[ Page 843 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

By leave of the House, on the motion of Mr. R. Wenman, Bill (No. 40) intituled An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act was withdrawn.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The committee rose, reported Resolutions 240 to 244, inclusive, Estimates of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, and asked leave to sit again at the next sitting.

The House proceeded to the Order "Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions."

Mr. B. Price moved that Report No. 5 of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, relative to Bill (No. 53) intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, be adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, rising to oppose the adoption of this report, I want to point out that it's a very important issue that is involved in the committee's report. I'm going to look to you for some advice, Mr. Speaker. We have a motion of adjournment, of course, a time of adjournment set already and I …

MR. SPEAKER: Would the House give leave to the Honourable Member to speak after 6: 00 p.m.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. Proceed.

MR. HALL: Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I will take up a couple of minutes pointing out what I think is happening in this report. The city of Vancouver asked for change of this charter to give tenants the right to vote on money by-laws. This corporation felt that that was important procedure for them to follow, having just been elected to office only last December with some continuity in the Council. We see in the report that those provisions have been taken out and I'd like to, if I may, Mr. Speaker, move adjournment of this debate 'til the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House proceeded to the Order "Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees."

Mr. G. Mussallem presented Report No. 1 of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing.

The report was taken as read and received.

The Honourable D.R.J. Campbell, Minister of Municipal Affairs, presented a Report of the First Citizens' Fund Advisory Committee for the period June 15, 1969, to March 31, 1971.

By leave of the House, on the motion of Mr. R. Wenman, Notices of Questions numbered 201, 202, 203, and 204, standing in his name on the Order Paper, were withdrawn.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The committee rose, reported Resolutions 245 to 254, inclusive. Estimates of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, Resolution 255, Estimates of the Ministers without Portfolio, and 218 and 219, Estimates of the Public Utilities Commission, and asked leave to sit again at the next sitting.

The committee further reported that, in consideration of Vote 248, the Committee divided and recommended that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

By leave of the House, on the motion of Mr. Barrett, the Rules were suspended and it was Ordered that the division in Committee on Vote 248 be recorded in the Journals of the House as follows:

YEAS — 34

Messieurs

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

The reports of Resolutions from the Committee of Supply on February 23rd and 25th and March 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 19th, 24th, 25th, 26th and 31st and April 1st were taken as read and received.

[ Page 844 ]

On the motion of the Honourable the Minister of Finance, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, the Rules were suspended and the Resolutions from the Committee of Supply were read a second time, taken as read, and agreed to.

Resolved, That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolutions.

On the motion of the Honourable the Minister of Finance, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, it was Ordered that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Ways and Means.

The Committee reported the Resolution. That towards the making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Public Service of the Province, there be granted from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the following: (1) $46,027,335 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended the 3ist day of March 1970. (2) $1,300,692,600 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1972.

The Resolution read a second time, taken as read, and agreed to.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, Bill (No. 108) intituled An Act for Granting Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province of British Columbia was introduced, and read a first time.

By leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the bill was read a second time.

By leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the bill was referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

The bill was committed, reported complete without amendment and, by leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the bill Ordered to be read a third time.

Bill 108 read a third time and passed.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills in the Hands of Private Members."

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 8, An Act Respecting A Guaranteed Income for Senior Citizens. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, this bill, placed on the Order Paper early in the Session to enable the Members a great deal of time to review it, will, I'm sure, find great support by all parties in this House. There has been such a heavy public demand for copies of this bill, Mr. Speaker, that I was unable to locate a copy for myself but I want to thank the Member for giving me his autographed copy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very, very simple bill designed to create a minimum income, a guaranteed minimum income, for the senior citizens of the Province of British Columbia. It says, "Any resident of British Columbia, 65 years of age or over, who has a total income of less than $200 per month, shall receive an allowance sufficient to bring his or her total income to a minimum of $200 per month." It is not inconsistent with the Canada Assistance Plan. At the present time, under the Federal-Provincial sharing grant, the Federal Government will pay a total of $109, with the direct supplement to the Universal Old Age Pension and the Provincial Government pays another shared $30 on that amount. The senior citizen, who is completely broke at the age of 65, does receive close to $150 per month here in the Province of British Columbia. Now, I'm suggesting that an additional supplement be instituted by this Government that would require only a cost-sharing, under the present agreement, of 50/50. There are approximately 11,000 people who fall into the category that this bill would cover. These people have a total income, at the age of 65, of less than $200 per month and, if we pass this bill, we would allow ourselves to bring all of these people up to a minimum of $200 per month.

