THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a moment of the House's time to express appreciation to the page boys for the wonderful job that they've done this year. They've been a very fine group from Reynolds Secondary and I certainly think they deserve a warm round of applause from the Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to second that motion of appreciation to the page boys. The only thing I hope is that they're paid union wages and that the Members of the Social Credit will do a little more than just that.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply. The committee rose and reported resolutions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, divisions took place in committee on votes 248, 256, 263 and 224, and the committee requests leave of the House to have the divisions recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: Dealing first with the divisions that took place in the committee on votes 248, 256, 263, and 224. Leave will be required in order to record these divisions in the Journals, Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR SPEAKER: When shall the report be considered?

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended and the reports of resolutions from the committee of supply on February 22, 23, 24, and 25, and March 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, and 30 be now received and taken as read.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I move, seconded by the Attorney General, that the rules be suspended and the resolutions from the committee of supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that this House doth agree with the committee in the said resolutions. Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Attorney General, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee of ways and means.

Motion approved.

House in committee of ways and means. The committee rose and reported a resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: That towards the making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following: $28,226, 553 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971; $1,451, 963,421 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

AN ACT FOR GRANTING CERTAIN SUMS OF MONEY
FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 101, intituled An Act for Granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province of British Columbia.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, by the leave of the House I move the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, by the leave of the House I move the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to a committee of the whole House to be considered forthwith.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 101 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): I move we proceed to motions and adjourned debates on motions.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on the order paper before motions and adjourned debates on

[ Page 990 ]

motions there is reading and receiving petitions. Could I have some advice on that?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the choice is the matter of the government leader to call business in whatever order that he may wish to call business.

I'd like the Honourable Member, if he would to refer to Beauchesne, the Fourth Edition at page 84 which lays out very clearly the responsibilities and obligations of the House leader in selecting the day's business.

Motion No. 2. The Honourable the Attorney General adjourned the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, since adjourning this debate I've had the opportunity of reviewing the matter as well with those responsible for the official reporting of the debates. I'm satisfied that there was no censorship of the transcripts in question.

The problem is that only those remarks which are audible when the microphone is on and are heard are recorded. That is the problem. Unless it's audible and unless your microphone happens to be on when you make the remarks, the remarks are not recorded.

I think from observing the recording of the proceedings this year that the staff have done an outstanding job of recording of points of order, et cetera, and indeed the full debate. It's not possible to get all of the interactions in, of course. They may well be audible to the news media but because your microphone is not on it doesn't appear recorded in the debates. Hence the motion that's before us, Mr. Speaker, is not acceptable to the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition will close the debate.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker I cannot …

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, the Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the Attorney General's remarks I would be very brief and only point out that if the Hansard of this House were distributed and printed within 24 hours of a sitting of the House such efforts as have been mentioned in this motion would be noticed on the day following the debate and brought to your attention immediately.

The motion clearly indicates the need for such a Hansard in this assembly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition will close the debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, speaking strictly to this motion and I quote:

"That 1971 Record of Debates be corrected to correspond with the electronic tapes of the proceedings."

Mr. Speaker, if the portion that was in dispute was inaudible then it could not have been recorded. It was not recorded in detail until some months after the session passed. It was brought to the attention of the newspaper by a former editor of Hansard itself.

Now, the former editor could have been called by the Attorney General — and perhaps he did. But in the news stories and the news reports there were charges made by a former employee that the tapes indeed were edited.

As a matter of proof for that particular point, how could something that was not audible be recorded in detail in the Victoria Times newspaper?

So, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the Attorney General did not check this matter thoroughly. That there is evidence that the record was edited and that the excerpts that were taken out were excerpts that reflected on the behaviour and attitude of the Premier. I regret that.

The evidence is there and the person responsible for bringing that evidence to light could be questioned by the Attorney General or could have been called to the bar of the House or to a special committee on privileges.

None-the-less the record still stands. The evidence is in. The tapes were edited, excerpts reflecting on statements by the Premier were taken out and that's a matter of public knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is on resolution No. 2.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 24.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 24. The Honourable the Attorney General adjourned the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not acceptable in its present form. As I read it, it would confer jurisdiction on my department which I suggest could only be conferred by legislation rather than by a motion.

However, I think the intent of the motion is such that we have in effect complied with it in one instance this year — in the Statute Law Amendment Act, when we did alter the name in a private bill. If that is what the Member has in mind in moving this motion, then perhaps in very isolated instances we can comply with the intent. But we cannot accept the motion as it now stands.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver-Burrard will close the debate.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): The purpose of this motion was to try and avoid expensive private bills coming in for very small changes as a private Act. I think the government has note of this and section 19 of Bill No. 91 has done exactly what was intended and I beg leave to withdraw motion No. 24.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3, the Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey) ): Mr. Speaker, I move this motion and the essence of the resolution really contains five points.

Number one, that not only a correct report of the proceedings of the House be furnished, but that it be a full report. Thirdly, certified as duly correct by your honour; fourthly, that under the direction and designation of you, Mr. Speaker, that the debates of this assembly may either be

[ Page 991 ]

broadcast or televised.

The principle, I think is a very cardinal one, Mr. Speaker, and that's simply this: that this is the forum of the people. A legislature, much as the same way as a court, must not only legislate but appear to legislate.

There's no reason in my mind, Mr. Speaker, why it is not possible in the Province of British Columbia in this day of technology why the general public are not entitled to an absolute and correct report of the debates and a verbatim report of the debates and one that is happening at the present time.

This is the people's palace, Mr. Speaker, and in essence today they are prevented from coming within this palace and I think they should be given full permission to be here and this is one way to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member may agree that the one section — section 8 that referred to a typewritten transcript of the said debates shall be prepared daily under the supervision of Mr. Speaker — would involve a much increased staff and possibly certain more sophisticated equipment. Under those circumstances it would involve the expenditure of public funds and as such the motion could not be in order in the hands of a private Member. I so rule.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 5. One moment please.

MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. That only deals with that particular section. Section 10 does not deal with any expenditure of public funds whatsoever, and it merely says, Mr. Speaker, that such persons or persons as you may designate shall be permitted at their expense — not at government expense or the public expense — to daily televise or broadcast the debates of the House. Mr. Speaker, as you well know this was the very origin or Mr.Hansard. He did this at his own expense and there is a very historic precedent for this…

MR. SPEAKER: It may be unfortunate that the Honourable Member didn't divide his motion into two separate motions so that they can be considered separately. But since there is an offending section within the motion, the whole motion must be ruled out of order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Barrett), that all correspondence, communications, documents and maps between all departments of the federal and the provincial governments, any official of the British Columbia Railway (previously known as the Pacific Great Eastern Railway) any official of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway and any person with respect to the extension of the British Columbia Railway from Dease Lake to and within the Yukon Territory be filed with this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I've been privy to most of the information that's been handled and it's been in the oral form as between governments. There may have been some written information that's privy to the railroads and the officers of the railroads that they've been discussing back and forth. Without permission on both sides there we cannot give commitment to table that in the House. The discussions are not finished and they're privy as they are moving both ways. There'd be no way we could get that filed at this stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 6, the Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Coquitlam, that all correspondence, communications, documents and maps between all departments of the provincial government, any official of the British Newfoundland Corporation Limited and any person with respect to the examinations, investigations and surveys for hydro power development on the Stikine River or any other river in the British Columbia northwest be filed with this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests and water Resources.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, as they are working through you can't file that which is privy to the investigation, which hasn't been finalized, and which is their document. But anything which is completed at the moment I am quite willing to file with the House at this time.

