The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of welcoming to the House today, and I ask the Members to join me, a group of students from Centennial High School in the District of Coquitlam.

Along with that, I have the rare privilege of introducing to the House a long-standing friend of the people of British Columbia — a man who has given 23 years uninterrupted service until last week to this House. I wish to welcome him back today — the Member for Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick).

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again it's my pleasure to bring joy and happiness to the hearts of the Members of this House by welcoming a group of students from that great saw-milling centre on Vancouver Island — the students from Chemainus Secondary School and I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to join with me in welcoming here today four very fine young people and representatives from the University of British Columbia. We have with us Mr. Doug Aldridge who is the president elect of the Alma Mater Society, Mr. Gordon Blankstein who is the vice-president elect of the A.M.S., Mr. Rod McDiarmid who is the former vice-president, and Perry Lidstor who is in the capacity of the representative of the agricultural society and general chauffeur for the group and I'd ask you to join with me in welcoming them to the House today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate it if the Members could welcome a pioneer family Parker Williams with a delegation from one of the great pioneer families of Nanaimo and a number of students Parker Williams from Nanaimo.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, last night just before the House adjourned a message was brought to this House from the Lieutenant-Governor and a bill was introduced intituled An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act. Some of us went out and obtained copies of that bill and studied it — Bill No. 40.

But to our surprise these bills were all gathered up this morning and a new bill was put in our books, Bill No. 49. I just wondered if we could clarify which was the correct bill and for those of us who have sent some of these bills out for study and distribution which is the correct bill. Because they are highly similar but there are some differences between the two.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment please. The bill that was introduced into the House was Bill No. 49 and the bill which now appears in the Votes and Proceedings is Bill No. 49. the Votes and Proceedings read that Bill No. 49 was brought in and under those circumstances the House is unaware of a Bill No. 40. But possibly the Honourable the Minister if he is present could offer an explanation.

He's not here at the present time. Possibly the point of order could be deferred until the arrival of the Minister and I'll allow the point some time during the proceedings today and he may be able to offer further explanation. The House has no knowledge of a Bill No. 40.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill No. 31, intituled An Act to Amend the Hearing Aid Regulation Act.

Bill No. 32, intituled An Act to Amend the Litter Act.

Bill No. 63, intituled An Act to Repeal the Queen's Counsel Act.

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Committee on Bill No. 13.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 13, Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act.

Bill No. 13 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 14.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 14, An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

Bill No. 14 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 15.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 15, An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act.

Bill No. 15 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 16.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 16, An Act to Amend the Centennial Cultural Fund Act.

[ Page 678 ]

Bill No. 16 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
REVENUE SURPLUS APPROPRIATION ACT,
1969

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 17. The Hon. the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BENNETT (Minister of Finance): In 1969, the government established a fund in perpetuity of $10 million known as the physical fitness and amateur sports fund. The purpose was the furtherance and encouragement of physical fitness for the residents of the province and of participation by the residents of the province in amateur sports.

The interest earned from the fund's investment was to be used for this purpose. To date $1,671,900 has been paid out of the fund. The government considers this a most worthwhile and needed programme, being particularly valuable in providing interests and programmes for the use of our province. It is therefore recommended in this bill that an additional $5 million be provided for the physical fitness and amateur sports perpetual fund which will produce a 50 per cent increase in the funds available for physical fitness purposes each and every year in perpetuity.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, once more we strongly support the giving of funds to young athletes in British Columbia.

It was my pleasure when Karen Magnussen was here as the latest champion from this province to say that our international athletes particularly are our greatest ambassadors. We should not stint at all in giving them both financial and moral support because the healthiest example that we can set for future generations in British Columbia is to take these people who do have capability, teach them sportsmanship as well as athletics, and send them abroad to compete with the best in the world. We Liberals strongly support efforts that can be made in this direction. However…

HON. MR. BENNETT: But! But!

MR. McGEER: We do not consider that it is necessary to take a capital fund out of revenue surplus to achieve this objective. Only moments ago we passed a bill in this House, a Queen Elizabeth centennial scholarship, which didn't require any kind of an endowment like this which is every bit as important because it supports graduate work — the mind rather than the body — honouring the Queen and if anything would deserve support in perpetuity, if that's to be the principle, then surely that would have qualified.

But you see, this is a much larger consideration in terms of the number of people that are to be supported besides the size of the fund, and I'm talking about the interest that will be available to people. It's not the order of $5,000 but of the order of $500,000.

But rather than just take it out of consolidated revenue as was done with this B.C. centennial scholarship, we create an endowment fund and it's very clear that the purpose of this Act is not to help out athletes, but to help out the Crown corporations of British Columbia.

We want to see the athletes supported, and supported generously. We want to see them get annual grants from consolidated revenue of sizable proportions, not just the interest that may or may not be paid out each year, according to whether government Members decide they want to give those funds out — it's a quasi-political slush fund not genuine grants to the athletes of British Columbia.

This kind of support is not the appropriate way to do it. We should be taking the surplus funds of British Columbia and making them available in the amounts that are included in capital to the elderly citizens, to the people who require chronic hospital care, to those who have insufficient amounts on social assistance. Those are the people who need and deserve this social capital, and what we should do is take the equivalent interest and more, and make that available to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we tell the Premier, and the people of British Columbia that we disagree with this kind of financial juggling, we disagree with the methods by which these funds are disbursed — which are as favours from government Members. What we want to do is see that the money is properly handled in this province and responsibly administered and we oppose this bill.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I find myself as usual in rather surprised amazement at the good Member, the first Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), the constant manner in which the Liberal Members rise, support the bills, what fine things they are and then go on to gradually cut them apart at a time when athletics and particularly physical fitness need all the support they can get. I suggest that if some of the programmes the Liberal government has started in this field could be taken off the administrative blackboards and moved into a more practical approach to the support for athletics and the support for fitness, that we would be a lot further down the road with the funds that we are using.

I would suggest that there are certain parts of this fund which need some alteration. At the present moment as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the funds are used, and can be used only for grants for either travel, for administration, for coaching. They cannot be used in any way for the development of facilities.

Over the past years we have spent, and I think the figure is in excess of $1 million now from this fund. And the fund in this coming year will have roughly somewhere I assume, between $1 million and $1,200,000 available. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the time has come to consider the possibility of utilising certain portions of these funds for capital equipment in the communities.

There's only a certain amount of hierarchy that you can develop either through coaching administrative staffs or for other purposes. I would like to suggest a programme whereby through the use, as I mentioned before, of air bubbles we could standardise a programme whereby, instead of having to go to the capital costs of $250,000 to $350,000 or a half a million to build ice arenas, through the use of more modern techniques and standardising a programme we could build throughout the Province of British Columbia in the neighbourhood of $90,000 to $100,000 each an ice arena in every community or a swimming pool in every community, that

[ Page 679 ]

would be completely covered and usable through the entire 12 months of the year.

This could be done by providing part of the capital money from this particular fund on the basis of 1/3 from the province, 1/3 from the community itself and 1/3 from an active group within the community — one of the service clubs.

Already one of the public banks, the chartered banks, have suggested they would be willing to help in the financing through the particular organisations, and make these feasible.

This I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is a very definite need within all the communities of the Province of British Columbia. Even in the lower mainland we pride ourselves on having great numbers of playgrounds, and great facilities and yet for several months of the year, in fact for many months of the year, they are either not usable, because of the water or the weather. It is time we started to look into the more advanced techniques of covering our playgrounds with the use of these particular air bubbles.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have perhaps let the pendulum swing too far in the use of these funds for administrative and coaching facilities. The time has come now to take another, and a more realistic look at the use of them for the development of capital projects within the community.

I would also suggest that we must take another look at what area we are expending these funds. For a long while we looked at fitness, and we looked at sports development as though it was something that was only involved with young people. And if there is any real need in most of our communities at this stage it is for recreation for older people.

I would like to see the development of all-year-round, through the use of an artificial turf, year-round facilities for lawn bowling. And I think this is part, a particular part, of the use of this fund.

I think there's a real need for programmes that involve our senior citizens. We talked about medical costs, and the costs of various types of programmes to keep people healthy. But one of the most important ways is through the development of recreation and fitness. We read a great deal, Mr. Speaker, about the dangers of drugs and the dangers particularly of smoking. Recent figures indicate that more people will die from being overweight, than they will from any other cause…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: No mention of anyone in this particular House madame Member at all. More people will die from being overweight than they will from either cancer or from smoking or any other cause. I would suggest that recent figures would indicate that the average person in British Columbia is approximately 10 lbs overweight — which means that somewhere through this province we are carrying something like 20 million extra pounds. You'll notice that I'm standing holding my breath as I'm talking, trying to keep a slim profile, or whatever that's for.

But I do suggest that there is a very definite need for programmes on the use of proper dieting and the encouragement of this at all levels in our society. I would also point out, by the way, through you to the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Peterson), who of course administers this fund, that there are some rather interesting paradoxes.

We are paying a great amount of this money out for travel. We are paying for teams to travel both to the rest of Canada and of course in world-wide competition. There is a very disturbing aspect to this. For example, if a sporting team travels on Air Canada there is no reduction. But, if it travels as a cultural society there is a reduction. And as the first Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), indicated I do believe that when our people travel throughout the country — whether it's across Canada or any other area — they are acting as ambassadors for the particular province that they come from and are serving a tremendous purpose. I would ask the Attorney General on behalf of this fund to make representation to the various airlines to obtain the same privileges for travelling teams which would have the effect of reducing the cost that is required.

I see no reason why people travelling on a cultural grant should have any different schedule of fares than people travelling representing a sporting organisation travelling in competition in Canada. We could save a fair amount of money on fares and a fair amount of dollars out of this fund, Mr. Attorney General, if you would obtain the support of the airlines on this.

I would also suggest that we have an extra $5 million in the fund, that a good portion of this should be directed over the next years to the summer games, to the Olympic teams particularly getting ready for the Olympic Games in the summer of this year. I think there's a real need to encourage our athletes from the Province of British Columbia in their quest for the Olympic games.

I would also ask the Hon. Attorney General to give very definite consideration with the money from this fund to the support of the Canada Games, which will be taking place in British Columbia in 1973, in the great area of Burnaby-New Westminster, and I know that the good Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who has taken such a tremendous interest in the programme will rise and support my particular request for additional funds for this particular cause.

I would also ask that the overall approach that we now take that we take a more critical look at the granting of funds to the organisations than we have in the past.

Some of the grants, and I intend to supply the Hon. Attorney General with some of that information, has been given to teams sort of on a constant basis, the same teams travelling across to other countries. I suggest that the grants that we make to teams which travel outside of Canada should be made on the condition that they have a responsibility to bring back into Canada a similar competitive organisation that will eventually compete in Canada and provide competition for our teams here. I think that's a very, very important part of the programmes that we are looking at.

I think, Mr. Premier, that this particular fund is one of the finest things that you have done for the Province of British Columbia. It is certainly a step forward and certainly one of the first of its kind anywhere in Canada. I regret that far too few people in the Province of British Columbia are aware of what has been.done in this fund. We have publicised a tremendous number of our programmes, we've given great publicity to our highways, great publicity to some of our other programmes. I do believe that of all the activities that we have undertaken, that this probably is the least-publicised and the one that is probably deserving of the most credit. And I certainly intend to support this bill.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 680 ]

I too support the bill. But I don't think the legislation and the grants that we are making has been facing up to the real problem that's going on in the world of sports at the present time. I'm referring to the increasing commercialisation of sports, to the conversion of the people of Canada into a group of gladiators who are exploited, bullied, owned, traded, at the box office for commercial gain. I don't exaggerate, Mr. Speaker, in the slightest.

In the case of hockey, a hockey club as it were with a chattel slave owns the young athlete. And if the young athlete is not wanted on the top team he's put on a farm team. He has no choice about the matter, he is a chattel slave. He may want to play for another club such as the Vancouver Canucks, but if he belongs in a farm club with somebody else then he's a prisoner on that farm.

This is a breakdown in terms of individual freedom. It is an increasing control of sports by syndicates, very often operating in more than one country at the same time.

It is an exploitation of the young people of our country which has led, and should lead in many fields such as hockey and football and lacrosse, to the formation of groups known as Jock Lib, to try to restore to these young people a measure of independence, a measure of financial security, some voice in the operation of their club, and freedom from being bullied from a coach who himself is under pressure to win at all costs in order to make the biggest possible jingle at the turnstile. And this is the world in which we are living and a world which the legislators cannot ignore, either in the House of Commons in Ottawa, or in this Legislature, and it will. And so I say look at almost any of the big sports, hockey, football, tennis they are all becoming professionalised, they are all becoming commercialised, and increasingly controlled by syndicates whose interests are the profits and gambling. While this fund is a good thing, it'll have to be followed up by some kind of legislation in Canada to give self respect, and to restore sportsmanship, in a field increasingly dominated by commercial considerations.

MR. SPEAKER: The first Member for Vancouver Centre. On a point of order.

MR. CAPOZZI: In regards to control of sports by gambling syndicates, it is the kind of statement which should not be allowed in this House, without some sort of an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! It's not a point of order, the Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I think a point of order might have been taken that all of the Honourable Member's remarks were out of order. The first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)…

AN HON. MEMBER: It's kind of late to bring it up now…

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm not taking that point but I'm going to establish it in any event that all his remarks were directed to professional sports, not to amateur sports.

This fund has nothing whatever to do with professional sports in British Columbia or in Canada. It has nothing to do with the Canucks, with the B.C. Lions, and other professional sports organisations in the Province of British Columbia.

The thrust of this fund is two-fold. One, amateur sports as opposed to professional sports — let's make that clear. The other thrust is to physical fitness generally whether it's in the realm of amateur sports or not. Some of the Honourable Members are suggesting that this has nothing to do with our youth, our young people. I want to say that this is one of the most positive influences for our youth that is in our existence today. We should be proud of what is being done in a positive way, to influence the future course, the future path of the young people who are participating in physical fitness programmes, participating in amateur athletics, learning to have pride in the development of a sound mind and body.

This is something that is all important today when we see so many other influences to our youth of drugs and other things that operate in a different way. If we can be devoting this kind of money to promoting and to encouraging sports and physical fitness in British Columbia, it's far better to spend the taxpayers' money this way, Mr. Speaker, than it is in trying to rehabilitate them once they've gone the wrong way.