Mr. Speaker, I have here and I'd like to table with the House, petitions circulated for signatures throughout many areas of the Province of British Columbia in support of this bill. This petition says, "We, the undersigned citizens of British Columbia, humbly petition the Government and the Legislative Assembly, in special recognition of the hardships and privation suffered by our senior citizens, to establish in this year legislation respecting a guaranteed income, and enacting that any resident in British Columbia, 65 years of age or over and a total income of less than $200 per month, shall receive an allowance, in addition, to his or her income to a minimum of $200 per month." In this Centennial Year, within a matter of a few weeks, 4,000 people signed these petitions.

Just a word about that, Mr. Speaker, these petitions were circulated by the young New Democrats. Young people who have an interest in politics and did something positive by going out and securing petitions on good, sane, rational, responsible, political action and have delivered to my office 4,000 signatures of people supporting this bill. I'd like to table these petitions with the House and urge the Government to accept this bill that so many citizens of this Province have indicated they would like to see passed.

By leave of the House, Mr. Barrett tabled a petition relating to Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I am sure that the honourable Member realizes that a bill which purports to spend public funds would be at variance with our own Constitution Act and with our Standing Order 66. For that reason, it is out of order.

MR. BARRETT: I am disappointed to hear that, Mr. Speaker.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Second reading of Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 46, An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act. The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I recognize the Rules of the House and the problem of presenting bills that cause expenditure to the Crown but this bill, I wish to assure you, will not cause expenditure to the Crown but, instead, there are several

[ Page 845 ]

money-saving devices listed in the bill. I'd like to talk about the money-saving devices, rather than the money-expenditure devices that it might be liable to.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is going to talk himself right out of order before he gets started (Laughter).

MR. WENMAN: Oh, fine. Well, in fact, I won't refer to money at all, then. The first principle that is referred to in this bill hopes to amend the Public Schools Act to allow for the continuous school year. In the fast growth areas, such as Delta, we feel that this would be a very desirable programme. We have a Committee studying it and we hope that we could put it in the form of legislation. That is one of the principles of the bill.

Another principle of the bill, one we've talked about often, is that of recognizing in the Centennial Year Canadian citizenship, recognizing that the Attorney-General, as a great Swede, has the same right as a person with British citizenship. This recommends that we strike the words "British subject" out and recognize Canadian citizens for the right of those sitting on school boards and, secondly, for those having the right to vote on school issues.

Another principle involved in this bill relates to sick leave of teachers and it is hoped that this will give an incentive to teachers to be in the classroom, unless it is absolutely impossible for them to be there. I would hope that, through this, we would give them an incentive to gather their sick leave, to keep it up and, then, give them a leave of absence. This, I think, would cut down considerably again on costs. I have suggested that we also employ a public health nurse to ensure that the health of the teacher be maintained, because we can't afford to have a $20 substitute in place of a $60 teacher, who is providing a high calibre of service.

In addition to that, another principle relates to the teaching of religion in the schools and I would like to say that I feel, while religion should not, as such, be taught in schools, the Lord's Prayer and other passages of the Scriptures, as they are now being read and used, are making a mockery of religion. This should be improved and could be improved by passing the amendment, making any form of the Lord's Prayer or Scriptures to be taught as social studies or to be taught as part of the English curriculum. This would be a much more practical and meaningful approach. I would go further and say that we should also be teaching the other great religions of the world — Mohammedanism, Buddhism and the other philosophies that have built the world that we all live in.