But there's certain investigations proceeding at the present time which they neither know whether they're going ahead or they're not going ahead. We're not completely privy to them. We know they're working on them. There is no commitment and there's no way I can file that with the House.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 16, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No, 16. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) the Deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia, the following standing in my name on the order paper.

Motion No. 16. That the legislative assembly of British Columbia welcomes the joint resolution approved by the House of Representatives and Senate of the State of Washington calling upon the state government to undertake a study of the problems of pollution control along the border between the State of Washington and the Province of British Columbia and urging mutual cooperation between the local, state and provincial governments concerned, appropriate

[ Page 992 ]

agencies or departments of the Government of Canada and of the United States, any existing organizations having relevant authority or experience in the field of international pollution control and any other appropriate persons or organizations.

And be it further resolved that the special committee appointed on January 20 to prepare and report lists of members to compose select standing committees of this House recommend personnel for a special committee to study the problems of pollution control along the border between the State of Washington and the Province of British Columbia and that such committee be authorized to invite the State of Washington Legislative Council on regional pollution control problems between Canada and the United States to participate with such special committee in joint meetings and hearings on the said problems of pollution control and on such terms as may be arranged by their respective chairmen.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House that as a result of a visit paid by the official Opposition in the Province of British Columbia to the Washington State Legislature and the Washington State Senate, we had the opportunity of sharing concerns with Washington State legislators in the State of Washington.

The problem of pollution transcends political lines and transcends international boundaries. We have mutual problems of pollution in the Pacific north west and it was through the initiative of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia and its elected Members that the first informal talks between Washington State legislators and British Columbia legislators on joint pollution control management were initiated.

During our visit to the United States — the State of Washington — we were graciously received by both the legislative assembly and by the Senate but more particularly we were received by — with a two-hour meeting — the Governor of the State of Washington, his Honour, Governor Daniel Evans.

During that meeting, Mr. Speaker, the Governor shared with the M.L.A.'s of this House who went on that trip, his deep concern about mutual problems facing the north-west in pollution control. After our two-hour meeting with the Governor, we returned to British Columbia and were fortunate in being able to host a return visit of Washington State legislators based on the same principles of this motion.

During their return visit, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was most gracious in hosting the Washington State legislators at Government House along with representatives of the government party and other opposition parties. I must say that the Members who did attend were most gracious in showing their non-partisanship and sharing in the most generous hospitality of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor who hosted myself, my colleagues and the other Members at Government House.

The Premier did see the visiting legislators and he too was most gracious and in conversations with them he discussed his particular opinions and shared with them his concerns. I was not there at that particular meeting, on the other hand that's fair enough.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wasn't at the other one.

MR. BARRETT: He wasn't at the other one — that's right, he declined the invitation to travel to Washington with us although I don't recall me sending that invitation to him. (Laughter).

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it was well received all around. Despite the initiatives taken by the official Opposition the Premier did meet with them in his office and that was gracious.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Twice!

MR. BARRETT: Twice, and he recognised the importance and it was doubly important that he meet them twice.

What the Washington State Legislature has done is pass this memorial, as they call it, and I will not read it in its entire form to the House tonight but copies are available and copies were sent early in January of this year to the Premier.

It is a memorial which in effect is a motion in their legislatures — both legislative bodies, the Senate and the legislative assembly. It's a joint address, and in this memorial they are praying for the establishment of a joint committee of legislators in the State of Washington with the state — with the Province of British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! You've been brainwashed.

MR. BARRETT: Let's understand one thing; there's nobody here that wants to endanger the sovereignty of British Columbia or Canada but we all recognise another thing. That pollution knows no boundaries and we have an absolute responsibility to cooperate with legislators who are elected freely and democratically in other jurisdictions.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Premier, it's not the problem of stopping the smoking at the border it's the problem of the wind blowing the smoke down there or vice versa — up here. That, Mr. Premier, is one reason why you should support this particular motion.

We have the opportunity of creating a new dimension of international cooperation. If the House will examine what has taken place between the United States and Canada in attempts to set up joint pollution control on the Great Lakes, we can do something similar here.

As a result of this initiative of mine, I've already been invited to the Yukon, to attend a resource conference there and part of my address will be related to our experience of attempting to establish international cooperation on the problem of pollution control.

During my visit to the Yukon, I will be visiting as her Majesty's Loyal Leader of the Opposition and I will be sharing with the Yukon my concerns about the need to establish a joint legislative committee between the Yukon, perhaps Alaska, Washington State and the Province of British Columbia so that we might even have a total Pacific rim force tackling the problem of pollution control.

I want to thank the many, many people in the Province of British Columbia of all political stripes, Social Credit, Liberal and Conservative, who have written me personal letters, thanking me for taking this initiative and I humbly submit, Mr. Speaker, that this initiative has been taken on behalf of the people of British Columbia as a step forward to a new level of cooperation between all people living on this beautiful part of the world, the Pacific rim.

I ask the government on that basis, I humbly ask the government, to sponsor my motion so that we can step forward to international cooperation.

[ Page 993 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we're all reassured to know that the Honourable Member who has just taken his seat is accepting engagements in the future — and even in the distant future — as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Because that is a position which we hope he will continue long to hold in this Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, may I say this in respect to the motion that's before us, that this government in this province will continue to cooperate with the great and friendly neighbour to the south on pollution and on any other matter as we have for many years — and that will be a continuing policy.

However, this motion presupposes that this assembly has formally before it a resolution of a legislature of a foreign jurisdiction. I understand the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition has what he calls a motion from the legislative branch of that government, but there is nothing before us from the administration branch which would be essential.

In addition, I suggest that having come from a foreign jurisdiction the only way it can be formally before us is if it came to us through the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa. This has not been the case and therefore I suggest not only that it would be improper to deal with the motion in its present form but that in itself, this resolution not being formally before the House would make the motion out of order. I would invite you to so rule, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, before an argument on the ruling, whether or not it's in order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that under the rules of this House this motion is not out of order.

It does not fall under any of the rules of this House. It welcomes a stated fact, it calls for no expenditure, it is within the framework of this House. It is not a formal international agreement, it is a matter of informal arrangement. I suggest that it does not offend any standing order of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the Attorney General it would seem to me that the resolution's intent was to refer this joint address to a special committee. I agree that if the resolution were adopted it would be inoperative and that it's too late in the session to have the matter referred to the committee. I don't however find that offensive insofar as the rules of the House are concerned and do not find the motion out of order in its present form.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate to the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS-33

NAYS-17

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 17, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 17, The Honourable Member for Burnaby-North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): Mr. Speaker, this motion I placed on the paper because of my great concern that the Province of British Columbia has not taken any real specific action to implement the many reports of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which applied provincially.

Now I ask that a special committee of the House be set up to study this and I realise now that we're into the dying moments of the session — that perhaps this is not practical. But I would like to suggest to the government that I am not at all satisfied with just having the women's bureau look into this.

I think a committee to study the import of these recommendations for the women of British Columbia should include a wide variety of people from the Province of British Columbia, I would hope that the government would give consideration to establishing such a committee even if the House has prorogued.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member may note that if the motion were passed it would be inoperative and under those circumstances, would you want the House to vote on the motion or would you prefer to withdraw it?

