[ Page 4097 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 44). Second reading,

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4097

Mr. Lockstead –– 4097

Mr. Barrett –– 4097

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4097

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 44). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On section 19 — 4097

Mr. Lockstead

Division on section 19 –– 4097

On the amendment to section 33 –– 4098

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Barrett

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Third reading –– 4100

Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 64). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4100

Mr. Howard –– 4101

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4102

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4102

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4102

Division on second reading –– 4102

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980 (Bill 47). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4103

Mr. Barber –– 4103

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4103

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980 (Bill 47). Committee stage.

Division on third reading –– 4103

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980 (Bill 60). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4103

Mr. Howard –– 4103

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4104

Holiday Shopping Regulation Act (Bill 56). Second reading,

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4104

Mrs. Dailly –– 4105

Mr. Nicolson –– 4105

Mr. Mitchell –– 4106

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4107

Division on second reading –– 4107

Land Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 13).

Third reading –– 4108

Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 27).

Third reading –– 4108

Mines Act (Bill 39).

Third reading –– 4108

Municipal Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 54). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 4108

Mr. Barber –– 4109

Appendix –– 4113

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM. Thank you very much. That was a profound message in prayers this morning, Mr. Speaker. I call second reading of Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. FRASER: This bill could be more properly discussed in committee. I move second reading.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The opposition agrees that the bill is more properly discussed in committee stage. However, I would point out that I have before me a copy of the government's amendment to the helmet laws, which is fine. Everybody in the province, I'm sure, agrees that there should be helmet laws. However, the proposed amendment to the helmet law sets no standards whatsoever for helmets in British Columbia. Everybody is well aware that about 65 percent of the helmets worn by motorcyclists are substandard. What I'm asking the minister to do now, while he still has the opportunity in committee stage, is to bring in amendments that would comply, more or less, with the recommendations in the Godfrey report, which has been before the motor vehicle branch and the minister for about a year.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon the government that there is no intention by the official opposition to delay, if you wish to go to immediate committee reading today, even by leave — especially on the helmet section. As far as we're concerned, it is sometimes necessary for the normal order of business to be set aside on a matter like this that does not divide the House on a partisan basis. It is important that we put back in place that helmet law throughout the province of British Columbia. Our position is very clear. We will go immediately to committee stage, if the government wishes to.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 44.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: I ask leave to refer Bill 44 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 44, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 44; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman. I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that amendment, as it stands on the order paper, Is out of order because it is a direct negative. Simply voting against the section would have the same effect.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This particular amendment to this bill…. As with so many of the other government bills that have been brought in, this section really removes the power of the Legislature and puts it into the hands of the cabinet. Quite frankly, our party is opposed to that kind of thing on principle, because we think, it's to the detriment of democracy and this province. I therefore suggest that the opposition cannot support section 19 of this bill.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 18

Mr. Lockstead requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 20 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 4098 ]

Section 27 as amended approved.

Sections 28 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As I stated in second reading, this section deals with a very serious problem, and the minister is aware of the problem. What the government has failed to do by bringing in these amendments.... I've spent a great deal of time on this topic, and as I've said, between 60 percent and 65 percent of the helmets worn by motorcyclists on the road today are unsafe. Some of the helmets worn by cyclists today in fact contribute to deaths rather than prevent deaths. I've got all the material and stuff here and I don't want to go through it all again. I did a week or two ago. What I'm asking now is the minister will give us assurances that regulations will be brought in, within a reasonable length of time, governing standards for helmets for cyclists. This is what all the cyclists out there — the responsible people — are asking. It's all that's being asked by the group out there, and if the minister will give me that assurance, we'll eventually pass the amendment.

HON. MR. FRASER: We've already passed the new regulations. They're in effect, and we'll be revising them from time to time. They were passed by cabinet Tuesday night.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you. I haven't seen them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, it is a difficult situation when I am in favour of the amendment but not in favour of passing it at this time. The reason for that is that I think it's proper and correct that helmets should be worn — anybody who rides a motorcycle without wearing a helmet is very foolish indeed — but at the same time it was the court that decided that the helmet law was invalid. The government, I think, has been too quick to react and to force people to wear helmets. There is a large body of evidence in Canada and the United States of America that proves that helmets are not an entire protection: people get killed on motorcycles whether the head kills them first or injuries to the body. There's quite a lot of evidence to prove that deaths on motorcycles did not recede anywhere when helmet laws were introduced. Twenty states in the American Union have repealed the law. Now we find our law automatically repealed by the courts, and I think we react too fast. I think this was an opportunity to wait for a year and see what happened. Instead of that we fly in to protect people.

I think people have the right to determine their own way of life, and I think we are too anxious to say "you must do things to save your life." Why do we not legislate more strongly against alcohol? We tried prohibition, and it won't work. We know alcohol is more deadly than any motorcycle could ever be, but we do not legislate, because we can't enforce it. Here we think we can enforce a law against 44,000 motorcycle riders in British Columbia, so we take the cudgels and arm ourselves, and we say: "You shall not ride without a helmet." I think they have the right to have this test of one year. Although I assure you I will not vote against this section, I think you moved too quickly.

MR. BARRETT: With all the best intentions that I can give in interpreting what the member says, he says — as I wrote it down — that he's in favour of the amendment, but not right away.

There have been a number of deaths already. No one can prove, Mr. Member, that the deaths were caused by the absence of helmets. But the fact is that there have been an increased number of deaths of helmetless drivers since the court struck down the requirement.

You say that you want a year's trial, but you're not prepared to vote against the amendment. Someone might interpret that as smacking of politics. This is no time for any interpretation of politics or someone misinterpreting what you are saying.

There is no question of philosophical difference in this House about the issue of motorcycle helmets. The regrets we have are that if there were any way that helmets could have saved those unfortunate people, the time loss that we legislators are responsible for may have been a factor. There should be no delay in this House getting to the business of requiring people to wear helmets when they drive a motorcycle. There has been the argument of civil rights. It is this government that passed the law requiring seatbelts to be worn in the privacy of one's automobile. If you want to sit in the privacy of your automobile in your driveway without your seatbelt, go ahead. But when you go on the road and you're driving along, you've made an invasion of privacy by saying: "Wear your seatbelt." I don't disagree with that; I voted for it. We've got to have the courage to lay down standards of what we expect in terms of public application of responsibility. We tell people what side of the road to drive on. Is that a violation of civil rights? We paint a line down the middle of the road and we tell people: "Everybody going this way, drive on one side; everybody going the other way, drive on the other side." The point is, Mr. Member, somebody has to lay down some ground rules for the protection of each other.

The death of a motorcyclist without a helmet is a final solution. But what about the driver of a car that hits the motorcyclist, who may be overwhelmed with guilt about the fact that he has been involved in an accident that contributed to the death of a motorcyclist? What about the living who are involved in sharing the highways — not just the dead?

We have a responsibility as government to do the best we can to ensure that when public roads are being used and vehicles are being used we lay down minimum standards. For the life of me, I cannot believe we don't have a law in this province requiring airbags in automobiles. Proven research indicates that airbags in automobiles would save lives.

Wear a helmet. Use some common sense. Let's get on with it. It's got nothing to do with NDP or Social Credit. Let's get this thing through as quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE: I certainly don't want to delay this legislation, but the member for Dewdney mentioned statistics. I believe we should read into the record some of the statistics. He mentioned none; he just referred vaguely to them.

In British Columbia during the last year there were 42 motorcycle fatalities; that's less than one a week. In the last

[ Page 4099 ]

week there have been six. In the states of Iowa and Illinois, which are side by side, the ratio of deaths, Iowa to Illinois, is 1 to 3. Iowa has helmet laws; Illinois does not. Washington state, right south of us, had helmet laws; they repealed them and the deaths doubled. I think those statistics speak for themselves.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about the urgency of this. I anticipate that the members of the House will give leave that this bill be reported immediately afterward. But I want assurance from the House Leader that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor or the Administrator will be brought into the House today to give assent to this bill in order that it can go through in the most efficient time possible.