Our young people are often criticised today. But when you have the opportunity as I have had to speak with them, to attend functions when they are being honoured, given their awards, given their medals, I'll tell you you can be extremely proud of the young athletes of British Columbia.

Just a week ago I attended a banquet in Vancouver at which some of our top athletes for the year were recognised and awards given out, one of which went to Karen Magnussen who was mentioned here just a moment ago. The guest speaker for that occasion was the president association, but a national organisation representing that body throughout Canada. Not only the guest speaker but everyone else who participated spoke in glowing terms of the contribution that this province is making compared with any other province in Canada through amateur sports and physical fitness programmes.

We give a great deal of authority to the amateur sports organisations. It's completely flexible so that they can develop in many ways and this is the criticism they have of the federal grants that are being made.

The leader of the Liberal Party in this province said that the purpose of this Act is not to help the athletes. Those were his exact words. Those were his exact words which I hope will be relayed to all of the athletes in British Columbia because they know differently.

He said that this was a quasi-political slush fund, which is a reflection on all those who are called upon to administer this fund, Mr. Speaker.

Who are some of these people on our advisory council that are being referred to in this way by the leader of the Liberal Party? I'm only going to mention a few of them: Dr. Robert Bell, Department of Physical Education, University of Victoria; Dr. Douglas Clement, past-president of the B.C. Track and Field Association, former Olympic team manager — in 1968 he received the Vanier Outstanding Young Men's Award, head of the Department of Medicine at Richmond General Hospital, one of our advisors; Lorne Davis, director of athletics, Simon Fraser University; Dr. Robert Hindmarch, past-president of the B.C. Sports Federation and associate professor of physical education at the University of British Columbia; Dick Jacks, Canadian Olympic Association, past national president of the Canadian Amateur Swimming Association, president for this year of the British Columbia Sports Federation; Harry Jerome, the greatest sprinter in Canadian history, now with the Department of National Health and Welfare in Ottawa who attends our advisory

[ Page 681 ]

council meetings and has offered advice to our committee; Elaine Tanner, the greatest swimmer; Bob Osborne, Professor Osborne, director of the School of Physical Education and Recreation at U.B.C.; Nancy Greene, now Mrs. Raines, the world-renowned skier from Rossland who was for some time in Quebec when she was appointed to this committee. She has business in Quebec and still managed to attend a great number of our advisory council meetings. Now, of course, we're fortunate indeed in British Columbia that she and her husband and her family have taken up residence permanently in the Province of British Columbia. We're fortunate, I suggest, to have a person of the calibre of Nancy Greene advising us in these matters.

I want to go on. There are many others as well and yet the leader of the Liberal Party has the temerity to reflect on the integrity to reflect on the integrity of these people that this is a political slush fund. "A quasi-political slush fund" are his exact words, his exact words. I challenge him to play the tape and he'll find they are his words.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the House come to order?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, there have been some useful suggestions offered by the first Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) some of which he has offered in the past to the advisory council. Unfortunately, if we were to divert this fund into the capital area, you could spend the whole year's revenue on one ski hill.

I think one of the first applications we had come before the council was in this area of development of a ski hill. It would have taken our total revenue and left nothing for other worthwhile purposes. So we have moved in the other direction of operating grants to these organisations covering all of the various sporting fields — be it archery, badminton, baseball, basketball, boxing, canoe, cricket, curling, cycling, diving, fencing, field hockey, figure skating, football, gymnastics, golf, hand ball, hockey, horse owners, horseshoes. Talk about…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did it go to? The horse owners…

HON. MR. PETERSON: This would be to sponsor events and have competitions among the riders, not in connection with the track or anything of that nature. Horseshoes, of course, designed to provide coaching clinics for the older people because while we have placed the emphasis on what this fund is doing for our youth it is for people of all ages. We want people of all ages to be active.

Then we sponsor curling for the elderly citizens as well as for the young people. We sponsor as well lawn bowling which is primarily an activity of the older citizens. Judo, kendo, lacrosse, lawn tennis, mountaineering, parachuting, rowing, skiing, soccer, softball, rugby, speed skating, squash, swimming, synchronised swimming, table tennis, track and field, volleyball, water-skiing, wheelchair sports — and you know, if you were to observe some of these wheelchair sports, people that are completely paralysed and are confined to a wheelchair, and see how they compete. They compete not only nationally but internationally as well — it would give us a great lift to know the help we're giving in these areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, if you look at our last year's expenditure of nearly $750,000 — to be exact $735,192 — and you can see — and that's only on our existing expenditures — you can see the need for the increase of this fund, the fact that we will be able to effectively utilise the increased revenue that is being made available to us. We've only, thus far, engaged one full-time coach in a team sport and that is in basketball. At the moment we are advertising for one additional in the field of track and field, which of course embraces many sports, and many physical fitness endeavours.

But there are many other areas where this could be expanded and would help greatly, say for instance in volleyball or other team sports or other individual sports where the demand is there, the need is there. We produce the best volleyball players in Canada at the moment in British Columbia. I think the national team…

AN HON. MEMBER: Name a team.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The Calownas. I think we should have the headquarters of the national team always here in the Province of British Columbia.

One could go on in other areas. For instance, and I'll give another example, we've had very limited assistance up to now in terms of scholarships to the athletes to pursue their studies at secondary schools. All we've had are the Nancy Greene scholarships of $500 each. With the increase in the fund this year we're going to double the number of these Nancy Greene scholarships available. We're increasing the amount of the Nancy Greene scholarships from $500 to $750.

Then additionally this year we will have other scholarships available that have not been in existence before. We will have five top athletic awards of $1,000 each, We will have 25 other athletic awards of $500 each. This is all in addition to the Nancy Greene scholarships, which gives you some indication of the kind of help with these 40 awards that will be available this year to our top athletes in the province.

As far as travelling, I agree with the Honourable first Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) that considerable amount of funds is used by these sports bodies for travel purposes. We're trying to only supplement the federal fund in this respect that first of all they must take advantage of the federal funds that are available for travel and where they're insufficient we do make travel grants. Certainly we're hopeful that less and less would be used on travel to international meets leaving us more and more to contribute to the domestic front in the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, I would think that the greatest amount of travel expenditure is still made by the federal government for our international travelling. For instance, we approved a grant the other day. All the top competitors were being paid for by the federal, we're bringing along some of the junior competitors so they can have the benefit of that experience as well paid for provincially. This is the sort of thing that's going on.

While we're giving considerable attention on our top athletes we want more Nancy Greenes, we want more Elaine Tanners, we want more Harry Jeromes. Why? Because young people will emulate these outstanding athletes and they will try and achieve and perform to the very best of their ability.

At the same time our fund is being focussed on a mass basis, to have mass participation in physical education activities and amateur sports. The funds we give to the B.C. Sports Federation are in keeping with this.

[ Page 682 ]

Mr. Speaker, I could go on at some length but I hope I've said enough to indicate the need to increase this fund by $5 million to assure the Honourable Members with the kind of advisory council that we have that the money is being well spent in the Province of British Columbia.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there is one area that the British Columbia government could take a lead in and that's in the area of restoring national pride, in terms of a national hockey team.

It hurts as a Canadian to watch the Winter Olympics and see Czechoslovakia and Russia and Sweden — and the United States even got a bronze medal in world amateur hockey this year — and no Canadian team. I can remember in the years gone by when a Canadian team entered the World Amateur Hockey competition, there was no contest. We won hands down.

The last great spontaneous victory of, shall we say, Canadian amateurism of a national team, was the Trail Smoke Eaters, in terms of a spontaneous growth without any kind of national identity out of existing leagues.

The Trail Smoke Eaters came out of an existing league. In the past we've tried the Penticton league…

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition will relate this to the bill.

MR. BARRETT: What I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier should take the lead and announce that British Columbia will put up $25,000 as one province out of this fund if the other nine provinces do the same to establish a central Canadian training camp for Canadian amateur teams that can get us back into the amateur world hockey league that we've been missing in the last couple of world competitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: That wouldn't even pay the salaries of the amateurs.

MR. BARRETT: It wouldn't even pay the salaries of the amateurs, says the Honourable Member. Well, I'm suggesting that we could give a lead to establish this much needed return into international hockey by an amateur team representing Canada. I don't think that burying our heads in the sand and complaining about the rules is doing us much good.

We've got to face the fact that the competition is tougher and just because it's tougher and we don't like the way it got tougher is no reason for us to pack up our hockey sticks and go home.

I'd like to see this government give a lead and, in that way restore one area of national unity and national pride. Perhaps the Attorney General might advise the Premier to consider this action.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I think that some Members in this House completely missed the purpose of this type of a fund because when they talk about the need to look after the elderly and the young people, they are ignoring the fact that this fund will help build the hospitals for the elderly, will help build the school facilities for the younger people.

But very basically, Mr. Speaker, while I agree that this fund is doing a splendid job, I believe it has to go one step further. There's one area where there's real need. Certainly we want the top athletes. But we want more healthy young people participating.

While this fund, so far, has been helping the ones that can make the team, really it's the youngster that can't quite make the team that has been left out. I want to suggest one particular phase where I think we can really help.

We have many arenas, many swimming pools, many ice arenas that are existing but because of the tremendously high interest rates their operating costs are going up and up. Number one, the fees — the rates they charge the youngsters — are going up. Number two, to make ends meet, some of the arenas have to take in shows and circuses and rent the arenas for dog shows and the youngsters don't get the opportunity to utilise that arena in those periods of time.

I would suggest that in this increase in funds, the committee should look very seriously to perhaps a grant to the swimming pools and the ice arenas that would pay for certain number of hours a week in which those facilities would be made open to the youngsters under a certain age level so that they can get to use these facilities, that they can participate in this physical fitness and prepare themselves for amateur sports whereas otherwise they don't have that opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I feel as though I'm making my maiden speech in this great arena.

This fund on physical fitness, it's all very well to have it set up in a, bill such as this and have a committee distributing the funds. I agree with the Honourable the Attorney General that we need more Nancy Greenes, more Miss Tanners, more Jeromes. But we will not get those people unless we go down to the grass roots. This fund is not doing the job that it should be doing. I can't help, but believe that some of these funds, when you see the big ads in the papers with pictures, that there is a political overtone to it as well.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, point of order. There's never been an advertisement paid for out of this fund with any picture on it at all. The Honourable Member is completely out of order.

MR. NIMSICK: It may not have been paid for out of this fund but there's ads. But still I say that it gives the government a handle to try and lead the people to believe that they're doing a great deal to increase participation by the youngsters throughout the province and build physical fitness.

But when you look, the money that is in this fund should actually belong to the community recreation branch, when you look to the community recreation branch to cover the whole province — and don't forget that you've got to deal with the little villages in this province as well as the big cities.

There's Nancy Greenes and Jeromes and all the rest of them left at the gate because these recreation funds do not get down to the little people in the small villages. When you look at the recreational fund for last year or this year coming it's $125,000 to cover the whole Province of British Columbia. No increase at all from last year. It was $ 115,000,

[ Page 683 ]

the only increase is maybe the wages.

We've got seven consultants in the whole Province of British Columbia to look after the physical fitness and the recreation development of our children. This is a physical fitness fund to build the youngsters of the Province of British Columbia and I'm saying that on the one hand you're coming out in a big arm-waving idea about the wonderful things you're doing with this fund when you're short-changing the community recreational branch and not giving them sufficient money nor personnel to try and build that physical fitness in the schoolchildren of this province.

I had a meeting just before I left Cranbrook with these people and they're crying because there's seven consultants in the whole province. One from Nelson has got to cover the whole area and I say that this money that's in this fund actually should be in this community recreational branch.

I've got nothing against the fund, if you would give the community recreational branch sufficient money to operate the way they should and do the job that they should. They're not doing the job, they can't do the job. One representative to cover all the way from Trail, Grand Forks, Nelson, East Kootenay right through to the Alberta border. How can one paid consultant do that job and go into the places like Canal Flats, Invermere, Golden and all these places and try to lay the foundation and build leadership among the young people to build their physical fitness?

It's impossible to do it and I say, Mr. Speaker, that while if this is the only way you're going to give any money, I'll support the bill but I say it's only a sham battle when you don't give the money where it actually belongs — where the people that are working to try and build this physical fitness in the province, these are the people that you should be giving the money to and not divvying it out in a fund. Otherwise, you should, if you've got enough money in the community recreational fund — fine and dandy — have an extra fund.

HON. MR. PETERSON: What grants do you want cancelled, that we pay?

MR. NIMSICK: I say that this money actually should be building up more consultants, more people, more recreational people throughout the province in the little areas. No more administration, because this is what they're crying about on the local level. They need more consultants, we need a consultant in the East Kootenay and we could use two of them if we wanted to build up this physical fitness for the children. It's all very well to rave about the fund but let's not be too smug about the fund and let's put the money where it should be.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to contradict in the strongest words possible the remarks that the Member who just took his seat made. It just goes to show the little knowledge that this Member really has about where this money is going because certainly in my constituency, when I go up to Gold River, the people are saying: "You know, that's the greatest thing that you ever did for us. It's the greatest thing that ever happened because if we didn't have this money, we wouldn't be able to get our junior hockey teams to get into Campbell River to play against their team. We don't have enough people in this little community to get good competition at home and this money gets the junior and the midget teams down from Tahsis to play at Gold River and give them a team sense of competitiveness among rural communities that could never have afforded it before, to take their teams."

For you to get up here and say that this money just doesn't get down to the grass roots level just means to say that you're full of hot air as usual, Mr. Member. You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.M. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased at the increase in the physical fitness and amateur sports fund and although I am not aware of the specific reasons for increasing the fund, I'm certainly in favour of it and I also understand that the object of this fund is of course to support amateur sport and activity groups of different kinds.

I rise here at this time to make a more particular suggestion. I know it disagrees with statements the Attorney General as chairman of the fund has made in regard to not spending this money on physical facilities. However, I think this is a very important suggestion which deserves consideration in the future direction that the fund might take.

It seems to me that the increase in this physical fitness fund could be directed to certain urban areas in great need. I'm referring to areas in Vancouver surrounding major housing projects which are rapidly developing into ghettos for young children who are resident there.

A good example is the Raymur and MacLean park housing projects in the Vancouver-Strathcona area. Recreational facilities are almost nonexistent in this district and they are very badly needed. These large housing projects have injected large numbers of children with very little to keep them occupied except to roam the streets.

