FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1972

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, some weeks ago the New Democratic Members in the House had the opportunity of visiting the Washington State Legislature and the Senate and we were given a very warm welcome as Members of this assembly. Today we are honoured and very, very pleased to have a return visit from a number of Representatives from Washington State. They are Representative Jeff Dowthwaite, Representative Don Cheyney, Representative King Lyson, Representative Charles Moon, and Representative Alan Thompson. They have come in the spirit of friendship and cooperation. We've enjoyed their visit. The Members who have not met them will have the opportunity of meeting them in our caucus at 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and I welcome you all and I  would ask the House at this time to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as Premier of this province I want to join in the warm welcome of the Leader of the Opposition. We are very fortunate that our only land neighbour is the great United States of America.

We are very fortunate that we have a border of 4,000 miles with no guns and no troops — with nothing but a spirit of goodwill. While we differ in opinions from time to time, that's not bad, that's good, that's healthy in a world in which we live. I join in a very warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 17th of Ireland. A very important day and I rise as Premier of the Province of British Columbia today to pray that the Irish people everywhere will have peace and prosperity.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, may I first welcome our American visitors today to say on one occasion when I visited an American State Legislature, they did me the courtesy of inviting me to address them. I was greeted in a very mixed way because it was the California Senate and I explained to them how in Canada that the tradition had been to appoint senators for life.

They gave me a rousing cheer. The sort I never get in this House. But Mr. Speaker, I blew it, because I then said I was in favour of an elected senate, at which point they turned around and booed me. (Laughter).

It's a wonderful thing that we have such an opportunity to take advantage of the goodwill and good wishes from our great neighbour to the south, the warm welcome we get whether we're tourists or visiting politicians to their country. In that spirit the Liberal Party along with everybody in this House extends to you people from the United States our very, very warmest welcome.

Mr. Speaker, never before have I made a comment on St. Patrick's day though this is the country obviously where my ancestors came from.

We do have one of the great tragedies of the world taking place in that country today. One would hope and pray that Irish people everywhere would join in trying to find some happy solutions to that country that has been plagued by revolution for so many decades. I suppose the greatest hope of Irish people everywhere is that one day peace and tranquility will descend upon that land.

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

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker we have joining us in the gallery at a later time this afternoon, three groups of students. However there are three of them in the gallery at the present time and they are from the Pender Harbour Secondary School, in the Sechelt peninsula and there are also young people from Brannan Lake School and Willingdon School. We've had a most enjoyable lunch together and they are joining me at my place for supper tonight. They are enjoying their visit to the buildings, to the museum and to Victoria. I'm sure all the Members present would wish to welcome them here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, along with the students whom I introduced last evening in the gallery you will be pleased to know that we have three members of the British Columbia Grape Marketing Board, Mr. Raikes, chairman; Dr. Avery, one of the members and Mr. Stevenson, and they are as you know, representing a new board. It is an infant but it is growing, and I hope an Members, particularly the Honourable first Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) will give them a very warm welcome this afternoon.

I would also like to, as a good farmer, thank my colleague, the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for the memento of Ireland and assure her as a farmer who took it home and planted it last year, it makes a marvellous forage crop.

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

MR. E.M. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognise four special guests in your gallery today. They are special representatives from the Lions Clubs of Vancouver and Victoria. They are here for the purpose of presenting a special plaque to our Premier to commemorate the great service that the government has given for participation in their many senior citizens' projects.

Their names are Paul Wong, a well known Irishman from the Chinese district; Jack Tang from Victoria; Bob Lebron, district governor for the Greater Vancouver area and Jack Ellis. I would ask the Members to welcome them and in so doing to pay their respects and appreciation to the Lions Clubs for their great efforts in initiating no less than seven senior citizens' projects in the greater Vancouver area.

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

[ Page 844 ]

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the House's attention to the fact that there are 125 Templeton High School students in the gallery this afternoon and their teachers, Mr. Greer and Mr. Sage, and I'd ask the House to welcome them.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Just a short note, Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments by the Honourable Minister without Portfolio. I of course welcome the Grape Marketing Board, there are no sour grapes in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, sitting in the laps of the students from Templeton High School are 106 students from Johnson Heights Secondary School in Surrey.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, and finally our good friend and former representative in this House, Mr. Tony Gardner.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the former Member be seated on the floor of the House.

Introduction of bills.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

KOOTENAY CANAL LAND ACQUISITION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House March 14, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 89. On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 89 Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

THIRD READINGS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 5, intituled An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1961.

Bill No. 5 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 10, intituled British Columbia Railway Company Share Capital Purchase Act, 1972.

Bill No. 10 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 11, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 11, intituled An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954.

Bill No. 11 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 12, intituled An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro, and Power Authority Act, 1964.

Bill No. 12 committed and reported complete without amendment. Bill No. 12 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS-43

NAYS-6

PAIR

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 18, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 18, intituled

[ Page 845 ]

Green Belt Protection Fund Act.

Bill No. 18 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 26, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 26, intituled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act.

Bill No. 26 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 37, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 37, intituled An Act to Amend the Constitution Act.

Bill No. 37 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 39, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 39, intituled Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act.

Bill No. 39 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 65, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FOREST ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 65. The Hon. second Member for Vancouver East.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 48?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill is before the House. The Hon. Member…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I realise this but the Chair is in no position to call the order of business.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't get it.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 65 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

THIRD READINGS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 60.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 60, Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act.