Then that member's asking for leave to put this through under the guise of urgency shows that this government has not only wasted time in bringing this in; it continues to waste time, and it isn't really serious about getting through with this in the most urgent manner possible. I ask that member to phone the Administrator or the Lieutenant-Governor. Surely the potential saving of lives is going to be well justified. I'm sure that can be done today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will not comment on the last remark, because that responsibility, I think, rests with the House Leader. I speak briefly only as one who rode motorcycle a great deal and, in spite of advancing years, I hope to continue to do so, more likely off-street than on-street. I happily purchased and wore a motorcycle helmet before they became law, and I agree with a number of remarks which have been made on both sides of the House. It is one of those rare occasions when I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has said, except when he alluded to the possibility, whether it is interpreted or not, that the member for Dewdney was moved to speak for political purposes. I've known that member for a few years, but not as long as some members, Mr. Chairman. I know that he speaks from his heart. He expresses a view which obviously is not going to find favour with the majority of people in this House today but, nonetheless, as an hon. member he is entitled to speak as he did. I disagree with him, but surely that's what democracy is all about.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I urge the most speedy passage of this. One would be tempted to speak at greater length. I simply say that the overruling of this in court, with the need for this legislation, is to be regretted. I believe that the government has moved very promptly in terms of doing that which is necessary and, not finding that there is a likelihood, in haste, we indeed would find that we would have to bring in yet another amendment in the next day or two, or perhaps find that we would have to wait a little longer. I support the amendment, but again, I respect any member who stands up and expresses very sincerely what is at the moment an unpopular point of view.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I thank the hon. Minister of Finance. I'm surprised when I see the Leader of the Opposition taking up the cudgels so strongly in favour of a government motion and attacking the member for Dewdney. It's all right to do that. You must not forget, hon. members of this House, that I do not speak with the idea of people losing their lives; I speak because we are moving a motion that is not substantiated by fact. I could show you within half an hour the situation in the United States of America and the situation that is happening in Manitoba this day, where their act has been repealed. I could show you beyond proof that helmets do not save lives of motorcyclists. It is true that when the law is removed, such as it is now, there is a certain euphoria that goes out and there are more people killed. When this settles out there are less.... More people are killed because of helmets than with them.

Here we are legislating something we don't know anything about. The majority of people in this House have an idea that they know about motorcycles. The hon. Minister of Finance has ridden a motorcycle: so have I. A few have. A few here are so adamant and so thoughtless as to consider that they know all about the situation when they know very little. They do not know that a helmet restricts hearing and causes accidents. They do not know that a helmet restricts vision and causes and creates accidents. Helmets do save some, but lose others.

In Victoria, there were two deaths recently. One was with a helmet; one was without. It's impossible to legislate.... I'm not saying that we should not have them. I feel they are additional safety. But here was an opportunity to wait and see what the helmet law would do. I don't think that helmet law saved a single life. It may save one life, but loses another. It may save one accident, but creates another. I think that we're trying to legislate something that we don't know anything about. I think we should encourage, by advertising, by word-of-mouth, by all these things, to.... Anybody that didn't, in my opinion, use a helmet has to be very foolish. But there are a lot of things done foolishly. And we shouldn't be here to legislate every little thing that comes up. I don't think this House does itself great credit in doing so.

I take issue with the member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), when he said: "Why don't they put air bags in automobiles?" Well, that just goes to show, hon. friends, how little he knows about this thing and many other things. Why don't they put airbags in automobiles? Let me tell you why. By absolute proof they only work seven-tenths of the time; the other three-tenths of the time they don't work. It is no good having a thing in your car to save your life and three chances out of ten it won't work. That's why airbags aren't used. Seat belts always work if you have them on. They always work. Hon. members, airbags also go off when....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Correct. The hon. member coaches me and he's quite correct. They also are released without warning any time. That's quite a serious situation when suddenly you don't see. But the hon. member uses the analogy of an automobile seatbelt with a motorcycle....What a ridiculous analogy!

In an automobile, you're in a container which is fortified against accidents. At just 45 kilometres an hour, if you have a collision with a seat belt on and a shoulder strap, you're reasonably safe in an automobile. But if you didn't have a seat belt on, you're almost certain to be dead, or badly hurt.

[ Page 4100 ]

There's no such thing as an analogy between motorcycle helmets and seat belts.

Motorcycle helmets will save some accidents, but they create others. That's the test that time should prove to us in British Columbia. We've had the act. Now it's off, and it should remain off for a year.

I still say it is foolish to ride a motorcycle without one. That's my opinion. But it is not substantiated by evidence and fact.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd like to address a few remarks to the committee, Mr. Chairman, and specifically to the member for Dewdney. I'm quite happy with the speed we've got to so far with this very important amendment, and I can't agree with the member for Dewdney that we wait and see. We're only amending what happened in a court case; the legislation, I'd point out to the member, has been there for a long time, and this court case has caused the amendment we're looking at.

I have just a final observation. A number of states in the United States have rescinded the motorcycle helmet-wearing laws, and they found a 46 percent jump in motorcycle deaths between 1976 and 1979 in the states that have done this. So I don't think that that's the road to go, and I would urge unanimous approval of this amendment, including the member for Dewdney.

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 44, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendments.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House now.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House Leader if we could have the expectation of this bill being given assent today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That depends upon the availability of either His Honour or the Administrator.

Leave granted.

Bill 44, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 64.

HORSE RACING TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

(continued)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yesterday evening when this debate was adjourned, I was proposing to respond to some of the concerns expressed by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) with respect to this bill.

First of all, she quite property wondered in the course of her remarks about the regulations which would be necessary in order to carry the intention of the legislation forward. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that the studies which we've undertaken into this matter have touched upon matters relating to not only the Ministry of Finance but also the Ministry of the Attorney-General, because it is under the latter ministry that the B.C. Racing Commission exercises its responsibility — and in the establishment of the regulations, Madam Member, the government will be relying upon the recommendations and advice of the B.C. Racing  Commission. They are a body which has continued to receive increasing recognition and support from the horse-racing industry, they are people who are knowledgeable with respect to racing, and the government will rely upon their recommendations in establishing the basis upon which the fund will be distributed and administered. The member will note that under the legislation the B.C. Racing Commission will be responsible for the administration of all of these funds; they will not, as has been the case, be divided for administration between the commission and another segment of the industry.

The member also wondered how it could be that the government responded with this legislation when it hadn't been asked for. Well, the member is not quite accurate in understanding what was asked for and the representations that were made during the course of a study which was undertaken on this important matter. The member must also recognize that the study of these issues began in 1977 and there were a number of representations made from a variety of sources long before the study announced by my colleague, Mr. Gardom, was made in March 1978. As a result of those earlier recommendations and representations, this Legislature moved to provide for a reduction in the provincial take-out of parimutuel taxes by 1 percent.

The suggestion which has been made more recently that we should again respond by providing for a reduction in the take-out of parimutuel tax really failed to recognize the fact that the government had already anticipated the wisdom of such a move. The suggestion which was referred to in the House by the member was that if there was a modification of the take-out of tax, that would suddenly result in an increase of returns of moneys to the bettors; they in turn would bet more money, and therefore the parimutuel revenues would increase because more money would be put through the machines. That is entirely speculative. While it has happened everywhere else — the member is quite right — it also happened following the reduction in tax made in 1979.

The difficulty that arises is that the uncertainty in such a move and the way in which the funds flow in that method result in a very small part of the reduced government tax flowing through to the horsemen in the way of purse increases. It is estimated at the most optimistic that if you reduce the tax by 1 percent, you might increase the handle by $10 million. A $10 million handle increase only increases the

[ Page 4101 ]

purses in the thoroughbred field by $450,000. It fails to take into account the fact that the amount of money that flows from the operators of the race-track for purses is a matter of agreement made from time to time between the operator of the track and the horsemen. I am advised that in Exhibition Park they are in the second or perhaps the third year of a five-year agreement, whereas in standard-bred racing, the agreements are adjusted every year.

I therefore would urge the House to recognize that the move which is being made in this legislation is one which is designed to provide direct assistance to the owners of horses which are bred and raced in this province and to the people who are breeding horses in this province. The publicity that has been given has suggested that this is going to cause chaos in the industry. That comes from people who are not prepared to recognize that the development of a strong racing industry and a strong breeding industry in this province is something which requires some time. Yes, there are not very many horse breeders in this province. One of the difficulties is that it is a very expensive operation and one which will take time to develop. This initiative is one in which, while it will provide immediate assistance to the owners of horses that race in the province, the benefits with regard to the breeding industry — which is the whole substance of racing — will accrue in the fullness of time. When the announcement was made that additional funds would be available for this purpose, it was made quite clear that one of the responsibilities of the racing commission will be to monitor the way in which the breeding industry responds to this initiative and provides better breeding stock for racing in this province.

