[ Page 851 ]

FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): (Tape not turned on)…Premier answered questions 171, 172 and 200. I paid particular attention to the manner in which the questions were brought to the House. The Premier stated, "Answers to Questions." Yet, I find, in those three questions, on the "Votes and Proceedings," the following statement: "The Honourable the Premier and President of the Council stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he has no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented that part of the Return that had been completed to this date." In view of the manner in which it was presented, as I say, the Premier simply stated, "Answers to Questions," I had expected the full answers to appear in the "Votes and Proceedings." They are not there, today. I discover, in fact, that they were handled as if the Premier had asked it to be filed as a return.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the honourable Member was kind enough to mention to the Clerk of the House the apparent deficiency in the "Votes and Proceedings" and, as a result, I very briefly had an opportunity to examine our Standing Orders at section 47, subsection 3, with which I'm sure the honourable Member is familiar. "If a question is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the Minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, and the Minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the table of the House, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House, be deemed an order of the House to that effect, and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such."

I agree with the honourable Member that the Honourable the Premier did not make such a statement at the time that he filed it but my understanding from the Clerk of the House is that the preamble to the answer which was laid upon the table did include the fact that it was being filed as a return. As a result, since the House had adjourned last evening, we had no alternative, of course, but to include it that way in the Votes and Proceedings for today. Nevertheless, if the honourable Member has an objection, then, it would seem to me that, unless otherwise ordered by the House it would be possible for him, now, to otherwise move. Otherwise, it would seem that the question has been answered by way of return.

MR. STRACHAN: I have no objection to that procedure, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted it clear that this was not as it happened.

MR. SPEAKER: I just wanted to say that I appreciated very much having some advance notice of the problem because I wasn't aware of it until a short time ago (interruption)… Order please! I think the matter has been satisfied.

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Report on Bill 107, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Report on Bill 107, Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971.

Bill 107 read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill 37, Air Space Titles Act.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Can it be read a third time, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, no. I'll just refer the honourable Member to our Standing Order 81, I think it is. "Every Bill shall receive three several readings on different days, previously to being passed." That's our general rule. "After the second reading it shall be ordered for committal on a subsequent day," which is mandatory and, therefore, not debatable. "On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day." I think today is an extraordinary occasion and, for that reason, I would permit it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing Order 85 concerning …

MR. SPEAKER: …not leave, because it may be advanced more than one stage in one day. It may be for the House to decide whether or not this is an extraordinary occasion (interruption). Because an announcement was made in the House yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MR. SPEAKER: To the effect that it was hopeful that we prorogue this afternoon.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in all due respect, this is an amended bill and to carry it forward I notice that in other years…85 says, "All amendments made in committee shall be reported by the Chairman to the House, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report the Bill shall be open to debate and amendment, on a subsequent day, before it is ordered for third reading. But when a bill is reported without amendment it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time, at such time as may be appointed by the House. Whenever any Bill shall be presented to the Lieutenant-Governor for his assent thereto, he may return the same by Message for the reconsideration of the Assembly, with such amendments as he may think fitting." I don't see anything in there that says anything about an extraordinary…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable Member read section 81, not 85.

MR. NIMSICK: "Every Bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being passed. After the second reading it shall be ordered for committal on a subsequent day. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day." Then it goes to 73 and what does 73 say? "Petitions to the House may be presented by a member in his place in the House during routine proceedings and before the introduction of Bills."

[ Page 852 ]

MR. SPEAKER: We're not dealing with petitions, now, honourable Member. We're dealing with the advancement of a bill more than one stage in one day, which is covered by section 81 of the Standing Orders.

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, well, it is and I understood. I know that we had a bill passed here in the last day of the House, as it was put by a private Member, and they had to get permission from the House to go to third reading or to go to committee (interruption). Well, he asked for leave. You've got to ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I think what the House has to decide is whether or not an extraordinary occasion exists today. My understanding is that it does, but this is for the House to decide, not me.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, do we have a motion in front of us proclaiming this an extraordinary day?

MR. SPEAKER: No. I think the motion would be from the Attorney-General to the effect that this bill…

MR. BARRETT: We don't see the motion. We've had no notice of motion that this is an extraordinary day. There's no motion on the Order Paper. The Speaker hasn't made a ruling. The House instructs the Speaker, not the Speaker instructs the House. That's what he's asking for — instruction — and there's no motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest that the Honourable the Attorney-General move that the bill be advanced to the third reading, now, which in effect he has done, in accordance with Standing Order 81.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): That's the motion that I made.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, please.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, simply, on a Point of Order. I can recall in previous years when we have come to the final day and have been debating public bills in the hands of private Members, those bills have failed, not as a consequence of having failed to pass second reading but because they could not be advanced more than one stage in a single day, despite Standing Order 81. Now, on this particular occasion, we're moving the bill more than one stage in a day and quoting Standing Order 81 as the reason for doing that.

I submit that, if we're going to do that today with this bill, then, there should be nothing to prevent private Members' bills being advanced to third reading today.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there is nothing to prevent a private Member's bill from being advanced more than one stage on one day, once the House has decided that this is an extraordinary occasion and the honourable Member is prepared to move that the bill be read a third time, now.

MR. McGEER: Then that would apply to private Members' bills, as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, of course. It would apply to all bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the past, that's been refused.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been refused but I doubt that there has been a motion to the effect.

MR. BARRETT: On a Point of Order. How does the House determine instruction to the Chair that it's an extraordinary day?

MR. SPEAKER: I simply gathered from an announcement that was made by the Leader of the House last evening at the time that the House adjourned that it was the hope to prorogue this afternoon. For that reason, I felt that today was an extraordinary day and I accepted the motion on that basis. Now, if the House feels otherwise, then, it's up to the House to decide whether or not this is an extraordinary day, not myself.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Since we have received no official word that this is an extraordinary day, I'd like the Attorney-General to make a motion declaring that and so instruct the House. We can't interpret on the basis of, "…It appears that so and so is going to happen." That's sloppy legislation. You have a House Leader in the House and we ask the House Leader to indicate formally if the House is going to prorogue so that the Speaker can make the ruling.

MR. BENNETT: And I reaffirm it today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: I think on the basis that the House will agree, all that it would seem that I can do is to rule that it is an extraordinary day and put the matter to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't like to be put in a position of correcting the Speaker on a Point of Order. I don't like to be placed in the position of questioning the Speaker's ruling. That's unfair to the House. I would rather have instruction from the Government rather than questioning the Speaker's ruling. It's sloppy, Mr. Premier, it's sloppy. It's difficult enough to maintain the system without that kind of sloppy approach.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour to a Point of Order.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the Point of Order, I must support the Leader of the Opposition. I would draw to the Speaker's attention that last evening we advanced much business and as each item of business was dealt with the Premier introduced a motion that the rules be suspended. If that was done last night, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it should also be done, today.

MR. SPEAKER: Because the procedure of last evening was handled in the way that it was, I cannot control the

[ Page 853 ]

motions that are made by Members on their feet, whether they ask for leave or not. I still insist that there is permission, within section 81 of the Standing Orders, to advance a bill more than one stage in one day.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, just on a Point of Order, to clarify where we stand. I recall, a few years ago, on the final day, when a Member of the Opposition's bill passed second reading and consent was asked for so it could be advanced to the third stage, it was the Premier who refused that permission. If we're going to have this bill advanced as a matter of extraordinary concession, then, I think there should be a motion to that effect so that it applies to all Members' bills.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, now. The Member is leaving an impression that different bills are being treated differently.