Bill No. 60 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 61, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 61, An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965.

Bill No. 61 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. NIMSICK: I'd like to ask what was the purpose. I was looking at the orders of the day and we jumped from Bill No. 48 in committee right down to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 65.

AN HON. MEMBER: We jumped back again.

MR. NIMSICK: And then jumped back again. Now, I think…

AN HON. MEMBER: Too bad!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member knows the standing orders quite well.

MR. NIMSICK: What is it? You can jump any place you like?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, on government day.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, I think it was done as a cheap political trick when they saw the man was out of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Member is not in order. Next order.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, the Minister had to leave and that's why it was called.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 62, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PIPE-LINES ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 62. The Hon. Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 62, like its companion piece Bill No.61, seeks to arm the government of

[ Page 846 ]

the province with some control features protecting our environment against spillage and things of that nature. I have been conscious, Mr. Speaker, in that Bill No. 61, which is the one we just dealt with did contain a great number of the powers that were previously in the Act. However looking at Bill No. 62 I find there are some new features added to the Pipe-lines Act and we're supporting this bill.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. the Minister might elaborate a little more with regards to this statute. It does strike me as significant that water is added in this section and I realise that slurry pipelines such as the ones proposed by Cascades, the C.P.R. subsidiary, involves the diversion of water from the Elk River or other sources.

However, it does seem to me that it might well include water generally. I think that's a matter of some concern. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, there is a great need for matters such as this to be dealt with by the Public Utilities Commission.

The movement of bulk commodities within the province by pipe is a critical transportation question. In many of the parts of the province it is an effective monopoly power for the movement of certain goods. It's unfortunate that it's not recognised in this manner.

With respect to the question of slurry pipe lines, Mr. Speaker, I again hope that the Minister has given some thought to the various approaches that might be taken with respect to this problem. That they might be dealt with in a common way in common corridors in the province so that there isn't a monopoly control with respect to the movement of these goods. And the rights of ways for these kinds of pipe lines might well be Crown corridors in which there were several carriers and that could include the C.P.R. subsidiary or others.

Ideally it should be taken one step further. The Crown should have equity, the Crown's lands in these corridors of the province should form the basis for equities in the transportation system. So that the Crown had an equity throughout these critical sinews through the narrow valleys of British Columbia.

British Columbia is a little different than the prairie provinces where they have quite a bit of freedom of movement around and through and across their provinces. British Columbia, though, because of our topography almost creates special conditions that single corporations can take advantage of.

I am sorry that the Hon. the Minister hasn't seen this as a critical transportation question — equal probably to the days of the C.P.R.'s first railway in British Columbia. Pipelines are going to be the new railways in this province and this nation and in other parts of the world as well. It's unfortunate that the Minister doesn't see these bulk-carrying pipelines for the critical transportation facilities that they are.

You have an opportunity here to set some new goals and new standards that will prevent the domination of the movement of certain bulk goods by a corporation or a few corporations. The Province of Alberta with a Social Credit government at the time, the Province of Saskatchewan, have both indicated their concern about these questions with respect to inter-provincial pipelines. They've intervened with respect to the proposed potash carrier which would have moved from the prairie provinces to British Columbia.

The Province of British Columbia has kept quiet on this question and yet the Province of British Columbia has justified activities such as American railways in order to deal with the problem of monopoly control of pipelines. It's unfortunate that the Minister hasn't seen the dimension of the problem that he's dealing with with respect to bulk movement of goods in this province. Because it's clear now the C.P.R. wants to continue to dominate the movement of bulk goods in this province and obtain monopoly control for the next century like it's had in the previous century for many reasons in this province.

The very fact that the Minister is not dealing with this problem in the way that it should, mainly that the C.P.R. can again hold sway with respect to controlling the price for the movement of basic bulk goods through this province to the port at Roberts Bank and to the world, that's going to be a major loss for all of us in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cowichan Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to agree with the Member who has just taken his place that this is the new way of moving goods. I don't know how much experimentation has been done on this, but I don't think it should be allowed to develop as a private monopoly. It's much too important a process and I do believe that where it's almost impossible to have competition or it's not economic to have competition it should not be left in private hands.

We can see the day coming when more and more of the coal from the Kootenays will be moved this way as well as other types of solids and that's what it mentions in this pipeline. In view of the potential development that can take place in this area I'd like to read into the records a letter which I came across just the other day. It was a letter that was written to a M.T. Southporth who is the executive secretary of the energy board. It was a letter sent to him while he was in Japan. The letter is dated September 29, 1970 and the letter says:

Before you leave Japan I would appreciate your arranging interviews with some of the leading coal users regarding the possible sale of more coking coal and possibly some steam coal to Japan.

I would also like to know how the construction of another rail line — the Kootenay-Elk Railway would affect the possibility of obtaining new contracts.

That was signed by "Yours Sincerely, Gordon M. Shrum." So it's obvious that we are moving and trying to get new contracts for the steam coal and coking coal and if we're going to make this pipeline effective and it's going to be used for that purpose I suggest it should be a government-owned pipeline and not a privately-owned pipeline.