Then, finally, I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, a section in the act that will cause equalization of school grants for the rapid growth areas of Delta. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure whether the honourable Member moved second reading of the bill but I think it won't make a great deal of difference. The bill, particularly in section 6, is very clearly out of order in the employment of a public health nurse for one, and in the extension of certain sick leave benefits to teachers and, under the circumstances, would be out of order under our own Standing Order 66.

MR. WENMAN: I'll accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 63, Prevention of Restraint of Professional Practices Act. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): This bill is intituled, Mr. Speaker, Prevention of Restraint of Professional Practices Act. In previous years, I have placed a bill on the Order Paper in regards to the medical profession. My interests in this bill arose out of the limitation of the rights of the doctors in my area to practice if they left the clinic at which they were working. At that time, the medical profession thought that I was discriminating against them and so, this year, I brought in one to cover all the professions because, if the same practice is going on in any of the other professions, it's limiting the civil rights of a person. Just to give you an idea of the reason why I brought it in, in the agreements both in Cranbrook, in Fernie and in Michel…(interruption).

So did the teachers have an agreement, so do others, but you made short work of them. "The assistant will not for a period of five years after the termination of his employment carry on either alone or in partnership with any other person or persons, nor act as assistant to any person or persons carrying on or about to carry on a practice, of a physician, surgeon or general medical practitioner in the city of Fernie or within 10 miles from a post office thereof, and will for each breach of the stipulation contained in this clause pay to the principle the sum of $5,000." Now, this would prevent anyone from signing any agreement with a restrictive clause or prevent the organizations from asking people to sign an agreement with a restrictive clause like this in it. And if it were signed, then, the Court would throw it out but, to me…. (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: May we have some order, please?

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this is in the professional field and we pay money to train these people in the educational system. They go to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the College determines whether they've got the right to practise in the Province of British Columbia or not. I don't think that any restrictive clause should disallow them from practising any place. Just to give you an example, Mr. Speaker, this doctor in Fernie was working for the clinic. He was only working for them and when he left the clinic, he was expelled from within 10 miles of the city of Fernie. He went to work in Michel. Now Michel hasn't got such an equipped hospital that they can do all the operating there, so some of the cases have got to go to Fernie to be operated on. What happened? This doctor couldn't even scrub in the hospital at Fernie for the doctor that he was working for in Michel (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have some order so that we can get along with this debate?

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I don't think at any time that any one in the professional field should be limited in this regard. They've got to qualify to make their practice and they shouldn't be denied nor exiled from the area. If a union was to exile a worker from an area and tell him that he couldn't practise down the street, it would be terrible, and you'd jump right down their throat. You'd immediately bring in a law to stop it but here is a law … because it protects business people, business that emphasizes free enterprise and, yet, they want to build up a little empire. Then, they're afraid of any competition who go down the street and start

[ Page 846 ]

up. I don't think that that is right, Mr. Speaker. I think that some of the Members are just being a little bit chintzy about this deal. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is a violation of human rights for these people to be denied the right to practise after they leave the employment of somebody else (interruption). They don't sign an agreement. They didn't have to sign an agreement. The doctor in Cranbrook never signed an agreement. So, don't tell me that. They can still hold them to it and I feel that something has got to be done in this regard.

Now, the Honourable the Minister of Health, last year, did promise me that he would took into the matter and do something. I know he did look into the matter to a certain point. Maybe, he's got something to say, again, that they will look further into it. I'm very interested at this point because I don't think that this doctor who is in Michel now — and it's difficult to get doctors into a small hospital like Michel — and if he can't even scrub for the doctor who he's with in Fernie, to me, there's something haywire with our system and haywire with our business relations throughout the Province of British Columbia. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable Member should observe that this bill would nullify the terms of existing agreements, agreements that have already been entered into and for which valid consideration may have been paid. On that ground, alone, I would suggest that the bill is objectionable. However, the subject matter raised is a very worthwhile question to be raised before this House and this is the whole question of covenants in restraint of trade. It's a good question but I think the honourable Member should recognize that his bill, drafted as it is, should be considered objectionable to all the Members of this House.