Of course well all observe the recent attention given to nail-polish sniffing. This matter really pointed up a basic social problem and one aspect of this problem is the lack of recreational facilities. For instance, what I feel they need in the Strathcona area of Vancouver is a swimming pool, a skating rink, possibly some kind of a football field with supervised activities arranged by the school or parks board.

It strikes me that our provincial physical fitness and amateur sports fund should take a special interest in areas of this type. Perhaps they could develop a programme specifically designed to assist children in these areas by obtaining the necessary recreational facilities and promoting activities for them. It's becoming more and more clear that we have a lot to do in providing such facilities for these areas in the interests of the community and its future adults.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I think the fund has been very successful in establishing a quality championship performance in British Columbia and a quantity of championship performance as well.

I think it has done a good job as far as distributing grants through the B.C. Sports Federation and I would urge that this should continue. I might suggest, however, that one of the ways the grant travelled from the department is that they travel to the B.C. Sports Federation to the local, to the B.C. Football Association to the regional football association, the

[ Page 684 ]

local club to the individual player. I think that we need this continuity of development and of encouragement and so I'm saying that this is good.

But, we must on the same hand, be careful that there is also a fund that goes directly to the individual player that is coming up — the young 10-year-old that is going out there at 4:00 a.m. In the morning out to the skating rink or wherever it is and we need another vehicle as well — of high jumpers, pole vaulters…

AN HON. MEMBER: Pole vaulters?

MR. WENMAN: That's right. We need another vehicle as well and that vehicle that we need is, I would say that the honourable Speaker in another fund that we're well aware of establishes community grants on a per capita basis and I think that's an excellent method of distribution. That method should be employed also in the fitness fund as another vehicle. Because under the current situation, the way it works is you tend to protect the strong and continue to build the strong but we need also to build the community and the people that can best develop the community aspect are those who live in the community.

Somehow we need — like we have our fine arts councils in our communities, no administration costs — directly two steps. One right from the cultural grant fund to the local committee, to that participant. It's a very, very direct process. Very, very little bureaucracy involved and it's not a filtering process, it's very, very direct.

I think that we need to establish community fitness councils similar to community art councils as another vehicle for making sure that funds move directly to the participant so that we can build these millions of young people into more, and more champions. Just as those champions in turn inspire participation, we need to engender that participation at this lower level through more direct grants. I pass that idea on to you and I hope that it can be implemented with this new $5 million.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This past weekend, I along with a number of other parents went down to Seattle with 5,000 schoolboys. 5,000 schoolboys to play a game — a tournament — in the Seattle area. Playing soccer.

In talking to many of those parents and observing the games, I noticed a great deal of difference between the condition of the playing fields in one area of Seattle, say around Burien, compared to another area around a school as distinct from a public park.

I was reminded in examining some of these facilities that the same thing holds true here in British Columbia. That some areas are well blessed with playing fields and others are not so well blessed. In fact a great degree of concern is being expressed by recreation people about the fact that our playing field production is not keeping up with the kind of thing that we're supporting in this fund.

While I welcome the fund and I realise that paying operating costs is a very essential part of amateur athletics, it seems rather short-sighted of the government to go full speed ahead in this direction and yet short-change athletics and recreation in other ways.

Take for instance the problem regarding shared facilities that exist between the Minister of Municpal Affairs — who's not here — and the Minister of Education — who's not here. They haven't got together yet, on solving the problem of who pays the cost of who looks after the shared facilities.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: They're all out together. Do you think they're discussing it now? I don't think they even talk to each other, that's the trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come now!

MR. HALL: Now, then, Mr. Speaker, when you see that kind of argument going on that's been going on now for at least two years in this House regarding who pays the operating costs of shared facilities, it makes this bill a little less worth while.

When you see whole programmes cancelled because of bad engineering, bad planning, bad maintenance of our playing fields in the area south of the river, you've got to see that something else must be done on a co-ordinated programme.

In another bill that's just received third reading, we had an Act which uses the name of our Queen and I'm reminded as a schoolboy myself of one of the things that happened in the country that I played most of my sports in. We had the Duke of Edinburgh Playing Fields Association and perhaps this government should take, under advisement, to match that kind of activity headed by the Duke of Edinburgh which provided hundreds of playing fields in that area in the immediate 1950 and post-war period.

Until we do that we really can't feel as proud and as confident of this bill as we should do. I feel that the Minister should make sure, in his capacity as the leader of the government, as a Crown prince perhaps, that he should get those few Ministers to talk to each other and solve some of these problems.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make just a few comments and I'll be very brief. I'd like to direct my remarks to the chairman of the fund. I do think that the key phrase in the distribution of the grants from the funds that are available under this vote is "amateur sports organisations." This phrase was used by the Minister and certainly has been reiterated time and time again and I would just like to rephrase that another way and say "organised amateur sports."

But I do feel that there is an area that is not being looked after and I feel that it would be of a great service if somehow, some of the money that's available in this fund could filter down to the level of organisations who may be less than perfect in the organisation that they have available to them in the community.

Many times new communities have a great deal of difficulty in obtaining trained personnel with the know-how and the technique of going about the proper channels to qualify for grants, under a fund such as this. Yet, young people who they represent are just as badly in need of the small amount of funds that could be made available to them as anybody in the province.

So while we can talk about the headliner names in amateur sports — and we all agree and recognise that most of

[ Page 685 ]

these people who get the publicity in amateur sports come from many of the larger centres and once they become nationally and internationally known they're familiar names to all of us — we do have scattered throughout the province amateur athletes who are just as competent, just as capable, who win many awards that don't probably get the recognition as some of the people closer to the lower mainland do.

Not only that, but the children who are coming up in many sporting events could use some assistance from the funds available. So all I'm suggesting to the chairman of the fund is that there is an area where I think we are now not putting the effort that we should. We're missing some of the towns and villages that do not have a sophisticated organisation through which they can go.

Generally the answer to these communities is, apply to the provincial organisation that represents your sport and eventually on some grounds you'll qualify for a grant. It's not really their fault that they don't have provincial affiliations sometimes and they're in that area that eventually they will become recognised provincially. So, I would hope that in dealing with future allocations of money from this fund — particularly since it's going to be increased — that the chairman would give consideration to the communities that don't presently qualify because they're not a member of some provincial amateur sports organisation but they do have the problem of children who want to become active in some sort of sport.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. FJ. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, following up on what our Honourable Member from Peace River (Mr. Smith) just stated, I certainly go along with the idea of trying to keep this fund to the young athletes.

But the thing I'm concerned about today from the comments of a number of the Members is that all of a sudden you can see the old wheels of bureaucracy getting to work. They can see a nice big plum there and they're going to get hold of that money and start creating more facilities which axe going to cost more money for the municipalities or the regional districts to maintain.

We already have the fiscal and the political administrative vehicle at the regional and municipal level to create more facilities and if the people want more they can have more by paying for it. There's nothing free in this whole world.

Now, this fund is doing a wonderful job in our own community and all around B.C. because it's getting to the young people, to the athletes — young people that don't know their way around the corridors of the legislature building or into the Ministers' offices.

It's come to them beautifully. It's doing a fine job and I hope it just stays that way and let's — not let the old bureaucracy get their hands on that money because once it does that fund will just go down like that. Let's keep it the way it's going now.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I would through you, just casually inquire if the Member from Nanaimo is talking about Social Credit bureaucracy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Will the Member get his remarks back to this bill?

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) that there is an additional need that isn't covered by this legislation. It's a need that we very often run into in the villages and the towns, the smaller organised communities. In the larger cities like Prince Rupert, it may not be quite so prevalent because the vast bulk of the population does live in a well organised centre.

But in smaller communities like Quesnel and Merritt, where there's a fairly large rural population living outside of the boundaries of the town, then the people who live outside of those boundaries like to come in to the local arena, the local swimming pool, that has been built through community efforts and in some cases centennial grants. The people living outside of the organised communities have had no way to participate as taxpayers. They're not taxpayers in that organised community.

I would like to see this bill extended to make it possible to have a facility grant so that any community could be given a grant of say $10 per capita that would take in not only the people living in the organised community of say Merritt, but all those that live in Lower Nicola, in Brookmere, in Aspen Grove, the people that do move into the organised community and take advantage of the organised recreational facilities.

But these facilities heretofore have been built pretty well from the tax dollar of those in the organised areas. I think it's only fair that there be facility grants that would assist these organised communities in building the proper type of facility that everyone in the overall area — organised or unorganised — can have contributed towards, through their tax dollar, and can participate in.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 17 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No. 26.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No, 26, the Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a umber of amendments to the Motor-vehicle Act. Many of hem are purely technical in nature and do not attempt to introduce any new or revised policy.

Others are more substantial and do involve a number of principles which I'm sure the Honourable Members want to discuss. In view of the fact that there's no common thread throughout the bill but each of the amendments are different revisions in the Motor-vehicle Act, I think it might be easier to discuss them when we are in committee, discussing each, section by section. So at this time, I would merely move the bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the Minister about the different number of principles. However, I feel that the interests of the Legislature would not be served

[ Page 686 ]

just to skip second reading because it's a complex bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Do you have to adjourn? Are you not prepared to discuss it now?

MR. HALL: No, I'd like to adjourn.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 27, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE JURY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 27. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: There are two major principles, Mr. Speaker, in this bill which would amend the Jury Act.

The present provisions of the Jury Act provide that each party to a trial may challenge peremptorily not more than four of a total of eight jurors. I'm speaking now of civil trials, not of criminal trials.

The amendment proposed in this bill would provide that the plaintiffs collectively would have four such challenges and the defendants collectively would have four such challenges. This is the situation, of course, in most trials where there are but two parties to the trial.

However, the question has arisen with the new Jury Act of what the situation really is when there are more than the two parties. The intention of the amendments is to limit the challenges to four for each side.

Really this brings it back to what the legislation intended in the first place, to the situation that existed before the advent of the new Jury Act. There will still, of course be the opportunity for every party to challenge any juror for cause.

The second principle involved in this bill I'm sure will meet with approval of this House. That is it provides for a juror who sits on a trial for more than 10 days will receive double pay for each extra day that he attends. This will assist those who find themselves tied up in lengthy trials — of which we've had a number in recent years.

The average juror doesn't find it too difficult to make an arrangement with the employer for a limited period of time but for very lengthy trials then it is a considerable inconvenience and this amendment is proposed as a result of discussions that I have had with the Chief Justice of the province on the subject, as well as looking at the legislation in England which is similar to that which is proposed for adoption in this House. I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 27 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The second reading of Bill No. 28, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 28. The Honourable Attorney General

HON. MR. PETERSON: Bill No. 28, Mr. Speaker, consists of amendments to the Administration Act. These, I suggest, are some very progressive proposals in this important area.

The proposals that are to be found in this bill will be of great significance, of great importance, to widows and widowers of deceased persons, They will also be of considerable interest and importance to those who have other than a legal relationship in terms of their marriage, because of the changes that are proposed.

Honourable Members are probably aware that the Administration Act applies where a person dies without leaving a will. The law in the Administration Act then provides for the distribution of that estate. Under the present law it provides that the first $20,000 goes to the surviving spouse, the widow, and the balance is divided according to the number of children. If there is one child then the first $20,000 would go to the widow or widower and the remainder would be divided equally, half to the child and half to the widow.

If there's more than one child, then it's the first $20,000 to the surviving widow and the remainder divided one-third to the widow and the balance among the children, depending on the number of children that are involved.

The amendment that's proposed in this bill would superimpose on this two things. One — absolute title to the household furnishings to the surviving spouse. You'll find in the bill household furnishings are defined.

Then in addition, it gives the surviving spouse a life interest in the matrimonial home. That is another very important principle in the new legislation — a life interest in the matrimonial home, and you'll find that the matrimonial home is also defined in the legislation.

This is a new departure as far as British Columbia is concerned, which will give more generous treatment to the surviving spouse. It will mean that regardless of the circumstances the home would be available if the surviving spouse so desires it, for the remainder of his or her lifetime and she would have absolute title to the household furnishings.

Of course, it's possible by consent and by agreement to vary these terms if you want to avoid the operation of these provisions. All you have to do, of course, is leave a will and then you can dispose of your property as you see fit.

Another provision in this respect which is a significant change relates to the circumstances between husband and wife. At the present time the Administration Act provides that a spouse that has left the other spouse and who is living in adultery at the time of the death of that spouse, that the survivor shall not take any part of the estate of the latter person. This is an existing provision.

A case went to the Privy Council at a time when we could take cases to the Privy Council, Mr. Speaker — Burns versus Burns — which decided, for this section to be operative, you had to establish that the person was living in adultery at the time of death. That wasn't too easy to establish in most cases and so it has had limited operation.

What is proposed in its place is the elimination of this provision entirely and to provide that where people are living separate and apart for at least a year immediately preceding the death, with the intention of living separately and apart on a permanent basis, then they would not take from the estate unless the court otherwise orders.

So, in the existing Act it's an absolute bar — adultery. Now we're saying if you're living separate and apart, then you wouldn't take, unless the court agrees that you should. I suggest that this is a major improvement in the law on this subject.

[ Page 687 ]

Another provision relates to part 5 of the Administration Act. The present part 5 allows the courts of our province to make provision for a concubine or illegitimate child out of the estate of a deceased person. The amount presently is limited to $500 or 10 per cent of the estate, whichever is the greater amount.

This, I might say, was established I believe in 1897. I'm not aware of any decisions defining "concubine" since that date, although there may have been. But certainly there hasn't been any change in the amount of money to be awarded since that time in 1897 when there was this limitation of $500 or 10 per cent of the estate whichever is the greater.

I suppose if we were to take into account the inflation that has continued since 1897, this $500 would be a rather substantial sum today. However, we are changing the basis of the law in the new bill and the amendments contained in the bill, Mr. Speaker, would make reference instead to a common-law spouse. It contains a definition of the common law spouse.

It would further allow the courts to use discretion in deciding what amounts should be awarded from the estate to a common-law spouse or illegitimate child. This, I suggest, is a much improved provision over the existing provision in the Act.

There are other provisions in part 5, which relate to the nature of these applications.

Another new principle of this Act is to require and to introduce a new requirement that notice be given of any application for letters probate or letters of administration to all who might have an interest in the estate.

In this case this provision applies whether by will or without will, whether it's letters probate or letters of administration.