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

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): In relation to the question put forward by the second Member for Vancouver East, in relation to water, in recent years we've. been getting higher and higher pressures and a prime example is the line from Jordan River going through municipalities which could be very devastating if there was a rupture of any kind by erosion, washing out of foundations and so on. But at the same time in the oil fields

[ Page 847 ]

to recover the gas and petroleum in some instances we do have water fills.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: It's usually pumped under very substantial pressure from rather long distances and this too also gives us some concern and we have brought the water pipelines under the same legislation as the petroleum pipelines.

Now, as far as the solids pipeline is concerned we did have an application by the C.P.R. — an intent, it wasn't an application. I've never received an application. An intent in December of 1969. Since that time they have not shown any degree of setting down a firm application for a solids pipeline to move coal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they still negotiating?

HON. MR. RICHTER: Yes, at my request that they had to set up a corridor through a region in compliance with the regional district and I had to have consent in writing from the regional district, or a statement of consent that they were in accord. Now, unless I get that, there's nothing, they haven't proven their pollution point, they haven't even proven that they have a market for this. And as far as I'm concerned the thing is that they've got too many imponderables, and questionable things to give it even serious consideration at this time as far as I'm concerned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Well, this is still a question. They have no water right, they have no Crown right-of-way to the best of my knowledge at this time. And it's more or less sitting pretty much in a state of non-existence as far as I can see it right at this time. Along with that matter of the P.U.C., this legislation will not interfere with the P.U.C. In any way whatsoreve. Now any of those things coming under the jurisdiction of the P.U.C. this will pertain strictly to this pipeline Act as far as the physical and operational factors are concerned and as far as the pipelines corridor. The environmental land use committee have this matter under very serious consideration as to having a common corridor and provincially-controlled corridor. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 62 An Act to Amend the Pipe-lines Act, be read a second time. Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 62 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. 70, Mr. Speaker.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 70. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr Speaker, Honourable Members will recall that in 1969 this Legislature enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Assistance Compensation Act. That statute provided for compensation to be paid through the medium of the Workmen's Compensation Act for persons injured or killed in assisting peace officers in the discharge of their duties.

Now Mr. Speaker, the government proposes to embark on a full-fledged programme of compensating victims of crime on those offences coming within the schedule of the bill which I draw to the Honourable Members' attention.

The administration of the programme will remain with the Workmen's Compensation Board and the rates of compensation authorised by the bill are those payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act subject to the limitations in terms of amounts that are contained in the bill that's before the House.

Now those who would benefit from the operation of this bill are persons who are injured as a result of the commission of one of the offences mentioned in the schedule, also persons who are injured as a result of an arrest or the attempted arrest of an offender, or when assisting a peace officer in making or attempting an arrest of an offender whether or not the offence is listed in the schedule, and persons who are injured in preventing or attempting to prevent the commission of a criminal offence whether or not the offence is listed in the schedule. So the legislation in that respect is very broad indeed.

In addition if the victim dies, the Act will operate to provide compensation for his dependents. As well as the compensation in the strict sense of the term there is provision for the Workmen's Compensation Board to provide medical care, transportation, medicine, crutches, artificial limbs and other medical apparatus. Under the same provision the board would be empowered to make a daily allowance to an injured victim while he's undergoing treatment. Furthermore the board has given the power to replace and repair artificial appliances, clothing, eye glasses, dentures, hearing aids under the circumstances that are mentioned in that particular section.

Compensation under the proposed Act, Mr. Speaker, would be payable either in a lump sum or instalments and if there's an infant involved there is provision for moneys to be held in trust.

I draw the Honourable Members' attention to the provisions limiting the total amount to be paid, a minimum as well as a maximum provision for medical examinations, for reports, et cetera, medical reports, also a report to this legislature annually.

I think in looking at the entire bill, Mr. Speaker, it may be said that the bill represents the most generous legislation in Canada, with respect to the compensation for victims of crime. It places this province among the most advanced in this respect — in terms of criminal injuries compensation legislation in Canada.

The compensation would be payable regardless of the place of residence of the applicant. The compensation can be awarded whether or not there is actually a prosecution or the conviction of an offence. Where the applicant is in actual financial need, compensation is payable by way of interim payments pending the determination of the applicant's entitlement. Mr. Speaker, such interim payments are not recoverable in the event that he is not entitled to compensation.

In contrast to similar legislation in some other jurisdictions, this bill would not require the applicant to go through a hearing before the full board in order to become entitled to

[ Page 848 ]

compensation. An officer of the board may make whatever enquiries are necessary and the board may act upon his recommendations. And last, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that this bill does not purport to take away any cause of action which a victim may have. The intention is to provide an alternative if such a victim either does not wish to take action in the courts, or is not financially able to do so. Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker we on this side of the House welcome the introduction of this measure. It is a very well thought out proposal. And I'm sure every member of the House, not only on this side, but on the other side welcome the proposal that is embodied in this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: But, but!

MR. DOWDING: I was going to come to the "but" later Mr. Speaker, I was going to finish up my fulsome praise before I started with the "buts."

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't shorten it.

MR. DOWDING: No, I won't shorten the praise. I think that a great deal of credit must go to all those pioneers, on both sides of the House, over the years who have proposed this kind of legislation. And the legislation that we have had up to this time has not been satisfactory. One of the problems, of course, was that coming to the aid of a police officer who is in the act of doing something could lead to many problems as to whether compensation would ever be given.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name the pioneers.