MR. McGEER: Precisely, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then, I think, the Member ought to pay a little more attention to what's being said from the Chair. What I am saying is that, if a motion is made from the Floor, I have no control over what the content of that motion may be. In the instance that the Member cites, and I think he is referring to the Fireworks Bill, no motion was made but leave was asked for and leave was denied (interruption). No, but leave was asked for.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate exactly the position you're in. I'm following it very closely. I agree with what you're saying, except that you're being placed to form an opinion that the House may or may not have. I suggest that when the Speaker is placed in a position of forming an opinion that the House may or may not have, we're treading on dangerous ground. If this is an extraordinary day, let it be said so in motion by the Government. The Government must tell the House, in motion, it must be formally placed, seconded and voted on. I don't anticipate a great deal of difficulty over that. All the Government has to do is to declare in writing that this is an extraordinary day by motion form. Let's stick to procedure. A lot of other people are going to come well after we're dead. At least, we can stick to procedure while we're here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: I remember that particular time. I was here when that bill went through second reading. We were informed, the mover of that bill was informed that if she wanted to go to third reading she would have to ask leave of the House. Then, she asked leave of the House and it was turned down by the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): The original Point of Order that started this…There are two kinds of bills that come before us on third reading. One is the bill that has got to that stage, without amendment. The other is the bill that has got to third reading, after amendment, and it has always been the practice for those that have been amended in committee to be put over to a subsequent day for the very reason that they have been amended in committee. For that reason, the rule that we have, Standing Order 85, deals with cases, first, about bills that have been amended. It says, "All amendments made in committee shall be reported by the Chairman to the House, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report the bill shall be open to debate and amendment, on a subsequent day…" and before it is ordered for third reading. Now, that's mandatory, as I read it. It says, to me, that it is the exception that isn't covered where bills are unamended. On that basis, I'd say you must have leave of the House to proceed to this stage of third reading, where a bill has been amended, as it was by the Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that what the honourable Member has said would by-pass the intent of our Standing Order 81, in my respectful view. I think the only way that we can bring this matter to a head sensibly is for the Speaker to rule, now, that, not only was it stated yesterday but reaffirmed today, that it is the intention of the House to prorogue today and that I must treat this as an extraordinary occasion and rule that today is an extraordinary day and that the bill may be proceeded more than one stage today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order. I do not like us setting that kind of precedent where future Speakers may be told by a House Leader that there may be a prorogation, without anything on the record…Look…let me finish my point…without the Government committing itself, formally, by way of motion that, indeed, it is an extraordinary day. What we're doing is voting on a Speaker's ruling on an inference that you've said this. We have no record in writing that this, indeed, is what's happening today. Mr. Speaker, supposing, once this ruling is made, there's no record and, then, we say we intend to do something but we didn't get the motion ready for it, then, we force it into a Speaker's ruling. The House, then, becomes led by Speaker's rulings rather than the House Leader properly giving direction.

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

MR. STRACHAN: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that, since opening day, the Premier has been making up the rules as he went along. He's finishing up the Session the way he started.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Just to clear up that one point raised by the Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds, I'd refer him to page 596 in the 16th edition of May, top of page, "For example, bills which have been amended in committee are sometimes considered forthwith on report and read the third time." So, it's not without precedent. I must, therefore, rule in accordance with the speeches I've been making to the House and ask whether or not the Speaker's ruling shall be sustained?

Ruling sustained.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you had a vote on your ruling before anyone had a chance to challenge it (interruption). Well, now, just a minute. No one got up and

[ Page 854 ]

said, "I challenge your ruling."

MR. SPEAKER: The Member is quite right. I went too quickly just presuming it challenged on the subject. I'm ruling, therefore, that all bills on the Order Paper may be advanced more than one stage today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to make any comment on this ruling. It's completely out of order.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37, Air Space Titles Act.

Bill 37 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 39, Synthetic Food Products Act.

Bill 39 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 74, An Act to Amend the Attachment of Debts Act.

Bill 74 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 75, An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act.

Bill 75 was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 88, An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act.

Bill 88 was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 100, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 100, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

Bill 100 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 102, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 102, Greater Vancouver Regional Water and Sewer District Act.

Bill 102 was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 104, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 104, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

Bill 104 was committed and reported with amendments.

The Committee further reported that in consideration of section 5, Mr. G.B. Gardom moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. P.L. McGeer, "That clause 193 of section 5 of Bill (No. 104) be deleted."

The Committee divided.

The Committee recommended that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

By leave of the House, on the motion of Mr. Gardom, the Rules were suspended and it was Ordered that the division in Committee on section 5 be recorded in the Journals of the House as follows:

YEAS — 17

Messieurs

NAYS — 33

Messieurs

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: On a Point of Order. This bill is a message bill and, during the committee, it was amended by an ordinary Member of the House. I was always given to understand that an amendment to a message bill must come from one of the Ministers by message. I feel it was absolutely out of order in amending this bill.

Bill 104 was read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: I may just make the observation that the Speaker cannot rule on Points of Order that take place in the committee.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 73, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 73, An Act to Amend the Wives' and

[ Page 855 ]

Children's Maintenance Act.

Bill 73 was committed and the committee reported progress.

The House proceeded to the Order "Private Bills."

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50, An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology.

Bill 50 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 51, An Act Respecting Central City Mission.

Bill 51 was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 54, An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953.

Bill 54 was committed, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

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

MR. BENNETT: Resolution No. 35, Mr. Speaker.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Nelson-Creston): Resolution 35, Mr. Speaker, standing to my name in the Order Paper. Before moving it, I think perhaps I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Merilees has been in contact with the people in the Buildings here. He's progressing nicely. He is at home. He knows that he has a tough row to hoe and he wanted me, through you, Mr. Speaker, to thank all honourable Members of this House for the good wishes that have been extended to him during his illness and during his convalescence.

I move Resolution 35, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's just that I talked to Mr. Merilees on the telephone today and I was very pleased with the conversation, his voice and so forth. I know the House would like to know that.

The Honourable W.D. Black moved, seconded by the Honourable L.R. Peterson:

Whereas Harold James Merilees, Esquire, member for Vancouver-Burrard, has been unable to attend all the meetings of the present Session owing to illness:

And whereas it is just and reasonable that Harold James Merilees, Esquire, should be paid the full sessional allowance:

Therefore be it Resolved, That pursuant to section 68 of the Constitution Act and all other powers thereunto enabling, the full sessional allowance, expenses, and other allowances payable to a member of the Legislative Assembly for the current Session be paid to Harold James Merilees, Esquire, without any deduction by reason of any non-attendance of the said Harold James Merilees, Esquire, during the Session.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Resolution No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 36. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BLACK: Likewise, Mr. Speaker, through you, I'd like to inform the House that Mr. Little is out of the intensive care ward. He has some exercising privileges in the ward. He has lost 60 pounds and he's feeling much better and he feels he's on his way back. I have pleasure in moving this resolution.