The section as drafted would prohibit the granting of letters of administration or letters probate without first c establishing that notice has been given to the people who are referred to in the Act, including those who might have a potential claim under the Testators Family Maintenance Act, which is a statute that applies where there is a will. The detailed provision of the bill I will not refer to in this respect.

The last part of the bill, Mr. Speaker, would incorporate as part of the Administration Act the present provisions of the Deceased Workmen's Wages Act and it adds some provisions in this respect.

It's been found that the present statute is seldom used and we think one of the reasons for this is that it is a separate statute, not well known and it would be better to have it part of this overall legislation. We're simplifying the procedures that apply and these simplified procedures are to be found in the bill. I'm sure it will enable the claims for wages against an estate involving deceased workmen to be much easier and utilised much more freely under this new legislation. Mr.Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill can be discussed perhaps better in committee but I'm naturally pleased that the notice section is included, that probate can't be granted without proper notice to those who might have an interest in the estate and the same on intestacy, as suggested in Bill No. 2, now withdrawn.

But there are improvements in the case of common-law spouses which are long overdue in the law. Mr. Speaker, I again point out that when you're considering the financial security of these common-law spouses and illegitimate children, to use that expression, you've got to remember that there's great inequality towards these people under the succession duty laws of the Province of British Columbia because they're treated as strangers and heavily taxed under those laws. What you give them under this kind of legislation, you are taking away through the Minister of Finance.

I hope that there's time in this session if we are really introducing a new definition of common-law spouse to correct that obvious anomaly and injustice.

There is not in this legislation, Mr. Speaker — although it appears to be the principle of one of the sections — the sort of thing that was argued for some years by the Member from Oak Bay, who has since passed to his reward — Mr. Justice McFarlane as he is now known. He said that in addition to what is in here that you should in the case of an intestacy allow applications under the Testators Family Maintenance Act because the division is there. That is not provided for yet in the laws of British Columbia and it should be because you may have an impoverished widow, a small estate and children who are well off who shouldn't have any part of it and many kinds of different circumstances of that kind. They do now on an intestacy. If the discretion of the court is available where there's a will, the discretion of the court should be available, in the case of an intestacy as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we consider this to be good social legislation and are particularly interested in certain specific sections in the bill which I do think can be much better discussed during the committees than here.

We are pleased to see the James Nesbitt amendment which essentially is the codification of the common law which has always been the law but is better to see it in black and white. It's perhaps a little easier and it would be better notice to the trustees and to all people who have go to go lead and give the effective notice that is now called for under the proposed legislation.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I could like to draw the attention of the Attorney General to be definition of an illegitimate child which doesn't include a child who has become illegitimate by reason of annulment proceedings. I think that is another definition that's been missed and I hope that you'll give some thought to that because there are people who started out presumed to be legitimate and ended up being illegitimate and I don't mean by operation or by political attack.

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

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate that there are some minor amendments that will be proposed in the committee stage of this bill but nothing of a major principle.

[ Page 688 ]

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 28 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 33, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 33. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Summary Convictions Act. Most of the amendments proposed in the bill are what might be termed of a housekeeping nature. A new definition of the criminal code to bring our statute up to date and some amendments of that nature. A provision whereby a justice may adjourn the trial without becoming seized of the matter. This sort of thing.

Another provision allows the service of documents on the Attorney General to be made by filing with the court registry rather than trying to run down and catch the Attorney General personally.

None of these are earth-shaking amendments. I think the most substantial and most significant amendment proposed in the bill is the one which would permit a justice to sentence a defendant to a term of imprisonment and direct that the term be served not on consecutive days but on days to be named or weekends throughout a period long enough to ensure that the full sentence is served. A limitation of one year, however, is proposed to be placed upon the total time within which the sentence is served.

My information is that this is the first time that this type of detention has been proposed in summary conviction cases in Canada. It's our hope that it can be used in the case of the type of minor offences that are punishable under the Summary Convictions Act that will enable a person who is convicted and who is a bread winner of a poorer family to continue to be productively employed while paying his debt to society.

I move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker. You know the old saying that a drop of water on a rock that drops long enough, often enough, will finally wear away the rock. I remember that this amendment that the Honourable the Attorney General spoke about, is the bill that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition brought into the House somewhere about six years ago. I thought that the Honourable the Attorney General, when he was looking across at the Leader of the Opposition, I thought he would give him credit for bringing this to his attention. But, I don't think he was quite that gracious to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the meaning of Social Credit.

MR. NIMSICK: But I think it should be brought to the attention of this House that this amendment is actually an amendment that belongs to the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

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

MR. GARDOM: I would like to make one observation concerning this bill which we are supporting and that is this. That it is a very, very terrific step forward in my view, the particular section which the Attorney General referred to wherein the magistrate has the discretion to have broken periods of imprisonment if necessary.

Now, the magistrates in the Province of British Columbia, now known as the provincial court judges, have very — I want to use the correct word here — jealously wished to guard their powers of sentencing and I think by extending the right to them here, this is a great step forward because, it's always their responsibility to consider the full natures and circumstances surrounding a criminal act. If there has been restitution; if there's been a great deal of brutality and so forth.

They secondly have to determine the protection of the public when sentencing and thirdly the likelihood for rehabilitation or reform of the individual.

I was impressed with the words of the Honourable the Attorney General when he said that thought could be given to giving, shall we say, a break to the breadwinner in the family by permitting him to be out and to be vocational under certain circumstances.

But we have in this particular bill something that is directly in contravention of the philosophy of another bill that has come before the House which completely takes away from the magistrates the right to exercise any discretion whatsoever concerning licence suspensions and the judges in the Province of British Columbia have felt, I think consistently, that they are in a better position to determine as to whether or not there should be a suspension or not of a motor vehicle licence.

They have awarded suspensions from dawn to dusk where you have the situation of an individual who is a breadwinner or he is not permitted, say, to drive on the weekends.

So we have one situation here of the government expanding the jurisdiction of the provincial court judges then we have the other illustration before this House of the government going the other way and reducing it.

I think it would be a little better if there was a higher degree of consistency in the government attitudes than there has been.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend through the Speaker to the former Member for Dewdney (Mr. Barrett) — not the present Member for Dewdney, but the former Member for Dewdney — my congratulations for his great victory today. It's a moment of complete humility that I praise the former Member for Dewdney for his actions in bringing this to the attention of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When we have completed the self congratulatory messages could we proceed now with the principle of this particular bill? (Laughter).

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill does permit for the first time in the history of this province, but not for the first time in any jurisdiction in Canada, unfortunately.

[ Page 689 ]

In the Province of Saskatchewan, through you, Mr. Speaker, they introduced a bill in the former Liberal government, some three years ago that had incorporated four pages of my original bill, word for word, which I plagiarised from the State of Wisconsin.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did they get it from?

MR. BARRETT: They got it from an Attorney General by the name of Huber, in 1921.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he, by the way?

MR. BARRETT: He was a Socialist and it was an original idea with the LaFollette regime. Huber was an outstanding intellectual. An outstanding American Socialist politician and an outstanding attorney general in the State of Wisconsin.

It has been estimated that this particular concept has saved the State of Wisconsin not only millions and millions of dollars, but has actually been demonstrated to show that they have avoided marriage breakdowns through the taking of children into custody by the State of Wisconsin.

An outstanding social reform, that when it was first introduced into this House, the former Attorney General said: "It's 40 years too soon." I had to remind him at that time that he was 40 years late.

Mr. Speaker, through you, this kind of legislation has got absolutely nothing to do with political philosophies or political divisions. We acknowledge that. But then I ask you this question and I mean it sincerely — why does it take so long? When an idea is presented in the House and the idea has obviously got nothing to do with shaking down the government or electing the N.D.P. and defeating Social Credit or the Liberals or anything else — why can't we adopt these ideas into law far more quickly?

I give this Attorney General credit, because some politicians resist a new idea as a matter of pride rather than understanding that there is room in this House — as difficult as it is for some observers to understand — there may be room in this House for an exchange of ideas outside the arena of political parties, on every instance.

It does indeed do the kind of thing that we were looking for. There's still a number of problems that I would like to hear from the Attorney General on — in terms of administering this Act.

At the present time if you were so unfortunate as to be walking along the street, Mr. Speaker, and be robbed of $50, under this section you wouldn't get your $50 back.

I don't think that we should allow people to steal $50 from the Speaker — or anyone else, for that matter — without the Speaker or someone else being able to recover the $50 lost.

Part of punishment is the return of the original amount of money that was stolen and if the Attorney General were to understand that the concept of weekend jails is to enable the offender to be more directly responsible for his crime and one way of being more directly responsible for one's crime is to return that that has been stolen — plus expenses. Plus medical expenses. They may be out or a day away from work that he had to come to court and testify: "Yes, this is the man who robbed me."

Then you go to the judge and say: "I'd like my money back." And the judge will say: "Be quiet or I'll fine you for contempt of court." It wasn't even his fault. The victim's approach to the court's system is one of fear.

Let's exit the victim, then let's look at the state, the provincial government. We put him in jail for the weekend, but why should we pay for his room and board?

Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why should we give anybody a weekend free in beautiful downtown Oakalla? If he's going to go to jail and it's part of punishment, then charge him room and board for the weekend. Charge him $2.50 a day for room and board.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: That's about all it is worth, that's correct. But even at that, the point is that it is money out of the taxpayers' pockets to put him in jail. We are taking away the planned recreational period from the offender, so let him pay room and board while he's in jail, $2.50 a day would not be out of line.

Now, what are we doing with the time that he's in jail? That time should be used to establish what the Dutch are experimenting with and have been experimenting with for a number of years. Establishing a therapeutic community concept, keeping the same group of offenders together every weekend with a highly-skilled probation officer who is supervising that group out in the community.

The assignment should be made by keeping case loads low. It's not good enough in my opinion for the judge in the case to be placed in the position of saying to the offender: "O.K., I'm going to put you in on weekends and you report to the prison on weekends and you get out on Monday," without anyone following through on the case.

So what's needed if we're going to make this section really work, is an experimental group of probation officers to develop a whole new service in this area and keeping their case loads down to 20 or 25 people and keeping the case load as a group in itself.

Beyond this, Mr. Speaker, is the family. If this is a married man, then we must understand that we can't just confine our services to the man himself. There is a wife and children involved and the family should be looked upon as a unit receiving service from the probation officer who is supervising if that's the intention of the Attorney General.

I welcome this section. I know it will work. The thing that would make me even happier than this, Mr. Speaker, is for the Attorney General to bring in a law saying that no child, 12 years of age or younger shall be held in an institution, holding children over the age of 12. That's the next step.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Attorney General deserves praise for having brought in this section and in effect allowing the Leader of the Opposition to see a government implement an idea that's good.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a rarity.

MR. DOWDING: I think together they should be able to work out the way this becomes a success. I think what the Leader of the Opposition has said now is very important. It's not spelled out in the legislation but it's no use putting something down in black and white in a bill and expecting it to look after itself. It just doesn't do it that way.

I might add I had an interesting experience this morning

[ Page 690 ]

on this, how it works out in practice. In a court case in Port Coquitlam I was sitting there listening and a provincial judge was trying to decide on the sentence for a man who had a reading over 0.08. So he said: "I'm going to fine you $200. Now what do you do for a living?"

The man said: "I need my car to go to work every day, there's no bus line where I go to a refinery that's quite a distance away from the travelled route." The judge said: "Well I could sentence you to a three-month suspension but with provision that you can use it only to go to work and back to your home. Would that suit you?"

The man thought about it and he said: "Well, what else would you do if I didn't like that?"

"Well, if you want an option I would give you a straight 30-day suspension, instead of a 90-day suspension," said the judge. So the man thought that over for a minute and he decided the 30-day suspension clear and outright, in which he'd have to find his way to work by either his wife driving him, or somebody else driving him, or hitching a ride, was preferable to three months of the other remedy.

It's very much like this. This is a tougher sentence for some people than just to spend their time in jail for a longer period of time. It means you've got to stick to a schedule, it means you've got to continue paying your debt. It means that every time you go there you think about what you did. And you are determined, I would think, not to do it again.

Aside from the pecuniary aspect of it, I think the constant return to a group participating in the same kind of penitence, as it were, by good works is a useful means of bringing about reformation that does not normally take place. When you look at the percentage of recidivism that takes place in crime today, a new approach is needed. I certainly on behalf of all of us thank the Attorney General for being bold enough to take that approach.

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

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think we have established today that this is a government that listens to the Members of this House and regardless of whether an idea is proposed by Members who sit in the Opposition benches or on the government side, if the idea is good, if it's a sound idea, if it's constructive and we hear so little in terms of constructive proposals…

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

HON. MR. PETERSON: We sat all night and we didn't hear one constructive proposal in this respect. But when we do, Mr. Speaker, we listen, and we act. This isn't the first time.

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: We've got a proposal here for the Summary Convictions Act. If you look at the correction statute which was put into effect a short while ago, a work training programme, which allows people who are in our correctional institutions to obtain employment, or to continue in employment and this statute provides what the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition was talking about — a deduction for his food and lodging. This is provided now in the law, when persons from our correctional institutions are allowed out on work training programmes.

I realise that has limited application but nevertheless it is a principle that's established there.

Now also on the question of restitution, or the example chosen by the Leader of the Opposition a person goes out and steals $50 from the Speaker. I know, Mr. Speaker, that's not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but under the present law the court has that authority now. They have the authority to order restitution by a person that's accused of theft. So there's no need for legislation in that respect.

I might say as well that there is a new trend now in terms of probation orders — one that I have discussed as well with members of the bench, which I think is extremely good. Varying conditions can be imposed on people who are let out on probation. They in turn have to do their bit for the community. They may have to wash cars, they may have to clean up messes that they've made, this sort of thing. It's a lot in keeping with the same idea of restitution, and this is all extremely good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I might just add before making the final motion, that there is a minor amendment that will be made to the bill in committee stage but it's technical in nature. I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 33 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 35, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MORTGAGE BROKERS ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 35, An Act to Amend the Mortgage Brokers Act. The Honourable Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains some important amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act, which is a statute that Honourable Members will recall was introduced in the Legislature last year. The Act itself is divided into two broad parts, two major principles — one dealing with registration of mortgage brokers, and secondly, provisions which would require a lender in certain cases to furnish a disclosure statement, showing the various items that make up the cost of borrowing, plus the other terms and conditions of a mortgage.