MRS. DAILLY: No, Mr. Speaker, I move it.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): I do want to say a word on the motion. This motion has been on the order paper for quite a while and if there had been any intention to proceed with it, surely it could have been called during the session. In view of the importance of the Royal commission report the fact that this government has taken no particular interest in seeing what way it could cooperate in bringing about a recognition of a new and enhanced status for women, it's regrettable that it should be called on this last day of the session.

In the motion it called for all convenient speed to appoint a committee and it's a source of pride, I think, to the more advanced thinkers of this assembly to realise that we have five women sitting in this assembly who do it credit and

[ Page 994 ]

although we may criticise them from time to time I think…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: That was because of the fact the government has not recognised their true status. That's the reason. It's a form of tokenism — it's a form of chauvinism, Mr. Speaker, to appoint three women to the cabinet and give them no duty.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. DOWDING: As for me, I think it's a tragedy that women are not given a role to play commensurate with that of the Minister, say, of Public Works, or the Minister of Education. Surely they have that much competence. Surely. When you think of it, one of them must have that much competence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Now the Member must get back to the proper principle of this resolution.

MR. DOWDING: I'm going to say that I hope that some thought will be given to a continuing committee on this subject by the government or at least some kind of a special inquiry into the subject to see how much our statutes, our laws and our institutions are in line, in keeping with the recommendations of that Royal commission report.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the motion if it were to pass would be completely inoperative. And if the Honourable Member is not prepared to withdraw it under those circumstances then the request is that the whole matter be studied for the future. I would therefore move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 18, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 18. The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I move and seconded by the Honourable Member for Kootenay, that all correspondence and communications between all departments of the provincial government, any official of the National Coal Corporation Ltd. (NPL), any official of any world government and any person with respect to coal explorations, potential markets for all types of coal and possible British Columbia coastal export outlets, resulting from work done on the Groundhog coalfields since 1970 be filed with this House.

Again it's another straightforward move.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, the government is not against accepting this motion although we do have nothing pertinent to file other than the applications for coal licences in the result in orders-in-council granting those licences.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 20, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 20, the Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): The Minister of Immigration has advised us that Lydia Del Rio Turino will be granted safe asylum in this country. Therefore I move this particular resolution be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member requests leave to withdraw the motion. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 21, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 21. The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. CALDER: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Burnaby North, that in view of the motion accepted by the Government of Canada on September 8, 1971, that a copy of the Stanberry-Fields Report be tabled subject to the concurrence of the Province of British Columbia, this House requests this government to table the said report in this House, or to signify its concurrence with the tabling of the said report in the House of Commons.

I would like to make a few remarks here Mr. Speaker.

Several years ago the federal, provincial, and municipal officials made a study of taxation as it relates to the Indian reserves in British Columbia and elsewhere. As the governments today are now consulting Indians on all matters of improvements on reserves we hope the consultation will relate to discussions on taxation. This is the reason why a similar motion was introduced in the House of Commons. The Government of Canada agreed to table the report only if the Government of British Columbia would agree to it. And this is the reason why I have introduced this motion either to have that report introduced here, or for this government to correspond with the Government of Canada, and agree that such a report be filed there.

Another reason why I introduced this motion is because we believe that at least four chapters of this report is already in the hands of quite a number of interested persons throughout Canada. And we pretty well know what's in this report.

Again, as far as this government is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it has already supported and advocated municipal status in the Province of British Columbia. And on that basis I think the Indians should know what taxation would mean, especially if they accept say, like the Village of Cape Mudge municipal status. On that again this would be consultation and I think the Indians must know what's involved in this and I would say by all means this government should consider tabling of this report at this time. And I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I really don't understand the substance of this recommendation. I have never been made aware of the Stanbury-Fields Report. I have never been offered a copy of

[ Page 995 ]

that report, and it's interesting that this request is coming before this House when the government of this province has not even been made aware that the House of Commons has made this request to this government.

I think the Member for Atlin knows that this report is essentially not the Province of British Columbia's report. And I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, like to have the advantage of having been officially advised by the Government of Canada exactly what their position is.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, motions 22 and 25 are both inoperative now, does the Honourable Member wish to withdraw?

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, this motion has been on the order paper for plenty of time. It was on before the workmen's compensation amendments were brought in here, and it was promised by the last Royal commission that it would be considered by a committee periodically.

I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley) that this House authorize a select standing committee on labour to review the Workmen's Compensation Act with a view to recommending any necessary amendment to the Act. And that the committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to hear representations from organizations and persons interested.

It may be inoperative now, Mr. Speaker, but I think it's a disregard for private Member's day, and private Member's resolutions that we deliberately make these inoperative, and I move that motion.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 25, Mr. Speaker,

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded bi the Honourable Member for Surrey, that this House authorize a select standing committee on standing orders and private bills to review the rules of the House relating to the adjournment of sittings.

When I put this motion on, it was a result of a ridiculous situation on February 25, when the Members of this House had to sit for 16 1/2 hours doing the people's business, and I think Mr. Speaker our rules should be reviewed after the adjournment of debates of sittings in this House, and I so move.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 26.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 26. The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker I move, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs seconds, the motion standing on the order paper in my name.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House deeply regrets the refusal of the Government of Canada to assist with the financing of the Pacific North Coast Native Indian cooperative seafood processing plant at Port Simpson, British Columbia, the application for which project was made in conformity to the federal-provincial rural development agreement made between Canada and this province on May 14, 1970: And be it further resolved that this House urge the Canadian Department of Regional and Economic Expansion to forthwith re-examine and reverse that decision in light of representations made.

The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell the House that immediately following the refusal of the Government of Canada to assist with this scheme the Member of the federal House representing the constituency of Comox-Alberni sought to have this discussed by the federal House. I haven't got the date in front of me but it was either the same day or the following day that this motion appeared on the order paper.

Along with the New Democratic Party Members of Parliament he felt as concerned as the Honourable the Minister without Portfolio. I regret to inform the House, however Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Government refused to allow that debate to continue and did not see fit to give leave for this important matter to be discussed by the federal House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I think it should have been known to the Honourable the Minister — she obviously knew when she made the motion — that the federal government had refused to assist in financing the Pacific North Coast Native Indian cooperative seafood processing plant. She is the member of the cabinet, she is a Minister of the Crown.

The Opposition is not in a position to amend her resolution to urge this government to give financial assistance to the desired end of processing plants for the native Indians in the North Coast. I suggest to her that she ask one of her colleagues to amend her motion or indeed amend it herself. We'll support her in an amendment to call upon the provincial government to give that much needed assistance. It wouldn't be a great deal of money, but it would be serving a great purpose, which this government, which has the power to do it, would give that assistance to the native Indians of our north coast for that desirable aim.

I'm surprised that she would merely make this sort of an anti-Ottawa resolution. Because pious regrets from a Minister in a position to control the privy purse are hardly good enough — it's almost an admission of failure for a Minister of the Crown to have the temerity to put a resolution expressing regret that Indians are not getting any assistance when she is in a position in the cabinet to speak for aid for these people.

She should tell us how much they need and why this government is incapable with $150 million surplus to find a few thousand dollars to help these native Indians in the north.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Minister of Agriculture): Mr.

[ Page 996 ]

Speaker, in answer to what the Member just said, I think he should consider for one moment that it would require cooperation of all groups to make a plan such as this successful.