The Honourable W.D. Black moved, seconded by the Honourable L.R. Peterson:

Whereas Dudley George Little, Esquire, member for Skeena, has been unable to attend all the meetings of the present Session owing to illness:

And where it is just and reasonable that Dudley George Little, Esquire, should be paid the full sessional allowance:

Therefore be it Resolved, That pursuant to section 68 of the Constitution Act and all other powers thereunto enabling, the full sessional allowance, expenses, and other allowances payable to a member of the Legislative Assembly for the current Session be paid to Dudley George Little, Esquire, without any deduction by reason of any non-attendance of the said Dudley George Little, Esquire, during the Session.

Motion agreed to.

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

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 91, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 91, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act. The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill attempts to rectify a problem which we find in the rapidly growing areas of the Province, particularly south of the river in the lower mainland. The pressure is on the municipalities from a number of directions — the need for housing, the need for shopping centres, the need for high-rise apartments and a general developing area which could be loosely described as the burgeoning area south of the river, including Delta, Surrey and, of course, on the north side of the river, too, when you get into Coquitlam and down that way.

One of the problems the municipalities have had to grapple with, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that they're not given the kind of muscle in the Municipal Act that would enable them to stand up to some of the very intense pressures put upon them by developers. What we see is the land assembly patterns in the municipalities, like my own, Surrey, taking no account of the public needs of the area.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, there's fairly genuine conversation regarding putting a development of some 7,500 people

[ Page 856 ]

in on the comer of one street in the Guildford area. If that's done, it's obvious that you need a school, you probably need a fire hall and you need some recreational area. What the municipalities have wanted, and they've expressed themselves at the conventions from time to time, is some legislative, back-up material for them to demand the developer to convey to them some part of their land for public purposes.

The Province of Ontario did this some years ago in its Planning Act. Its Planning Act specifically states that the municipalities may insist that any developer, before he gets the development rights, give up his land to the extent of some percentage or give up the money that roughly equals the value. Municipality after municipality voted for this at the UBCM.

I am more particularly concerned as far as the schools are concerned. In my area, Mr. Speaker, in the next six years, we may have to build 50 schools. The Minister of Education was out in our area just about seven or eight months ago and I know how shocked and surprised he was to realize that if our sewer programme goes through the way it's planned, we might be talking about the acquisition of 50 school sites. This links in because, unless you make developers provide some land for these public purposes, then really the councils so frequently don't feel in that tough bargaining position that they could be if this bill was passed.

What is required, of course, is really for the municipalities to be able to take into account their needs that would flow from the development going in their area. As I say, when you're talking about the developments today, when you can see 7,000 people move into an area which isn't much bigger than this building, not much bigger than this building, you'll realize the pressures that are put on the current public services, such as parks, recreation and schools.

I should, I think, at this time, Mr. Speaker, point out that there has been in this Session of the Legislature amendments to the Municipal Act that will enable the municipalities to do a little bit more than they could before, but I would still think that this legislation, as proposed in Bill 91, would arm the municipalities with enough strength to bargain successfully and make sure that the public services required by large developments are met in some way by the developers themselves. I, therefore, move second reading.

Motion negatived.

Bill 91 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 92, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 92, An Act Respecting the Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the fifth time of asking and I'm never losing faith. Mr. Speaker, it had been my hope that, as in many other areas where this Legislature has led the way in Canada in reform, in relation to the broadcasting of the debates in this Chamber, we would also be at the forefront. It is with some regret, Mr. Speaker, that I must report to you that we no longer can be in the vanguard of this reform because the Legislature in the Province of Nova Scotia, this year, introduced television to its debates. Ottawa also has a committee studying it right at this moment. There is every possibility it will come in in Ottawa, as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the radio station that I work for celebrated its 48th birthday. We have had radio broadcasting in this Province for 48 years and, yet, the radio stations are still denied access to this Chamber. I hardly think that that is in keeping with the modern advances in communications.

Mr. Speaker, I have always considered that really it is not up to this Chamber to question this right. That is my position. I believe it is the right of every citizen to be able to watch his Assembly, listen to his Assembly. Really all that we should be deciding, Mr. Speaker, is how we should go about providing that accommodation. So, Mr. Speaker, for the fifth time, and you have ruled my bill in order in the past, I again ask the House to consider letting a bit of fresh air into the Chamber, letting the people of this Province see what we do not do, and that is something the Government must face. Even more important, Mr. Speaker, and if I do nothing else, may I leave this message with the Government? By passing this bill, you would allow the citizens of this Province to see what we do do in this Chamber and we do a lot of good. We discuss a lot of the key issues of the Province and by passing this bill you would let people realize that we do and, I think, calm a lot of the discontent that is building up in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to give this bill consideration and I, therefore, move second reading.

Motion negatived.

Bill 92 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 93, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 93, An Act to Amend the Taxation Act. The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Speaking to Bill 93, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the way we changed the Taxation Act, and moved the taxation from October 31 to July 31, would have been OK if we were living south of the equator so that the farmers were marketing their crops in the spring. As we are in the northern section of the world, north of the equator, most of our farm produce, whether it's beef, hay, potatoes, crops of all kinds, the bulk of them are harvested after July, after August, beef particularly, September and November. The strawberries in the Fraser Valley, the soft fruits in the Okanagan, but particularly, the apples, they're not marketing until well along in the fall. When this Government, under this Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, moved the due date of land taxation from October 31 …

MR. BENNETT: The apple pools close on June 30.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on my apple juice friend. The apple juice that is being…

MR. BENNETT: I said the pools. Don't you know anything about marketing of the industry?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Allow the Member to proceed with his speech.

MR. HARTLEY: The apples that go into the juice pool is part of the crop that is substandard and left over. This is one

[ Page 857 ]

more reason, Mr. Premier, Mr. Minister of Finance, that you should move the due taxation date back to October 31. This is the time of the year when the farmer expects to sell his crop and get paid and even in the soft fruits that are marketed, say, in August, very often they're not paid until just before Christmas. The dairy farmers are a little different, because they have a cheque coming in every month but most of the major agricultural producers, producers of agricultural products in this Province, are one-crop production. In the case of apples, beef, hay, potatoes, these crops are not marketed until well along in the fall. I think it's very, very bad for the agricultural economy of our Province to force the primary producers to have to go to the loaning houses and borrow money and pay money for several months before they have received the return on that year's crop. This is something that was changed two or three years ago and this amendment would take quite a financial strain off the farmers. So, on behalf of the landowners and farmers of this Province, I would like to move adoption of this and ask the Minister of Finance to support us. I now move second reading of Bill 93, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: A Point of Order, Mr. Speaker. It's obvious from the honourable Member's remarks on second reading that, if he's taking the financial strain off someone, he's adding it elsewhere. Certainly the amendments as proposed in this bill would affect Crown revenue. Therefore, I invite Your Honour to rule the bill out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I would sustain the Point of Order. The deferment of the revenues of the Crown from July until October, of course, in terms of interest, would be a charge against the public of the Province and, as such, would not be in order in the hands of a private member.

Bill 93 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 96, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 96, An Act to Amend the Insurance Act. The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, Bill 96 will take the Government out of a rather bad position. The Government right now, Mr. Speaker, is in a position where they're fall guys for the insurance industry. If the insurance industry, Mr. Speaker, wish to tie a noose around the neck of their agents, and I'm talking about the life insurance industry, let that be on their head, let them do it themselves. Mr. Speaker, this industry has hidden behind a cloak of the law of our Province and, unfortunately, other Provinces, not all Provinces, but they've let the Province enact a law that ties an agent to his company.