At the time this bill was being considered one year ago, I indicated to the House that the registration provisions of the Act would come into force and effect first, and that I would not recommend the proclamation of the disclosure provisions, the other part of the Act, until I was completely satisfied that these provisions would be considered practical and capable of ready compliance.

In August of last year the Executive Council issued a proclamation bringing the registration provisions into force effective January I this year. That time interval was required to enable the necessary printing of the application forms and passing of the regulations et cetera.

At the present time the registration provisions are working well, I might add. We have 160 brokers registered at the last count that I received, and sub-mortgage brokers number 240 registered.

You will find in this bill some additional proposals in

[ Page 691 ]

respect to the registration of mortgages but the main thrust of the bill that's before the House relates to a rewrite of the provisions of the Act relating to disclosure.

It became apparent as this matter was considered the kind of mortgage transactions where disclosure statements were required were those where the interest rate shown on the mortgage document did not fully reflect the cost to the borrower. For example, if the interest rate shown on the face of the mortgage is, say, 9 per cent per annum, but there's a substantial bonus or discount attached to the mortgage, then the interest rate is much more than 9 per cent.

It's in this area that we've rewritten the requirements of the statute, to provide where there is a bonus or commission, or discount, et cetera or whatever name it's called then the disclosure provision provides.

This is a different principle really from that which we adopted last year where we said it applied to everything unless specifically excluded. Now, we think this is a better procedure and will cover the cases which require covering in the Province of British Columbia.

In addition a new principle has been established in this bill — that the borrower who borrows money by a bonus or discount mortgage, that where there is a bonus or discount, where you are required to complete the disclosure statement, then the borrower will have the right within 48 hours after he receives the disclosure statement or signs the mortgage, whichever event first occurs to rescind the mortgage and to be put back into the same position he was in prior to the transaction being entered upon.

So, here for the first time we're introducing a genuine element of prior disclosures giving a suitable period of time in which a borrower can, when all the facts are known to him, consider what he has done. If he wants to rescind then he can do so within the 48-hour period. In other words there is a cooling-off period of 48 hours when you know all the facts to decide whether you should proceed and go through with the transaction or not.

There is another significant provision and that is the one which enables a borrower who ought to have received a disclosure statement but did not receive such a statement of bringing an action to redeem the property within 30 days if he can show to the court that he was entitled to such a disclosure statement but did not receive one, or that he was deliberately mislead by some item in the disclosure statement.

So, Mr. Speaker, in summary the disclosure provisions are directed toward those kind of mortgages where disclosure is most necessary. Namely, where there are bonuses and discounts. Secondly the provisions provide for the first time a genuine element of prior disclosure with rescission privileges within 48 hours. And thirdly, a provision to allow the borrower to redeem the property within one month, if a disclosure statement ought to have been provided which was not provided or if there was false information in the disclosure statement.

It's my view that these provisions are not only substantial improvements from the existing provisions, which are not yet proclaimed in any event, but they are the type of provisions with which the industry itself can readily comply. I feel that these changes will make the statute effective for enforcement purposes without in any way impeding the availability of mortgage money or creating undue difficulties in complying with the amended requirements. I move the bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second Member for Vancouver Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: We are in accord with the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. There's just one observation I would like to make to the Honourable the Attorney General which perhaps could be considered by him before the time we get into committee and that deals, Mr. Speaker, with the disclosure of provisions in the bill and I have the Attorney General's ear.

Dealing with the disclosures provisions you give the borrower and power to rescind under your section 16, and you also give him the opportunity to repay, but if he does not repay you do not seem to cover the situation as to whether or not his rescission is effective. You might consider that point perhaps by the time we come to committee. Because it doesn't seem to me to be expressed with the degree of clarity that it should be.

HON. MR. PETERSON: That's under section 16?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, under section 16-2 and 16-6. The point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General that you've given the man the power to rescind under section 16-2 and then he has the opportunity to repay under 16-6. But if he choses to rescind and he does not repay, then you've left it sort of up in the air as to whether or not there's an effective rescission, probably at law there would not be. But perhaps, I think, this could be put within the terms of the bill to make it more clear to the general public.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 35 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE REGIONAL PARKS ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 36. An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act. The Honourable Minister.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, when the original Regional Parks Act was drawn up in 1965 there were some people in the municipalities who were doubtful that they would want to either (a) participate in such a vehicle, or (b) be locked into it if they didn't participate.

In order to safeguard that concern, we provided in the original Act that they must not enter into purchase agreements that would require longer than five years to discharge and that they could not fund any portion of the procurement operations of the regional park.

Since that time, however, over these past five or six years the regional park concept has become well established and is substantially utilised in two areas of the province, and is expanding its utilisation into other areas of the province.

In process of the actual operation, the regional district that operates in the Greater Vancouver-Lower Fraser Valley area, found that in some of their park planning, that in order to be effective they had to accomplish in a shorter period of time than they had originally anticipated, certain of their

[ Page 692 ]

property acquisition objectives if they were to obtain the kind of property assemblies that would effectively serve the regional park purposes that they were seeking to serve.

As a result of this they require a reasonable amount of money at an early date rather than simply relying on their authority to spread out their purchase under purchase agreement over five years, or to simply spend the money as it came in from their normally agreed to half-mil levy over a period of years.

There was no indication, however, that they wanted to go to any great extensive terms in funded debts and I would hope the regional districts, wherever it's practical to do so, that they do limit their operations to either their annual cash flow or to comparatively short-term purchase agreements so that they are not building up a large funded debt.

But in the particular situation I think it deals primarily with the Tynehead property. The only real solution to the problem is to permit the district if they so desire to fund the necessary dollar volume which would be something in the range of $4 million or less than $5 million and acquire these properties now since they are all encompassed in the boundaries of the particular park projects, satisfying in this manner the present property owners and not delay the transaction unduly. That, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of the amendments before you in relation to the Regional Parks Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 36 I welcome, having spent some six years of my life answering questions from people in my constituency who have been hit by the question of the development of regional parks and had their properties frozen in value without any ability to get out of that box that the various rules and regulations and authorities have seen them placed in. The Member for Delta (Mr. Wenman) the Member for Langley (Mr. Vogel) and myself have welcomed the arrival into our areas of this kind of legislation to develop regional parks. Over the years we've had occasion to appear at joint meetings and joint platforms to support the concept of regional parks. It makes it that much more difficult, Mr. Speaker, when there is not sufficient money to back up a good public idea. The Member for Langley and myself have said, I think on a few occasions, that if it's a good idea and in the public good then the public must pay for it. There's nothing for free.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, one can't help but reflect on an Act that sees certain municipalities having a free ride. There are municipalities which will enjoy the benefits of this bill, will enjoy the acquisition of parkland, their citizens will be able to have recreational programmes and even such esoteric affairs as zoos, biological gardens, all for free, Mr. Speaker. Because we don't have the legislation that makes it mandatory for all member municipalities to pay their fair share, pay their fair share of the regional parks activities in the region, of the lower mainland.

I welcome the bill because this now enables the regional parks to mortgage the future a little bit to make sure that those people who are affected in this public progress are able to be looked after properly and no longer have to suffer the slings and fortunes of tax problems and the freezing of their properties and the inability to make decisions as to whether to improve their property or to do the various things that normal people have to do.

I welcome the bill. The Minister has had a sympathetic ear over the years and now to his credit he had managed to pull something out of the hat for us and we welcome the bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) for his recognition of the mutual concern that the Member for Delta (Mr. Wenman) the Member for Surrey and I have shown in connection with the parkland acquisition problems that exists in the area. These people have been in a very bad way for a number of years as the Member has said and I think this bill is coming in not a bit too soon.

I can be hopeful that the amount of money to be borrowed permissible under the bill will permit the acquisition of the lands that have been zoned for park purposes and frozen and therefore are virtually arrested as far as either proper development use for their own purposes or sale is concerned and I think perhaps it might be timely to comment upon one or two things that we have learned in the effort we have made to develop parkland on a regional basis.

First of all, it's completely futile to outline park areas by drawing lines on a map and saying that the acquisition would be desirable without providing immediately the funds for that purpose, simply because in the central Fraser Valley typically and I suppose most places generally the increasing prices have made it quite sure that the programme of acquisition could never be completed if it were done over a period of time.

What has happened here of course, is that the acceleration of prices has been retarded by the municipal policy which has been followed with the idea of deliberately freezing this land. These people have been told that the land is marked for acquisition. Buyers therefore were warned not to go into the area to buy but the people that owned the land could not use it for their own purposes, seek another buyer or obtain their money. It was a most unfair situation. I congratulate the Minister for having resolved the matter in this manner and am very happy to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 36 be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 36 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 37, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Constitution Act. The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Constitutional Act. All Members have had this bill before them for some period of time now and are acquainted with its contents. Contents being that it ties increases in indemnity for those people connected with the House — the M.L.A.'s, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, et cetera — to a percentage determined by certain acts which may take place in the

[ Page 693 ]

public sector.

I personally think this is a wise approach, and the bill, you will notice, is retroactive in order to take care of this particular session of the Legislature. A pleasure moving that it be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we're asking for an adjournment of this section of this bill. Sorry not to be ready, but that first sentence and the syntax makes it something that our caucus has not really had a chance to read let alone discuss. I move adjournment.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BLACK: I doubt if that is the reason.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 18.

GREEN BELT PROTECTION FUND ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 18, Green Belt Protection Fund Act. Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as part of the better life policy in British Columbia of this government it is desired to preserve green belt areas throughout the province in perpetuity. To this end it will be necessary for the government to purchase privately-owned land to hold as green belt areas in addition to lands presently held for that purpose by the government.

It will be the government policy to add to this fund in future years to combine and augment the purchase of green belt areas, as we consider this at this time in our history a very important policy in our government.

This bill, therefore, provides initially for a special fund of $25 million to be set up from which moneys may be spent to acquire private lands to be held by the Crown as green belt areas. The bill outlines that such lands acquired may be used mainly for parkland without camping, for forestry reserves or for renting for farming purposes. Immediately this bill is passed the government will commence to purchase the land. It is our intention to step in and buy these lands as soon as possible in different parts of this province.

This isn't a perpetual fund, though we hope it will be added to each year and so it will be a permanent policy as long as this government is in office, which I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, with these kind of policies will be for many, many years.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, you'll retire. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): The official Opposition is pleased that the government is doing something about protecting land around the edge of cities in this province. It's long overdue. I would like to say Mr. Speaker that those feelings are genuine.

I would hope that the government would think seriously about the whole question of priorities and not just go rushing into certain areas because there are specific pressures of the moment.

I would hope that the green belts genuinely become that around our major cities, namely the Victoria area and the Greater Vancouver area. I would hope that the government would give priority in these two critical areas where growth is so rapid and where the land may not be preserved for any great length of time.

I think specifically in the Greater Vancouver area and the lower mainland there are some natural green belts that should be preserved. I think the natural green belt around the metropolitan Vancouver area includes the Pitt River flatlands which are magnificent farm lands, the whole Nicomekl-Serpentine Basin surrounding the Surrey Upland and then the Delta flatlands and the Municipality of Delta and the magnificent islands out by the Reiffel sanctuary, Weston Island, Reiffel Island and so on. These are great provincial, maybe national assets that should by all means be preserved.

Now, there's a case for it for many reasons. These are probably the most productive farmlands in the province. They are close to the metropolitan heart-land, the great population and in the case of some parts of them in terms of developing them for their full agricultural potential there will probably be major capital works necessary in the case of the Serpentine and the Nicomekl in particular there's a genuine flood control problems, water table problems and so on. They should be dealt with so that this area is developed into a major food basket that is producing more and more all the time. Simply because there are these problems of major capital expenditures that the individual farmers in those areas might well not be able to carry, there is a case for using the green belt fund to preserve those key agricultural lands.

It's also a unique opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for making it feasible for more young people to go into farming in British Columbia. I would note that the Government of Saskatchewan is presently planning on going into a land bank programme on a significant scale in order to overcome this capital problem — that is the capitalised value of the land is preventing people from becoming farmers and producers on the land today. A programme such as this which would allow a tremendous amount of leasehold farming to take place, and these key areas would be great in terms of allowing that possibility.

Now, I know that the government is usually reticent to allow the development of any bureaucracy, but I would urge upon the Minister of Finance the hiring of some staff at least with respect to this fund. It wouldn't be quite good enough to handle it the way he handles his amateur sports fund or the like, but rather look at the question of priority and develop a significant programme. I'm convinced, Mr. Speaker, that in fact the ideal situation would be to have this administered not by the Minister of Finance but by a Minister of the Environment for British Columbia.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Is the Hon. the Premier announcing that he's going to be the new Minister of the Environment?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: No? Oh its the Hon Premier

[ Page 694 ]

suggesting, that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, P.G.E., B.C. Hydro, et cetera, et cetera is also going to be the Minister of Environment?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You missed a few et ceteras.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the et ceteras, you know, make it abundantly clear that the Hon. Minister on the Premier's right is overworked and has too many masters and that dealing with the industrial sectors of the economy of our major industrial sectors isn't the base that the Minister of the Environment should operate from. So I would hope for a Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker, but at the very least the hiring of some staff rather than the establishment of another committee with the same old bodies on the committee that are on the culture fund, the sports fund, and all the other funds. But you know, I would hope we'd have some assurance from the Minister with respect to that.

I would hope too, Mr. Speaker, that the government start looking at the massive industrial belt that they have acquired in the district of Delta and seriously rethink that. The government bought what, some 5,000 or 6,000 acres. In Delta municipality back of the superport, and it's clear that will probably not be needed for that purpose.

These lands ideally should be preserved to a greater extent as green areas within the city or near the city and not as part of an industrial complex at the port.

Clearly, the amount of industrial land zoned in the Greater Vancouver area now is very large and I think the actual amount used is about 20 per cent. So we're moving past the year 2,000 and beyond in terms of using land that is presently zoned for industry in the Greater Vancouver region.

I would again hope that some staff input of a high calibre was established so that there could be a review of the industrial land holdings of the Crown in the lower mainland as well, so that that land in turn could be preserved.

Mr. Speaker, there are areas of course, around the regional cities in the province and I'm sure that arguments can be made for preserving some of that land but that may be another problem — areas like Kamloops and so on. In fact, if this government was really on its toes it would have acquired the land on the edge of Kamloops for other purposes. That is for development purposes in that area. If they'd been on their toes they would have accepted the original proposals of the City of Kamloops for acquiring those lands. But they're not.