MR. DOWDING: I was thinking of for one the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). I am thinking of the Member for Point Grey, the second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I was thinking of a man who is not in this House but ran for election in 1969 but for many years prior to that as a victim of a crime pursued with solid purpose the promotion of this bill — Mr. Allan Duplessis. I think all Members in the House owe a debt to him for having studied every scheme around the world, and from that knowledge that he gleaned made proposals to us from time to time to develop legislation that would take care of the victims of crime.

As you may know Allan Duplessis was-himself a victim when he came to the aid of a young woman in a cafe who was being attacked, and was himself injured. He suffered permanent injury in that crime.

We, I think, must welcome the provision in the bill that regardless of whether the offender or criminal is convicted of the offence if it becomes obvious that the offence actually took place and for any reason the offender may be acquitted — and there are many reasons in law why an offender may be acquitted and yet the crime take place — none the less under the bill it does provide compensation may be awarded in such an event and I think that's an excellent provision.

I think it's an excellent provision that you don't have to wait until the completion of all the proceedings that might take place to establish that a crime was committed, because in many cases it's a prima facie crime, or an event that only can be described as a crime. I'm sure that the discretion given to the compensation board in this matter and the right of the Attorney General to intervene will make it certain that there will be very few miscarriages of compensation on that ground.

I was going to suggest a "but." I would say that it would be useful if we now considered the other area of compensation that we should regard with equal gravity and that's where a good samaritan goes to the rescue of others who are in difficulty — whether they be down a glacier crevasse, on top of a mountain top or stranded on a cliff, or struggling in the water…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOWDING: And I do hope consideration for that type of compensation will be considered in the future — it isn't in this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: No, nor is it a crime.

MR. DOWDING: I realise Mr. Speaker, that this is confined to subject of crime…

MR. SPEAKER: Criminal injuries.

MR. DOWDING: …and I will try to confine myself to that because I had to find a "but" somewhere. Oh, I could have used a "however." I also think there is one vital aspect of it that I often wish it had been in the Compensation Act originally. And that is the full discretionary power of the board at any time to re-open, re-hear and re-determine any matter that has been dealt with by it. That power here is untrammeled and I think that is an excellent provision, because events some time later can show what may have been deemed not to be a crime in later time, was found to be a crime, or events have so occurred that the board may have revised opinion on the amount of an injury caused to a victim by reason of crime.

I just hope that that section is interpreted widely, and wisely. And with that I certainly support the bill in second reading and compliment the Attorney General for the way it was drafted.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has brought forward an Act which is heartily applauded by the Liberal benches. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has been the one to champion this kind of legislation, and indeed brought forward a very excellent Act himself in 1969. The second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey began talking about the need for such legislation before even he was elected to our Legislature.

I think that the Act which the Attorney General has brought in in this case is even better than the one the second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey brought in in 1969 and that was a very excellent Act too. This is a little bit better, and Mr. Attorney General we're very pleased with this legislation and we have only one question — why did you wait so long?

[ Page 849 ]

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, of course it's a good bill, but it's a proclamation bill. And I think from what the Attorney General is saying that he is going to wait upon Ottawa and some financial help — am I not correct in that? — so what we're really doing is in a way an empty exercise today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: You're not waiting on Ottawa? Can the Attorney General say when it will be proclaimed? "A matter of time." Well, that's the only doubt that we have Mr. Speaker. Will it be proclaimed this year?

Well, this is the doubt we have because if the bill has good things in it and we believe it has, there's no doubt about that, we don't want another bill like we've had so many in this House that are simply pieces of paper because they're not implemented. Or they wait upon some negotiations with Ottawa. Or they remain unproclaimed.

That's the only doubt we have, Mr. Attorney General, and we think that this bill rather than being a proclamation bill, should be law and implemented upon the conclusion of this session, when the Lieutenant-Governor assents thereto.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I've been talking about this matter for so long I suppose the House would be prepared to give me leave to close the debate and announce that the bill is going to be proclaimed forthwith.

But in the event that the House is not so prepared to grant such leave I would like to say that I am absolutely delighted with the measure that has been brought in by the Attorney General and do hope that he will be able to show by his actions in proclaiming the bill that they will amount to the same degree of excellence that he has shown us with the preparation of the bill.

You know, from an historical point of view, Mr. Speaker, in one sense we are perhaps turning a 180 degrees because long before the days of Henry Il there used to be a tariff of atonement to injured people. If my recollection of history is correct it is known a "bot" or a "wite" I have forgotten, one or the other. A person would receive a degree of compensation for injury that was done to them. Then with the coming of Henry Il the idea of the King's peace developed and no longer was there payment from the injuring party to the injured party and a system of state punishment came into being.

Unfortunately from that point on until really 1964, when this legislation was spirited first in the world, which was New Zealand, there was no compensation for those who were injured as a result of criminal acts. Great Britain came in in 1964, also California was the first part of this world but brought in comparable legislation in 1966. The first province in Canada I think, the pathfinder was Saskatchewan in 1967, and then we find Ontario, Newfoundland, and Alberta coming down the line.

Then the first activity of our own province was in 1967 then when a very, very weak sister amendment came in whereby it was sloughed on to the municipalities that people who happen to be injured assisting police officers could make a claim against the municipality. Manitoba brought its legislation in in 1970, Mr. Speaker, North West Territories last year and Quebec last year, and I say hurray, hurray, almost the first of May and here we have 1972, B.C. coming along with this, which it has done.

Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, the concept of the Act is first class. I'm delighted to see that it's going to be handled by a functioning body, the Workmen's Compensation Board, which has a great deal of experience in matters of injuries and there's not any need for an increased bureaucracy to take care of the point.

I do feel, however, it would be an excellent thing if we could at some time, and I'm just going to make a very short statement, Mr. Speaker, have some kind of a declaration or attitude from the Attorney General concerning probation. I do hope that he would favour the remarks passed by some of the recent judges, Judge Bewley and Mr. Justice Dohm. that when probation is to be granted that the judges who did the sentencing should be requested to express their opinion as to whether the same should be granted.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: You've done that? What time of the night was that, I'm sorry maybe I missed that? I obviously did. Well, if you've done that I'm delighted to hear that as well. We say without question, Mr. Speaker, that we are supporting the bill, but I do hope that when the Attorney General gets up that he's going to indicate to the House exactly when this is going to come into being in British Columbia because he really does not have to wait until the federal cost-sharing programme initiates for British Columbia to take the bull by the horns, shall we say, and incorporate this as law in the province.

The value of claims really and truly is not a serious amount of money. I've got some comparable figures from the State of California which certainly has a much higher incidence of crime than we have. In 1968 there were only 21 claims for payments of $16,000. 1969, 63 claims allowed for a payment of $78,000. 1970, $171,000 was paid for 130 claims. 1971, 173 claims were allowed for a claimant of $385,000. This is the State of California which has the population of Canada.

There is no need, Mr. Attorney General, for the provincial government to sit on its oars. It should enact this legislation immediately and do the job that it is supposed to do.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver-Seymout): Mr. Speaker, I have two "buts" in regard to this legislation, which I heartily support. The question of course — why the government waited so long — would be an interesting one to answer and as my colleague has mentioned — I'm concerned as to when this will be proclaimed.

The other "but" I have, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the Attorney General would comment on is that legislation such as this I think can be used two ways. One that where people make application for assistance, the assistance is available to them. That is the intent of the bill. The other way without amending this bill in any respect is to put the agents of the compensation board on notice that they should instigate investigation as well.

[ Page 850 ]

Here's the point I'm making. A person who is injured tragically, seriously, emotionally — and particularly I think of rape cases for example — very often would not know anything about this legislation and could become involved in a great deal of expense before the chance even occurred that someone would draw to their attention that there is compensation available.

These cases usually are covered adequately in the Press. What I'm asking the Attorney General to comment on is, in instructing the staff, would he consider in instructing them on a regular basis to be aware of the events in the courts and in the media and to actually take the first step where they feel such action would benefit?

Certain types of cases in particular I think, probably rate as the best example where so frequently these people want no publicity. The girl would not want to have her name mentioned in any way if possible in the Press or as making application.

I think this could be accomplished by your staff very easily, Mr. Attorney General, through you, Mr. Speaker. It's just the method of approach. I would ask the Attorney General if he might comment on that as well.

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

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm grateful for the very kind comments and the commendation that's been given in respect to this bill. It's so unusual that I'm rather hesitant to close the debate at this time. I'd be glad to have it continued. It's almost unique in the House.

With reference to the points that have been made, certainly I agree with the Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) that there will be a need, particularly in the early stages of the operation of the legislation, to bring it to public notice and certainly through the auspices of the Workmen's Compensation Board and any other means that we have at our disposal, this will be one of the prime objectives.

Whether it would be feasible in fact with the kind of staff that the Workmen's Compensation Board now has, to go this additional step and indeed make the first call on anyone who they read about in the paper as being injured as a result of a criminal offence, I wouldn't want to give any undertaking in that respect. But in respect to the whole matter, I do agree with the desirability of making the provisions of the legislation known to the public at large. The precise methods that may be decided upon will be something to be determined in the future.

The only other question that I recall having been raised is that of proclamation. I've been very careful since the introduction of this bill not to give any indication one way or the other on this point, because there has been an announcement made in Ottawa of the cost sharing. We have included a specific provision in this bill and it is anticipated that there will be some funds on a sharing basis provided by Ottawa. Nor am I prepared at this point in time to take the position that if that is not forthcoming, that the bill will not be proclaimed.

I do feel that there is a need for this kind of legislation. I would not want to see any lengthy delay in the provision of the legislation for the benefit of the people of the province. The precise date of the proclamation is a matter that will be determined by executive council. The date has not yet been determined.

I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 70, Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 70 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Second reading of Bill No. 77, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 77. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: This Act is probably more easily discussed in committee and we have placed some quite extensive explanatory notes attached to each section because of the omnibus nature of the bill. I think it would be more proper to discuss it in committee. I therefore move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion, are you ready for the question? The question is that Bill No. 77, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act, now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 77 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Second reading of Bill No. 81, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 81. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority Act is essentially a technical bill which tightens up some of the procedures which the finance authority requested. It does give them a little more leeway in terms of short-term financing but there is no basic change in the concept of the authority itself. It's essentially a procedural bill which is self explanatory. I move second reading.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan), I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Second reading of Bill No. 79, Mr. Speaker.

FIRST CITIZENS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
CORPORATION ACT

[ Page 851 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 79. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which has been laid on the table, certainly is approved in principle by the various Indian organizations who are part of the advisory committee to the first citizens' fund. I cannot inform the House that in every detail this may be acceptable in specific terms but the bill has been written on the basis of it being an enabling Act and I undertook with the advisory committee to the first citizens' fund that there may be observations between now and third reading which are quite acceptable.