Mr. Speaker, the agents, under those circumstances, cannot really give impartial advice to their clientele and instead it's being recognized, Mr. Speaker, by the Government and by the insurance department, that, under certain circumstances a person should be free to provide consultation. They began issuing letters of authorization or single case agreements. Mr. Speaker, with a single case agreement, they're becoming like confetti, now. They're flying across the Province and all I'm suggesting to the Government is to straighten out their act in such a way as to make it possible for the Province to let the insurer take his own responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, the insurance industry is a great big industry and I'm suggesting that they can look after themselves. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill introduces a new concept into the Insurance Act. To amend section 282, as suggested, would in effect, make the person who sells insurance, a broker. Now, at the present time, under the law, the life insurance agent is an agent and it's built up, the whole act is premised on this agency relationship. So the brokerage concept could not be introduced, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, until further study is given to the effects both on legislation, other than this particular section which this amendment purports to deal with, but also as well not on the whole legislation but the administration. Therefore, the bill in its present form is not acceptable at this time.

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

MR. COCKE: In closing the debate last year the Attorney-General informed the House that this very matter was being studied. He said that the superintendents were meeting and I'm suggesting that the superintendents will go on meeting and meeting, until such time as the Government comes in and says, "We'll have no more of this, we'll have no more of this." I was 20 years in that industry virtually and I've recognized this to be something that the Government should not be doing on behalf of the insurers.

Motion negatived.

Bill 96 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 99, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 99, An Act to Amend the Insurance Act. The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, with the hope that the pattern of rejection may slightly change with this bill, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention to the honourable Members that the intent and the object of the amendment is to end the double standard which still continues to exist in the Province of B.C. concerning the qualification of an insurance adjuster. We have two sets of rules in B.C. and I've advance this bill before. My recollection, and I may be incorrect in this, is that it was adjourned last year. I think it was going to be looked into. I've not received any response to the effect that it has been.

I cannot see, Mr. Speaker, why we cannot have one set of rules dealing with the licensing of insurance adjusters. There are now a number of sections under the Insurance Act of this Province dealing with the licensing of insurance adjusters, with the exams that they have to take and the specific requirements that they must meet. But, and this is the troublesome part, and this is the object of the amendment, these provisions do not apply to an adjuster who happens to be a salaried employee of an insurance company. If a doctor happens to be a salaried employee of a hospital, or whatever

[ Page 858 ]

it may be, or working for another doctor, he has to pass the necessary tests and meet the necessary qualifications. We don't have a different standard, just because the individual happens to be employed by the organization, or the group, or the business or the profession concerned, but the person who is a salaried employee of an insurance company does not have to meet any standards at all. He's accepted.

Maybe, as a matter of practice within the industry, some companies may insist upon some standards yet, again, they may not. They have the option to pick up lesser trained personnel, pay them a great deal less and quite frankly I'm very fearful that the public are the ones who could be most affected from inexperience in this regard. I think that the public, Mr. Speaker, should only deal with insurance adjusters who are trained, who are qualified and who are licensed. Just because an insurance company happens to be an insurance company, there's no reason for it to have the right to hire an adjuster, to pay him as an adjuster, and this man does not have to meet any specific kind of qualifications.

You may well ask me, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not an independent insurance adjuster has to meet certain standards and the answer is definitely, it's in the affirmative, he does. If an independent adjuster is sent out to run an office, or become a senior nominee and so forth, he has to have a couple of years' experience. But, first, he has got to write and pass a pretty stiff Government examination. They first have to apply for their independent adjuster's license and they don't receive that license unless they're able to qualify and pass the Government examination.

Now, the insurance companies have all sorts of resources. They can hire any person they like. They can put them out the very next day as an adjuster. He does not have to take the course. He does not have to pass an examination and he does not have to have a license.

It seems to me that we definitely have two standards. I say there should be one and only one for insurance adjusters in the Province of B.C. It is quite frankly, absolutely beyond me why we've not got a single set of standards. I've never heard anybody in the industry or anybody in the House advance good reasons as to why all insurance adjusters do not have to be similarly qualified and have to pass the Government exam and obtain the Government license. I say, in the final analysis, it's the people who are the ones who are affected, the general public, and I think they should have the benefit of dealing with people who are similarly trained and pass similar examinations and are all licensed.

I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, move second reading of Bill 99 which is to give the very specific thing that I've been talking about — make it universal that there be one set of standards.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill has been under consideration as the honourable Member has indicated — or under study. I'm advised that the principle is not acceptable at this time, the reason being that the employee of an insurer is exempted from the licensing requirements for adjusters because he acts in the capacity of an employee only for the company by which he's engaged. As such, he's subject to discipline by his employer or by the superintendent through the licensing provisions of the act. It's in respect of the latter power that the superintendent has that I presume is the primary reason why the bill is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey will close the debate.

MR. GARDOM: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say that the man is not subject to qualification. That's the object of the thing. I cannot see for the life of me why we turn out insurance adjusters in the Province of B.C. — some of them pass Government exams, they receive their licenses and, then, the companies have carte blanche to deal with anyone they wish to. You say, "OK, it could be regulated another way." Well, if you want to regulate the whole thing another way, let's do it the other way. But let's have some consistency.

Motion negatived.

Bill 99 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 101, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 101, The Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 1971. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, this is Bill 101, Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 1971. The preamble sets out the basic intent of the act, which is to ensure for the people of the Province clean air, pure water, freedom from excessive noise, enjoyment of scenic, historic, natural and aesthetic values.

It is a new concept and perhaps a revolutionary concept so far as British Columbian and Canadian law is concerned, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, such an act has been introduced in the State of California and almost went to a referendum of all of the people in that State but failed, I think, in their Upper Chamber to be put in that form to the people. The State of Washington has these constitutional rights to our immediate south. I say it's a revolutionary new approach to the problem of pollution, to the rights of the individual to be free from annoyance, whether it be by excessive sound or smell or poison or things of that kind. It is a new weapon in the armoury of man in the battle to preserve his environment and in the fight against pollution.

In a word, we're saying here that among our defences, among the defences of embattled mankind, who is going under in a sea of pollution and congestion and excessive noise, at the present time, should be the Courts, that the Courts can be one of the shields, a principle shield of defence for mankind in a world where overpopulation and congestion and poisons of one kind or another are threatening its very existence. We introduce this new concept, we think and I would hope, on a non-partisan basis as a matter for a free vote of this House. Let the Courts, when there is excessive interference with man or woman from this kind of thing, let the Courts have the right, where necessary, to give injunctions or damages and, thus, we add one new weapon in the armoury of freedom and privacy and dignity for the individual. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker (applause).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think one of the basic prerogatives of the Crown, the fact that the Queen may not be impleaded in her own Courts, is a Crown prerogative that the honourable Member is well able to judge from both section 3 and section 5 of the bill in that he names it to be a

[ Page 859 ]

tort, action without proof or damage for any person and, then, goes on, "…to a Department of Government or Agency of the Crown wilfully to violate the environmental rights of any person." Then, the final section of the bill enables the Supreme Court of British Columbia, "…with power to grant relief by way of injunction or damages or both." The action, of course, would be taken against the Crown. It seems to me that this is an interference with Crown prerogatives and would not be in order in the hands of a private Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, when Alan McFarlane, who is now a judge, sat in this House, he thought that the Crown should be subject to suit of this sort.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think many have expressed that viewpoint but, still, it's not something that can be moved by way of a bill by a private Member.

