THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 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, it's my privilege to welcome to the House today my father.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I join for one occasion the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming his father here in this House today. Mr. Barrett senior is known in Vancouver and throughout our province as a wonderful citizen and I want to congratulate him on the spirit in which he enters life, and continues with life.

I had a wonderful chat with him in the corridor. I'm not going to let the Members in on our secret, only to say that I wish him well and I ask all the Members to join again in a hearty welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today a group of 65 students from the Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, in the Vancouver South constituency. They're here with their teacher Mrs. Duncan, and Mrs. Schmuck. Amongst them are my two daughters Julie, and Stephanie. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today we have from the great Secondary School of Templeton, 50 students from the Templeton Titons along with their teacher Mr. Bob King. With them is an exchange teacher from England Mr. Mohan Waugh and I'd ask you to welcome them to the chamber today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Lands and Forests.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands and Forests): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Murray) I'd like to make a statement of interest to the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: This morning I was phoned from the office of the Honourable Don Jamieson in Ottawa, who is the Federal Minister of Transport. He informed me that the passage of property which had been made by the Government of British Columbia to the national government in Prince Rupert to form the basis for the establishment of a national harbour had proved out, had been accepted, and as of this morning, passage had been made of the tenth national harbour in Canada which will be the new national harbour in Prince Rupert.

One or two interesting points about it the Honourable Member for Prince Rupert asked me to emphasize since I have, along with the Premier and my colleagues, been subject to some harassment over the years about this matter — just mild, may I say. But the Minister from Ottawa reported today that there is an immediate programme in Rupert, an immediate development programme there of $5 million going forth.

They are setting up a new headquarters to govern the shipment of grain from Canada. It will be set up at Winnipeg and will handle Churchill, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Thunder Bay. They will be handled from this new office in Winnipeg and immediate consideration is being given to the development of Prince Rupert as a major port for the export of grain from the Canadian Prairies.

Introduction of bills.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

COMPANIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Companies Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House, March 23, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 66.

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 66, Companies Act, introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, to permit informed discussion on the bill, I do not propose that the bill should go beyond first reading, but so that it may remain on orders of the day, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply. The committee rose, reported resolutions and asked leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to install seat belts on the chairs in the rear row opposite. (Laughter).

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Reports of committees, Mr. Speaker.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Tisdalle from the select standing committee on social welfare and education presented the committee's first report, which was taken as read and received:

(Your select standing committee on social welfare and education begs leave to report as follows:

On February 11, 1972, on the motion of the Hon. D.L. Brothers, seconded by the Hon. Grace McCarthy, it was ordered —

[ Page 944 ]

That the select standing committee on social welfare and education report on the definition of the tenure of office of the members of the teaching staffs in the universities and on procedures followed by the universities relating to this matter, and to make such recommendations as the committee considers necessary.

Since that date the following people have appeared before the committee:

Dean Ian McTaggart-Cowan, Vice-President William Armstrong, and Dean Phillip White, representing the University of British Columbia.

Mr. Robert V. Kubicek, Dr. Richard A. Spencer, and Dr. Peter Pearse, representing the Faculty Association of the University of British Columbia.

Mr. Robert McDiarmid, past Vice-President of the Alma Mater Society, University of British Columbia, representing a private point of view.

Mr. Douglas Aldridge, President of the Alma Mater Society, University of British Columbia, representing the Alma Mater Society.

Dr. D.J. MacLaurin, Dr. Izzud-Din Pal, and Dr. E. Horne, representing the University of Victoria.

Dr. B.G. Wilson and Dr. B.P. Beirne, representing Simon Fraser University.

Dr. Dorothy Smith and Miss S. Day, representing, the Women's Action Group of the University of British Columbia.

Dr. Francis E. Murray, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, representing a private point of view.

Simply stated, the objectives of the committee were to examine the meaning of the word "tenure" as it applies to the faculties of universities, to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the practice, and to study the procedures followed by the universities in granting tenure to their teachers.

In the course of the hearings, the committee has had access to the following documents: University of Oregon review by President Clark; Brief submitted by the Alma Mater Society, University of Victoria; Briefs presented by the three public universities and by individual groups and persons; A bibliography prepared by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, listing publications respecting academic freedom on tenure; An extensive survey made by the Canadian Association of University Teachers of tenure in institutions of higher education in Canada in December 1970; An extract from the Chronicle of Higher Education dated November 15, 1971 — State-College Association's statement on academic freedom; a statement by the commission on the government of the University of Toronto on tenure; "Guidelines on Appointment and Tenure, the C.A.U.T.'s or the A.U.C.S.'s," by Bruce Dunlop; "A Price on Academic Freedom," by Harold Greer; "Tenure: Protection for Academic Freedom or Academic Sloth," by Doris Hopper; "Tenure: It's Impossible to Fire Incompetents," by Leonard Taylor; "In Defence of Academic Tenure," by Fritz Machlup; an extract from Faculty Handbook, UBC; a general statement of faculty responsibilities and criteria for appointment, promotion, renewal of contract, appointment without term and salary review, Simon Fraser University; extracts from An Academic Guide Book — a sample of questions compiled by students of the University of Victoria relevant to the assessment of teaching; tenure document, University of British Columbia.