The concept of the bill is quite general. It's enabling. The idea of course that once proclaimed it's a proclamation bill as you'll notice, that we would have to work out with the Indian organizations who are involved the exact methodology of bringing the corporation into existence — questions of the management, matters having to do with the naming of the board of directors.

All of this I've given an undertaking to the advisory committee that this would be the approach that would be made. So I must indicate to the House that there may be, between now and committee, some specific amendments suggested by one or other of the Indians, but essentially this bill is something which has been discussed by the Indian people over some time.

It was felt this was the year to act that because in the way in which the bill is essentially enabling, we can work out most of the details I know to the satisfaction of the people I've been working with. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): I'm happy to see the bill introduced, Mr. Speaker. I know that there have been consultations in the past year and that practically all the organizations involved have more or less been behind the introduction and that is a good thing.

I do hope though that the bill can extend to — if it's going to be successful in the forming of companies, in the sales — that it goes to the extent of barring entry into the country of such things as the tag of "made in Japan," "made in the United States" and that this bill will go all out to say "made in Canada." This is what I would like to see.

I'm quite sure that, as the Minister has indicated, we will be discussing section by section. There may be amendments and I think we can discuss it much more thoroughly.

Our party is happy to support and endorse this bill but I do hope that the Minister will, when the time comes, mention about this import of artifacts that are made in other countries. I do know that there is a discussion under way in the federal field. Perhaps you know more about this than I do and I hope that we will bring this before the House when the time comes.

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

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in section two, sub-section C, to specifically come to this point, it is the intention of the corporation to be the vehicle through which we do talk to the federal authorities involved with copyrights and this sort of thing and also to be the vehicle through which we try to do whatever is required to be done in terms of dumping in exports and the authenticity question of the type of artifacts, the kinds of bootlegging that's been going on with argillite poles for example. All of those things we intend to tackle through the corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 79, First Citizens of British Columbia Corporation Act, now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 79 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. 67, Mr. Speaker.

SAFETY ENGINEERING SERVICES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 67. The Honourable the Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.N. CHANT (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 67, Safety Engineering Services Act, is a bill that's been under study for quite a number of years to bring it up to date, you might say, in reference to modern equipment and its operation.

The bill is a technical bill in many ways and would lend itself to a wide range of discussion but of course we're just debating the principle of the bill at the present time.

I might say that the general purpose of the bill is to bring into line the administration and the operation of the safety engineering Acts in one Act. We all know that in recent years there has been quite a lot of change in the equipment and the updating of the controls — electronic controls and automation on the various equipment that is in operation today.

As you will note, at the end of the bill, it's a proclamation bill and we anticipate that it will take approximately a year's time to bring it into operation. I want to assure the Honourable Members of this House that the safety factors in the new bill and the regulations regarding it, that all due and careful consideration will be given to safety factors and that the operations under this bill or the operations will be every bit as safe and possibly more safe than it was under the old Act.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, this bill which has been a long time a-borning has been the subject of correspondence even before its presentation in the House. Indeed it's been the subject of advertisement before it was tabled in the House, and it was only tabled a short while ago.

It's one of the most controversial bills that is before us, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I would respectfully request adjournment to the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 71, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT

[ Page 852 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 71. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, thank you. Bill No. 71, An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act. Because of the advent of regional districts and the necessity for a federated public library system and an integrated public library system, this bill is being brought in. At the same time there are some two or three housekeeping amendments — dotting i's and crossing t's sort of thing — in the Act and further it gives some jurisdiction to the regional districts and municipal councils in respect of these new libraries because of regional districts.

I understand that there is a parallel amendment to the Municipal Act as well to do that and it empowers the Minister to make regulations pertinent to the setup with these new integrated library systems.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this bill, but I point out the dangerous concept that is now being officially accepted by the government and that is the acceptance of equalization payments for library services from federal governments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's in the bill. Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, it's right there. We're receiving federal government grants for libraries here in British Columbia, federal money from Ottawa on an equalization basis, now allowing the money to go directly into the hands of library boards and I welcome it. I welcome the return of some of our tax dollars to British Columbia.

I think the federal government, I assume it's the modesty of my Liberal friends who won't jump up today and perhaps, they've read the bill even and they're too modest to get up and praise the federal government.

Really, what the bill says is that the Government of B.C. will make itself available with federal funds. I welcome that. The federal government is making money available. I welcome that.

I hope that this bill and the debate today will bring about a new spirit of cooperation between Ottawa and Victoria so that both the Prime Minister and the Premier can stop calling each other names and get on with the business of governing this great country.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Just very briefly, I'm very pleased to see a principle called integrated public library systems being involved here. I think that's a very worthy step. I just was wondering about the interpretation of that. I didn't see there — and I was wondering if it was missed or if it is implied in the legislation — that this integrated public library system includes integration with the public school library system as well, so we don't have this duplication going on again and again.

I know that Minister is in favour of that concept and I wonder if it is implied in this bill.