Bill 101 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 106, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 106, An Act to Incorporate the Land Bank of British Columbia. The Honourable the First Member from Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 106, the Land Bank of British Columbia Bill. I've had a kind of threatening letter here from a lawyer who I believe is one of the directors of the Bank of B.C., and I won't name him. He tells me that the name of the proposed land bank is so close to the name of the Bank of B.C. that he's afraid there might be some confusion. Then he goes on to suggest, and I'm sure I don't know where he took his law training, but he suggest that because this is a bill to incorporate a land bank it might infringe on the Federal banking power. Now, as I say, he doesn't give his law school, when he offers these gratuitous opinions and they're in kind of a threatening letter to me.

But basically, this bill is to enable the Crown…(interruption). Well, he threatened to. No lawyer specifies. They say, "Things will be done, they never…" I remember my father telling me when he practised law many, many years ago, and he had to collect a debt for a client, that he would send out a letter like this that, "…if you do not pay within so many days proceedings will be taken that will amaze you." That's the way to get the money in.

This Bill is, and I won't repeat the debate in this House…It's partly to prevent the profits that go to land speculators, created as a result of the use of a tax dollar, allow them to go to the people and, secondly, we've seen, through tax sales and in other ways, so much of our Province placed in the hands, the titles placed in the hands of absentee foreign owners whatever their nationality may be. This is a bill with a revolving fund which will pay dividends to the people to enable them to reclaim for themselves some of the domain of this Province and I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that section 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, all of which involve substantial expenditure of public funds, would make the bill out of order in the hands of a private Member.

Bill 106 ordered dropped from the Order Paper.

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

MR. BENNETT: Resolution No. 28, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. 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. HALL: I left the other night, Mr. Speaker, at a couple of minutes to six. I knew the House was impatient to try the special and I'm glad to resume that debate.

The Private Bills Committee, Mr. Speaker, was faced with a bill to amend the Vancouver Charter. Its report is really the subject that we're debating. In the bill, there were two particular sections…(interruption).

By leave of the House it was agreed that the motion not be proceeded with.

MR. BENNETT: Resolution No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hall moved, seconded by Mr. Dowding-

That this House expresses to the Federal Government, their deep misgivings over the ecological disaster which will engulf the coast of British Columbia following drilling, or exploratory drilling, for oil in our coastal waters and urge the prohibition of any such drilling by the appropriate authorities.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: On this, Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with the unanimous support that the resolution of the Member from Alberni received in this House and the support that it received in all parts of Canada. I was distressed at some of the events that happened since that resolution but I felt that, just as the Member of Alberni expressed deep misgivings over the conveyance of oil along our coastline, I should express misgivings on the drilling for oil. I think the House will share with me the obvious conclusion that if it's unsafe to ship oil, it's unsafe to drill for it. In fact, it could be argued that it's more unsafe, more unsafe.

I think we could do no less than tell the world, Mr. Speaker, that, as far as our coastline is concerned, we want it pollution free and we want it oil free. I debated some two years ago the question of leases and licenses with the various Ministers of Mines we've had over this last two or three years. I'm not satisfied that it's quietened down. I'm not satisfied that there simply is not going to be any oil drilling as it's been evidenced by some of the speeches that some of the Members opposite…. because as fast as you read one, one way, you read another, another way. I'd like just to get a clear-cut opinion expressed by all Members of this House, as far as our attitude towards oil drilling, both productive an exploratory is concerned.

When the Member of Alberni moved his motion regarding the conveyance of oil, he expressed his misgivings and we

[ Page 860 ]

agreed with him that misgivings were to be expressed forcibly, unanimously, strongly, quickly, clearly, to all the authorities we could think of. I think we can do no less than to express the same misgivings over the possible ecological disaster which could engulf the coast of B.C. in this question of drilling for oil. I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, move the motion No. 7 on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the wording of this motion is somewhat similar to an earlier motion passed during this Session. There is an assumption here that exploratory drilling for oil on coastal waters would cause an ecological disaster and that has not certainly been substantiated by any evidence brought before the House. More fundamentally, I think, too, that the resolution proceeds on the assumption when it commences to express to the Federal Government the deep misgivings, proceeds on the assumption that we're dealing with a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. That is certainly not the point of view of this administration particularly where we're dealing with inland waters. There's been a lot of confusion as a result of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this subject, Mr. Speaker. I won't go into it at length today, except to say that there is no acknowledgement on the part of this Province that all of these areas fall within the purview of the Government of Canada. I would therefore move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 11, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 11. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Member from Oak Bay, that the Select Standing Committee on Labour be authorized to investigate the labour dispute presently existing at the Sandringham Private Hospital with full power to call witnesses, examine hospital staff, financial records, employee records, trade union officers concerned, the National Nursing Homes Limited management, personnel and directors, and to make recommendations respecting the said dispute and the future of the said hospital to the Minister of Labour and, if need be, to the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, this motion has been on the Order Paper since very early in the Session. Today is the sixth anniversary of the strike, six-months' anniversary, of the strike at that hospital. Unlike major labour disputes in this Province that incur the participation both verbally and by legislation of politicians in this Province, this is a relatively minor dispute but the principles in this dispute are of major importance. The principles of the dispute not only include good working conditions for the people who are employed at that hospital but the principles of the dispute also include the type and nature of care that we wish to provide for our older people who need these facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I find it personally abhorrent that private enterprise is allowed to participate in the field of private health care to people who need hospital attention. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, that private hospital care is now existing throughout the Province of British Columbia. This particular home has been shown to make a large profit, profits that substantiate the increase in wages that these working people want. Minimum wages are being paid at this hospital and the workers, because they wanted to avoid going on welfare…because, in effect, when you work for minimum wages you are the working poor and you're confronted with a choice would it be better to continue to work or would it be better to go on welfare? These workers were faced with that problem, too, and they decided that rather than go on welfare they would come together as employees in the free trade union movement and attempt to negotiate better working conditions and better wages at this hospital.

Mr. Speaker, up to that point nothing was wrong. None of us would disagree with the basic struggle of management versus union but, in this instance, Mr. Speaker, the management of this hospital refused to even meet and negotiate with these employees, while the employees had complied with every aspect of the labour laws of this Province. Normally, Mr. Speaker, a labour dispute stays within the confines of those people who happen to be interested on the financial pages or, as I said earlier, the politicians. But, in this instance, the social justice involved in this particular labour dispute brought in the Victoria Council of Churches and a particular Monseigneur O'Connell and other leading clergymen in this particular city. These clergymen, Mr. Speaker, none of whom has a monetary interest in this dispute but, on the basis of social concern, have stated that they cannot appreciate or accept the position of the National Nursing Homes Limited. Clergymen have very actively appeared on the picket line, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine clergymen directly involved in a labour dispute on a basis of social conscience, on a basis of deep feeling of concern for the rightness of the strikers' cause? It's been a long time, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, since we've seen such a labour dispute where clear-cut division of social justice versus almost tyrannical, backward, eighteenth-century employer attitudes. But there it is. It exists at that hospital.