There appeared to be substantial agreement among those representing the official point of view of the three public universities that the granting of "tenure" to a faculty member is the provision in the employment contract between the university and the faculty member of a term that the duration of the contract is for an indefinite period or in other words an "appointment without term." There was also common understanding among the three groups that a faculty member may terminate a tenured appointment by resignation, repudiation, or retirement.

There seemed less certainty about the power of the university to terminate such an appointment. Most representatives agreed that there are "ways" that a university can find to end the tenure of unsatisfactory faculty members but, with the exception of "dismissal for cause," these are not explicitly stated in the faculty handbooks.

In defence of the tenure system, three basic arguments are made: It protects freedom in teaching and research; it provides security of employment; and it is a means of recognising long and valued service.

In addition, the university representatives point out that the lengthy and involved selection procedures used in granting tenure gave some protection to the university from unproductive and unsatisfactory faculty members. They also agreed that the selection procedures were a major source of the controversy surrounding the tenure system and each informed the committee that these procedures were under review.

Finally, the university representatives advised the committee that, in order to remain competitive in attracting good teachers and scholars, no single university could afford to abandon the tenure system.

Those who oppose tenure generally do so on the grounds that, once gained, there is often a slacking-off of effort on the part of the faculty member, resulting in an increase of "dead wood" in departments. Moreover, they point out that the granting of tenure is not reciprocal, since a tenured person is free to move and is not committed in any way to the university which gave him tenure.

Most witnesses appearing before the committee to present opposing points of view did not appear to oppose tenure per se. They opposed the method by which tenure is granted. Representatives of students, for example, felt that a more formal structure should be established to ensure that the student point of view is heard. The representatives of the Women's Action Group felt that women were discriminated against in the ratio of tenured appointments between men and women. One individual protested the fact that universities did not in their tenure documents specify the means of discontinuing a tenure appointment.

In making the following observations, which university authorities may wish to consider, the committee wishes to reaffirm its belief in the principles of university autonomy and academic freedom and to state its understanding of them. The committee believes that institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good, which depends upon the free search for, and the exposition of, truth and understanding. Academic freedom is indispensable to a democratic society. The academic community must be free to participate in the democratic process of government as citizens, to learn and to teach what scholarship suggests is the truth, to question what is believed to have been the truth, and to publish without fear of reprisal what scholarship has discovered.

The committee takes the position that academic freedom and responsibility are inseparable and must be considered

[ Page 945 ]

simultaneously. They are shared by members of the academic community, including students. Tenure, on the other hand, is a specific provision of employment accorded to those members of the university who qualify for it.

In setting forth the following observations, the committee is in no way purporting to abrogate the principles it believes in. In no way would it attempt to impose these recommendations on any university. But having listened objectively to a number of different points of view, and after studying a number of pertinent documents, the committee feels that it might be able to be helpful. It is in this spirit that it makes the following observations:

(a) That the practice followed by universities in granting "appointments without term" be continued;

(b) That the three public universities of the province work together to agree on a common definition of "appointment without term";

(c) That there be no discrimination, in terms of race, religion, sex, or politics.

I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Mr. Tisdalle from the select standing committee on social welfare and education presented the committee's second report, which was taken as read and received:

(Your select standing committee on social welfare and education begs leave to report as follows:

On February 28, 1972, on the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, it was ordered that Bill No. 30 intituled Family Relations Act be referred to the select standing committee on social welfare and education.

Since that date your committee has received and heard submissions by many individuals and by such organizations as the family law subsection of the Canadian Bar Association, the Status of Women Council, the British Columbia Association of Social Workers, and the prosecutor for the City of Vancouver. Your committee also consulted with solicitors from the Department of the Attorney General.

Your committee recommends that Bill No. 30 the Family Relations Act proceed with the following amendments:

Subsection (1) of section 5 should be struck out and the following substituted: " (1) Where a spouse applies for alimony, maintenance, or judicial separation, the judge may, in his discretion, having regard to the conduct of the spouses, refuse to grant all or part of the order applied for."

The word "illegitimate" should be deleted in the first line of paragraph (iii) of clause (a) of section 15.

The words "and in addition may" should be inserted in the body of subsection (1) of section 25 between clauses (b) and (c).

The words "or, where special circumstances warrant, to such other person or persons as the interests of the child require;" should be added at the end of clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 25.

The following should be added as subsection (4) of section 25:

" (4) No person shall unlawfully interfere with the custody of, or access to, a child awarded to a person under subsection (1)."

The words "that may be subsequently varied to meet changed circumstances," should be inserted after the word "order," in the second line of subsection (3) of section 35.