Remember that the Davis four plan is coming into being pretty quickly. And this may possibly eliminate further Indian fish boats from the Pacific Coast.

Of course unless the fisheries department, and the federal Fisheries Branch do have control of the resources of fishing industries on this coast, and unless there is cooperation from the federal government, then I am surprised to see that the Members across the way would give up so easily in trying to get our national government to give at least something to the Province of British Columbia. It's no wonder that we look on the list of projects where 14 projects have been approved on the Eastern Coast, and not one on the Pacific Coast.

I think it is a disgraceful action on the part of the national government, and also Members across the way for giving up — that we can't get the federal government into a position of a joint cooperation to be of benefit to the Indian people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I think that we're talking about a subject here with which many people are not familiar. But actually what went on over the year, it seems that a salmon run when it starts commences north and then works south. And you'll find that the run up the Nass, is ahead of the run up the Skeena, and the run of the Skeena, will be ahead of rivers down the coast, and then ahead again of the Fraser.

What actually has happened is this, that we've had strikes called by our friend here, who should be perhaps in another country. But anyway he calls a strike with the fishermen, and this strike takes the natives off in the Nass and the Skeena. And the natives for years have been unable to fish in the north country because of the strike that was called in the south.

Then as time goes on the strike is finally settled and it's settled in time to get the salmon catch that's coming up the Fraser, but in the meantime the native people have been deprived of gill net fishing in the Nass, and the Skeena.

Finally the native people could take it no longer and they said "we'll fish anyway and we'll make our own road." But they weren't able to quite do that, Mr. Speaker, because then the shore workers were taken off so the catch couldn't be handled.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to impress all the Members of this House just at this moment to tell them that really the native people have had the runaround for years that I can recall, and they've had the runaround first of all by the union then secondly the union has taken out the shore workers, so that when they decided they were going to fish they still couldn't market because the fish couldn't be handled.

Certainly I agree with this bill, but I believe that we should get back to the roots of the evil, which starts with agreements and unions, and I think the natives in the north should be encouraged to get out and fish. They used to make a good living at it, until we fouled it up for them.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 28. The Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the motion under my name and seconded by the Member for Atlin — No. 28. That this House recommend that the government consider the advisability of providing court workers to assist native people arrested, or summonsed for court appearance.

In speaking to this motion, Mr. Speaker, I may well admit that it was inspired by a considerable amount of dissatisfaction over the Fred Quilt case that took place late last year, and early this year.

While there was, a certain amount of help given there in the vast majority of court cases involving native Indian people the summonsed person, the arrested person, comes before the court with little or no knowledge. They are very much afraid to do anything but plead guilty and get away as quickly as they can.

I think this is a debt that we owe the native people of this province. I think if we're going to have them value our system of justice, to have a greater appreciation of our laws, then I think this is an absolute must, and I would appreciate support from all sides of the House on this motion because it is a matter of justice to our first citizens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member, I think, may agree with the Chair that the employment of court workers to assist the native Indian people would involve the expenditure of public funds. And altogether apart from the merits of his resolution the Chair must declare it out of order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I was going to say we accept the principle of it, but I guess we can't under the circumstances. Motion No. 29, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 29, the Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: Motion No. 29, Mr. Speaker, standing in my name on the order paper seconded by the Member for Surrey. That this House recommends that pharmacists be allowed to substitute generic-name drugs for brand-name drugs unless the doctor specifically indicates otherwise on a prescription and provided that the generic drug is equivalent to and cheaper than the brand-name drug.

In speaking to this motion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the laws in Alberta, our neighbouring province, allow a pharmacist to do this. Most pharmacists, I'm sure, have the consideration of the ability of their customer to pay and certainly where we have old age pensioners that do not have the medical card — where they have to pay for drugs and many of them on a sustained drug programme — it becomes very, very expensive. Particularly where they receive brand-name drugs.

If the pharmacist was allowed to use his discretion, unless the doctor specified otherwise — and I say this law is offered in Alberta and I hope that this Legislature will consider in future parliaments changing our Pharmaceutical Act so that any pharmacist can do that in his good, professional discretion in the best interests of keeping down the high costs of prescription drugs for the citizens of this province.

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

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services and

[ Page 997 ]

Hospital Insurance):Mr. Speaker, this same subject came up in a different context within the last year, at which time the pharmacists through their official representation in their society passed a resolution to the effect that pharmacists would be given the authority to substitute without limit as I read the resolution.

The government declined to ratify it by order-in-council which was required, for the reason that it was sufficiently broad in its terms that a pharmacist according to that resolution might substitute a drug which was of the same price or perhaps one of a higher price.

This was a sufficient reason in our judgment to send back for further consideration and thereafter we had occasion to refer the same subject matter to a drug prices advisory committee where the matter is presently under consideration, along with quite a number of other related matters touching on quality of drugs, labeling of drugs, pre-packaging and other matters which we hope when they are resolved by recommendation will produce a lower price for drugs — particularly to people who are aged and of low income.

Now, having in mind that this matter is presently under advisement by this drug advisory committee, it would seem to me appropriate in the circumstances that we left the matter stand over for a while in order that that committee might bring in their formal recommendation. For that reason I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 31, the Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Bill No. 88 is not being dealt with.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the House leader advise what…?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 30, the Honourable Member wishes to withdraw. I didn't call it because we weren't dealing with that particular bill but I will if I may call Motion No. 30 on his assurance to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well. If the Honourable Member has no objection may we call motion No. 30 first of all?

MR. HALL: By leave of the House I wish to withdraw Motion No. 30 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Now, Mr. Speaker, may I call motion No. 31?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 31, the Honourable first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound motion No. 31 standing in my name on the order paper. Resolved, that this Legislature communicate immediately to the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States its opinion that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline not be built and that an alternative pipeline be built down the Mackenzie Valley in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, my reasons for presenting this motion to the House at this time is the urgency of the present situation. The government report of the United States to the Department of the Environment in Washington, D.C., stated that the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline might start within 45 days.

If that pipeline is built, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that approximately 140,000 barrels a year of oil will be lost in trans-shipment down the Pacific Coast. I want to match that figure against the losses of the Torrey Canyon disaster where approximately 200,000 gallons of oil were discharged at the time that ship went down. It created an oil slick 250 square miles in size, fouled beaches in England over 100 miles in length, took months and months to clear and still has left that area of the world suffering from that single disaster.

The prediction of the Department of Environment reports in the United States was that we would have approximately one Torrey Canyon per year on the Pacific Coast. Mr. Speaker, that's a terrifying prospect and the only way that it can be avoided would be to build the alternative pipeline in Canada.

If that pipeline is built, Mr. Speaker, it will be the largest single investment in Canadian history. It will open up the northern part of British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon on a scale never before dreamed of. It should become the highest priority for a Canadian project. Since the time is short, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this Legislature is duty-bound to do what it can to speed the day when this investment takes place and to protect our own Pacific Coast.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, speaking to this motion I would like to say that I am sure that none of us disagree with the principle of transporting oil by pipeline rather than by motor carrier or by ship because of the fact that the damage that would be done in a pipeline leak is generally quickly overcome and quickly sealed off where in the matter of a giant supertanker today there are tremendous numbers of gallons of oil that could — in effect would — affect our whole coastline.

But I am surprised that the Leader of the Liberal Party would put a resolution on the order paper and a motion which would in actual fact cause the Province of British Columbia to deal directly with a foreign power — that is the President of the United States.