The question that's raised is still a valid one. I want to advise the Members that this is a subject which the Law Reform Commission has accepted as a matter for study. I would refer you to their Annual Report which was submitted to the House, earlier this year, on page 12, under item 7, Covenants in Restraint of Trade. "There is a wide variety of covenants in restraint of trade. At one end of the scale, these can be in the form of agreements by commercial concerns regarding price fixing or exclusive dealing which may or may not run foul of the combines legislation. At the other, there is simple agreement, given by a partner or employee, that he will not compete should he leave the partnership or employment."

That's precisely what the honourable Member was speaking of and, as a matter of fact, they refer to the specific case which you cited, the case of Green versus Stanton, reported in 1969 in the Western Weekly reports. In that case was the medical partnership case which the honourable Member referred to. So, this is the subject of full study and I would hope that, when we get the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, then, we would give further consideration to the matter. At this time, the bill is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): I was very pleased to hear the Attorney-General's comments on this proposed legislation. I think the bill proposed by the Member for Kootenay is something that has bearing throughout this entire Province. I could cite cases of mothers and families, mothers who go to hospitals many, many miles away because of some concern with the local clinic and, where there is just one clinic, it's a closed shop. Because of dissatisfaction certain mothers and families have received, instead of having their baby in the local hospital, they're travelling, in the prenatal period, many miles to another clinic in another community and having that child in another hospital. So, I was very pleased to hear the Attorney-General's comments on this. I hope it will be reviewed. This kind of thing is the very negation of free enterprise and it's doing a great deal to lower the quality of health care in this Province.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to support the principle of the bill because I think when you have, in the professions that are listed, people who set up in business, in a secondary sense in business, in a primary sense to serve the public, the bill obviously follows and recognizes those professions that this House has heretofore recognized as being professions. If a profession is there to serve the public, then, business considerations should be second to service to the public. There is the additional factor that the public finances most of these professions in getting their start. It wasn't set up to become a monopoly. A monopoly is a dangerous thing, if it happens to be in a profession, of all things.

I'm going to suggest that the kind of bargaining that may go on between two professionals in regard to selling or purveying their services in a given area is not quite the same as if you were in any other kind of business, because you can't serve the public and make these kind of private bargains. Now, are we in favour of this kind of self-restricting monopoly? I say that it should be, and should be declared to be, against public policy. Merely to declare it against public policy means that no Court would, following the passage of such a bill, permit either party to sue in the Courts to enforce a contract contrary to public policy, as declared by this House. Consequently, I'm very glad to hear that the Law Reform Commission is giving thought to this kind of a principle (interruption).

It happens that we're dealing with a matter of professionalism, and if you had true competition in this field of professionalism, as you do in some fields of enterprise, then, it would be possible, Mr. Speaker, to say let people make their private deals and divide up the market and say no competition here, no competition there. I don't think that this House should place a seal of approval on that kind of private dealing that injures the public. When we give a special right to practise to a professional, he is dedicated to all the people not to a market. That's what this bill recognizes and that's why I'm glad to hear the words of the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to withdraw the bill or do you want to vote on it'!

MR. NIMSICK: Well, I'd like to listen to what the rest of them have to say.

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

[ Page 847 ]

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, there's one aspect of the speech by the Honourable Member from Kootenay that has caused me some concern. I hope he will consider this because perhaps he can assist me. If, when he said that this doctor would not be allowed to scrub as an assistant in the hospital at Fernie, I wonder if he could, at some time, indicate to me whether this prohibition arose out of an interpretation of the contract. On that, I could do nothing more than suggest that it's possible that attendance at a hospital in Fernie coming from Michel might not be the carrying on of a practice in Fernie. On that point, of course, I have nothing more than the observation of a casual listener on it. However, there's another matter in which I would have a direct concern and that is whether the limitations upon his activities in that hospital arose, not because of an interpretation of the contract, but because of an interpretation put on it by the hospital itself.