I should also point out that in the bill the funds, while they have no longer been identified specifically for the two purposes, are nonetheless to be used for the improvement of racing in this province. It must be recognized that in the operation of a breeding industry it is eminently desirable that the breeder societies be strengthened, because it is through the breeder societies that auctions of horses are conducted and that improvement in the industry generally can be achieved.

There is also the provision for grants with regard to operators of race-tracks, and I would ask you to recognize that in addition to the major tracks in the province which operate for many racing days throughout the year, there are other tracks which are essential to the proper development of a racing industry in the province located in Victoria, Vernon, Princeton, Kamloops, Williams Lake and Osoyoos. Because those tracks have only a very few racing days, it is not possible for them to function in the same way as the major tracks, which have a much longer season. Therefore from time to time assistance is required.

In conclusion, I might refer to some of the comments which were made during the course of the study that was undertaken into the subject. Mr. Marvin W. Hamilton of the B.C. Thoroughbred Breeders Society said:

"We need hundreds of better animals in our province. This is certainly a measure of bankruptcy in our industry. United States- and Ontario-bred animals continue to dominate the major races in British Columbia, and in 1979 won 37 out of 44 open-stake races. It is very pathetic."

Initiatives such as the one we have before you, Mr. Speaker, are designed to ensure that the measure of bankruptcy — as Mr. Hamilton refers to the issue — is drastically reduced.

One of the other members of the racing fraternity, Mr. Dan Kenny, offered this advice:

" I'm just saying as a warning that at a time when British Columbia racing is virtually completely dependent on B.C.-bred thoroughbreds to staff its race cards, its precious raw material is being exported because it's just a losing proposition. I see a revolving door where people come in and take a peek at the racing game, but it's certainly no long-term break-even proposition. "

The industry is important to the province. It employs directly some 2,600 persons; indirectly, it's impossible to measure. It is recognized as an increasing segment of the agricultural community, and it is an industry which survives on the basis that the breeders and owners of those horses which are successful will be the ones who can function economically. I think it is important that this be recognized, and that financial stability be provided through the funds which come to government, which are provided by the people who bet on races in this province.

MR. HOWARD: There are a couple of basic and fundamental reasons why we think the bill should not be supported. They don't have to do with the necessity or the desirability of promoting and assisting the breeding and raising of race horses in the province. They have to do with two things, one a fact of economics and the other a fact of political activity or political fault — not in a partisan way, but because of the governmental structure which relates to this.

Basically, the bill deals with a tax and the distribution of that tax, or a portion of it. The portion of that tax which is distributed is a subsidy — assistance, if one wants to use a more polite word — that is theoretically designed to assist those who want to breed race horses and raise them in British Columbia. It goes almost without saying that a subsidy of this nature, resulting from taxation that is distributed in a general way, always tends to help the larger firms and breeders, those well-established, those who have a better record of wins at the race-track. It does not help those who may want to get started; it doesn't help the small person, the person who may want to commence activity in the field of breeding or raising race horses. It's for that reason that I think one should look with skepticism upon the effect that this will have. It will seek to confirm the established firms. Those that the accounting and computer accounting of this done by McAfee, Lilly and Co. show the highest earnings, those that show the highest number of wins at the racetrack, will be helped more, and probably to the exclusion of the small breeder or the person who wants to get into the breeding of race horses.

The second reason for objecting to it is the proposal with respect to regulations. In other words, this reflects once again the desire of this government to do more and more things in the area of government by order-in-council, rather than by legislative action within this assembly. It is a move towards consolidating the bigness and the authoritarianism of government itself.

When you tend to do more and more things by order-in-council. you tend more and more to do them in private — more and more to do them with different kinds of considerations that would normally be available in the Legislature itself.

The proposal with respect to section 3 of the bill which seeks to add an additional authority to the Lieutenant-

[ Page 4102 ]

Governor- in-CounciI — namely, to establish a formula or other programs for the distribution by the minister of the funds derived as a result of this bill — just leaves too many questions unanswered, too many doubts, too many concerns about the effectiveness of this particular piece of legislation. We fear very, very much that for those who are listed as having been the big winners in the past — I don't want to read through any of the names, but they are there; some of them are very notable and prominent families in British Columbia — and who are in the horse racing business, the bill will just simply, in our view, regardless of what the Attorney-General said about the generosity that may be in there, seek to enrich the position of those who already dominate the horse racing industry and will do practically nothing in the way of assisting those who may want to get into the horse breeding business or those who are, in a very small way, in it at the moment.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I just rise to make a few comments on this from a bettor's standpoint. I've been following the races at Hastings Park for 35 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say debtor or bettor?

HON. MR. FRASER: Bettor!

I want to tell you, first of all, that they operate a fine place. They have the best setting in the western world for a track, and I think they do an excellent job. Every day of racing — about 115 in a year — the public of British Columbia bets an average of a million dollars. So I think the public of the province appreciates what goes on there. Of course, we have them here later on in the year at Sandown, and we have races once in a while at Kamloops, Princeton and Williams Lake. But the big apple, as they say, is Exhibition Park, and I think they operate an excellent place.

This bill will assist and encourage B.C.-breds, and that's why I'm in full support of it. We have a large industry here that's always struggling, and this will only assist it. I believe the Attorney-General said there is also an employment base here of some 2,600 people, and everybody appreciates what they do there.

I want to make a point, though, that the opposition has been trying to make: that certain people — the large operator — get all the rewards or the benefits. That isn't necessarily so at all, Mr. Speaker. It might have been, but I can tell you that the large operator who's been referred to here isn't going to have very much money coming to him in 1980, because his horses are running last. Under that situation he doesn't get any benefits. Those are the risks that you take in horse racing. One year might be good, but....

Basically this helps the small operator, and that's who I hope it'll help and who it was designed to help.

One observation that I would like to make — and I don't get any tips from them, Mr. Speaker — is that I hope this bonus money.... I understand that in some cases the owners share with the jockeys and in some cases they don't. I think that should be considered by the racing commission — that the jockeys get their share. There are contracts, and they get their share on the purse money. It's an agreement between the owner and the jockey. But I understand that in some cases they don't get their share of the bonus money, and I think, through the ministers, they should see through the Racing Commission that they not be denied that extra....

MRS. WALLACE: Don't hold your breath!

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I think it should be a condition that could be written in regulations; that's what I'm getting at.

With that, I'll sit down. I certainly fully support this fine industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share a confidence with the House. It goes this way:

The owner told Clarence the clocker,
The clocker told jockey Magee,
The jockey, of course, passed it on to the horse,
And the horse told me.

What I've heard is that this bill is not only supported by the breeders and the jockeys; it's supported by the horses as well. Win, place or show, it's a great bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I know better than to attempt to do better than that.

The point made by my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who attends the track more than I do, has raised a point which I am quite certain will be taken into account as regulations are drafted. This is an important industry in British Columbia. We see this as a means of assisting those who are functioning in a very small way in the industry. I think that the skepticism which has been expressed on this will evaporate as it is seen to function in the way in which both sides of the House would intend.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 64, Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading on Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4103 ]

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: We had a touch of humour when this bill was introduced. I'm sure there will be continuing remarks.

I have extensive briefing notes in the event that anyone wishes in committee to make an inquiry with respect to a specific aspect of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980.

Without violating second reading rules, I would draw the attention of all hon. members to the fact that this act comes into force on proclamation. Therefore, in the event it is found that there is even a minor problem with one particular section, then corrective action can be taken at the proclamation stage.

The deregulation section of the ministry has laboured at length to produce the list which is before all hon. members today. I think that in virtually every case they would be self-explanatory. I would like to pay tribute to the deregulation staff, the deputy ministers and other senior staff in the ministries where a particular act is proposed for repeal. Through deregulation and through the ministry this year we have gone to the ministries concerned and the deputies have signed off the particular piece of legislation which is suggested for repeal.

With those brief remarks and with the undertaking that if there is a specific question on any particular part, perhaps that could be dealt with in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 47.

MR. BARBER: Having some interest in this field, I wish to observe that the minister put it, to say the least, charitably when he described deputy ministers being required to, in his language, "sign off" those sections in this bill which may, in some fashion, originate from or touch upon the work of their ministry. I heard it quite differently. I heard it that the Minister of Finance told the deputy ministers that their necks — although he did not use the word "necks" — were on the line, and that they were required, in fact obligated, to sign a piece of paper guaranteeing in writing…

AN HON. MEMBER: And in blood.

