in Canada and will have far-reaching benefits for our young citizens.

In the field of labour relations, the benefits of the Payment of Wages Act have been extended to all persons instead of to a scheduled list of industries. Provision has also been made for accreditation of employer associations under the Labour Relations Act so that collective bargaining will be assisted and improved.

In a substantial change of emphasis, the Department of Social Welfare has been converted into a Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. Likewise, amendments have been made to the Adoption Act and the Protection of Children Act to improve the achievement of the objects of these Acts in the areas of foreign and adult adoptions and of delinquency problems.

The natural resources, a great heritage of the Province, have received the careful attention of this Assembly. A completely new and revised Land Act has been enacted, providing for an intelligent and practical administration of all Crown lands of the Province. Likewise, the Forest Act has been amended to improve the administration of the timber reserves of the Province and to provide for the use of forest lands as recreational areas in certain cases and the regulations pertaining to such use. The Mineral Act has been changed to provide that Crown-granted mineral claims previously acquired cannot result in the acquisition of surface rights unless the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is satisfied that the mineral claims are being used for mining purposes. Under a new Mineral Processing Act minerals produced in the Province must hereafter be available to be processed in the Province when required by the Minister. This Act sets up a Board of Arbitration whereby disputes between owners and producers of minerals and the processors can be resolved.

In the field of health services the Mental Health Act and the Medical Act have been amended and changes in the Hospital Act, Regional Hospital Districts Act, and the Vancouver General Hospital Act, 1902, have dealt with many of the problem areas arising out of concern for the health and hospital services for all citizens of the Province.

Pollution control and its increasing concomitant problems have occupied the attention and careful consideration of the members of the Legislature this Session. Provision has been made for control of air pollution through substantial amendments to the Pollution Control Act, 1967, and the Motor Vehicle Act, previously referred to. The problems of land and water pollution have resulted in new provisions dealing with the subjects in the Pollution Control Act, 1967, and in a new Litter Act, the latter legislation governing the disposal of domestic wastes and litter. Complementary provisions are also to be found in the Land Act and in the Forest Act.

The Assembly has given full consideration to the problems

[ Page 801 ]

of local government. In addition to the financial measures for the assistance of municipalities, previously alluded to, a new Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia Act has been passed for the purpose of providing financial assistance and marketing of securities of the Authority in aid of the municipalities and regional districts in the Province. Furthermore, substantial amendments have been made to the Municipal Act and the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act to enlarge the scope and responsibilities of regional districts and to provide other benefits to the municipalities.

The Public Schools Act has been amended to set up a completely integrated system of colleges and to provide for its governance and administration for the improvement of post-secondary education in the Province.

Your approval of the Supply Bill, authorizing expenditures in services for our people exceeding one billion, one hundred and sixty-five million dollars ($1,165,000,000), without any increase in taxation, is particularly praiseworthy.

These and many other measures which you have carefully considered and authorized will contribute substantially to the growth and continued prosperity of the Province and the happiness and well-being of our citizens.

Members of the Legislative Assembly, I thank you for your earnest deliberations and labours and for the supply which you have granted — for the public service. Honourable Members, I now relieve you of your legislative duties, and I trust that the blessing of Divine Providence will accompany you to your respective homes.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly: It is His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's will and pleasure that the Legislative Assembly be prorogued until it shall please His Honour to summon the same for dispatch of business, and this Provincial Legislative Assembly is hereby prorogued accordingly.