The following should be added as subsection (9) of section 52:

" (9) For the purposes of this part, a maintenance order or a complaint made under reciprocal enforcement of support legislation may be treated as a maintenance order made provisionally where the respondent was neither served within the reciprocating state nor present or represented at a hearing therein."

Your committee also recommends that the Law Clerk, pursuant to standing order 94, delete the marginal notes opposite clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) of clause (a) of section 15, and that he change the marginal note opposite section 59 to read "Where order made in language other than English.")

I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. PRICE: I beg leave to submit report No. 5, No. 6. and No. 7 of the select standing committee on standing orders and Private bills.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may we have the reports presented separately?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, certainly. Would the Hon. Member present report No. 5 and proceed?

Mr. Price from the select standing committee on standing orders and private bills presented the committee's fifth report which was read as follows and received:

Your select standing committee on standing orders and private bills begs leave to report as follows:

With reference to Bill No. 47 intituled Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited (Non-Personal Liability) Mineral Claims Act, it is the opinion of your committee that the circumstances surrounding the subject matter of the said bill warrant that the bill be proceeded with, and your committee recommends accordingly.

I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition brings up an excellent point in my view. It has been the habit of the various committees to move a double-barrelled motion (a) that the rules be suspended and (b) that the reports be adopted when, as is said, the notice should be filed for the adoption of a report so that the House would have an opportunity to discuss it. Nevertheless the well-established practice of the House has been to move this, as I described it, double-barrelled motion, and I think exception is taken quite properly.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, because of the matter that's before the House I ask that the two motions be separated and leave be asked.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's been the custom for all the years I've been here to deal with it this way and that's been the rules in this House by acceptance.

MR. BARRET'T: Well, it's a matter of asking leave….

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

[ Page 946 ]

MR. BARRETT: You must ask leave for the rules to be suspended.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): If there's any part of the motion that includes asking that rules be suspended, it requires unanimous consent. Any part of the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, the only reason that the rules are being suspended here is that we're waiving the necessity of notice. In other words the chairman of the committee by giving notice would not have to ask for leave but simply move his motion on the order paper. But I do say that it has been the established practice of the House to do so in private bills committee and in other bills as well. But I would suggest that the Member ask for leave and then proceed with his motion.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, I move that report No. 6 be read and received.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we haven't disposed of report No. 5. I think what we require is to ask leave for the rules to be suspended.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Then notice will be required on the order paper for adoption of report No. 5.

Mr. Price from the select standing committee on standing orders and private bills presented the committee's sixth report which was read as follows and received:

Mr. Speaker, your standing select committee on standing orders and private bills begs leave to report as follows:

With reference to Bill No. 68, intituled An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act, it is the opinion of your committee that the said bill should be proceeded with, with amendment — namely by adding the following to section 8 of the said bill: by adding at the end of subsection (1) (c) the following words: "and (d) two shall be members of the society appointed by the Provincial Council of the British Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association."

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to suspend the rules in order to move the adoption of the report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Price moves that report No. 6 be adopted.

Motion approved.

Mr. Price from the select standing committee on standing orders and private bills presented the committee's seventh report which was read as follows and received:

Your select standing committee on standing orders and private bills begs leave to report as follows:

With reference to Bill No. 29 intituled An Act to Amend the Chartered Accountants Act, it is the opinion of your committee that the said bill should be proceeded with, with amendment — namely, by adding the following at the end of section 5: "or to practice as a chartered accountant."

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the rules to be suspended to permit adoption of the report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Price moves that report No. 7 be adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, on reflecting on the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) I think technically that the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. I think in practice that the House should give consideration to the continuance of the practice that has been adopted.

It shouldn't be in the minds of Honourable Members that by denying leave that the report will be in any way prevented from coming before the House, that it simply requires notice. All it is doing really is deferring the thing possibly unnecessarily from coming before the consideration of the House.

I think nevertheless that technically the Leader of the Opposition is correct. I wonder whether or not the House wants to continue this technicality in the future of the presentation of committee reports.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that the necessity of delay or no delay is a matter of judgment by the individual Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, yes, I agree.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the Chair's opinion. However individual Members have expressed desires to delay certain matters for study or for whatever reason. On that basis I have no objection to the old practice except in instances where technically it is correct for the Member to use that option to delay.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate very much the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. If I may just observe for a moment that this is a practice that I would like to see the House adopt. That is to say that a Member could ask for the rules to be suspended and the report adopted, but if objection were taken then it would be dealt with by two separate motions in order to facilitate the work of the House. If the House would agree to that procedure I think it would be to its advantage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I just ask you to recall two previous occasions in this House where motions of this kind have been brought forward where objection has been taken by a single Member and where notice has therefore been required before that report could be adopted. So that is a precedent procedure that we followed today.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. Well, if the House would agree the Chair will adopt that procedure in the future. Next order.

[ Page 947 ]

Hon. Mr. Campbell presents the second annual report of the first citizens' fund and advisory committee from April 1, 1971 to March 21, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.