MR. BARBER: …and almost in blood, that never again will the government be subject to the embarrassment of the Seaboard fiasco, which required a special session of this Legislature. I understand the strictest orders deputies have received for a long time went out from the minister to guarantee that such embarrassment would not be suffered again. I congratulate him for the initiative and I understand his precaution. We'll support the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the member for the remark, Mr. Speaker. I do move second reading of Bill 47.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker. I ask leave to refer Bill 47 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 47, Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act. 1980. read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT. 1980

The House in committee on Bill 47; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 47, Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 36

NAYS — 1

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading on Bill 60. Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1980

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, as the members are aware, is traditional in this House. It contains amendments, some of them minor and some of them not so minor, with respect to a range of statutes under the responsibility of several ministers. It is more appropriately dealt with in the section-by-section debate in committee. So saying, I move second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would just comment that that is the appropriate course of action with a bill such as this, which doesn't mean that we endorse the concept of lumping all and sundry into one bill and seeking to say that it then has any principle. You have got a multiplicity of principles in here and some of them have no principles whatsoever. But in terms of being able to deal with them at the appropriate stage, obviously committee stage is the way to go.

[ Page 4104 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 60, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I call second reading of Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

HOLIDAY SHOPPING REGULATION ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The question of the regulation of shopping hours in this and other jurisdictions has been the subject of concern and consideration in a variety of ways for many, many years. In the research into this entire subject it was found that the first attempt on the part of government to regulate shopping hours in any regard began back in the middle of the fifteenth century. The principal concern which has been expressed with respect to holiday shopping regulation, however, has, of course, centred around Sunday. This legislation is introduced within the limits of the Lord's Day Act, the federal statute which permits provinces, by their own legislation, to deal with those aspects of business enterprise which are not covered under the federal act. The matter has come to the attention of government on a number of occasions. The Lord's Day Act, as has been so often stated, is an antique, archaic and unenforceable piece of legislation at the provincial level. The difficulty of establishing whether or not any particular business activity falls within the very general words of the Lord's Day Act, plus the insignificant penalties for breach of that statute, combine to contribute to its unenforceability.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The matter was reviewed by the government of British Columbia back in 1975, and it was believed at that time that authority existed through municipal bylaws to deal with the matter of Sunday shop-closing. Careful consideration of that opinion, however, Mr. Speaker, raises serious questions as to its validity. As a consequence, in 1976 the Attorney-General began to consider this matter in depth. Examination was made of the various legislative attempts which had been introduced over the years, in this province and other jurisdictions, to deal with this particular matter. It was concluded that there were three options.

One was to provide that with respect to holidays, including Sundays, all business enterprise should cease. The second option, obviously, was that all businesses should be allowed to function on any holiday, including a Sunday. The third option was that there should be some control, throughout the province, exercised in a way which would be understandable throughout the various communities in British Columbia.

When considering that option we examined the approach which had been taken in the province of Ontario, where a provincial standard was established subject, in certain limited respects, to modification at the municipal level. We found, when considering the Ontario approach, that since their legislation has been in place the government of the province has received repeated and growing numbers of requests to expand the numbers and classes of businesses which should be permitted to be open on holidays in that province. The list has grown to an additional 25 classes of business that have made serious representation to the government of Ontario for the opening of the legislation and the expansion of the list of permitted classes of business.

In the course of the examination, we considered, to the extent that any flexibility is permitted in the shopping hours in this province, that it has been bestowed upon the municipalities under the Municipal Act. Therefore, considering the Ontario experience and what has been the limited experience in this province, and taking into account that in 1979 the Union of British Columbia Municipalities at its annual convention dealt with this subject and motions were passed indicating that 60 percent of the municipalities in the province desired to have the opportunity to regulate these matters within the municipality, the government was encouraged, in considering the third option — that is, having some regulation of retail operations on holidays — to have that regulation placed in the hands of municipal governments. Throughout this province it would enable them to take into account the special needs and wishes of their residents and to provide for those residents the particular services which they felt were essential.

In order to ensure that this important subject was not treated lightly, a provision was made for the matter to be placed before the electors in the municipalities for their assent before any such bylaw could be introduced. That legislation was introduced in this House. For the first time the people of the province of British Columbia had the opportunity of considering a specific bill which would touch upon the matter of holiday shopping regulation and, in particular, the impact it would have on Sundays.

I was not surprised, and I don't think any member of this House would have been surprised, at the response. Quite obviously the regulation of holiday shopping — and in particular on Sundays — is a matter of serious concern to a large segment of the people in this province.

Church groups made strong representations about the legislation.

There was an ad hoc committee established composed of representatives of church organizations throughout the province; the trade unions, of course, were concerned about persons who were being required to work on Sundays; and retail merchants, who believed that six days of shopping activity were certainly sufficient, made their representations.

Representations were also received from municipalities. It became clear that the municipalities, having seen the opportunity which was extended to them and recognizing the problems that it could create for them in the preparation and adoption of a bylaw which would permit even limited retail operations in the municipalities, would be severe.

As a consequence, the government, having reviewed all of these matters, and recognizing that this was the first opportunity that the people of British Columbia, throughout the length and breadth of the province, had had to focus their attention on this particular issue, felt it appropriate to respond by withdrawing the previous legislation and bringing forth Bill 56, which we now have before us.

This legislation accommodates the concerns of those people who recognize that there has been, over the years, a level of retail activity carried on in our various communities

[ Page 4105 ]

which has become accepted. It recognizes that that acceptance is almost universal throughout the province.

There is also the recognition that it should be unnecessary for a municipality to enact a bylaw and to obtain the assent of its electors to such a bylaw to provide for those classes of retail operation which appear to have become accepted within the community. It also recognizes that there are exceptions which may arise in various areas or communities of this province where, by reason of weather, the kind of activities which take place in particular areas of the province throughout the year, or at varying times of the year, there may be the need for — indeed, the desire on the part of people who visit those areas to have — shopping opportunities.

Therefore in Bill 56 the government has proposed that a standard be established which will be province-wide, and the schedule to this legislation lists those classes of retail business which may be open to the public and offer their goods for sale on holidays. The holidays, of course, are defined in the legislation. The bill goes on to provide, as did the previous legislation, that if a municipality desires to expand beyond the scheduled list by specifying by bylaw certain additional classes of retail business which should be open in that community, then it may propose such a bylaw, but, as in the previous bill, in order for it to be enacted, it will require the assent of the electors in that municipality. The classification technique for retail businesses for inclusion in such a bylaw would give the municipality the right to designate a particular area within the municipality where businesses can be carried on. This is to accommodate those communities which have had developed within them shopping areas which are principally designed for the tourists who come to the community.

Of course, the bill does not and cannot touch those retail businesses which the Lord's Day Act of Canada permits to be open; they must continue. But the principal areas touched by that bill have been largely replaced by this legislation, at least to the extent that it touches upon the retail industry.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that those retail businesses which will be open are those which we have come to recognize as being necessary for the conduct of day-to-day life in this province: small food stores; fresh fruit and vegetables: drugstores with the hygienic, cosmetic and therapeutic goods which they normally sell; automobile servicing; the servicing of holidaying travelers, whether it be the supplying of goods, servicing of vehicles, or providing meals and living accommodation.

Of course, on holidays it has become a part of our way of life that pursuits of educational, recreational, and cultural activities carry on. Holidays are an opportunity for people to take advantage of many of the special features in our society, so such educational, cultural, recreational and amusement functions are allowed to continue, That last aspect is included in the legislation because there is doubt as to whether or not they are proscribed by the Lord's Day Act of Canada.

I think that the exercise of introducing Bill 8 and then withdrawing it and replacing it with this legislation has been a good one. There will be those who will suggest that the government has been obliged to change its mind; if that is the way you look at it, so be it. I think, however, that in the legislative process there have been a number of occasions when, quite properly, persons affected by legislation and persons who have a particular interest in it have made their views known in such a way to government and to the members of the Legislature so that changes are introduced, and this is a part of the process we should never lose.

I certainly make no apologies in any respect for having taken a second, careful look at Bill 8 and modifying it based upon sincere and responsible representations made from the people of this province. In so saying, I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition does not intend to support this so-called new piece of legislation, primarily because it is not a new piece of legislation, in our opinion. The reasons for our opposition to the first piece of legislation still remain. The basis of our opposition was that the government should not allow each municipality, city, village, etc., in our province to be able to go to referendum and set their own regulations re the holiday shopping hours. We believe it's going to create a mess when you have one municipality with certain shops open and others not. That was our basic concern. At the time, we said this government does not have the courage to face up to this. So what we have here is a presentation to the opposition and the people of the province of a so-called new bill. Unfortunately, I think many people who objected to the first bill, along with the opposition, actually think, because of the type of presentation of this bill, that they really have a major change, but they have not.