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

MR. H. J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I welcome to see a broadening of this concept because certainly some of the regional libraries on this island have worked very well and of tremendous benefit, especially on the west coast where they have had the interchangeability to get books in and have had tremendous usage of the library system. I agree with the Member for Delta (Mr. Wenman) that perhaps we should be going a step further in tying in the other libraries with the school libraries because at Port Renfrew this has worked very successfully. I endorse the principle of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: I just want to point out one section of the bill that provides for federal money to be paid for library services is a form of equalization. If you follow the Premier's theory the money should go to the book borrowers instead of the libraries.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question is that Bill No. 71, intituled An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act, be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 71 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. 72, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGHWAY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 72, the Honourable the Minister of Highways.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker this is An Act to Amend the Highway Act. There are two principles involved in the bill.

One dealing with the railway right-of-way where there is a problem that an established road on railway right-of-way could be precluded from the railway necessarily making additional trackage. In light of what we're thinking today in terms of rapid transit et cetera, this just has to go in to protect that. Of course that doesn't preclude by agreement that municipalities or anyone who makes an agreement that those right-of-ways could not be used and that's all.

The second principle of the Act is completely different and has to do with the flashing lights and these distracting light influences that are on our highways at night. They have been a great concern to the driving public, by chambers of commerce and boards of trade, et cetera. It is thought advisable that in the public's safety, there ought to be some control of those lights obviously at night, Mr. Speaker, or for night driving. The other principle of the bill does that clearly and is explained in the bill.

I move second reading.

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

[ Page 853 ]

MR. BARRETT: Just a couple of questions for the Minister when. he closes the debate. I've become aware of a problem. I'm sure that his office is more familiar with it than I am. It is the constant request from individuals who have access to their property over other private roads.

I think that the case that hit the newspapers was the Graham case just east of Fraser Lake where these people had been snowed in and had requested the Department of Highways to help them. The department got into some question of legal interpretation of their rights — this is the section you're amending, snow-ploughing — the question of going in over to give them access.

A group of citizens in the community finally went in on their own one weekend and cleared a path for this family. I've written the Minister's department about it. I'd like to know what changes now in the section I'm referring to, what these will do. Will they facilitate the access by these people by the use of government snow-ploughs?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: I did want the Honourable the Minister (Mr. Black) to close the debate but I think that this question of if you snow-plough a road and spend public money in this fashion that you wouldn't have to declare it a public highway, is a good one.

There is many times that I think the Highways Department is afraid to plough roads that are very necessary for people for fear that once they've spent that money on it, it can be declared a public road. I take it that is why that is on there.

The next one in regards to the railway. I notice that you state even if the money was spent when their land was still owned by the Crown, unless you have an alternate route, it is my opinion that if a railroad comes in after the road is built and even if it is on their right-of-way, that it should be considered as a public right-of-way unless they make an alternate route outside of the right-of-way of the railway.

Now in regards to the flashing lights I think this is a very good section. Many, many times across this province you find lights just about blind you. Some of the lights are highway lights that are not properly shaded and not properly fixed up. In the cities I'm sure that accidents have happened due to some of the neon signs almost duplicating the stop signs at intersections. This I agree has been a problem for years. It's something that I feel should be gone ahead with immediately.

When the Minister replies, I ask that he answers a few questions if that's the idea of the snow-ploughing so that you can snow-plough without declaring it a public road and the question in regards to the road along a railway track.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, I know that in the past the Department of Highways has sometimes hesitated to move in and provide a public service. Certainly they have done a tremendous job in facilitating things on private roads; for example, like the roads to Green Mountain and removing anything that might create an objection or create a tendency to hesitate is certainly welcome. Also any move to make driving on our highways safer is really to be commended at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLLAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I just have one question I'm sure the Minister can answer when he closes the debate.

I noticed that section 2 has a marginal note which refers to offensive lights. I wonder if the Minister in closing would indicate whether it includes a naked bulb or not. (Laughter).

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

HON. MR. BLACK: It isn't very often that I miss a joke. I would take it that I was the butt of it. Was that not so, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I think it had something to do with a naked bulb.

HON. MR. BLACK: A naked bulb? Oh! I'm sorry I didn't hear it but someone felt that their discussion was far more important than this, so I couldn't listen to two things at the same time.

First of all, relative to snow-ploughing, this has absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, to do with the snow-ploughing sections that are already in the Act. It merely says that the expenditure of public money through snow-ploughing does not make a road a public highway. Now that's what it is an about.

Now secondly, the railway right-of-way. There are many, many times when public roads are already encroaching on railway right-of-way. That doesn't prevent that happening again through leases and through agreements or by mutual consent. It doesn't prevent that at all. I've already moved second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 72 be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 72 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. 74.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PARI MUTUEL BETTING TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 74, the Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 74. Under the present Pari Mutuel Tax Act, the province levies a 12 per cent pari mutual tax. Of this amount the province retains 9.5 per cent. 1.5 per cent is granted to the track operators for purses and 1 per cent is granted for purses for British Columbia born and raised horses. Grants are made pursuant to orders of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council.

After listening to observations in this House and elsewhere, after carefully looking into the matter, the province was of the opinion the pari mutual betting tax is too high in relation to comparative levies elsewhere, and encourages, we are told, off-the-track betting.

Accordingly I made the offer in the Legislature that the tax be reduced from 12 per cent to 7 per cent with an additional 1 per cent to be levied to increase the purchase of British Columbia born and raised horses, and encourage the

[ Page 854 ]

owners of British Columbia horses.

Thus the effective tax rate would be reduced from 12 per cent to 8 per cent. This offer has been accepted by all parties concerned in this particular business.