It seems to me that not too long ago we had quite a hassle in Canada over the very fact that the Province of Quebec decided to communicate unilaterally and without any recourse to Ottawa with the sovereign State of France. Everyone took violent objection to that.

I would hope that we would not want to place the Province of British Columbia in a like position by asking this province to communicate directly with the Government of the United States and not go through the Minister of External Affairs or the Dominion of Canada. For that reason I move adjournment of the debate on this motion to the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 998 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Motion No. 32, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 32. The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, motion No. 32 on the order paper. Resolved, that this Legislature recommends that priority be given to construction of the British Columbia portion of the Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson highway so that road and rail access to the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline be established through the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I placed this motion on the order paper following answers to questions on the order paper provided by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Black) in which he said that no date for completion of this highway had been chosen and that no money was projected for the highway during the coming year.

But it's been a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government had commenced to build the highway south from Port Simpson towards the British Columbia border but abandoned its plans and shifted its highway to the east when it became evident that the Province of British Columbia was unwilling to fulfill its obligations in this regard.

It seemed a pity, Mr. Speaker, because with the obvious opening up of the North West Territories, the desire to gain access to the North Slope oil and gas, this highway becomes a priority item for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted, of course, to find that after this motion was placed on the order paper the government had an apparent change of heart. Just the other day it announced that consideration would be given to this highway. But I move the motion now, Mr. Speaker, just to underline the opinion of this House that priority should be given and that construction should begin this year.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Honourable Member would agree with the Chair from his remarks that to undertake the provisions and requirements of this resolution would involve the expenditure of public moneys and as such, in the hands of a private Member, the resolution is not in order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, we proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members. Second reading of Bill No. 38.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE RENT CONTROL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 38. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, this bill is merely a house-keeping bill in part of my legislative programme. (Laughter). It deals with a particular aspect of rental regulations that were originally created by this Legislature in consequence of the termination of the wartime regulations dealing with housing and rental authority. That particular Act is still on our statute books and has been invoked in the City of Vancouver.

There's been some question about the validity of the regulations made and the rental board set up by the City of Vancouver. The other municipalities have attempted to invoke a similar pattern as the City of Vancouver and they've met with some difficulty in this regard so that my bill is merely to give the councils of all the municipalities of British Columbia or their respective boards of commissioners the power to pass bylaws that relate to any of the regulations that are referred to in this particular Act, and allowing them to create a rental authority if they deem it necessary to do.

Now, all I'm doing is up-dating the present legislation on the books to eliminate the question of whether or not one municipality can do it and another can't. The way it is now, there's a question on that point.

Now, if you have a law on the statute books it should have some validity. If it isn't a valid one it shouldn't be there. I'm merely trying to help the government straighten out their legislation because it's a bit of a mess, you must admit, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, speaking to this Bill No. 38, I note they refer here to a board of commissioners. There's no such a thing in any municipality in British Columbia and therefore I move adjournment of this debate.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. My friend is trying to contradict me and it refers to a council or board of commissioners in the Act that is presently on the statute books.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the House is now seized of a motion to adjourn the motion until the next sitting of the House. You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question?

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Bill No. 41, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 41, the Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, this is An Act to Provide for Public Scrutiny. Section 1, this Act may be cited as the Sunshine Law. I would not want Honourable Members either opposite or on this side of this House to confuse this bill in any way with the Sunshine Comstock Bill that we passed a little while ago.

The principle of this bill is contained in its own preamble, which being brief I will read to the House.

"Whereas the good Government of British Columbia demands that light should be allowed to shine on the conduct of public business, so that it be executed without favouritism, or political bias and in accordance with the highest standards of public morality."

Now, the bill itself is modeled, it's not something terribly novel, it's modeled on a law in the State of Florida which goes much further because I have provided exceptions.

But we have increasingly through the years seen public records hidden, not available for public scrutiny. We have seen bodies like the labour relations board, for example, of which there has been a complaint tonight. I'm not judging that complaint but when a board meets year after year and

[ Page 999 ]

gives no reasons for its decisions so that the people appearing before it have no way of knowing in what way their case may have been decided, when the Vancouver Police Commission meets to try people in secret, when a committee of this Legislature set up to deal with film classifications sees one of the films in camera. Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour in the session, Mr. Speaker, there's a very serious principle behind this bill and I close in the words of the Presbyterian hymns: Open up your hearts and let the sunshine in.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Amen, amen! There's one reference in this bill that no one on this side of the House could take exception to — it's the first sentence: "Whereas the good Government of British Columbia…."

We can all agree with that on this side of the House and I'm glad the Honourable Member in moving agreed with it too.

He mentioned the open-ness of meetings. I recognise that this is a prerogative of democratically-elected representatives and I know that the select standing committee on social welfare and education did conduct all of its business and hearings without the use of camera, but to indicate by maybe suggestion here that some democratic institutions are not capable of handling the matter of democracy and demonstrating it in their procedures I think is a reflection that is uncalled for. But I do recognise the good intention of the Honourable Member in moving this bill. I would suggest that it's something that maybe we could give more study to and I would move its adjournment.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 63, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE QUEEN'S COUNSEL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 63. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated bill — its title is An Act to Repeal the Queen's Counsel Act. I expect they'll have full support of the House. The Queen's Counsel appointments today are quite meaningless. They're merely appointments that are made by the government, some for people who are learned in the law and some for friends of the government.

Now, I don't have a Queen's Counsel myself so I can't be considered to be prejudiced, but I bring this out — that in the year 1972, I suggest there is no place for Queen's Counsels, in this province.

I suggest that the wording in the Act says that it's for people learned in the law. I further suggest that a number that have been appointed in recent years haven't seen a law book in years.

I wish to make it clear that I certainly am not objecting to any individual appointment. It's a question of appointments in general — the idea of granting certain people a special privilege in our society. We don't have Queen's doctors or Queen's carpenters or Queen's mechanics and I can't see any space in our society for a special group of lawyers to be classed as Queen's Counsels. I am certainly opposed to the status symbols and to the privileges being granted at the present time. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to say that no province has a more distinguished list of Queen's Counsel appointments than has the Province of British Columbia. That is recognised across Canada today.

The matter was considered recently by one of the sub-sections of the Canadian Bar Association on the motion of a Member that the Queen's Counsel Act be repealed and was defeated. So the representations that have been made to this House by a learned member of the legal profession are not fully shared by the lawyers throughout the province. However, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this bill is out of order in the hands of a private Member because it affects the Royal prerogative and therefore requires signification of the consent of the Queen before being passed. That consent has not been obtained, and therefore in the hands of a private Member, I suggest, the bill affecting the Royal prerogative would be out of order.

I would refer to page 580 of the 18th edition of May as well as to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of the Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada vs. the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, wherein Lord Watson, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council, clearly indicated that the appointment of Queen's Counsels is an exercise of the Royal prerogative which can be and has been by the giving of Royal assent to the Queen's Counsel Act delegated by the Crown to the Lieutenant-Governor of the province acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would invite you to rule that the bill in question is not in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I will sustain the point of order raised by the Honourable the Attorney General. Is there any discussion on the point of order? Then I must rule the bill out of order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 64, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LIBEL AND SLANDER ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 64. The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill, I can do no more than read the explanatory note which sums up the kind of equality sought in this bill. "At common law, it has long been actionable slander to impute unchastity to a woman, but not slanderous to imply that a man has been incontinent, unchaste or possessing less than pure or virtuous morals.