Now, if it's the hospital that said he couldn't practise there, that would be a matter of great concern and one which I would want to hear a little bit more about. Perhaps the honourable Member might, later on, assist me on that point. I don't think I'd be prepared.to do anything other than make the casual comment that I've made here on the interpretation of that contract as to whether carrying on an activity in the hospital constituted practising in Fernie, but if the hospital itself, or the Board, has limited, in any way, his right and privileges in that hospital as a consequence of that contract, then, I would like to know about that because that would be a matter in which I would concern myself.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise on this because, although the bill is a sort of private member's bill put in here, there's a very fundamental principle involved. The Member from Kootenay has suggested that this is a violation of a certain type of principle, the recognition of what is known as a negative covenant under law, which is the concept of an individual agreeing for certain consideration to forego the right of practice, or the right of operation, of a certain type of either a store or an area in which he has a vital concern, having agreed in principle to sell either a portion of his business operation. The right, therefore, not to practise or the agreement not to practise, in a certain limited area, must be considered as a very valid part of the sale of such an operation.

Let's take a very fundamental principle of a man, and we have to assume that almost every business is built up as a result of a certain amount of endeavour, occupation, activity …. . Take a barbershop, where the individual touched the contact of the individual, builds up a business and people start coming … (interruption). He's got it covered under here…come to that business. The man agrees to sell that barbershop as a going concern, accepts remuneration for the sale and the goodwill of that particular operation and agrees, as a result of it, that he will not operate in that particular area because, obviously, …. . Yes, barbers are included. You've got it in there, hairdressers, barbers.

MR. SPEAKER: Barbers, chiropractors, hairdressers.

MR. CAPOZZI: They haven't even read the bill. They didn't even know it was in there. Didn't you realize it was in there? It's the whole concept of a business operation. If an individual builds up a trade and then sells it and, then, the next day he opens up a shop one block away, well, that certainly isn't a very fair principle, I would suggest, Mr. Member. You are really dealing with the concept of goodwill and the question of interfering with the person who opens up. I can follow that to the next practices. I think and, you know, I'm not trying to go into the particular case of one singular individual, such as a doctor but I do suggest that, when people build up a trade or build up a profession, whether it's accountancy or whether it's in the field even of medical practice, or a lawyer, when he builds up a practice and agrees to sell out that practice as a going concern, that he, certainly, if he agrees not to open a practice within one block away or 10 blocks away…. . The negative covenant under judges, by the way, has been fairly well protected that they will not grant permission that you won't open a shop anywhere in the world. They won't give you permission and they won't protect an agreement that says, "I will not open a shop anywhere in Canada." You must show specific areas where it can interfere with that particular business and in that particular location.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill would, in essence, and I pass this along even to the study of this, suggest that this would affect the right of any small businessman to build up a business, sell it to someone else, and protect the person who buys that business. I think it's a very bad bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kootenay will close the debate.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Honourable the Minister of Health this arose from what the doctor told me. He was working as an employee for the clinic in Fernie. It was within 10 miles of there. Then he went to Michel when he left the clinic. When he came back to Fernie with the doctor he was working with in Michel, they wouldn't allow him to scrub in Fernie. Now, I understand that it was the clinic in Fernie that wouldn't let him. He didn't tell me that the hospital had anything to do with it, unless they were working in conjunction with the clinic. That's what he told me, because he would be in contempt of this agreement. I don't agree with the Honourable Member for Vancouver Centre because he is the antithesis to free enterprise. If we could stop these restrictive covenants, we would have probably better business relations throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Honourable the Attorney-General said, and I hope the Law Reform Commission continues to study this, I will withdraw the bill.