In moving this motion, Mr. Speaker, my very good friend the Member from Oak Bay and I did not decide to take, we decided not to take a position although I have a very strong position in favour of the strikers. You will notice, on the front page of the newspaper, the Victoria Times, I walked on the picket line with those working people and I was proud to do it. I'd be proud to walk with Monseigneur O'Connell or any member of the Victoria Council of Churches on that picket line, as well. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Member from Oak Bay and I, and I don't intend to speak for him in terms of his personal view on this matter, but our shared concern was that the dispute was dragging on and on and on without any attempt to resolve the basic differences between the parties.

The Attorney-General and the Minister of Labour, the Attorney-General serving as the Minister of Labour, has had the opportunity to use the House committee in a most constructive way. He could have brought the disputants together, which would have been the first time that, in this dispute, management and labour actually were able to come together over a table.

That is all that I wish to obtain with this motion and I'm sure the same for the Member from Oak Bay. The mutual concern that we had was to get these parties face to face and talking. If management has been reluctant to do this, and I have opinions about that, that's the way it is. If someone wishes to blame labour, which I don't, that's where it is. The

[ Page 861 ]

intent of this motion was not pro-management or pro-labour but pro-solution and I regret that the Minister of Labour has left this motion sit on the Order Paper all these weeks while the dispute has flared up and caused great concern, not only to the citizens of Victoria but to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Attorney-General the lead he knows of how the thing will be out of order. The motion will be out of order because the House is going to prorogue and it will cost money to keep the committee going after the House. OK. I accept that and I appreciate it, Mr. Speaker. If we were Government and we wished to kill a motion, that's how we'd kill it. If we were faced with a technical dilemma, we'd use the technical devices. I accept that in politics because that's the reality of the nature of the arena we're in. I'm not going to dispute that but I make this plea, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. Would he please indicate to the Members of this House, to the people of this Province, the citizens of Victoria and to the disputant parties that his office is available and he'd like to see representatives of both sides in his office within the next two weeks?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to second this motion in that it has two very serious implications. There is the local implication in that we have citizens of Victoria, employees of the hospital, who are, in my opinion, completely justified in seeking to improve their working conditions and their payment at the particular hospital concerned. I could talk about this at great length but I'll try to be brief.

The fact is that the workers are seeking little more than minimum wage for a job which is very demanding physically and mentally and which, I think, is grossly underpaid at the moment. That's an opinion.

The local situation, important as it is in that it affects seriously these workers, unfortunately, must redound to the disadvantage of the patients with all the unpleasant arguments and actions that have taken place. So that we have both groups of people being disadvantaged and we have society wondering just whether or not we do have social justice in our midst. But, beyond the local issue, there is a much larger Provincial issue and this is the whole matter of provision of care to people in this category who are accommodated and looked after in a hospital. In other words, the intermediate care level. Since the cost of providing care to this type of patient who is in hospital necessarily over a long period of time, since this becomes such a financial burden to the patient, it is inevitable and I feel mandatory almost, on Government's part, to provide financial assistance. If that is the basic premise, and this is certainly my basic premise and I've said it many times and I'll repeat it until the end and the goal is achieved, namely, that all sick people should be treated alike, as far as financial assistance is concerned. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, since I thoroughly am convinced that every patient at every level of care does require financial assistance in our present society, it, then, becomes impractical for such hospitals to operate under private ownership, where financial gain would be made from Government subsidy.

There is a far-reaching, wider implication involved in the strike at Sandringham, important as it is for us to remember the interest of the workers and the concern for the patients.

If this financial subsidy is required, it is obviously unacceptable that private interest should be gaining financial gain from Government subsidy. I was hoping that if this motion were referred to a committee of the House that, perhaps, we could bring some accurate, factual information regarding the cost of operation of such hospitals, to get accurate financial details, so that we could, in fact, find out precisely the way in which such a hospital operates under private ownership, the individual cost per patient, and we could equate the level of care to the money being paid by individual patients.

There has been much public dispute about this and the attitude presented on both sides of the fence is that Government does not pay enough for welfare patients and that the private owners charge rates to the non-welfare patients to subsidize the welfare patients.

I'm not taking either side on this. I'm simply saying that the time has long gone when we should have grasped every opportunity to get to the heart of the matter and find out what the true facts and figures really are.

In seconding this motion, Mr. Speaker, I have but two main goals. One, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, to attempt to bring some neutral party into the middle, between the two opposing factions and bring a solution, for the very fundamental reason that the workers, I believe, are entitled to some job security and to something better than the minimum wage for the work they are doing. Of course, as I said, the patients are suffering, no matter which way you look at it. Secondly, out of this discussion in committee surely Government could obtain some of the valid facts and figures on which I hope, it would base its further planning for the complete coverage of intermediate care in this Province and could in fact I hope plan to construct the necessary facilities to provide adequate intermediate care for all those who need it under the same umbrella of Government subsidy as applies to acute and extended care patients. It gives me great pleasure to second this motion.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Just a clarification. I think that everyone in the House agrees on the seriousness of this particular motion and is sympathetic with both the mover and the seconder. I rise really though for a clarification though of the present position of the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the recent changes of their views on labour, as has recently come out of Saskatchewan, would the Leader of the Opposition be prepared to recommend the use of binding arbitration in this particular case? There has been a change in the NDP policy and I'm sure our support….

MR. SPEAKER: The Member is not speaking to the motion.

MR. CAPOZZI: I am concerned whether he would be willing to go far enough in his resolution…

MR. SPEAKER: I think your concern must be associated with the motion.

MR. CAPOZZI: The NDP now has determined that when the best interests of the public…In other words, as it was recently stated, that the fundamental right to strike but, in some cases, that right….

[ Page 862 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Member will not come back to the motion, he has finished his speech. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add the voice of the Liberal Party in support of this particular motion and to say how deeply I regret, too, that the Government has done so little to help out in this particular problem and in the general problem of seeing that people who work in chronic hospitals get a wage appropriate to the task that they undertake.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Member is not speaking to the motion. The motion is to refer to a committee for study of a matter of labour that's in dispute. You must restrict these remarks.

MR. McGEER: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I wish there were a way that this Legislature could consider, at some leisure and in some depth, the problem raised by this Sandringham Hospital dispute. Because, like many Members of the House, I have the greatest regret that the patients of that hospital are not getting the care that they should because of the stresses that have been placed on them through this dispute. Certainly the people that were doing the best at that hospital, prior to the time of the attempted negotiations, were working for less than what they deserved to have. I think that there is no case at all that can be made for the management of that particular hospital. I publicly condemn it. I support this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the basic dispute in this hospital, of course, reflects a problem that I think is not covered, in some ways, by our labour laws. The dispute in many, many ways can be summarized, Mr. Speaker, as a first contract and recognition dispute. I think that, in supporting this motion, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the application of the wisdom of the committee would mean that we would grapple with the problems that are always around in the Province, in terms of a first contract and the simple question of recognition. That's why I urge every Member of the House to support this motion because, from this one, single incident in this city could come some meaningful legislation that deals with that very simple problem of the first contract and the question of recognition. If we do nothing else in terms of labour legislation but solve that one problem, we will have taken a giant step forward as far as the labour legislation in this Province is concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words. I think that this is a case where the Government has not taken the proper interest in the little people. This strike involves very few people. If it had involved a large number of people and affected the economy of the Province, it would have been probably turned over to a committee immediately. But, here, it affects only a few people. To the economy of those people who are on strike, it's a very serious problem. To me, it should have been turned over a long time ago. The Government, the Attorney-General, the Minister of Labour would have, if it had of been a larger strike, would have brought them together to discuss things long ago. It only affects a few workers and is not a threat to the economy in any way. We let them go ahead and suffer. It's a sad situation when you go up there and watch those people who have got to parade back and forth as pickets to try to emphasize their case. It's in these kind of cases where people get so frustrated that they do things that are not in keeping with what we would like to see. I say that the Government has fallen short of their responsibility to the small people of the land, when they didn't turn this over to a committee long ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this dispute, to which this resolution makes reference, has been a very difficult one. I, personally, have been in communication with representatives of both sides over a period of time. There just hasn't been any way in which this dispute could be resolved, at least, with the agreement of the parties. I can assure the House that as far as the Government is concerned the facilities of the Department of Labour will continue to be available to the parties, in any way that we can be of assistance in resolving this dispute.