"The purpose of this bill is to establish equal rights for men and women under the law of slander by giving a man whose chastity has been impugned a right of action for slander."

The Act is simply equality. It's simply equality that's being sought. Neither more nor less, equal or unequal and I move second reading of this bill.

[ Page 1000 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the section of the Act which this bill would amend comes from an old English statute, passed in 1891, called the Slander of Women Act. .

I wonder if the learned Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) realizes that this English legislation has never been enforced in Scotland. (Laughter). Perhaps he might in his wisdom therefore seek to withdraw the bill on that account alone, Mr. Speaker. But I doubt very much whether the Members of this Legislature would want to follow the lead of the first Member for Vancouver East in moving second reading of this bill. We would not want in any way to revert to the artificiality of the nineteenth century and I would hope that the Honourable Member would, after making his point, agree to the withdrawal of the bill. If not I'm afraid well have to vote against second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 69, Mr. Speaker.

MOBILE HOME ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 69. The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I move that bill be withdrawn from the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 73, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CORONERS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 73, the Honourable Member is not in his place.

HON. MR. PETERSON: It would be out of order in any event. Second reading of Bill No. 75.

AN ACT RESPECTING A GUARANTEED INCOME
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 75. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. PETERSON: It would likewise be out of order. Second reading of Bill No. 76.

THE ELECTION EXPENSES ACT, 1972

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 76. The Honourable first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill, which is an Act relating to election expenses, I press it upon the House even more because the government's own bill, Bill No. 48, has not been proceeded with and so we on this side of the House offer a meaningful election Act.

I have already spoken on the matter of limitation of campaign funds in the interests of some kind of equality of choice, of pre-choice of the electorate.

I'm quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that the government benches with their huge campaign funds will vote down this bill as they have always refused to make electoral reform in any respect that really matters insofar as real democracy is concerned in this province. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Honourable Member — I'm sure he would agree — that section 3 of his bill, in which he states that the chief electoral officer shall reimburse each candidate for certain expenses — would in the hands of a private Member automatically put the bill out of order under our standing order 66.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 80, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 80. The Honourable Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). He is not present.

HON. MR. PETERSON: It would be out of order for the same reason, Mr. Speaker. Second reading of Bill No. 83.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AGRICULTURE
CORPORATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 83. The Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government for allowing me to present this for second reading.

There are two major parts in this bill. The first deals with the licensing aspects and the purpose of this is to prevent the dumping of products on the markets of our producers at times when they depress the price the producer is to receive.

The second major part is the funding for the bill for those people that are engaged in agriculture and have dwindling borrowing power. This will allow them to set up processing plants that are badly needed in this province.

For those who fail to realise the advantages of licensing, might I just quote from the Quebec Agricultural Marketing Act. It states that at its meeting of January 26, 1972, the Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board rendered the following decision: Where it is stipulated in article 44 of the Quebec Agricultural Marketing Act that the board may make regulations to prescribe and issue licences to persons engaged in the marketing of any marketed products.

I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this was one of the recommendations of the agricultural committee. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that we can do everything possible through this corporation Act to maintain the 19,085 farmers that are in this province on the farm and this is the intent of the bill. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I think if the Honourable Members will refer to section 2 of the bill, in sub-section 4, and again in section 3 of the bill, sub-sections (b), (c) and sub-section 2 involving the expenditure of public funds, the bill in the

[ Page 1001 ]

hands of a private Member is not in order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 84.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE OF
COMMISSIONER FOR GRIEVANCES

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 84. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, this is a attempt to establish the office of a commissioner for grievances — what is commonly knows as "ombudsman", and this office is an historic one in many places today but is sadly missed in British Columbia.

Alberta and Manitoba have both seen fit to establish that office. It has worked very successfully. It provides a means for the ordinary person to get redress from the government where other means have failed. At least, to have a searching inquiry by that person into what's going wrong with the government — and sometimes these things that go wrong can be a result of arrogance or ignorance or mere official intransigence.

At any rate, I have tried in this bill to avoid the problem that often besets aspiring legislators here of finding a way of establishing an office without spending any money of the people.

If you can look at this you can see that it's in the nature of a voluntary duty and that all contributions from the public will be welcome, to keep the ombudsman working.

Even the committee that appoints the ombudsman from certain respected citizens of this province — like the chief justice of the supreme court, treasurer of the law society — they don't even have to act if they don't want to. I even got around the problem of imposing a duty on any citizen.

Now, in the light of all that legal legerdemain that I have created here, surely you'll accept this in principle and we can get on with the job.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 85, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE CROWN

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 85. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, one of the historic failures of this government in its 20 years in office has been its inability to recognise we're in the 20th century and to realize that the prerogative of the Crown that no one can sue the Crown is hardly a matter of theory any longer that should be even welcome in a society where a government truck can hit you right off the road or run over you.

Consequently, it's no consolation for the average citizen to talk about the mediaeval idea that the Queen can do no wrong because the Queen has over 20,000 employees in the Province of British Columbia who can do some wrong to you every time they either drive a car or do any other act that injures another person who is entitled to the preservation of their life, limbs or property.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. PETERSON: I think that the Honourable Member has already indicated that this involves the prerogative of the Crown and hence acknowledges that the bill is out of order.

MR. DOWDING: Well, I wanted to get you to acknowledge that you're not in the 20th century and I've done it.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that the Honourable Member will agree, as the Chair does, with the Honourable the Attorney General's point. It may be interesting also to observe that section 23 which defers certain revenues to the Crown would also place the bill out of order.

MR. DOWDING: I agree.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 86, Mr. Speaker.

PREVENTION OF RESTRAINT OF PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 86. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intituled the Prevention and Restraint of Professional Practices Act and it deals with practically all the professions. The purpose of it is to make it unlawful to have restrictive clauses within agreements that restrict the individual from practising his profession.

This is the outcome of the case in Cranbrook and Fernie and Michel where the medical clinics have restrictive clauses — both the doctors that are employed and doctors that join in with the clinic, if they leave the clinic or are let out by the clinic, they deny them the right to practice within so many miles.

I'm sure there are many restrictive clauses in other agreements and if restrictive clauses such as this were in trade union agreements, it wouldn't take the government long to place bills on the order paper, to rectify it.

I'm sure that this Act should be accepted by the government. The Minister of Health last year promised that it was going to be considered by the law reform group and I had expected that he would have said something. Maybe he's got some news for me tonight but I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health Services.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, much of the substance of this bill is now being considered by the medical manpower committee struck by the government with the cooperation of the B.C. Medical Association and the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons. I'm sure that something will come out of that which is significant as far as this Act is concerned.

I think it would be appropriate that we move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 1002 ]

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 87, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TRUST COMPANIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 87. The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill I do hope that the very bad track record of the government of acceptance of private Members' bills tonight will come to an end and this will be the exception, and the government will back this bill. The object of the …

AN HON. MEMBER: You dreamer!

MR. GARDOM: A dreamer? I hope not my friend. And the object of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it must become mandatory that the report of the inspector of trust companies be made public and filed with this Legislature. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the only obligation of the inspector is to file his report to the Minister of Finance, and with the Attorney General. And with this matter, as with others we have discussed in this House, it's one of public accountability.

Had it been mandatory, Mr. Speaker, in earlier days that this particular report was subject to public inspection and subject to public scrutiny we would have never ever had the disgrace of Commonwealth Trust.