There is a related problem and that is the whole question of the price of land in our society and land tenure questions generally. I again would urge upon the government the need for some staff over-view of this massive problem. So long as we ignore what's happening in the land market around the edge of our cities, we're going to be creating a burden for all the people that want housing and want to function in cities, a burden that they shouldn't necessarily have to carry. I would hope that the government would realise that they must look at the land market around cities and look at ways they can affect it so that (1) they avoid the pressure on the farmer to sell his land to speculators or for speculative use or for urban purposes, and, (2) so that they can have some effect on the price of land.

I would suggest that economic and tax policies with respect to land around cities could be developed that would have an impact on the price of the land and an impact on the pressures on that land.

You know, the recent example in the District of Dufferin which I don't really want to bring up but it's classic in a way. The tax pressures…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: The tax pressures that we can put on land, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we come back to Bill No. 18 please?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, yes. That's preserving land, Mr. Speaker. The tax pressure that we can put on land affects its price. Certainly an increase in taxes of 41 times as has just recently happened in the Kamloops area has an effect on the value of that land. That's something the government should be thinking about. If tax pressures worked in the right direction, if we shifted taxes away from productive enterprise in relation to building on land and shifted the burden more towards the holders of land that are speculating it would have a tremendous effect on the price. That in turn would have an impact with respect to the green belt fund. If there were fair taxation across the board, around all the cities of British Columbia…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: …you could probably buy $100 million worth of green belt rather than $25 million worth of green belt. Well, the Premier says that's right. It is right. But what I want to know is why aren't you doing something about it?

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: You know, the Premier can talk about inflation in Ottawa and not coming to grips with inflation in Ottawa but the areas of inflation that he can deal with in British Columbia he's content to leave alone, and let massive fortunes build up on the edge of cities for the favoured few.

That need not be. This is the area that the Minister of Finance can deal with. This is the inflation bubble that he can pop. But he chooses not to.

This $25 million can do various things. One of the things it can do is help push the price of land up. Oh yes, you know it. If there's increased buyers — prices go up. You know all about supply and demand.

If you do not have concurrent policies that deal with this problem then you've got a $5 million bill rather than a $25 million bill here. Mr. Premier, you're fully aware of that. How many more instances do we need in British Columbia before you'll face up to the fact that this is your responsibility, that you can do something about it, that these free riders around the edge of the towns will not be supported any longer? This is a great opportunity to make this $25 million do $100 million worth of work. I urge the Premier to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

[ Page 695 ]

MR. VOGEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on Bill No. 18.

I agree that the requirement for open spaces and green belt occurs more obviously at the high-priced land in the perimeter of the growing area, in the Vancouver rapidly developing sector. But I think that we all recognise that properly considered the entire coastal plain as far as Chilliwack should be regarded as an extension of metropolitan Vancouver because the density will continue to move eastward and we'll be facing the same problem from a number of growing centres such as North Surrey, the Whalley area, Langley and Abbotsford and so on.

I don't quite agree with my friend from Vancouver East, the Honourable second Member (Mr. R.A. Williams) with regard to the manner in which these funds should be expended. Simply because I think that large areas obviously more suitable for agricultural production than anything else should be retained by firm zoning on the part of the municipalities.

I don't think that public money should be put into productive farmlands that are being properly used, thereby creating the rental problem and so on, and the possibility that they will become less productive simply because they are not owner operated. I do think though that in order to ensure that the owners can use them with proper economy and productivity it is necessary to use public funds to solve the drainage problem and I certainly think that's where we've been falling down.

The flood plane of the Nicomekl and the Serpentine involves 16,000 acres. It's within 25 miles of the post office of the City of Vancouver. It's probably the most productive land in the entire lower mainland or could be if the water were lower and I would think for the government simply to buy that would be a great mistake but to increase the productivity by looking after the drainage problem would be a very obvious thing to do. I think perhaps our money should be better spent in bits and pieces around the small growing communities. If, say, North Surrey in the Guildford area we had had this fund a few years ago we would have probably selectively picked up parcels of land that would have been a very great help to the Municipality of Surrey in maintaining sensibly planned communities and a good environment and we can do a great deal now.

I would like to see the committee look at it from that point of view and try to diversify the acquisition as much as possible to the communities that are obviously going to be the cities of the future.

There's one thing that I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if the Premier would make clear when he speaks the manner in which the dealing is going to occur. How the acquisitions are going to occur. I would certainly hope that there would be no expropriations with regard to acquisition of land under this bill — that we would simply acquire lands under the rule of the marketplace between a free buyer and a free seller. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, concerning the institution of the Green Belt Protection Fund Act I think those of us who have been concerned with environmental matters in the province and the control of lands have wished for some time that there was some such fund as this which was available for the acquisition of particularly desirable pieces of land which should be retained in the public sector for all times.

We really haven't had this without some direction of the Legislature through the passage of an Act such as this to give direction which would give approval to the expenditure of such public money.

Now we have it and you have the assurance that this first sum that has been placed here is really a starting fund and upon the nature of the acquisitions which are made I am sure that they will commend themselves to the Members of this House so that this fund like some other funds will from time to time be expanded in the public interest with the unanimous endorsation of the Members of this House.

I think you should, now we have established the policy, Mr. Speaker, realise that the concept of the policy is far greater than is envisioned just in this fund because for the first time it establishes a policy on behalf of government — not only that certain private lands may be acquired and shall be set aside for all time, with the green belt designation, but that throughout the province certain Crown lands shall be set aside in exactly the same way and given the same basic designation at this time.

Whereas, of course, when one looks at the future we should make plans for it, time will never be the same as it is right now. I think in much of the Province of British Columbia as we move the fact that we have established this fundamental policy at this time which acts as a directional force to the Department of Lands and others, you will see the effects of this Act far greater than the sum of money which has been indicated that's here.

Now coming back. Until you have passed an Act, of course, you can't take any legislative or administrative action. But seeing the Act is there and seeing we're making certain preparations for the institution of the Act, of course, certain ideas and certain things have already formulated in this regard and will be ready to go. In other words, there won't be much slippage of wheels for action at the time that this if finally ratified and the finances are made available to proceed.

May I say one or two things about procedures and say them very definitely. In the first place, there will be no expropriations of lands for this purpose.

As a matter of fact, already this Act is appealing to the higher sensibilities of people in the province. Believe it or not, despite what the Honourable the second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams) has said there are people who own property who are anxious in a fair way to see that that property is preserved in this state in perpetuity.

We have already had offers in government, although we're not authorised yet to act, people know this, who have strategic farm area who are willing to sell them at a very fair price on the basis that the land would become provincial property and then retain its present status by being leased back to those individuals or leased to other individuals and retained in that state in perpetuity.

From the standpoint of leasing, particularly old people who would like to see their land placed in there, who have a few more years to go who the dollars would be meaningful for them at the present time, and who have no great wish to pass on large sums of money but wish to spend their time in greater comfort at the present time, this can be a means by which they perpetuate their property in the public interest and also ensure that they themselves have a very, very comfortable old age because of the financial arrangements which we will make.

[ Page 696 ]

We will not compete for property. Again, as the Hon. Member has said, the indication is out.

The third one, the initial concentration. This will operate over the Province of British Columbia as a whole. As strategic property areas become available in certain places there is nothing to restrict the acquisition of those properties on favourable terms wherever they may be. But I think it is reasonable to suggest that the initial impact as has already been stated this afternoon should be concentrated say in the lower end of Vancouver Island, particularly from Victoria to the Sidney ferries area where we have a true foot, should be concentrated in the Fraser Valley area surrounding the Vancouver section and certain areas as we move directly out and as we move up the island into strategic areas there.

I think they should be considered areas that are strategic at the moment because of the concentration of population and because it's the fact if we don't move now the opportunities to move meaningfully in the future become less and less with the passage of time.

I may say that we've already just been looking you know, in an interested kind of way as to what might be possible in this regards in those particular areas so that if time does provide us with the Act and with the fund in due course some of this action can be taken. I can assure you that by the time you meet there at another meeting of this Legislature there will be a report on the green belt protection fund and it will be one with which you'll all be very proud.

The handling of these lands as we're already indicated can be for the perpetuation of farming in the green belt, can be for a limited type park access, not for camping areas but for limited development park areas.

The funds will be provided within the vote of park development, so if the area is provided under this fund it can be developed either under the Park Act in a limited way or you'll find in the Reforestation Act expenditure we have funds there that can take these areas and reforest them.

So these three Acts really become a package of one Act, environmentally speaking, to give the general end result for which we are looking. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, there is really very much else one could say except that when the Hon. Member from Vancouver East stressed the factor that some specialised group of experts should be set up on this, let me emphasise that this is not the general procedure which we follow.

We want you as Members of this House to indicate the fact that the Green Belt Protection Fund Act is available. You yourselves are Members as everyone in this House is a Member and we think that you have some responsibility within your area to pass along suggestions of areas in your place and to carry the message forth that we're not going to expropriate, we're not going to force up the price but if they are interested in this general concept for the future that you're sure it will be given consideration here.

The committee will not be compartmentalised and put off to a group of experts because I don't think a group of experts can replace the undivided interests of the Members of this House totally because your representations, your suggestions will be accepted.

I think this is an Act for all of us. I think that the manifestation of the Act as to its working, in report you will be able to comment on it. I think it's one of the most forward pieces of legislation that's yet been put before this Legislature.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker if I had had any doubt at the beginning of this debate how I would want to vote on second reading of this bill I can assure you it was dispelled by the remarks just made by the Honourable Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Because he has clearly demonstrated from his remarks that there is no intention on the part of this government to really do anything in a substantial way to create and perpetuate anything like a green belt in this province.

It is unfortunately the case that the greatest need for a green belt area is to surround our areas of major metropolitan growth. However, there are other areas in the province which by their very nature require some very careful examination and consideration as to the use to which the land might be put.

But we have from the Minister, who I gather has given us additional responsibility, a statement that there are particular parcels of land which should be preserved for all time. This indicates quite clearly that what is to happen is the casual, incomplete, hodge-podge accumulation of parcels of land.

You will never build a green belt that way. You will never restore, in those areas close to our major centres, the impact of the non-policies which have been practiced by this government over the years.

What we should have had from the Minister was a clear statement of the policy of this government, that they were going to do things directed solely to the creation of green belts, the return to park, or agricultural use of those lands which over the years have been improperly devoted to other uses, either urban residential or industrial.

We should have had some statement from him that the mistakes which have been made by some of our Crown corporations in the utilisation of lands for highway, hydro transmission and rail line purposes would have been undone and that we would have had in that way restored to their proper use the land which is presently consumed for those purposes.

You know, Mr. Speaker, in this province many years ago there was a division of the Department of Lands which dealt with research and survey into land utilisation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was called the land utilisation research and survey division. It was designed to do the kind of study which needs to be undertaken in this province if we are going to restore to their proper use lands which over the years have been devoted to the least efficient and least economic use.

Now, it's true that this land utilisation research and survey division was disbanded in 1953, and I'm not criticising this government for taking that action. Because that particular division had very narrow objectives and it was not discharging its function in a way which might be to the best interest of people interested in a variety of land uses.

But since that time, Mr. Speaker, we have not had in the Department of Lands or any of the other departments of this government any organisation which was directed to devote its time to the assessment of lands in this province and charged also with the responsibility of indicating means by which controls might be instituted to ensure that land be devoted to the use for which it was best suited.

Now, we are faced with this bill and a non-perpetual fund of $25 million, and we are offered the suggestion that the expenditure of those moneys will depend in part at least upon representation made to the government by Members of

[ Page 697 ]

this assembly.

Now, if I could think, Mr. Speaker, of anything less scientific, less suited to the establishment of green belt in this province it is that very suggestion. We are led to believe that Members from all 55 constituencies in this province from the Peace to the Border, from Vancouver Island to Alberta, are going to be offered the opportunity within a $25 million fund to suggest particular parcels of land which might be preserved for perpetuity.

It is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. But it's typical of the experience that we have had with this government and its policies towards land utilisation.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, flying by the seat of their pants. This Minister who says "we will not compete for property." We will never acquire, Mr. Speaker, the kind of lands that we require for green belt purposes unless we are prepared to compete.

We will never acquire the lands that we must acquire if we are to allow them to be zoned for particular purposes, zoned for purposes which affect their values.

We cannot expect that this government with this policy will do anything in a positive way to realising the results which the title of this Act would indicate.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we had in this province in one limited area of the province an organisation which made an attempt to establish a proper green belt area around our major metropolitan development. We had over a number of years studies, competent studies made, competent reports produced by the lower mainland regional planning board.

They were the first ones who did anything in a positive way to indicate between tidewater and Hope what might be done to preserve any semblance of preservation of land, agricultural and recreational purposes, for ensuring that residential developments took place in areas where land would be used which would not be best used for other purposes, which attempted in any way to control industrial spread. It made proper examination and what was its fate? It was destroyed by this government.

It had the respect and support of every one of the 28 municipal members of the lower mainland region. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, because it had that kind of support, because it became powerful, it was dismantled by this government. Yes, by that Minister, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Is this the government that is now going to give us a green belt protection area worth $25 million on a non-competing basis for land, without any studies being made as to what lands should be acquired, without any competent scientific evaluation of land? This is the same government who allows the B.C. Hydro through expropriation to take whatever land it wishes, based upon purely engineering decisions, engineering and finance decisions, as to what is the cheapest way of stringing wire across this province — regardless of the impact upon agricultural land, regardless of the impact upon recreational land, regardless of the beauty that it may destroy.

Is this the government that is going to give us these green belt protection areas, going to preserve, as the Minister says, "particular parcels of land which should be preserved for all time"?

This is the government too, Mr. Speaker, which allows the P.G.E. In its northward extension in this province to go wherever it wants, along the shores of lakes, gobbling up whatever land it might want to take, regardless of what other purposes that land may serve.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that many of the citizens in the north of this province are seriously concerned about the actions of the P.G.E. and locations of its lines in its northerly march. But these are the policies this government allows the Crown corporations to pursue. And these are not the policies that we must have if we are to utilise land efficiently, and to establish green belt protection areas where they are most urgently needed.