We are still going to have problems in this province with the appearance of open shopping hours in one area — late shopping hours, etc., on holidays particularly — and then the closing in the neighbouring municipality. So I don't understand why the Attorney-General even bothered to bring this bill back before the House. I find it rather ironic that the Attorney-General suggests to this House that the first bill was simply an exercise for public involvement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say that.

MRS. DAILLY: The Attorney-General says he didn't say that. May I say that my interpretation, and the interpretation of many people sitting here, would be that he did. There was an implication that they brought in this bill, sat on it and then made a change — we dispute that any change was made, of course — and it was a marvellous exercise in the public being able to approach government. That's a very interesting excuse, Mr. Speaker, for very unpopular legislation. The government realized that the legislation, as they worded it, was unpopular — finally, after they had had thousands of letters written to them.

But I must repeat the irony of this whole exercise: basically nothing has been changed. It makes you wonder what has happened over there. Were there arguments in the caucus? Was this supposed to be just a palliative measure, hoping people would think the government had listened to them? They have not listened to the people of the province who wrote. Basically we consider that it is going to open up the whole province for a chaotic mess on holidays and Sundays. That's why we object to it strenuously, as we did with the first piece of legislation.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, there's no essential difference between this bill and the first offering of the government. This bill offends people of fundamentalist Christian belief, and I think that party would be well advised to look back at their roots. I well remember the roots of a very good friend of mine, a fine Baptist lady. The first I ever heard of Social Credit was when I was playing canasta with her son and she came home from a meeting where she had met people like Lyle Wicks and Mr. Chant and had heard of a newcomer

[ Page 4106 ]

to the movement, W.A.C. Bennett, and speculations and things around that time, the very early fifties. She explained to me that the party was a combination of Christian belief and political purpose.

For those people there can be no greater signal that this is a party that has lost its original roots and thinking.

Whether I agree or disagree with that aspect of it, I think that a party that has no philosophy is simply a party of opportunism and has no other belief than that. They brought in something which they appeared to believe in at one time; now they're trying to convince people that they have changed and that they have responded to certain public pressures. In the first instance, they have offended people of fundamental Christian belief.

I heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) say: "Listen to the people." Well, I certainly do listen to the people who are most fundamentally involved and affected by this kind of legislation, the people employed in the Safeways, the Super-Valus and the many other retail outlets who do not presently have to work on Sunday. At least there is maybe one day when husband and wife.... Today, especially with the cost of housing, people absolutely depend on two salaries in a family. It is the one day that two people in a family can be together with their children.

This bill allows municipalities and regional districts to opt out. In the areas outside of the lower mainland.... Certainly the problems in the lower mainland are very obvious. What happens if Richmond opts for it? What kind of pressure does that place on Vancouver, Burnaby, Delta and other surrounding areas?

Under this act, if a regional district opts to expand its terms of reference to Sunday shopping, in, my riding there will be eight municipalities under pressure to conform to the kind of precedent that would be set by a regional district, in order to prevent fringe development. So there will be a domino effect.

Why do we bother to have a provincial government if there are not some powers that rest most responsibly with the provincial government? Surely this is one of them. It is desirable to have a uniformity of standards in a case such as this. I cannot think of an instance when I have been seriously inconvenienced by a Sunday closing of some particular type of enterprise indigenous to one particular part of the province and not to another.

Mr. Speaker, I think that there should be strict adherence to this schedule. I look at this schedule; I think it's a reasonable schedule. There should not be an opting out — municipality by municipality — a domino effect, or the tremendous pressure that could be created if a regional district were to come up with a decision that could virtually force.... In my area, the Regional District of Central Kootenay, it could force eight other municipalities to follow suit simply because it would be against their interest to allow and encourage fringe development beyond their own borders. It is desirable to maintain viable centres of development along the traditionally created areas, and this is a.... I don't know what the minister is doing. I think that, because of Harry Hammer, and the way in which he's managed to cause problems for the city of Vancouver or the lower mainland, we have somehow taken this rather small, rather manageable problem and tried to deal with it in the most compromising, weak-kneed way, and this is the result. This result is going to lead to changing Canada.... One of the things I'm proud about in Canada.... One of the things I'm struck by when I visit the United States is the absolute wide-openness. If you go to The Bon in Seattle, or some other store, look at how empty those stores are on Sunday. It's just an added expense. Eventually, when this domino effect runs its full course — it might not happen in the next year or two, but it eventually will — we'll see empty stores on Sunday, after the novelty has worn off. We will be paying for it as consumers, and we'll be paying heavily.

So this piece of legislation is just simply abrogating the responsibility of a provincial government. What we might as well do is have only two levels of government. If we're not going to stand up here and say that this is one area where the provincial government has to set a standard around the province, we might as well just bow right out of the picture and have a federal government and city-states, and nothing in between.

Forget about whether we should have jurisdiction over resources. If we can't exert our jurisdiction in an area as simple and obvious as this, then I don't think we need use our legislative powers at all. For that reason, because I believe that we do have a role to play as a provincial government, and because this begs off the question, I certainly will be voting against this bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I would also like to rise and add my voice in opposition to this bill, for one main reason. Basically the Lord's Day Act and the shopping closing act was a labour holiday. It was a labour holiday for the unorganized, the one-, two- and three-family businesses. It was a chance for people to have at least one day in a week to be together as a family.

When you study this particular bill, the dangers and complete chaotic conditions that will happen throughout the province.... In my own riding we have a possibility of six different shopping regulations. It's not only a regional district, but it's an electoral area within a regional area. In my own riding not only do I have one municipality, but I have five electoral areas. In some municipalities you can buy certain goods; in another electoral area you'll be able to buy other goods. But nowhere will there be any consistency. Nor will there be any regulation that will be enforceable for either society or those who are called on to enforce it — the police. As they drive around in one area there'll be a boundary where in one place you can buy tools and across the street you can buy lumber, but you can't buy lumber on one side of the street and you can't buy a shovel on the other. That is exactly what you're going to have. According to the section, it is the electoral area within the regional district. Each of these electoral areas can set up their bylaws and what they want to add to schedule 8.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine trying to enforce some thing like that? This bill also allows drugstores to stay open, but what are the drugstores selling today? Are you going to enforce closing off all the various sections of a drugstore that are selling articles not in this schedule, that are not hygienic or pharmaceutical goods? Take what the drugstores are selling today: cameras, binoculars, stereo cassette decks, calculators, plumbing supplies, tools, oil, car parts. You will have chaotic conditions in allowing so many variations of what can be sold, what areas can sell it, what type of businesses can be left open. Maybe it is not intended to be that way, but when it actually comes to enforcement, unless

[ Page 4107 ]

there is something in the bill that closes off sections of drugstores, you are going to have it wide open.

If you are going to have it wide open, let's have it wide open throughout the province. If you are going to maintain some type of order, let's have that order. Either the whole province enjoys the right to one day off work.... Employees who are not unionized, not organized and not militant, because of their employment in a business that is not organized, are forced to come to work, to break up their families, to do things to maintain an economic standard of living that they have grown accustomed to. As the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said, because of the high cost of homes today, so many have to work. Let's not make it any harder for those people who have to work. Let's not leave that thin little crack where a wedge can be put in to break a standard of living, to break us down to everyone working. That is a cost that I don't think society can afford.

I don't think society needs the extra days to spend money shopping. I know that if I need anything — if I need lumber, if I need tools, if I need cement, if I need oil — I can get it. But when you leave this wide open....

When you have a drugstore which is selling oil, plumbing supplies, cassette recorders and furniture, and across the street you have some other store that is selling nursery supplies — shrubs and plants; I think they're going to be selling not only shrubs and plants, but also fertilizer, shovels and everything that goes along with it; again, it will be in the hardware business — it's going to be chaotic for the police or for any bylaw enforcement officer who has to enforce it.

I say that if we're going to have legislation, let's have legislation that covers all of British Columbia; let's have legislation that is fair; let's have legislation that is just. Let us not allow the chaotic conditions this legislation is going to cause when it's enforced, as it will be over the years, in a haphazard manner.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a couple of things in closing about the remarks from the members. I wish to assure the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) that Bill 8 was never introduced simply as an exercise, and I didn't mean to suggest that. Very careful consideration was given, as I said, to a number of options that were available, and the selection was made based upon what was considered to be an appropriate and acceptable way of dealing with this matter of holiday shopping regulation.