Truth, Mr. Speaker, doesn't need any blinds and it doesn't need any covers and I would say, Mr. Speaker, if the government would accept this amendment to the Trust Companies Act and make it obligatory that the inspector of trust companies' report is a public report as opposed to a secret report we will no longer in the Province of British Columbia ever have to run the risk of another Commonwealth Trust debacle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. NEY: Mr. Speaker, this bill merits study, but until it's had more study I move adjournment of the debate on the bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 90, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 90. The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: The object of this Act, Mr. Speaker, is to encourage people to own their own homes. But this principle is definitely abandoned by the government in B.C….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: No, it is abandoned when you people refuse to extend the benefits of the home acquisition grant to people who live on Indian reserves in the province. Now improved housing is definitely the greatest need of these people, and you, the government, should be willing — and you're definitely able — to provide the type of measure that I have suggested. It should be doing everything it can to foster these programmes and give B.C. reserve Indians the opportunity to apply for the home acquisition grant.

I well appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this is an expenditure of Crown funds, and if the objection is going to be on that point I am happy to sit down. It's going to be on that point only? Then I shall sit down. But if it's going to be a constitutional objection 1 prefer to carry on.

HON. MR. PETERSON: No, you may sit down. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: If the Honourable Member is inviting a ruling from the Chair, it will be very quickly given. It is out of order. Expenditure of funds is required and under standing order 66 the bill must be ruled out of order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 94.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAXATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 94. The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief on this bill. It is a very simple matter. You know we have many farmers in our province — even the strawberry growers that market their strawberries in the spring are often not paid until the fall. Certainly the beef producers are not paid until the fall. This bill would change the tax due date from July 31, until October 31.

This is the way it used to be until this government took over. And then they raise an extra levy on the farmers by saying, "you must pay your taxes three months early." And I think that's a great injustice to the farmers of this province.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I think a point of order is in order with this bill, Mr. Speaker. Delaying revenue to the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think under standing order 67, the Member might agree that it would defer revenue to the Crown, therefore the accumulated interest would not accrue and the bill is therefore out of order.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 95, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO EMPOWER THE
GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
TO ENGAGE IN
THE BUSINESS OF AUTOMOBILE
ACCIDENT INSURANCE

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 95. The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, we can be very brief on this one too. We can sum it up to say that this bill possibly more than any other legislation we've studied in this session should condemn this government. Because in all the years that this Social Credit Government has sat here, they have allowed their thousands of government-owned and operated

[ Page 1003 ]

vehicles to be insured by other than the 185 car insurance corporations.

They've set up their own fund, they've carried their own pool. And this year this government saved the taxpayers of this province approximately $1 million by carrying government car insurance pool car insurance on their own vehicles. They've saved many millions of dollars over the year of the taxpayers, by doing this on their own vehicles.

And we submit that if this government really had the best interests of the car-driving public, the pedestrians, and the passengers, if they had them at heart, then they would apply that same principle of publicly administered car insurance — car insurance supplied with the licence plates, and the driver's licence. They would do this for all the people. But it just shows how inert and how arrogant this government is, Mr. Speaker, that they would go on having these facts and over-taxing particularly the young people.

I'm glad there are some young people in the gallery tonight. Because they're the ones that are being bled, and they are being bled by the car insurance corporations — and this government and this Premier, and this Attorney General is letting them get away with it.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to standing order 67.

MR. SPEAKER: In which reference, Mr. Attorney General?

HON. MR. PETERSON: It requires the appropriation of public revenue for carrying it into effect — public automobile insurance. Section 3 for example.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have some order? If the Minister advises the House and informs the Chair that the formation of such a corporation will involve the expenditure of public funds then of course the Chair must accept the Minister's decision in that respect.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I would say section 3, Mr. Speaker, that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may appoint persons charged with administering the Act. That in itself would involve an onus on the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: With your assurance that public funds would be expended, the Chair will accept that, and rule the bill out of order.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I should think the payment of the person who is appointed.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, there is no payment involved here. It's merely a normal function of government to meet …

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is making its ruling based on the statement by the Honourable Minister, that certain appointments that would have to be made pursuant to the provisions of this Act would require the expenditure of public funds. The Chair is in no position to make such a decision, but it certainly must accept the assurance of the treasury benches.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, as a rule when such a decision is made the information is provided as to where the expenditure of funds is involved. The most famous case is when the expenditure of moneys for postage stamps was sufficient to rule it out of order. And there has been no indication given.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Honourable the Minister referred to section 3, of the Executive Council appointing two or more persons, and has given his assurance to the Legislature that this would involve the expenditure of funds or payment. Under the circumstances I …

MR. HARTLEY: The point of order is this, Mr. Speaker, that we have a government-appointed official in the name of the superintendent of motor vehicles, Mr. Hadfield, that would administer this plan. And I challenge the ruling in this case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, is the Honourable Member challenging the ruling of the Chair?

MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have a report from the public accounts committee.

Mr. Mussallem of the select standing committee on public accounts and printing presented the committee's report No. 2, which was taken as read and received.

(Your select standing committee on public accounts and printing begs leave to report as follows:

Your committee confirms the present government policy that a cabinet minister when travelling on behalf of or representing the Province of British Columbia either within or outside the province shall be reimbursed only by the Crown, and the committee congratulates the government on this policy; further, the committee requested that the public documents committee cause a study to be made with reference to the procedures relative to retention and destruction of documents and records, and report to the select standing committee on public accounts and printing.)

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to take a very short recess, say about seven minutes. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is expected to arrive about 11:25 and he should be entering the chamber about 11:30.

The House took recess at 11:23 p.m.

The House resumed at 11: 30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Honourable Members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. All rise.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the House

[ Page 1004 ]

and took his place in the Chair.

 CLERK-ASSISTANT OF THE HOUSE:

An Act to Amend the Evidence Act.

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, 1961.

An Act to Amend the Assignment of Book Accounts Act, 1961.

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

An Act to Amend the Court of Appeal Act.

British Columbia Railway Act.

British Columbia Railway Company Share Capital Purchase Act, 1972.

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954.

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964.

Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act.

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

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

An Act to Amend the Centennial Cultural Fund Act.

An Act to Amend the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act, 1969.

Green Belt Protection Fund Act.

Accelerated Park Development Fund Act.

Accelerated Reforestation Fund Act.

Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund Act.

Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act.

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act.

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962

Gift Tax Act.

An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act.

An Act to Amend the Jury Act.

An Act to Amend the Administration Act.

An Act to Amend the Chartered Accountants Act.

Family Relations Act.

An Act to Amend the Hearing-aid Regulation Act.

An Act to Amend the Litter Act.

An Act to Amend the Summary Convictions Act.

An Act to Amend the Mortgage Brokers Act.

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act.

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act.

Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act.

Human Tissue Gift Act.

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act.

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

An Act to Amend the Physiotherapist and Massage Practitioners Act.

An Act to Amend the Practical Nurses Act.

Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited (Non-Personal Liability) Mineral Claims Act.

An Act to A mend the Social Assistance Act.

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

An Act to Amend the Trinity Junior College Act.

An Act to Incorporate Vanco Insurance Company.

Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act.

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

An Act to Amend the Pipe-lines Act.

An A ct to A mend the Forest Act.

Safety Engineering Services Act.

 CLERK OF THE HOUSE:

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act.

An Act to Amend the Highway Act.