By leave of the House, Bill 63 was withdrawn.

MR. PETERSON: Would you like to do the same, honourable Member, for Bill 64, in view of the other legislation?

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is included in a bill by the Government I also, although I'm very pleased that it was included, will withdraw this bill, with the leave of the House.

By leave of the House, Bill 64 was withdrawn.

MR. PETERSON: Would you like to do the same for Bill 65? Second reading of Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 848 ]

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Annual Holidays Act. This is our Centennial Year, a year that we have got a great deal of unemployment in the Province of British Columbia. A number of years ago, we placed a law on the Statute Books where two weeks was the required holiday that every employee received for one year's work. That was done, not only to assist the employee, but also to give more work throughout the Province. Now, at that time, most collective agreements already had two weeks' holiday with pay and the law that was placed on the Statute Books only gave the other people, who didn't have collective agreements or didn't have the organization that managed to have collective agreements with their employer, it gave those people the same right as people who had collective agreements. Today most collective agreements are three weeks' holidays with pay. Therefore, I think that, in order to keep pace, and at this time with automation the way it's been going with the increase in unemployment, I think, that we should make it three weeks with pay, after one year of employment. I move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the honourable Member realizes from previous decisions that have been handed down by the Chair that the bill is out of order in the hands of a private Member.

MR. NIMSICK: I'm still living in hopes.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 81, Credit Information Protection Act. The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of principles involved in this bill, all dealing with the collection of credit information, a subject that has been much debated in this House. Very briefly, the principles included are that any person who is collecting credit information would be obliged, under this act, to tell the person about whom they are collecting the information, what they are doing, so that no citizens, Mr. Speaker, in the Province would have files accumulated on them without their knowledge.

The second principle I would draw to the Members' attention, Mr. Speaker, is that it gives the citizen the right to examine his credit information file, having been notified that a file is being accumulated. It makes it mandatory for the agency collecting the information to give the citizen the right of examination. It then goes on to give the citizen the right to determine where the information contained in the report came from and that is important.

Mr. Speaker, it then continues to give the citizen the right to know who has received the credit information.

Mr. Speaker, another principle of the bill is that the credit information agency would be obliged to correct inaccuracies in their file that had been brought to their attention.

Where inaccurate information is found by the citizen and where the citizen and the credit reporting agency cannot resolve their differences, the citizen is given the right to include in his file his side of the story.

Another principle, Mr. Speaker, is that information contained in the report must be up to date and one of the sad facts of life is that many files on citizens in this Province and elsewhere contain information that is grossly out of date. It would restrict the transmission of the information so that the citizen knew where it was going and, finally, it would keep information that is accumulated within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a subject of great importance to all citizens in the Province and, I'm sure, even to those Members across the way. I have received assurances during the course of this Session from the Attorney-General that it is under consideration. In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission of the House to withdraw the bill.

By leave of the House, Bill 81 was withdrawn.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 84, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 84, An Act for the Establishment of Agricultural Farmland. The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. WENMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The basic principle of this bill, Agricultural Parkland, certainly, has been recognized by the Legislative Assembly during this last Session. We did recognize the plight of the farmers as they experience diminishing returns as higher costs consume their productivity. We recognized it to the point that we formed a committee. "We understand this problem," we have said, "now, we must find a solution." As a great person in this Province always says, "It's easy to identify the problems but to find the solutions is another thing." I think the principles in this bill do offer…(interruption). At any rate, certainly, we have recognized the plight of the farmers. In high density areas, this problem is particularly accented as farmers and open space areas are being taxed out of existence by the pressure of major agricultural, recreational, industrial and residential pressures.

The constituency of Delta is certainly a fine example of this. The agricultural land is being consumed by residential, as Ladner, Tsawwassen push out across the farmland, as the superport gobbles more and more land, as the recreation interest and the farmers and the industries attempt to encroach on Boundary Bay. Certainly all of these things are in close conflict and are wanting to consume our land and our open spaces. Something must be done, now. If we're going to live with a population of 7 million in that area, we're going to have to have a place to breathe, a place to stand.