Mr. Speaker, I'm therefore pleased to move second reading of this bill today, which reduces the pari mutual betting tax from 12 per cent to 7 per cent and levies a 1 per cent tax for use to increase purses for British Columbia born and raised horses. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a big improvement. I'm glad to see the tax reduced. Now mind you, the amount of the horse-players' betting dollars that still doesn't come back in any form to him is still pretty high in the Province of British Columbia because of the track costs.

It used to be 22 cents, now I suppose it's about 18 cents out of every betting dollar.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, there's a small amount, 0.5 per cent I believe.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, but they regulate it.

MR. MACDONALD: But the track costs are too high. I would like to see Exhibition Park run by the horsemen on a non-profit basis. Id like to see the movement to put it in the hands of these people away from, if you like — not that I'm attacking them in any way — the Turf Club, the B.C. Jockey Club people. I'd like to see it as a cooperative non-profit venture.

I think in that way we can reduce our track costs, and therefore give the horse-players a better break, a little more of the action, a little better chance to save their shirts and dress their dollies up in clothes…

HON. MR. BENNETT: And lose their money more slowly.

MR. MACDONALD: And lose their money more slowly, and spend a little more money down in the bar possibly.

That brings up another point. One of the valuable concessions at Exhibition Park is the liquor concession because an awful lot of liquor and soft drink and beer is consumed during the season. That all goes into the question of track costs. That money, I don't think is now going back into the operation of the racetrack. It isn't going to what goes to the jockeys. It isn't going to relieve what I said was too high a proportion of the betting dollar that still is taken out away from any chance of the horse-player winning it.

So I'd like to see things like the various concessions — if this becomes, Mr. Speaker, a non-profit society operating places like Exhibition Park during the horseracing season, then I would like to see those non-profit societies having the benefit of the liquor concessions and the horse manure concession — that's not a big item, nothing like the very great sums involved, in my opinion, in the liquor concession which doesn't show on any books at the present time that I know of.

The horse manure concession is above $20,000 a year. I would like to see the cooperative body have benefit of these concessions too so that we can have the best possible racing the Province of British Columbia, the best possible entertainment spectacle, the best races and lots of open races as well as those for B.C. thoroughbreds only, and therefore a more attractive industry whether you call it entertainment or sport. It's still something that makes for more colourful. life in the Province of British Columbia and helps to make us a more international society.

So I feel that in raising this matter that we've got a better bill than we started with last January in helping to raise it, I'm glad to be able to add my voice and have no intention of opposing this bill which by the way does improve the definition of "B.C. bred" because the filly has to be bred, born, and raised in the Province of British Columbia. So the international trafficking whereby you take the mare across the border, have the mare studded south of the line say, and then brought back here to drop her foal and called a B.C. bred, is changed. The whole process has to be both bred, born, and raised in B.C. That's more of a genuine B.C. crop of thoroughbreds than we had in the past.

I think this is a considerable improvement but let's have a non-profit organization to run our race tracks.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we're supporting the principle of this bill. The only problem that we find is why it took the Premier so long to understand the principle of the bill and to provide a better shake for the horseman and for the breeders and the bettors in the Province of B.C.

I've always wondered, Mr. Speaker, who the Premier looked to for his advice and counsel and his source of information concerning this particular point. I searched and searched and searched and eventually, Mr. Speaker, I've come up with the solution where the Premier receives his information. This is a revelation, indeed.

I'm told that the owner told Clarence the Clocker.
The Clocker told jockey McGoo.
The jockey of course passed it on to the horse.
And the horse told you. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, just one point. In too many of our entertainment sports, we have very little local content and very little local participation, especially when it gets to hockey and everything else. You have to import players. I'm certainly pleased to see that we are putting the emphasis that there is an advantage and to encourage a local horse breeder to supply the entertainment in this sport.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): I'd like to say one thing, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Honourable Member who spoke on the subject originally.

I have the honour of representing an area where there are a number of B.C. breeders. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I felt that he would want to know that one is an old age pensioner who spent all his life with horses. He got $108 this year from his B.C. bred. The other four are all hard-working minimum

[ Page 855 ]

income people. They're not rich people and there's one man who is building a very fine B.C. breeding and boarding farm in the Okanagan and he has some money and he made it through felling trees and working hard and I just want to lend my support to it.

I think that it's the beginning of a very fine industry for British Columbia and very much a part of the future of the Okanagan where we want this type of development. I don't do well myself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I support the principle of the bill. I'm glad that it's a step in the right direction, that we're going to maybe honour the Quarter Horse breeders next and see whether we can't do something for them.

I really feel that racing area is coming into its own. One thing about this bill, it goes further than some of the social welfare bills. It doesn't allow for illegitimacy and as long as the mares know the difference that's all that counts.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Premier will close the debate. Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) made a good suggestion about the owners of the horses running the track. I thought that would take place this year and my understanding is they did make an offer and then they withdrew their offer and so forth and I was disappointed.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think it was too high. I think it was too high.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could we have a grant for it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: But the property, of course, is owned by the P.N.E. I want to be fair to the operators and I don't mind mention of names. Mr. Jack Diamond, he is a good citizen in the province. He's a good man in operating a track like that and you need a certain talent and I say that not in criticism, I say that in praise. He's represented us on many occasions and I move second reading.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 74 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Loffmark files the annual report for the Mental Health Branch for the year ended December 31, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:25 p.m.