An Act to Amend the Pari Mutual Betting Tax Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

An Act to Amend the Insurance Act.

First Citizens of British Columbia Corporation Act.

An Act to Amend the Municipal Financing Authority of British Columbia Act.

An Act to Amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1968.

Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act.

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1972.

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act, 1962

An Act to Amend the Podiatry Act.

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

MR. SPEAKER: May it please your Honour:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative assembly for the Province of British Columbia in session assembled, approach Your Honour at the close of our labours with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government and humbly beg to present for Your Honour's acceptance Bill No. 101 intituled An Act for Granting Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province of British Columbia.

HON. J.R. NICHOLSON (Lieutenant-Governor): Assented to.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence, and assent to this bill.

HON. MR. NICHOLSON: Mr. Speaker, and Members of the legislative assembly. In closing this the third session of the Twenty-ninth Parliament of British Columbia, I desire to express my appreciation for the care and sincerity which has characterised your deliberations.

I am grateful that legislation has been enacted which will be of benefit to the citizens of this province.

As this province enters its second century marked by this session of the Legislature, my government continues in the forefront with the legislative programme designed for the second century.

The programme carries on the successful economic policies of the past quarter century, and in addition has introduced legislative changes designed for the future of British Columbia and the benefit of all its citizens.

In the economic area, as a result of the financial policies of my government, no tax increases were necessary. Instead, by reason of the revenue surpluses built up by careful husbandry of the resources of the province a number of special funds have been created which will provide the citizens with funds for a number of creative and substantial special projects. Among the special funds created by legislation at this session were: Green Belt Protection Fund Act — $25 million for establishment and maintenance of green belts in the province. Accelerated Park Development Fund Act — $10 million to provide additional employment in the development of parks. Accelerated Reforestation Fund Act —

[ Page 1005 ]

$10 million to accelerate a programme of reforestation and create jobs.

In addition, my government has increased two of the perpetual funds — the physical fitness and amateur sports fund and the British Columbia culture fund by $5 million each. These two perpetual funds are now in the value of $15 million each. The annual earnings of these funds will benefit the citizens of British Columbia in the fields of physical fitness and culture in perpetuity.

My government has also made provision for grants to municipalities for subsidizing rapid transit systems and for the development of underground utility lines under the Rapid Transit Provincial Subsidy Act and the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund Act.

In commemoration of our centennial year a special scholarship of $5,000 per year was established. This scholarship is called The Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship.

In addition a further sum of $25 million was authorized to purchase the outstanding shares of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway which by legislation has now been renamed the British Columbia Railway Company — a railway system now completely owned and operated by the people of British Columbia.

In view of the federal government's withdrawal from the estate and gift tax field, my government has enacted a Gift Tax Act so that our present Succession Duty Act will continue to be co-coordinated with the Gift Tax Act in respect of gifting situations, with no increase in gifting rates.

Moreover, my government has increased the succession duty exemption to a total of $150,000 value from our previous exemption of $60,000.

In addition, the legislation provides for payment of succession duty on a family farm or business over the period of 10 years without interest.

In the constant struggle to combat inflation and preserve the purchasing power of the people of British Columbia, my government has amended the Constitution Act, Public Schools Act, Municipal Act, and the Vancouver charter to restrict salary increases for all sections of the economy supported in whole or in part by public funds to a percentage considered economically proper and feasible in light of our financial resources.

Furthermore, my government has enacted an Act entitled the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act to pay $50 a year rental subsidy to persons over 65 years who rent accommodation. Also, an increase in the home-owner grant by $15 a year to $185, with an additional $50 for home-owners over 65 years, provides a substantial measure of financial relief on their home taxes to the elderly citizens of the province.

This, together with an injection of a further $25 million into the home acquisition fund under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and the continuation of the older home mortgage scheme for an indefinite period provides substantial capital requirements for housing developments and enables thousands of additional citizens to own their own homes.

In the development of the administration of law and in the improvement of those laws that have an impact on the lives of our citizens a large number of new Acts have been passed and a substantial number of amendments in existing provisions have been made.

Notable among these are:

1. Administration Act — providing new rules for notifying all beneficiaries in an estate and giving the life estate in a matrimonial home to a spouse on an intestacy.
2. Summary Convictions Act — providing for serving sentences of imprisonment on weekends or in broken periods.
3. Mortgage Broker's Act — providing for disclosure of all bonuses or discounts in certain mortgage transactions.
4. Motor Vehicle Act — providing for compulsory suspension of a driver on conviction for impaired driving and for new rules for notifying another driver or owner of property in an accident.
5. Criminal Injuries Compensation Act — providing for compensation by the Workmen's Compensation Board for injuries received as a victim of crime or in assisting a peace officer to prevent crime.
6. Insurance Act — providing for more expeditious settlement of accident claims and encouraging prepayments.
7. Family Relations Act — a comprehensive revision of the law of family relations and maintenance of spouses and children. Recommended by a committee of this House after introduction by my government.

In the area of health services a number of measures have been enacted, among which are:

1. Change of Name Act — simplifying the procedures in obtaining a change of name.
2. Human Tissue Gift Act — enlarging the Act to permit inter vivos gifts of tissue.
3. Community Care Facilities Licensing Act — enlarging the definition of facilities, and clarifying municipal responsibility in this area.

The Department of Public Works recommended to the House a complete revision of the legislation dealing with steam and pressure vessels, gas and electricity installations which was enacted by my government under the Safety Engineering Services Act.

Under the Department of the Provincial Secretary, amendments were introduced to the Public Libraries Act providing for integrated regional library services and a new Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act was passed to protect and preserve our historic sites and artifacts.

The Pipelines Act and the Petroleum Natural Gas Act have been amended to provide the necessary legislative authority to deal with oil spills.

The Pollution Control Act, 1967 has been strengthened and administration of air pollution in the Vancouver area was assigned to the Greater Vancouver Regional District as agent for the Minister.

The Social Assistance Act has been amended to focus the responsibility for social assistance benefits and procedures in my Executive Council on the recommendations of the Minister.

In the municipal area substantial amendments have been made to the Municipal Act containing a wide range of benefits and improved procedures in respect of the municipalities. The Municipal Finance Authority Act has been strengthened to improve the consultative machinery and the marketability of the security issues of the authority.

The First Citizens of British Columbia Corporation Act was passed for the encouragement and marketing of Indian crafts and Indian arts and crafts.

New benefits have been made available under the Workmen's Compensation Act, resulting in this province being in advance of most of Canada in this protection to our workmen.

In the field of education, amendments to the Public Schools Act set out procedures for suspension and dismissal and also require ratepayer approval for school budgets

[ Page 1006 ]

succeeding a fixed percentage increase.

Your approval of supply in the record sum of more than $1,451 million is an indication of the continued growth and prosperity of the province. It will enable my government to carry out the important and beneficial programmes authorized by these amendments.

Members of the legislative assembly, I thank you for your earnest deliberations and your labours, and for the supply granted for the public service.

Honourable Members, I now relieve you of your legislative duties and I trust that the blessing of the divine providence will accompany you to your respective homes.

On a personal note — a joyous Easter to all of you.

HON. WD. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, Members of the legislative assembly, it is His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's will and pleasure that the legislative assembly be prorogued until it shall please His Honour to summon the same for the dispatch of business and this provincial legislative assembly is hereby prorogued accordingly.

The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House prorogued at 11:55 p.m.