There are three basic concepts and, again, I was so pleased in this Session to hear our Premier speaking on this concept, as he spoke about farms, parks and open space. He talked about the apple growers in the Okanagan. He talked about park space and he mentioned open space and this will be recorded in the second reading of Bill 15 for the Members to reflect on during the year. He understands this concept in building a greater and better British Columbia.

The farm, again, we cannot justify tax release for farm purposes only. It will not stand in the mind of the public and the Government on that basis alone. Nor can we justify it merely for open space areas alone but when you combine agriculture, parkland and open space into the term of agricultural parkland, you come into a concept that is acceptable and can be agreeable and necessarily agreeable to the people of the lower mainland. The definition of agricultural parkland is a broad definition and it includes other uses — golf courses, watersheds, ecological preserves or other such open space areas and these open space areas need not necessarily be left as a barren open space with grass but they can be planted with trees. It is my hope that the

[ Page 849 ]

superport, during this year, in cooperation with the Federal-provincial programme, will find itself entirely surrounded by woods or groves of trees. I look forward to attempting that implementation of a green belt around the superport as a step towards agricultural parkland, this year.

An important principle of the bill is that dedication is permanent and, if dedication is going to be permanent, that is going to mean a great reduction in the speculative value of the land. Again, it will only have a value in relationship to speculation for golf courses, recreational units, this kind of open space usage, and it will be limited relating to residential and industrial, which is a higher price return.

For this limitation, if the farmer is going to accept this limitation, he, in turn, is going to have to receive a benefit, the benefit being that he will not be taxed out of existence and will be exempted from property taxes. That relates to the municipality only, of course, not to the Provincial Government. In addition to this, there is the principle of the regional district involved and that is necessary, as well. The Premier of the Province of British Columbia has stated that, in the next decade, he wants to make British Columbia an even better place to live in relationship to its environment. Most of the people in British Columbia live in the lower mainland and I say to the Government it's time to start this year, because next year and the year after, the land will be gone and there will be a point of no return. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm sure the honourable Member realizes that section 8A of the bill will offend our Standing Order 67 and, under such circumstances it is out of order.

MR. WENMAN: Does that include municipal taxation as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. WENMAN: Thank you.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 87, An Act for the Provision of hearing Aids. This vote is simply an itsy-bitsy obligation on the Crown, Mr. Speaker, to provide free, without charge, hearing aids and batteries under our health services. I'm sure it's the way we ought to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Batteries without charges.

MR. MACDONALD: But somebody will get a charge out of it, anyway. I move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Standing Order 66 doesn't specify "itsybitsy", but it does say bills to spend funds are out of order in the hands of a private Member (laughter).

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 90, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 90, The Commonwealth Parliamentary Conferences (Delegates) Act. The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I have, as you know, on occasion, expressed some concern over the lack of reporting about our membership in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Last year, I presented a bill, which would have amended an act of the Legislature which you, in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, pointed out to my attention I had offended not one but I think four of the standing Rules of the House. Accordingly, I went back to the drawing board and I produced this bill, which I don't think offends anybody and clearly states a principle that we want in this Legislature to hear about our Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We want to be able to feel free to support and select and know who is our delegate to that association and receive from him the reports that he's obtained while he's away around the world, as he goes from time to time. Simple bill, simple principle. I'm sure it's going to unanimous endorsation. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Member has improved the bill from last year but, in section 2, he has …

AN HON. MEMBER: (undecipherable remarks).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! He states that the Legislative Assembly shall elect and shall send a person or persons as a representative, which, of course, would be a cost to the Crown. As such, such a bill would be out of order in the hands of a private Member.

The House proceeded to the Order "Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees."

Mr. J.R. Chabot presented the Report of the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries.

The report was taken as read and received.

The House adjourned at 11:33 p.m.