This resolution makes reference to, I suggest, a more important principle that we have to consider in voting on the resolution. I was interested to learn that the Leader of the Opposition's approach would be that if he were in Government to have the resolution ruled out of order. I'm not going to attempt to do so, Mr. Speaker, I won't attempt to do that. I do think there is an important principle, here, in that we have established certain procedures to obtain in respect of collective bargaining. These procedures are set out under the Labour Relations Act and the Mediation Commission Act and, while there are certain provisions compelling parties to bargain, etc., in the final analysis, there isn't any compulsion upon the parties to enter into collective agreement, except under the provisions of one particular section of the Mediation Commission Act, with which the Members are very familiar, section 18. So the question is this, now that you are asking the House to consider this policy of bringing individual labour disputes before a select standing committee of this House giving the power as you do to compel attendance — this is part of the resolution, compel attendance, to compel all statements etcetra to be submitted — this is something that, while we have certain features in our legislation, this is not something to which we have subscribed thus far in labour matters. I think this is an interesting point, if you are actually giving consideration to this. This is precisely what is referred to in the resolution, the compulsion — compelling attendance.

The honourable Members know that we have many disputes in the Province. We have references made where we refer the dispute to the Mediation Commission. Certain labout bodies have taken the position that they will not appear before the Mediation Commission. We have nothing compelling them to attend. If we can compel them to attend before one body, if that's the wish of this House, then, certainly we should give consideration to compulsion for them to attend in another respect. So, Mr. Speaker, that, I suggest, is the important principle involved. The position that I take on this matter is, while as far as the dispute is concerned we are prepared to do everything possible and have been, and have been in communication with the representatives, and many others not directly involved in the dispute, but indirectly involved whether it's the local district

[ Page 863 ]

labour council or representatives of the clergy, but, while we are prepared to do that, the fact is that we do have legislation, now, on the Statute Books to deal with the situation adequately. This new departure and this new principle, that is being brought into play in this resolution is not acceptable to the Government.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in the remarks of the Honourable Member from Oak Bay, earlier in the Session, he said that the proprietor of Sandringham, Mr. Cook, I think it was, would, under no circumstances, enter into an agreement with this union. Our labour laws make it clear that the parties have a duty to bargain with the certified bargaining agency, with a view to concluding a collective agreement. In other words, what the honourable Member was saying constituted a criminal offence on the part of Sandringham because they are not bargaining in good faith. They should have been prosecuted ere this while by the Department of Labour. We have this anomalous situation — the Attorney-General is there, on the one hand as an Attorney-General, and, on the other hand, as Minister of Labour. I say a committee should investigate this thing. It says, right here, "…to make recommendations concerning this dispute to the Minister of Labour." I say that that should be done because I think the Honourable Member from Columbia is going to need all the help he can get (interruption). Well, we should be allowed some speculation on this side of the House, too (laughter). But, in all seriousness, this is not the normal condition of collective bargaining. This is a condition, where one of the parties has adamantly said that they will not bargain in good faith. There's a breach of your Labour Relations Act, Mr. Minister. They should be prosecuted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one short comment and that comment is that we weren't talking about compulsory arbitration. Let's not smoke up the words, let's not get muddy waters with that kind of stuff. What we were talking about in this motion, Mr. Speaker, is compulsory negotiations and there is nothing wrong with compulsory negotiations. It's when you come in with the club and enforce settlement (interruption). Nothing here, Mr. Speaker, despite that poor little fellow from Vancouver Centre who has to do most of his speaking from his seat. Mr. Speaker, that's my comment. This Sandringham situation is deplorable. It should have come before the House long before this. Had the Labour Committee sat on the situation, I believe it now would have been resolved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, although this matter has been on the Order Paper all this length of time, the Attorney-General, or the Government, saw fit to leave it there without considering the merits of it, despite the fact that it had bipartisan support in being moved and seconded.

I point out, also, that this Government was prepared, on another resolution, to have the House rule on a matter of the Teamsters and on Hydro, without the Members knowing the facts, the backgrounds, without going to a committee, or finding out what they were voting on. That's the difference between our position on this matter and that of the Government. We believe it should go to a committee, before the House is asked to rule, in any way, on a matter that is involved between labour and management.

Had that been done, in this case, and if this motion passes, I would be prepared to stay around here to sit on such a committee and do something about a dispute that should be resolved. I point out to you that the people who are running this particular hospital were granted preferment by this Government, above all others. They are a group that run a number of hospitals in British Columbia, when other private groups have been denied the right to have a license to build one.

The House divided.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Messieurs

NAYS — 33

Messieurs

The Honourable L.R. Peterson (Attorney-General) presented the Law Reform Commission Report on Debtor-Creditor Relationships (Project No. 2), Part 1, Debt Collection and Collection Agents.

The Honourable C.M. Shelford. (Minister of Agriculture) presented the Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture for the year 1970.

MR. BENNETT: I expect His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to arrive at a quarter to six. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, the House be in recess so that the necessary work can be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: I would like to protest the disregard for private Members in this House. In all good faith, we placed

[ Page 864 ]

resolutions on the Order Paper during the Session. They're never called. We very seldom hear of a Private Members' Day. These resolutions could very easily be called during the Session. I agree that the Honourable the Minister wants to set a certain time for prorogation and this may be all right, but I think he should see that the private Members get the respect that they deserve, during the Session, and not leave it up 'til the last few minutes. When you look at the number of resolutions, Mr. Speaker, that are being left to die on the Order Paper, I don't think it's fair representation to the people of British Columbia (applause).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, the House will be recessed until the call of the bell, approximately 5:45 p.m.

The House recessed at 5:30 p.m.

The House met at 5:45 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor having entered the House, and being seated in the chair, G.H. Cross, Esquire, Acting Clerk Assistant of the House, read the titles of the following Bills:

An Act to Amend the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act.

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act, 1961.

An Act to Amend the School District and Regional Colleges (Pensions) Act.

An Act to Amend the Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act.

An Act to Amend the Public Service Group Insurance Act.

Special Funds Appropriation Act.

Accelerated Park Development Act.

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

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1948.

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958.

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act.

An Act to Amend the Motive Fuel Use Tax Act.

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Act.

Hotel and Motel Room Tax Act.

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act.

An Act to Amend the Assessment Equalization Act.

An Act to Amend the Trespass Act.

An Act to Amend the Fur-farm Act.

An Act to Amend the Animals Act.

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act.

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.

An Act to Amend the Settled Estates Act.

An Act to Amend the Variation of Trusts Act.

An Act to Amend the Testator's Family Maintenance Act.

An Act to Amend the Infants Act.