I'm delighted there was the response that there was; I'm delighted that there were thousands of letters, because it gave the government the clear opportunity to consider the option it had selected, and to make a change. Now the member says it's not a change. The member has said there will be chaos. I've never known a party so concerned with chaos. They want to regulate everything from here in Victoria: nothing can be done unless Victoria says. But it means that these members have not listened to the people who came to these buildings and who wrote letters about this problem. Who came? The municipal people came and said: "We would like you to prescribe a standard. We have no objection to assuming our responsibility, but prescribe a standard, so that we aren't obliged to respond to pressures within the municipality for those services which already have been accepted in our communities."

Who else came to these buildings? The ad hoc committee, which included representatives of the merchant community, supporting a province-wide standard. The Retail Merchants' Association say: "Our members don't want to be open on Sunday." They don't have to be open on Sunday. Where is the pressure going to come for such a bylaw, Mr. Speaker? What will motivate a municipality to introduce a bylaw? The businessman's vote? But it was the businessmen who came to these buildings and wrote these letters through their association, saying: "We don't want to be open on Sunday."

That raises another question. During the course of some of the representations made to government over these past several weeks, a suggestion was mentioned across the floor by the member for Burnaby North — the businessman's pressure. Mr. Speaker, I reject the suggestion that the duly elected councils of our municipalities respond to pressure groups of this kind. It is an absolute criticism — the worst kind of criticism the member could possibly make — that her municipal council is going to respond to the very narrow interest of some merchant who wants to stay open on Sunday.

I have this to say, Mr. Speaker: if any municipal council were to respond to such narrow interests, then the voters in the municipality, under this legislation, are given the opportunity to tell the council that that's not good enough. You can't pass a bylaw unless the public agrees. That's what the opposition is against. They don't want to hear the views of the public on matters as important as this.

Mr. Speaker. we have established throughout the length and breadth of the province a standard of retaiI operations to which we have become accustomed. Over the years we have given opportunities for the extension of that, if any particular area of the province, through their municipality, deems it appropriate. I'm afraid the members are misreading entirely the authority with respect to regional districts, and I would urge that they carefully consider the bill before it comes to committee.

The member raised one important point, however, with regard to drugstores and all the things that they sell. I just want you to know and remember that you can't run a department store calling it a drugstore and beat this act. It's quite clear. If anyone believes that they can, I welcome the opportunity of advising them to look at the section of the bill which provides for the penalty.

MR. MITCHELL: Try and enforce it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, it's very easily enforceable, Mr. Member. If you have any merchants in your area who run department stores and call them drugstores, I suggest that you caution them against being the first ones to be tested under this legislation. I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

[ Page 4108 ]

NAYS — 12

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 56, Holiday Shopping Regulation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Bill 13 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (MUNICIPAL)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Bill 27 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

MINES ACT

Bill 39 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 54.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to move second reading of Bill 54. I would like to say a few words in advance of anyone else wishing to comment on this very popular, very positive, very excellent piece of legislation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The fundamental principle of the democratic process is the proposition that one person should have one vote in any election, and that there must be representation for taxation. Property owners have long had the right to vote in whatever municipality in which they pay taxes. Five years ago the same right was granted to residential tenants. Tenants in residential buildings receive the same right to vote as do homeowners. The residential tenant in one municipality can vote; if that same tenant owns property in another municipality he can vote there as well.

When we in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs began developing the downtown revitalization program to assist small business, we quickly learned that this same small business that was expected to pay directly or indirectly for those improvements of particular benefit to their area would not be allowed a vote on the proposals for which they would be expected to pay.

In any downtown revitalization program the downtown merchants are taxed on the basis of frontage tax, parcel tax, business tax or other taxes to pay for many of the improvements. These improvements may include parkades, miniparks, special sidewalks or street lighting, yet the small merchants who lease space would not be eligible to vote in the referendum.

Picture a situation where $5 million in improvements is planned. Twenty merchants would be required to pay for the improvements, yet only the seven prostitutes who live in the specified area for the tax would be eligible to vote in the referendum. We want to ensure that under all circumstances there will be one person, one vote in any municipal election. I will, therefore, be introducing several amendments — they're on the order paper now — to satisfy, once and for all, that we have the assurance of one person, one vote in any municipal election. If the owner of a tenant business qualifies as a resident or an owner, he is not entitled to register or vote a second time as a tenant. It is interesting to note that some municipal leaders, while persistently calling for fair and democratic rights for all citizens, would deny a renter of a commercial property the universally accepted rights of a renter of a house or apartment. Both groups pay local taxes, one through a landlord with business paying every penny of every increase — a requirement generally a condition of the lease or rental agreement — via regular taxes, frontage taxes, parcel taxes, business taxes, licence fees and other special levies. Take just the business tax. If this tax was removed, residential taxes would increase by more than $25 million this year throughout British Columbia.

I say what's fair is fair. It is the same basic argument that shook America's thirteen colonies over 200 years ago when they rebelled against taxation without representation. Perhaps socialist people do not believe that the business tenant, as a taxpayer, should be granted the rights given all others. Perhaps they don't consider them as equals. Perhaps they only talk about caring for the small businessman when it suits their political purpose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Len Friesen.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Maybe that's why they use a constituent of mine, Leonard Friesen, who fronts for the NDP under whatever title suits the day. Maybe now we'll know, when they vote on this amendment, if they care enough about small business people — the same people who pay to keep democracy — by whether they vote yes. I wonder how they will vote.

Isn't it strange how only a few weeks ago this same NDP and their inside official Surrey small business front shouted concern about the small business people having some say in holiday or Sunday shopping, and are now saying they can have this say — not directly but through contributing to some political party that would do it differently? Shouldn't these business people have instead the opportunity of a vote on that question as well?

It is true that there has not been great pressure on government to bring about this change. It is true that we've not been lobbied by mayors or councils. It is true that the world will carry on with or without this change and all of us may continue to enjoy a good night's sleep. But it is also true that democracy did not spring up overnight. It was built over many, many years by people who believe in rights and are not afraid to buck the opposition, to take the lead and add another building block to a system that must be preserved. This amendment is such a block. It is fair. It is right. Denying

[ Page 4109 ]

someone the opportunity to help select the trustees for his contribution or the right to vote for or against a proposal that bears directly on his business or his ability to do business or to continue in business should be foreign to a free country.

I certainly hope that we will hear from all opposition members on this most important question. I believe that businesses everywhere — my mail, telegrams and telephone calls would indicate — are extremely concerned about this passing through the House, about them too now having at least some say in how the dollars are spent in the community in which they pay taxes, about having some say in the local referendums where they are required to pay for improvements in their area, about having some say on Sunday or holiday shopping which definitely affects them as well as their employees and all the constituents. Mr. Speaker, I ask the opposition members: why should these people not have the right to vote, the right to a say in those most important questions that affect them? Really, they can only express it at the time of referendums or elections.

There are other sections to this bill that I would like to touch upon very briefly. Section 1 of the amendment act provides that a synopsis of letters patent may be published in a newspaper. The act previously required that the full text of letters patent be published both in the provincial Gazette and in the newspaper. Letters patent are generally legalistic documents not really suitable for conveying information to the public. They are also very expensive to publish. The amendment retains the requirement to publish the full text in the Gazette.

The amendment in section 3 provides that the election in each municipality or electoral area of a regional district is a separate election. A court decision had implied that a person resident in one municipality who owned property in another member municipality of the same regional district could not vote for a director of the electoral area if he voted in the first municipality. This amendment will permit such a person to qualify in a city as a resident and in the electoral area as a non-resident property owner. Without the amendment the concept of permitting a non-resident owner to vote would be meaningless. Furthermore, the conduct of regional elections would become almost hopelessly complicated.

Section 4 of the amendment act is parallel to the amendment in section 2. It places the owner of a personal corporation in the same position as an individually owned business, which is that of a tenant.

The amendment in section 5 clearly makes it an offence to file a false voter's registration form. There have been allegations made, particularly with respect to those people who register on polling day, that unqualified people were being brought to the polls. Fines under the section can range up to $2,000. A technical amendment, section 6, ensures sufficient time for a person to file an objection at the court of revision to a name on the voters' list. At present, the date of the posting of the list is the same as the deadline for the filing of objections.

Furthermore, section 7 clarifies that it is the new list posted on September 15 and not the last list certified by the court of revision that is subject to objection.