Another concern that arises out of the Act itself, and the Honourable Minister of Finance referred to it when he opened this debate. These funds are going to be made available for the acquisition of lands for camping purposes, for forestry reserves and for agriculture. This also gives me concern, Mr. Speaker, because if there is one thing that has gone wrong with land use in this province it is the overwhelming control that rests in the forest branch. They are the ones that call the tune. No decision is made with respect to land use until first of all the question is asked: "is there a tree growing on it?" And when you find a tree growing on it: "Has it got any economic use?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to cut down the trees, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I don't want to cut down the trees, but that's a decision that's made by this government. No land use is permitted until there's first of all a decision as to whether there's a tree that can be cut down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Welfare doesn't cut them down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trees are more important than people.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In the establishment of parks within this province delays have been encountered, entirely at the forest branch level. They've got too much say in how land is used in this province, and to say that $25 million in this fund as the Premier has said, not a perpetual fund, $25 million in this fund, if control of the expenditure of these moneys will depend upon decisions made in the forestry branch then we're never going to see green belt protection areas. We'll fritter it away.

Mr. Speaker, the day must come when this government will state its position clearly, that it will devote land for uses for which that land is best suited, taking into account the condition of the soil, its location, the climate, what can be produced from it, and the conflicting demands for it.

When we have those policies, and when they are prepared to set up proper study groups within a department which is prepared to carry out these policies, and with clear terms of reference make proper assessment, and make decisions as to land use based upon those assessments, we're going to continue as we have in the past regardless of this bill or any of the bills that the Minister says may be connected with it.

We are either going to waste the $25 million, or if we attempt on any logical basis to build a green belt the moneys will be unexpended. This bill more than any of the others makes it clear that we are establishing a fund for investment in the Crown corporations. They will go ahead and get the

[ Page 698 ]

benefit of this fund and they are the ones who are the despoilers of the land. Mr. Speaker, the government had an opportunity with this bill to clearly outline its policy and to set up the mechanism which would carry out that policy. And they failed. And I oppose this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. WENMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't need to tell the House how pleased I am about this bill. Certainly it does represent a great deal of vision, probably a vision similar to that of the person who set aside Stanley Park, and the people have set aside so many parks in the Province of British Columbia since.

I think that undoubtedly this will be the most important and significant bill of this session, perhaps of many sessions that we've had in this Legislature. Because it is creating a new direction, and showing a new vision and a sensitivity to the needs of the people particularly of the lower mainland, and of the densely-populated areas surrounding Victoria.

At any rate I do have a suggestion. I was happy that it was $25 million, and if there is any suggestion I could make of course I would want it only to be more. But I am very pleased with the amount that it is. But I do have a suggestion about how to make the $25 million go a little bit further.

It would seem to me that one of the possibilities would be that in certain areas where we are preserving — I don't like to use the word "preserving," because preserving sounds like something is dead, and that you are setting it up on the shelf in the museum. We are not preserving land here, we are conserving land, and we're letting land live and breathe in perpetuity. At any rate, in conserving this land, particularly when it relates to agricultural purposes, we could make the $25 million go further if in cases of farm land we were to buy the land, and then after we bought the land, offer to resell it with perpetual agricultural or open space zoning going with the land. Thereby, in effect, we would be buying up the development rights of the property, or at any rate we could recover a good percentage of the capital to buy more farm land in other areas.

I would suggest also that if it is farm land we're talking about, while it is more convenient on paper for the government to lease the land back to farmers, a better form of holding the land is with this perpetual zoning — again to make the money available and also to encourage better farming practices. Because we have experienced in our area on leased land where farmers will let the land go or mine the soil because they know they're only leasing it for five or 10 years and then somebody else will move on to the lease so they'll take everything out of it they can.

So I would prefer to see where possible private ownership with a perpetual zoning relating to green belts on the land.

I would suggest also that if this were so it would avoid building a bureaucracy that would be necessary in handling the leasing of the land and also the inspection of the land. If you're going to farm it, you're going to have to have people checking constantly on it to make sure proper farming practices are proceeded.

So there's a way of stretching the $25 million. In fact, if you did it all in farm land you could probably at least double that $25 million to $50 million.

I'm also very pleased to hear the Minister say that he's going to listen to the M.L.A.'s. I'm sorry that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) doesn't feel competent to know what's going on in his constituency or what his needs of his constituency are. I'm sorry that he doesn't have a relationship with his municipal planning departments in the various areas or confidence in the local regional planning districts, that he isn't competent enough to approach them and bring his suggestions forward to the Legislature.

I want to assure the Minister that the day that this was announced, I was in contact with our municipal government in Delta and we have been preparing a plan which I hope we will be able to bring forward very soon, so that in some way we can surround the superport with such a green belt.

The local council has expressed unanimous support of the concept. Certainly this is one of the prime areas. The Minister has asked for specific areas and so I would recommend this to him.

Secondly, I was pleased to hear the Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and the Member for Langley (Mr. Vogel) and now as the Member for Delta I would add a third unanimous suggestion in the Nicomekl-Serpentine basin — a very, very important area that should be among the early areas selected for green belt conservation.

I would suggest also and just remind the Honourable Minister that in the Nicomekl-Serpentine, across the mouth of that river, there is a parcel of land that is soon going to become available. This particular parcel of land right now is occupied by a railway track but that land across the Nicomekl-Serpentine, when the Burlington Northern is removed, or relocated from White Rock, this land will become available.

I would suggest that this Nicomeki-Serpentine area that has been suggested by three Members in the House already, that might be a good way to purchase that right of way and help make that become a reality.

About a third of the mine is in the Nicomekl-Serpentine area and this fund could help the relocation of the railway by purchasing that land.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WENMAN: That's right. Also for conservation area. There are many multi-purposes for this Nicomekl-Serpentine basin and certainly it calls for early study.

I would like to say also I hope that an M.L.A.'s suggestion will be taken because my suggestion comes from all of the people that I represent, from the local council, from the local district, certainly through discussion with them. I hope that Hon. Member is in communication with his regional districts and with his municipalities, and so forth and their planners.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WENMAN: As I just mentioned we've already within the Delta area we have the Delta planners working on this and the Delta council and we will have unanimous agreement I'm sure to make to the Minister on this subject.

At any rate, one slight fear that I have relative to this bill and I want to remind the Minister that there are a lot of other Acts of this Parliament that could be called upon from this bill that should not be.

I hope that the Green Belt Protection Fund Act will be used for green belt protection and not for the acquisition simply of other park areas. Because we have other bills before this Legislature, which we will be discussing shortly so I

[ Page 699 ]

won't now, which will provide this function.

We have the local municipal councils buying park and preserving park land within the municipality. Let them preserve their park land not from this fund. Let the regional district preserve their land from their own fund but not from the green belt fund. Let's make sure the green belt fund is used for green belts.

I would just like to say once again, in closing, that this is the most significant bill of this session and of many sessions and of many sessions to come. I know it's just a start and we're going to build a better place to live in the lower mainland because we have remembered open space and we have preserved green belt areas. Thank you.

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

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the government, when it had the opportunity, did not take a more logical approach to the problem of the green belt and the preservation of areas around, particularly in the urban development zones of the province.

It appears to be a vague and piecemeal approach without any attempt at planning a true green belt philosophy, but merely a palliative thrown in as some kind of psychological bait. The reason I say that is because if you really believe in preserving for all time certain areas of the province in perpetuity for park lands, for camping — with or without forestry operations — or for leasing for farm purposes and reserving it from the rezoning, then you would have logically imposed a green belt reserve, the right to a green belt reserve all over the province wherever it was designated after careful thought and study by competent people in the field of planning.

The idea that some M.L.A. is going to run up to the Minister, in his office someday, and say: "Look, I know a beautiful stretch of forest or park land that should be preserved," certainly begs the main question. It becomes then sort of a hit-and-miss shotgun approach to the idea of the philosophy of the green belt zone around cities and in development of regions.

I've done this myself. All of us have, I think, a concern for the environment and have talked over with various Ministers of the government the idea of preserving a particular beach for public use, preventing its sale to private interest. But to suggest that that should be the be-all and end-all of planning in this province confesses a sort of schizophrenic attitude to the whole subject of planning.

The very government that is about to destroy the finest farm lands of British Columbia around Roberts Bank, who have placed a reserve over the area for a mile wide for the purpose of an industrial zone and for a communications corridor, these people are now saying we should protect the land from that despoilation.

How can they reconcile that they are the very people who have determined that some of the finest farm land of the province will suddenly disappear under the cover of belching smokestacks and the pollution that industrial development in the area foretells?

Citizens in my own community in South Burnaby suddenly woke up last spring to the realisation that without any public fanfare all the farming land in the south along the river called the Big Bend area — between the Fraser River and Marine Drive — had suddenly been rezoned five years ago without their knowledge for industrial use.

The very thought of factory chimneys, steel mills — indeed, under the zoning as it was, even pulp mills — down on the slopes there, I should say by the river — suddenly springing up on that beautiful slope was enough to create a quiet revolution in the council, and that is being rezoned.

But sometimes this happens too late. I hope that one of the first things this government does is establish a new policy around Roberts Bank and in Delta. We had rumours of the imminent destruction of the future of Boundary Bay by real estate promoters just a few years ago. Under the present situation of this government that land is still up for grabs, still up for grabs.

I'm going to suggest to the government that they've got to work out a better plan than merely giving power to either the Minister of Finance, some person he may appoint, or the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources — some kind of a discretionary power to select this or that parcel here or there. It isn't good enough.

Now what is needed is another bill, a companion bill to this one, setting out some protection of the environment, setting out a means of studying the approach to the subject and a means of placing reserves — green belt reserves if you will — just exactly the same way as the government does in certain areas of the province for forestry purposes, park purposes, or any other purposes.

Just recently a lake not too far from Pitt Lake up on a plateau in a mountain range, was placed under a reserve by the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for possible park development. This has preserved from imminent staking — I might say in this case, by people flying in from the United States — waterfront around a most beautiful lake, close to a glacier in a spot that's just as beautiful I'd say as Banff or Lake Louise.

You know if somebody hadn't brought it to the attention of the department, the normal rules and staking might have applied. Certainly the Americans under the present law couldn't stake there but Canadians could, on their behalf.

What I'm suggesting is that vast areas should be kept in mind on a planned basis and nowhere in this particular bill do we see that philosophy presented.

Now the Member for Delta (Mr. Wenman), I thought made a fatuous statement when he suggested that the municipal and regional boards should determine within their own boundaries and should pay for the acquisition of land for green belt purposes. In other words it should not be a concern of this government.

I think that is fatuous because one of the problems is that the pressure on zoning in certain districts is so intense that many councils cannot resist the pressure put upon them by developers and by the burgeoning needs of the population.

There has to be some authority beyond that that can cry "halt," that will resist the pressure of the developers. That's why I suggest that it has to be a higher government authority than just the local council. I think it should be realised that the value of land can be transformed overnight by a council's decision to rezone.

What was agricultural land at $3,000 an acre or $1,500 an acre can suddenly magically, if it is zoned industrial or residential, be transformed to land worth many times that figure. This has happened time after time. Land has been zoned upwards, as it's called — or it is also called, and I think it is incorrect sometimes, a higher use. A higher use is the destruction sometimes of some of the finest farm land, some of the finest park land that we could have potentially in British Columbia.

[ Page 700 ]

With local councils having no inhibitions sometimes in making these moves, you get the greatest of headaches for future councils to reclaim that land or to buy it back. Under the Municipal Act there is provision for local councils, by a three-quarter vote, to determine that land shall be rezoned back again from, say, industrial or residential to farm purposes or to any other purpose.

This is a difficult and a very unpopular way for councils to have to grasp the situation that develops sometimes because of faulty zoning. It's happened in Delta. In Delta they had zoned for residential use a very large parcel of farm land near the airport and then the Delta council decided that it wanted to restore it to farm use. It caused practically a minor upheaval in their attempt to do this.

Now if they anticipate changing it over to industrial again, we're back in the situation where they can be charged with some kind of manipulation to the detriment of those who invested large sums of money in those parcels of land. I suggest that the hit and miss attitude of this bill could lead to a lot of boondoggling with land.

I support these few struggling steps of this government along a path they should long have taken. If they need a hand in getting on their feet on this, I'm willing to help them — including the suggestions I've made that there should be reserves for green belt purposes imposed by this government wherever it is necessary in the public interest. Just the same way, my friend, as councils do that with zoning.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's rather laughable, I think. This Minister is suddenly talking about this as if it were in some way unthinkable that this government should impose reserves when they do it all the time. More than that, councils by reason of the Municipal Act which you administer are entitled as I pointed out to rezone land back from industrial to farm land which means a drop in its value to the owners. You gave them that right. It was a public right that is needed on occasion and it's been done on occasion.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: I appeared before a council who was busy doing that and they had enough votes to do it. And that was in Delta.

Right now in Burnaby, near Burnaby Lake, they're going to have to rezone there to recreational purposes around Burnaby Lake — a private development. It's that sort of thing with this government. Not just on a hit-and-miss approach by somebody telling you about it, but on a careful study they should be working it out.

Look what they've done in effect by destroying the lower mainland regional planning board. There was a board that year after year studied the whole of this great basin from Hope right down to the sea and made recommendations year after year to all the member communities as to what would be the proper way to develop and preserve the amenities there — including the farmland, park areas, potential recreational sites.

All this was done by the lower mainland regional planning board which the government destroyed. It was done for a very simple reason. Why was the lower mainland regional planning board destroyed? Because they opposed this government's plan for industrial development of the farmland at Delta. Having done that, the only way you could stop them was to destroy them.

The Minister who is in charge of this green belt approach, the Minister of Lands, (Hon. Mr. Williston), and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, (Hon. Mr. Campbell), each had their hand in that particular matter.

Why did they do it? Because, under the Act, the lower mainland regional planning board had the power given by this government to hold hearings in regard to any major change such was envisioned by this government under the plan for Roberts Bank.

It's obvious that the same philosophy was so rampant at that time with this government when it ignored the people of the lower mainland planning commission, when they ignored them. They did it flying by the seat of their pants. They propose to do it the same way today, in this bill. I say it isn't good enough. They should do better.

That means studying the matter, setting up the same kind of body or board as was practising this kind of preservation in the lower mainland and giving them clear terms of reference, particularly around urban areas, so that something can be done to make sure that even though local areas may not have the strength to do it, that they have the back-up powers in this bill to see that green belts are preserved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): First of all I think it would be important if the Socialists would really come right out and make their position clear instead of going all around in circles as the last two speakers for the N.D.P. have done. Why don't they really make their position clear?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you talk on the bill?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: They want confiscation by zoning and that's their suggestion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Confiscation by zoning is exactly what they've been suggesting in debating the principle of this bill. When one considers that in British Columbia, 95 per cent of the land in British Columbia is owned by the Crown, what they're really suggesting is putting those people, that 5 per cent, in double jeopardy by this kind of action. Confiscation by zoning.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: By that very concept that they espouse, this Socialist concept.