An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Hearing-aid Regulation Act.

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966.

Air Space Titles Act.

Mortgage Brokers Act.

Synthetic Food Products Act.

An Act to Amend the Mines Regulation Act.

An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965.

An Act to Amend the Marriage Act.

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

An Act to Amend the Principal Home Acquisition Act.

An Act to Amend the Department of Highways Act.

An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology.

An Act Respecting Central City Mission.

An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953

An Act to Amend the Soldiers' Land Act.

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act.

All-terrain Vehicles Act.

An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act.

An Act to Amend the Forest Act.

An Act to Amend the Jury Act.

An Act to Amend the Police and Prisons Regulation Act.

An Act to Amend the Controlled Access Highways Act.

An Act to Amend the Land Act.

An Act to Amend the Attachment of Debts Act.

An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act.

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act.

An Act to Amend the Provincial Court Act.

Mobile Home Park Fee Act.

Ecological Reserves Act.

Environment and Land Use Act.

An Act to Amend the Water Act.

An Act to Amend the Sale of Goods Act.

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act.

An Act to Amend the Summary Convictions Act.

An Act to Amend the Health Act.

Hospital Corporations Act.

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

Greater Vancouver Regional Water and Sewer District Act.

Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act, 1961.

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971.

His Honour was pleased in Her Majesty's name to give assent to the said Bills.

The said assent was announced by E.K. DeBeck, Esquire, Clerk of the House, in the following words;

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

Then Mr. Speaker addressed the Lieutenant-Governor as follows:

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. 108) intituled An Act for Granting Certain Sums of Money for the

[ Page 865 ]

Public Service of the Province of British Columbia.

To this Bill the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, by His Honour's command, did thereupon say:

"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."

Then His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to deliver the following gracious Speech:

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly:

In closing this, the Second Session of the Twenty-ninth Parliament of British Columbia, I desire to express my appreciation for the care and sincerity which have characterized your deliberations. I am grateful that legislation has been enacted which will be of benefit to the citizens of this Province.

Your deliberations in this Parliament have resulted in an unprecedented number of enactments at this Session; twenty-five (or 50 per cent) more enactments at this Session than in each of the last two Sessions, and twenty more enactments than in any Session in the last seven years. This is a substantial achievement in this our Centennial year, as each enactment represents the culmination of detailed consideration and of sound decisions made by this Assembly for the lasting benefit of the Province and all our citizens.

Financial benefits have been extended under a Special Funds Appropriation Act to enlarge the capital in the Crop Insurance Stabilization Fund and in the Home Acquisition Fund, with the result that these Funds are now soundly funded to meet the demands upon them in the coming year. Furthermore, this Act establishes a special Fund, known as the "Drug, Alcohol, and Cigarette Education, Prevention, and Rehabilitation Fund," for the purpose of education, rehabilitation, and prevention of the use of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes.

Under the Accelerated Park Development Act a sum of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) has been allocated for the purpose of park development and the creation of additional employment thereby.

The Provincial Home Acquisition Act has been amended to extend the grants and loans provisions on older homes until March 31, 1972.

The Provincial Home-owner Grant Act has provided for an increase from $160 to $170 per home.

In order to further benefit the home-owners in the Province, the Assessment Equalization Act has been amended to prevent an increase in assessment greater than 10 percent in any year. In order to provide the financial resources to carry out these increased benefits and ensure the continuing economic development of the Province, taxes were imposed on cigarettes and tobacco, and on hotel and motel accommodation, and slight increases in taxes were imposed for gasoline and motive-fuel.

A number of enactments were passed at this Session effecting sizeable increases in pensions and improvements in the pension schemes of civil servants, municipal employees, teachers, college personnel, and the Members.

Great strides forward were made in the field of the administration of justice. A total of twenty-three enactments were passed, covering a wide range of subjects in this area. A number of enactments are amended to protect and safeguard the estates and interests of minors and mentally disordered persons in our society. The Consumer Protection Act was amended to give further protection to purchasers in conditional sale transactions. The Sale of Goods Act was amended to prevent the waiver of warranties and conditions. A Mortgage Brokers Act was enacted to regulate and control the mortgage business and to require full disclosure to a person borrowing money. An Air Space Titles Act was enacted, which represents a bold concept of title to air space for the future development of our cities. The Jury Act, Police Act, and Land Registry Act have been amended to deal in an effective way with new problems arising in those areas. Difficult problems in our Province arising in the field of maintenance and support of families has led to the enactment of strong new provisions in the Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act, bolstered by changes in the Attachment of Debts and Small Claims Acts. Under this legislation the Provincial Court for the first time may now deal with custody of and access to children. A new enactment also provides for the prohibition of all cigarette and tobacco advertising.

A new enactment is the Hearing-aid Regulation Act, which is designed to control and regulate the traffic in hearing-aids for the benefit of our citizens who require them.

In the field of agriculture a new enactment is the Synthetic Food Products Act, prohibiting those synthetic products which are designed to represent natural products. This will safeguard the health of the citizens and assist the agricultural industry. Amendments were also made to the Animals Act to deal with the problems of fierce dogs in unorganized territory.

The attention of this Assembly has been directed to and resulted in the passage of substantial amendments to the Public Schools Act to modernize the structure of the educational system in this Province and provide for new methodology in the field of education.

The Health Act and the Marriage Act have been amended to incorporate a number of significant changes in these Acts. The Acts of incorporation of the Vancouver General Hospital, the Royal Columbian Hospital, and the Royal Inland Hospital have been consolidated in a new Hospital Corporations Act to give uniformity in their administration.

Amendments to the Department of Highways Act and the Controlled Access Highways Act are designed to regulate the orderly development and control of lands adjoining new or relocated highways.

Great emphasis has been placed by the Assembly in its deliberations on the problems of the natural environment. Out of these deliberations this Assembly has enacted a new Ecological Reserves Act for the establishment of 100 ecological reserves in the Province before 1975. Similarly, a new Environment and Land Use Act has been enacted to protect the natural environment and control the optimum use of land for the greatest benefit of all our citizens. Likewise, the Land Act and the Forest Act have been amended and a new Water Resources Act has been introduced to regulate and control the use of water for all purposes.

Both the Mines Regulation Act and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965 have been amended to provide for clarification and improvement in those Acts.

In the area of municipal affairs, a new Act provided for the assumption by the Greater Vancouver Regional District of some of the powers and functions of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and the Greater Vancouver Water District. The Municipal Act has been amended in a number of particulars, one of which is the

[ Page 866 ]

establishment of a land-use control system, and another is the establishment of National Building Code standards in municipalities.

The problem of snowmobiles and like vehicles has had the attention of this Assembly and resulted in the All-terrain Vehicles Act, which should be of great benefit to those citizens most seriously affected by the operation of such vehicles. The Wildlife Act has been amended to provide, among other changes, for a license to carry firearms. The Regional Parks Act was also amended.

Your approval of Supply in the record sum of one billion three hundred million six hundred and ninety-two thousand six hundred dollars ($1,3,00,692,600) is particularly significant in the development and growth of this Province.

These and other measures which you have carefully considered and authorized will redound to the benefit of this Province in its Centennial year and in the years to come.

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

The Hon. W.D. Black (Provincial Secretary) then said:

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 the Lieutenant-Governor to summon the same for dispatch of business, and this Provincial Legislative Assembly is hereby prorogued accordingly.