The amendment act provides that in any municipality that has a Sunday sports bylaw, or subsequently adopts such a bylaw, Sunday horse racing will be permitted, A parallel amendment of the Vancouver Charter is contained in section 18.

As a number of municipalities have adopted a biannual election system, the use of the words "annual election" in the Municipal Act had raised some doubt whether a municipality on the biannual system could hold a referendum in an off-year, or even if they could hold a referendum at all, inasmuch as they do not have annual elections. The amendment in section 9 clarifies the authority to hold a referendum at the time that annual elections would ordinarily be held.

Section 10 grants tax exemptions to floating drydocks having a lift capacity in excess of 20,000 tonnes. This is a great exemption for all such floating drydocks. It is currently significant inasmuch as it is part of the arrangement with respect to the construction of the Burrard floating drydock as negotiated between the federal and provincial governments.

Under section 11 the amendment act clarifies that it is the collector under the Municipal Act, and not the assessor under the Assessment Act, who is responsible for the frontage tax assessment roll. When the assessment function was transferred from the municipalities to the assessment authority, the assessor became the assessor under the Assessment Act, and not under the Municipal Act.

The assessment authority is responsible for the real property assessment rolls, but not for the frontage tax rolls, unless the municipality contracts with the assessment authority in that regard.

Section 12 has the effect of reinstating a fixed licence year for commercial vehicle licences.

Under section 13 the amendment act deals with the amendment of land-use contracts existing prior to the repeal of the land-use contract authority in the Municipal Act. The current means of amending the old land-use contract is cumbersome and expensive, involving court application. We provide for a change.

Section 14 is consequential to the land-use act amendment procedure.

Section 16 permits councils to allow stores to remain open for 21 business days before Christmas, rather than the previous seven business days.

There is also a section to deal with unsightly premises. This certainly is all very positive, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that we might have good support and quick passage of an excellent piece of legislation.

MR. BARBER: For the benefit of the minister who hopes for a quick debate, I would advise him that I rise as the designated speaker.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: And hitter.

There are five principal reasons why we are opposed to this bill. First of all. It offends against the important and broad principle of one man, one vote. Secondly, it has no connection whatever with the ancient notion of no taxation without representation. That argument is demonstrably hollow, false and contradictory. Thirdly, this bill is an attempt to create a new form of gerrymandering in British Columbia, by rigging not the electoral boundaries but the very voters' list itself. Fourthly, we are opposed to it because the government absolutely will not understand the difference between enfranchising human beings and enfranchising property, and because the government deliberately and wilfully misrepresents the historical arguments in favour of enfranchising human beings called tenants on the basis not of their ownership but of their citizenship.

Finally, we are opposed to the bill because it is, for all practical purposes, now unworkable in sections 2, 3 and 4. It

[ Page 4110 ]

has been made unworkable by the commendable statements made by the mayor and council of Vancouver, who have refused an amendment to the Vancouver Charter. It has been made unworkable because the home-rule tradition in the largest metropolitan area of this province now denies a general application of the principles of sections 2, 3 and 4 of this bill. Precisely because the bill offends against those five arguments and those five principles, it cannot possibly be supported by the official opposition.

I I'll deal at some length with one of these issues. It is the issue created by a government which has attempted overnight to artificially establish a new class of electors. This is the issue of gerrymandering 1980 style created by Social Credit. Let me illustrate what we mean by this new kind of gerrymandering. Everyone knows about Gracie's Finger, the Eckardt report and the 76 percent Social Credit population that was added to Little Mountain riding, for God knows what purposes. Everyone knows about the excellent work of Elbridge Gerry, the former governor of Massachusetts, and state after state in the American union, wherein gerrymandering — the rigging and rearranging for political advantage of electoral boundaries — was attempted. Everyone who's a student of Canadian politics knows what happened when Ross Thatcher attempted the same thing in the province of Saskatchewan. We are familiar with gerrymandering and with attempts to rig electoral boundaries to the benefit of the government of the day. This is a new kind of gerrymandering; it's an attempt to rig the voters' list itself. Let me illustrate how that would work.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to have some comments from the opposition member, but how this relates to the bill before us is beyond me. There is no mention of electoral boundaries anywhere in this bill. We are talking about the right of a person who pays taxes to vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, you are now entering into debate. However, your point is well taken. Great latitude is extended to all speakers in second reading of a bill, but we must at least contain latitude to what is contained in the bill. I'm sure the hon. first member for Victoria is quite aware of how to do that.

MR. BARBER: I thank you for your support, Mr. Speaker.

We all know what rigging electoral boundaries means. We're all familiar with the sordid current history of attempts to do that in various jurisdictions.

What this bill does, however, is something really quite new. It creates a new class of elector which has traditionally identified itself with Social Credit in this province. I'm talking about business electors. In the last few years, we are pleased to note, that has begun to change — I think, to a large extent, because small business has begun to realize that Social Credit is no longer its friend and that big business is the only friend Social Credit has left. Nonetheless, I think it is basically and arguably the case that business in this province tends to identify with Social Credit, to support Social Credit financially and politically, and to support the Social Credit civic machine that has always dominated local politics in this province — certainly for the last 30 years. Let me illustrate the political consequence of that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Where are your colleagues?

MR. BARBER: Oh, they'll be here.

If the Social Credit civic machine were worried about its continuing success in local government elections across the province, it is conceivable that they might ask the Socred provincial machine to help them out. Now how could they do that? Well, it would be a relatively easy matter to do that by enfranchising overnight a large and artificially-created new class of electors who previously never had a vote and who, if granted the vote, could be expected by and large to vote for the Socred civic machine.

Well, sure enough, that's exactly what's happened. Sure enough, we see created a new class of elector that did not previously exist and which can be expected to vote, by and large, Social Credit.

In Victoria, the mayor of our community has estimated that some 5,000 new business electors will be added overnight to the voters' list in this particular city.

In Vancouver, the figure — and I separate this from the concern about the Vancouver Charter — may well exceed 25,000. In fact, in Vancouver it is estimated that there are some 29,631 licensed businesses which may in whole, or in great part, be able to take advantage of this new provision.

The rigging of the voters' list I'm referring to — deliberate, planned and intentional — has been the result of two principal occurrences in the last five and ten years in this province. First of all, Social Credit's civic machine has begun losing its grip. In local community after local community persons who are not identified with the Social Credit Party have become elected to local office. Persons who are not sponsored by the Social Credit machine have won, and won again, elected office in the towns, cities and municipalities of this province.

Social Credit has always used local government as a farm team. Social Credit has always, from that farm team called local government, managed to promote its more or less able representatives to provincial office. Now that's fair enough when it's open and up front. It's a bit much to suffer the hypocrisy of those same Socreds who tell us that local governments should be non-partisan, when they in fact have been Socreds all along, and have simply chosen to deny it.

But what happened, starting five and ten years ago, is that the Socred control of local government in this province began to slip, and persons were elected to UBCM who did not represent the machine — and the machine found itself increasingly less able to predict the outcome of municipal elections in favour of the Social Credit-backed organizations that have always dominated local government in this province. A second thing that happened was, of course, at the convention of the New Democratic Party in Penticton last year. At that time the New Democratic Party chose to create a system whereby persons, if they wish, may run under the banner "New Democrat" for local office. Now we know that Social Credit candidates have done that for years and years and years…

HON. MR. FRASER: Party politics.

MR. BARBER: …says the former mayor of Quesnel, who tells us we shouldn't pay attention to party affiliations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wonder if all hon. members would come to order. I will once again remind the hon. first member for Victoria that, although great latitude is allowed, we should stick to the principle within the bill. I am sure the hon. member is aware of that. Further, it is a custom of this

[ Page 4111 ]

House that parliamentary language be maintained at all times.

MR. BARBER: I thank you again for your support, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said, one of the five important reasons why we oppose this bill — and I am referring, of course, to sections 2, 3 and 4 of the bill; there are other sections that are inoffensive and that we do not oppose — is that this is a new kind of gerrymandering attempted by Social Credit because of the disarray of their local machine and its increasing failure to get their local candidates elected.

The second thing that has happened in the last decade, as I mentioned, that clearly provoked the government to bring in this bill was a decision taken openly and in public by the New Democratic Party at convention to establish a system whereby — accountably, openly and democratically — persons may, with the consent of their local riding associations, run under the banner "New Democrat" locally. Now Social Credit would have us believe that their friends and pals in local government have never run under the Socred banner locally; but of course that's false. They have not run under the name, but they've run with the machine. They have not run under the banner, but they have had the support. Social Credit has always used local government as its farm team for the provincial aspirations they've held.