I would like to make some remarks also about the suggestion made by the Member who has just taken his seat and also the Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, (Mr. L.A. Williams), in references to the lower mainland regional planning authority or planning board.

It's interesting to note that although both Members seem to lay the blame on this government for dispersing that board, it was at the request of the municipalities themselves that that board was disbanded and both of those Members and all of the Members on that side of the House, know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, oh no, no!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's interesting too, to note…

[ Page 701 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What's your authority for that statement?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's interesting to note too that the only complaint they had…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The only official complaint that came to the provincial government in terms of whether or not the lower mainland regional planning board should be disbanded, did not come from the municipalities, did not come from any of the council members that had jurisdiction over any of that property, but it came from the employee. The head of the planning board and he happened to be a professional planner. I think he had pecuniary interest in…

AN HON. MEMBER: Attacking people who aren't here. Shame!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound talked about competence in the administration of such a green belt fund. I wonder if he would suggest the kind of competence that has been enacted by the Liberal administration in Ottawa when they were considering a green belt in the centre of the City of Vancouver or at least had the opportunity to consider.

There were many representations from Vancouver citizens and Vancouver Centre and Vancouver–Little Mountain and Vancouver-Burrard — indeed in Vancouver–Point Grey. Where they thought that the crowded, downtown area should have indeed been made into parkland.

But what did that Liberal administration do? What kind of competence was shown then? They took that property, rezoned it to the benefit of a private developer. Gave the riparian right and the water lots to a private developer, enhancing the value of that land to such an extent that that property now is going to be built on and is going to house some 5,000 people. That property which is next to the most valuable piece of real estate in North America, Stanley Park.

Is that the kind of competence that the Member would like to see shown by this government? If that's so, I would say that the Liberal administration has failed the people of Vancouver where really this kind of green belt legislation will be the most effective. If that's the kind of competence that he wants, could I say as a Member representing the City of Vancouver, that we don't want that kind of competence surrounding this legislation that we're discussing today.

Interjections by Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Do you condone the Liberal administration's handling of the Four Seasons project, Mr. Member? Of course you don't. There isn't anybody in your party — in the City of Vancouver — who doesn't wish that they had had an opportunity to go back and do it differently.

May I speak too, Mr. Speaker, in the strongest possible terms, against the kind of concept suggested by the second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams).

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the test.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The kind of bureaucracy that is envisioned by that Member has been seen in the debate on all of these perpetual funds. Isn't it interesting that the Socialists are suggesting that the very people who have the responsibility and who have the opportunity of choosing the kinds of areas which we should be preserving for open space and for green belt preservation, are the very people who should be making suggestions to this assembly and this government?

The Minister has suggested each Member of the legislative assembly and I am sure that in that suggestion that he has recognised that each Member of this legislative assembly will have the expertise from all of the council members in each area, those council members who are concerned indeed with the preservation of open space.

I would hope that those people who have the responsibility to decide on the environment in the lower mainland particularly, will not listen to the kind of suggestions made by the Socialists in this House and indeed from the Liberal group opposite, but will go along with the kind of unique administration that we have seen in all of the perpetual funds started by this government — where there isn't a large bureaucracy, where there aren't a lot of paid people, where there is an opportunity to call on the people who really care what happens to the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as we consider this legislation today, that the opportunity will be given to many people to put into this fund and into the inventory that will be created, the inventory of land and recreation, water frontage, islands and so forth.

I hope it will not preclude the possibility of private owners of land giving some of their land and some of their property for the enjoyment and the benefit of the citizens of British Columbia for all time.

In Vancouver, British Columbia, Stanley Park in this past year was visited by 7.5 million people. Queen Elizabeth Park, the second largest park in the lower mainland, was visited by 4.5 million people. It is estimated that by 1975 that an excess of 15 million people will visit those two parks alone.

I suggest to you that the City of Vancouver particularly which needs to preserve this very, very important open space will benefit from this green belt legislation, perhaps more than any other and should benefit more than any other.

This government has recognised and long supported the concept of preservation of open space and recreational land on the lower mainland. If it hadn't been for this government, Kitsilano defence land which was supported for open space and recreation would house the C.B.C. at this very moment, with buildings and all the attendant services to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation project. If it were not for this government Shaughnessy golf course would not be the botanical garden site that it is today.

You will remember too, and I would hasten to recall to the Liberal Members opposite that the Liberal administration in Ottawa denied to the citizens of Vancouver any input at all in the preservation of that open space which is right in the centre and just adjacent to the Point Grey constituency, I might add. That saved 64 acres of open space right in the middle of our very populous city.

Just recently I would suggest to you that the motion that was passed by the House, unanimously, which preserved 38 acres, or hopefully will preserve 38 acres of land at Jericho will be saved because of the initiative and because of the foresight of this provincial government.

So it has long been a concept of this government to

[ Page 702 ]

preserve and to protect the open space in the lower mainland. For any of the Members here to suggest that the fund will be misused in any way, is simply to ignore the facts of past history of this provincial government in terms of preservation of park and open space to the benefit of the people and the citizens of this province.

I would hope too, as a past member of the Vancouver board of parks and public recreation that perhaps in the setting up of the committee under one of the Ministers of the Crown, that some of the parks boards and representatives of the parks boards in the lower mainland will be consulted for their views and will be considered in any of the decisionmaking in the future.

This is social legislation of the best kind. It addresses itself to the preservation of open space, the possibility of greater recreational area in the lower mainland and in British Columbia. In this era where tourism will be our first and foremost industry in a very, very short time, it gives an opportunity to British Columbians to preserve those spaces which are the envy of the world. It gives an opportunity for British Columbians to provide yet again areas of serenity and solitude, open space, and green areas and I would say that those who do not support this legislation in this House do not do so because the bill is not worthwhile supporting but because they have an ulterior political motive not to.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the lady Minister without Portfolio telling us all of the things that Social Credit has done to provide green spaces in the City of Vancouver. Well, I put this challenge to her. If we want to have some green space in downtown Vancouver, the place to provide that green space is on the lot presently reserved for the skyscraper to be put up by her government.

The Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) has come out against that skyscraper — something that we have been saying for years. What we need to do with that property is not put another skyscraper up in the City of Vancouver, we need that like we need a hole in the head. I will come out four-square against any of the proposed developments on the green spaces in Vancouver including the Four Seasons, if I can count on that lady Minister's support to scratch that B.C. building that is going to be a monstrosity in downtown Vancouver. Replace it with a park right in the centre of the city. That's what we need in the City of Vancouver.

She can show her colours by supporting the first Member for Vancouver Centre who like us to believe that we do not need that skyscraper.

I want to talk a little bit more about the hypocrisy of the Social Credit government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the Liberal tunnel.

MR. McGEER: I'll tell you something about that. I'm in favour of that tunnel. I think the third crossing should go ahead and if it does, Mr. Speaker, there will be many acres of park added besides Stanley Park…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: …more green space for downtown Vancouver. I want to say that the record of these funds which have been provided is not a record of having provided benefits for what the titles of the funds suggest, but instead to provide benefits for the Crown corporations.

Let me give you one or two examples so that the Members can get some idea of what will happen to the money which is stated to be provided for green belts in Bill No. 18.

The major disaster fund. A fund set up just like this one — $11 million in the B.C. Hydro. The B.C. Government Building fund, the building that British Columbia doesn't need — $3 million for the B.C. Hydro there. The Burrard inlet fund — $4,800,000 for the B.C. Hydro. What's this Green Belt Protection Fund Act for? For the protection of the B.C. Hydro.

It's nice to see our two Ministers, Kilo and Watt, with us today and we heard a very nice presentation from the Minister of Lands, (Hon. Mr. Williston), about all the wonderful things that this fund might do.

But I'd like to remind the House just a little bit of the record of the B.C. Hydro when it comes to green belts — certainly the kind that are made with cash.

Right now, in the City of Richmond, there's a beautiful park, it's called the Richmond Nature Park and I'm sure Kilo and Watt would know all about that one. But what's happening is that the B.C. Hydro is planning to string a power pole right through that Richmond Nature Park.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the people in that community have to say about it.

Alderman Harold Steed: "We're just powerless against Hydro." Mayor Henry Anderson: "Hydro is a superior body and they can go wherever they wish and where they wish is is right through the Richmond Nature Park."

With the kind of funds that are provided through these special funds that are set up for other purposes, surely, this must be the most hypocritical of all of the funds that the government has established. We've had reference to the lower mainland regional planning board here this afternoon. Several Members have mentioned it. Who caused their demise? The local municipalities? Don't kid us Mrs. Minister.

The B.C. Hydro was going to run their railroad right around the foreshore of Boundary Bay. How many Members remember that? That was some green belt protection that was! Instead the B.C. Hydro Railway goes right through a greenbelt in that Member's riding. And because the lower mainland regional planning board — and remember what they stood for, they stood for putting that railroad along the foreshore, the industrial land along the Fraser River — and because the lower mainland regional planning board stood against the B.C. Hydro and its wishes to take its railroad through recreational land it was destroyed.

It isn't just in that Member's riding that we've had problems. How many remember, Mr. Speaker, last summer? When the City of Squamish took the B.C. Hydro to court, over the fact that they were spraying, destroying the green belts, around the town of Squamish. And I want to give Mayor Brennan, and the City Council of Squamish full marks. There's one city in British Columbia that's got some guts.

They passed a bylaw because they didn't want the territory around their community destroyed by the B.C. Hydro. And what happened, Mr. Speaker? They went to court and Provincial Court Judge C.I. Walker dismissed the charges saying that B.C. Hydro has immunity from any municipal bylaw.

[ Page 703 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: B.C. Hydro tramples over green spaces wherever it wishes, and yet here we are setting up a fund and we know what it's going to go for — the benefit of the B.C. Hydro. Even in the north there was a farmer named Unruh in the Member from South Peace River's riding, who came out and took a gun to the B.C. Hydro when they appeared to string wires over his agricultural property.

It's the same outrage that we find citizens in British Columbia expressing when they realise the way B.C. Hydro — which will be the beneficiary of this fund, make no mistake about it — begins to trample on the rights of British Columbians. Before that in the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound's riding, we had the B.C. Hydro stringing wires over Brandywine Lake and again the owner of that area was so exasperated he appeared with a gun to drive the B.C. Hydro crews off his property.

What happens? The B.C. Hydro took him to court so that they would be able to preserve their right to destroy the land. This is what we have, Mr. Speaker, here in British Columbia. We have two Ministers — one in charge of Lands and Forests, and one in charge of Recreation and Conservation, and they're the ones who sit as directors of the B.C. Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this a Hydro bill?

MR. McGEER: And if ever, Mr. Speaker, a conflict of interest has been built into government administration in British Columbia, that conflict is represented by those two Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member must get back to the principle of this bill.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying the best I can to explain the principle of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you're not doing a very good job if you have to bring Ministers into it.

MR. MeGEER: They have the green belt protection fund stated on this Act, but the record speaks differently. And it's the record we have to try and understand, Mr. Speaker, before we can appreciate what will likely be the results of this bill. And the likely result despite the best efforts of the Liberal Party to explain the situation will be that the government majority will pass this bill. I would hope not, I would hope the government backbenchers realise finally what's been going on in British Columbia — that the funds that are made available will immediately go into the B.C. Hydro.

We've got no evidence at all that the B.C. Hydro has turned over a new leaf, that it's begun to think of green belts anywhere in British Columbia. It thinks of the shortest distance to string overhead wires, to get from point A to point B. If it goes through parks or recreational areas that doesn't matter. The thing is to get the wires up there.

That's what's destroying our green belt, Mr. Speaker, and this is what we really need to change in British Columbia. We've got to have some administrative way of placing green belts ahead of overhead wires, of reducing this conflict of interest which is just between the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and the Minister of Lands and Forests and the economic needs of the British Columbia Hydro. I am in favour of that corporation. I think the president of one of our…

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. This bill is not involved really with whether or not one is in favour of the corporations, it's involved with green belts.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the record is such…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late and I want to summarise by saying, we Liberals oppose this bill because we are in favour of green belts in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, just a short proposition, because a few years ago there was some of this land around greater Victoria that was available for a very small price. I remember one block of land, 80 acres, that was available for $25,000 and there was no way of acquiring it. Now, we have the C.I.D.C. capital region programme, we have the highway green belt programme, the regional parks programme, the provincial parks and reserves, we have some of the community parks that were set up under centennial funds, and now the green belt protection fund.

I would like to suggest four particular projects that I think are necessary in this Greater Victoria area. There is a proposed subdivision next to Thetis Lake, I think this is one we should look at. Number 2, we should take a look at the Ocean Cement property instead of it going into housing — this would be a splendid green belt. Thirdly, there are still some farms and open spaces around Sooke Harbour, and fourthly on the stretch between Otter Point, and Point No Point, a coastal stretch that would make a splendid green belt area in the Greater Victoria region.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I have a number of things to say about Bill No. 18. I would therefore like to adjourn debate till the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do rise and stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: 2:00 p.m. tomorrow?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rescind that motion. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you can't.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will require leave. Shall leave be granted?

[ Page 704 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I feel the House…

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I think that shows a very narrow attitude by the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is the Hon. Premier speaking on?

MR. SPEAKER: On the motion for setting the time for adjournment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: That motion has passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No it hasn't, no it hasn't.

MR. BARRETT: That's it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No question.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Alright, we'll give it to the House. We'll appeal the Speaker's ruling then, Mr. Speaker. We'll have a division. It didn't pass, it didn't pass. The resolution didn't pass.

MR. BARRETT: Oh no, no!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, the motion moved by the Honourable the Premier was that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. That motion was put as I recall it. I'm not certain whether or not I announced the result.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's in the hands of the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. Please hear me out. I am not certain in my own mind whether or not I announced the result. I have however ruled that if the motion is to be rescinded it must be by unanimous consent of the House. This is the ruling I have made. The House is now in that position, where the Speaker has ruled that without the unanimous consent of the House that motion cannot be rescinded. I have said that I am not clear, I am not certain, in my own mind whether or not I announced the result, the result of that motion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.