HON. MR. SMITH: What are you doing? The same thing.

MR. BARBER: That's right, except we're doing it openly. You guys have tried to deny it for 30 years, and that's the difference. We do it up front.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: What this has to do with the bill is that it has to explain in part the motivation of the coalition to bring this in at this point in time. Because, you see, the machine is losing ground locally. The Socred machine is losing elections locally and the Socred machine is in sufficient trouble that it has to shore itself up by creating a new class of electors who, the government hopes, will by and large support Social Credit. Indeed, in the past that's been the case; it may be the case for a little while to come yet, before small business finally realizes that the big-business orientation of Social Credit hurts its own cause — but that's a different issue.

A new class of electors is being created. That class of electors will have two votes or more at municipal election time. One can imagine the horror that Social Credit would have expressed if we, when in government, had decided to give two votes to every certified trade unionist in this province. No doubt we could have found some equally ludicrous rationalization as that offered this morning by the minister to justify it. But of course, had we done that, our intentions would have been the same as the government's intentions clearly are this morning. If we had decided to give two votes to every registered trade unionist in the province, that would have been for one reason only: to materially affect the outcome of the next municipal elections. Of course, we didn't do that; we didn't and wouldn't do that, because that would be a trespass and an offence. It is politically the equivalent, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Do you detect the government is uncomfortable with this bill, Mr. Speaker? Maybe it's because the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was right when he talked to a radio reporter and said it was going to be pulled.

The New Democratic Party did not in fact attempt to give two votes to trade unionists or create in any kind of rigged or gerrymandered way....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get your hands out of your pockets.

MR. BARBER: Put your hand over your mouth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the House please come to order. I would once again remind the hon. first member for Victoria that we are on Bill 54.

MR. BARBER: That's right. I'm well aware of it, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we could discuss the principle of Bill 54 and try to avoid personal allusions to other hon. members which are unparliamentary, then, I think. the House would proceed in an orderly manner and in a parliamentary fashion.

MR. BARBER: I thank you a third time for your support, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue — with your protection.

This is an attempt to rig the outcome of municipal elections on behalf of the Social Credit civic machine; this is an attempt to thwart the democratic will of all of the people by giving some of the people two votes — or more. This is an attempt to rig elections that is not acceptable to the people of British Columbia.

It's now a matter of public record that the mayor of Vancouver has come out in strenuous opposition to this bill. On the Friday on which the bill was introduced, it was suggested that the mayor of Vancouver might be the single most delighted beneficiary of its rigged intentions. Why is that? Because the mayor of Vancouver, a former law partner of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and, by and large, as one can take it, a supporter of this government — he's certainly no New Democrat — was advised that the intention of the bill was to get him re-elected by creating a new class of elector that likely and historically would support and has supported Social Credit.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is still talking, Mr. Speaker. I thought you ordered him to desist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will all hon. members please come to order. Interruptions are quite unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. I'm grateful for your protection. It's time number four: I'll keep a little list here.

[ Page 4112 ]

The mayor of Vancouver, to his credit, said that he would have no part of such ballot-rigging; he would have no part of such an attempt to twist undemocratically and distort unfairly the outcome of an election in his own jurisdiction. The mayor of Vancouver, to his credit, said that the government is dead wrong to attempt to give any vote whatever to property. The mayor of Vancouver said that's an old system that should have been discarded long ago. The mayor of Vancouver was well aware that the accusation could be made that he was the intended beneficiary of this rigged voters' list that will result from these provisions of Bill 54. To his credit, the mayor of Vancouver has repudiated the attempts of Social Credit to do that in his city. But I'll get to that issue in a moment.

The first issue of the five issues I will be raising at some length in this debate, as the designated speaker, is that there can be no rational justification for the clear political agenda that Social Credit has set itself here. Let me make the point again. Our government never attempted to give two votes to trade unionists; why does this government want to give two votes to business? We have sufficient respect for trade unionists that we would never compromise them like that. Why are you compromising your pals in business this way, and why did you attempt to compromise Jack Volrich?

Continuing with the issue of gerrymandering, if it's now the case that Social Credit is prepared to resort to the second kind of gerrymandering — rigging the voters' list — as well as clearly rigging the electoral boundaries, but that's another issue....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please. I must once again caution you that language must be parliamentary. We are not allowed to allude to other hon. members. Will the hon. member take in mind what parliamentary language is. I'm sure he is aware of parliamentary debate.

MR. BARBER: The well-documented attempt by Social Credit to redesign electoral boundaries in a way favourable only to itself is one kind of gerrymandering. This is a new kind of gerrymandering. One has to ask why they go to the trouble. Is it just for the benefit of Jack Volrich? Mr. Volrich says no, he doesn't want that kind of help, he doesn't wish that kind of support, and he refuses to have such an undemocratic provision written into the Vancouver Charter. Fortunately, because of the home-rule traditions associated with amendments to that charter, we can anticipate that the Vancouver Charter will not, at least in this session, be amended by this undemocratic government. So thank God we have one courageous mayor and council to stand up and say no to the gerrymandering of the voters' list that will certainly result from the passage of this bill.

But one has to ask whether or not the Socreds are in trouble elsewhere. I'm advised that they're in trouble in Kamloops. I'm told by media in Kamloops that the mayor of Kamloops, for perhaps the same reasons that the mayor of Vancouver was required to do so, has now come out in opposition to the bill. Why? Well, I expect it is because, at least in part, he does not want anyone saying that it is his wish to be re-elected on false pretences when he comes up for re-election. The mayor of Kamloops — who is, to say the least, not a New Democrat — has apparently taken the same position as the mayor of Vancouver and has said: "I cannot support, honour or respect this attempt to give property a vote." The mayor of New Westminster, who most certainly is not a New Democrat, has also said the same thing, to his credit. The mayor of New Westminster, I am advised, has said that he does not want his municipality to suffer the distortion and misrepresentation of the popular will by creating a special class of privilege that has two or more votes. When the mayors of Vancouver, Kamloops and New Westminster find something in common and find it commonly antagonistic, you have to wonder what Social Credit is up to here.

We can only presume that those who follow the outcome of civic elections have drawn the correct conclusion. The Socred machine is in trouble. The Socred machine is in chaos. The Socred machine is losing ground. The Socred machine locally is suffering the same clear troubles that the Socred machine provincially has been suffering for the last year. Thus we begin to come to some understanding of why the desperate measures represented by this bill have had to be taken.

If the Socred machine was in good shape, as it appears to have been in 1975, we wouldn't have seen this bill. If it was in good shape in 1976, as it might have been, this bill would not have come forward. If it was in good shape in 1977 the Socred machine might not have needed the provisions of this bill. If it was in good shape in 1978 it might not have required the rigging — I should say redesigning — of the voters' list implicit in this bill. If it was in good shape in 1979 they may not have found it necessary to buck up their friends in local government by bringing in this amendment to Bill 54.

However, in 1980 — they have had five years to do it — they now find their civic machine in such trouble, disrepair and disrepute that it has become necessary to bring in a provision which materially, it can be argued, will benefit local Socred candidates in local office. If they're desperate enough to do that this year, how much more desperate will they be next year when their machine continues to fall apart, as does their provincial administration?

I see the Attorney-General is agreeing.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Do I hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) saying that they will accept the motion? Thus I needn't worry about losing my place in the debate.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I remember what happened to Bill King that time.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the House please come to order. I am sure the member is aware of the rules. There is no reason for concern.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm always cautious.

Mr. Barber moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.

[ Page 4113 ]

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

44 The Hon. A.V. Fraser to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 44) intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 27: In the proposed section 27 by renumbering paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and by adding the following paragraph:

"(c) in subsection (2) by striking out 'subject matter of the Act as' and substituting 'subject matter of the Act, as they may be', and".

Section 33.1: The following is added as section 33.1:

"33.1. Section 218 is repealed and the following substituted:

"Motorcycle safety helmets

"218. (1) A person who operates or rides as a passenger on a motorcycle without properly wearing a safety helmet commits an offence.

"(2) In subsection (1), 'safety helmet' means a helmet that

(a) is designed for use by a person while operating or riding as a passenger on a motorcycle,

(b) consists of a hard, smooth shell that

(i) is lined with protective padding material, or
(ii) has some other means of absorbing kinetic energy on impact and to which is securely attached a strap designed to fasten under the wearer's chin, and

(c) conforms to any standards for safety helmets that have been prescribed under section 85(1)(x).