[ Page 9103 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement: Compensation stabilization program.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9103

Mr. Howard –– 9104

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Protection against mortgage foreclosures. Mr. Lea –– 9105

Tax increases. Mr. Howard –– 9106

Boards of review. Ms. Sanford –– 9107

UBC decision on Professor Kane. Hon. Mr. McGeer replies –– 9107

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 69). Second reading,

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9109

Mr. Cocke –– 9109

Mr. Macdonald –– 9110

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9110

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9110

Mr. Leggatt –– 9111

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 9111

Mr. Mitchell –– 9112

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9112

Division –– 9112

Supply Act (No. 3), 1982 (Bill 71). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 9113

Second reading –– 9113

Third reading –– 9113

Royal assent to bills –– 9113

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 76). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 9113

Tabling Documents

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9113

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARBER: I rise to make an introduction of several people. Here from Denman and Lasqueti Islands are Monty Drake, Dazy Drake, Richard Bauer, Jane Sproule, Larry Petemard, Darlene Olesko and Jim Drake. I introduce, as well, John Rich, the chairman of the Islands Trust; Mike Humphries, vice-chairman of the Islands Trust; Amelia Humphries from Lasqueti Island; Carol Martin, a trustee from Hornby Island; Ed Drummond, a trustee from Gambier Island; David Lott, a trustee from Saltspring Island....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Lauk?

MR. BARBER: Lott. What you're going to do to the subdivisions when you get your hands on them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Mr. And Mrs. Hamish Tait from Denman Island; Joan Lott from Saltspring Island; Mr. and Mrs. Fred Burd from Denman Island; Mrs. Sid Clarke from Denman Island; Roy Pitter from Mayne Island; and many other Gulf Islanders who are here today for a reason that I know I'm not permitted to discuss at the moment. On their behalf, I would ask a Page to come forward to get yet another petition signed by many more Gulf Islanders. I direct it toward the currently vacant desk of the Premier. It's in regard to the Islands Trust. I ask the House to make all of these islanders welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, you will observe, of course, that there is an order of the day on the order paper for the presenting of petitions. I would recommend that perhaps we follow the regular procedure of the House, if petitions indeed are to be tabled. Instead of directing them to a minister or ministry, they should be tabled here in the House, as we normally do.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, you leave me in a bit of a quandary, because I rose to introduce some of my constituents from Thetis Island, who are in the precincts today and have asked me to have delivered to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) some 160 letters. I would beg your indulgence if I might ask the Page to take them to the minister. I also ask the House to welcome these visitors from Thetis Island.

MS. BROWN: Seated in your gallery is my very good friend, Amelia Humphries, and some of my other friends from Lasqueti Island. I just want to let them know that I hope I see them all soon. Would you bid them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I face the same quandary as the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), because I, too, before your ruling today, was presented with about 800 signatures from representatives from the islands of Denman and Hornby and some of the surrounding areas, and I would like the Page to deliver those. The first member for Victoria named a large number of representatives from the constituency of Comox who are here from the Gulf Islands, and I would like to also welcome those as yet unnamed representatives who are here not only in the House but also in the precincts from Hornby, Denman and Lasqueti. I ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. BARRETT: In the gallery today is a person who I had the opportunity of renewing my very great acquaintance with during an impromptu meeting in front of this building.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shirley.

MR. BARRETT: My wife had lunch with me today, yes. In company with my wife, I was happy to see a very dear, long-standing friend of ours visiting this gallery and House today from the islands. I ask the House to welcome Ms. Hilary Brown.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION PROGRAM

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wish to make a statement regarding the British Columbia compensation stabilization program. You and members will recall, sir, that the Premier announced new parameters for that program on Tuesday of this week; it is my intention to release today the now guidelines and regulations to which he referred on that occasion,

It is important from the outset to keep in mind the environment in which these measures have been developed, and which the Premier outlined in his statement three days ago. One very key point he made was that government action, not inaction, is a vital component of economic recovery. Together we face a worldwide recession. Admittedly, many of the solutions to that worldwide recession are beyond our immediate jurisdiction, but that is no excuse for any of us to overlook our specific responsibilities in B.C.

Fundamental to all that we have done and all that we shall continue to do are these key elements: first, to preserve the integrity of services provided by the provincial government upon which British Columbians depend; secondly, to attain through work-sharing the most appropriate level of public sector employment so that significant layoffs need not occur here in British Columbia, as they have elsewhere in Canada and the United States; and third, to recognize the limited ability of taxpayers to send more and more of their money to governments, which was an essential point in the budget debate and in the budget itself. To ignore these three key factors is to overlook the economic realities of our time. We believe, as a government, that British Columbians do wish to share, to work together, and to return to prosperity through security in the workplace.

Also on Tuesday, the Premier spoke of the extensive consultations he and a number of his ministers have had with representatives of trade unions, employers' groups and a variety of public-sector associations and organizations. Throughout those discussions there has run a very common theme: action taken by the government must be fair and equitable to all. While the recession has deepened since the

[ Page 9104 ]

announcement of the compensation program on February 18 of this year, the fundamental base upon which the program was founded remains completely intact. I believe it is clear to most British Columbians that a downward revision is necessary if we are to maintain the level of services and employment to which I referred just a few moments ago.

You will recall, sir, that the compensation stabilization program has as its basic operating principle a two-step process. First, the voluntary guidelines, and then, if necessary, the mandatory regulations. That principle has not changed. Under the regulations which are issued today, the new basic income factor will be 6 percent in year one and 5 percent in year two, and the allowable annual increases will range from 0 to 10 percent in year one and from 0 to 9 percent in year two.

I would like to draw the members attention to a number of other significant changes from the earlier program, because they illustrate the commitment of this government to a set of principles which are fair, equitable and necessary. To repeat, this is still a two-stage process — guidelines, and then, if necessary, application of the regulations. Within that framework the first responsibility of the commissioner for CSP, Mr. Peck, in reviewing any settlement under the guidelines, will be to ensure that three objectives are met: first, that we are restraining and stabilizing levels of compensation in the public sector; second, that we are preserving the level of public services to our citizens; third, that the level of employment in the public sector is maintained. To this end, the role of the commissioner has been expanded with today's regulations and other documents by removing from the guidelines specific percentage figures for the factors which can be considered in determining an acceptable increase for a group of employees. Only an overall top limit of 10 percent has been left in place. We anticipate that the commissioner may now be involved in offering advice at the very early stages of negotiation in order that all parties understand the commitment of this government to preserve jobs and services.

In earlier proposals the special-circumstances factor related to the elements of productivity and critical skills shortages. Now the special-circumstances factor will include certain key indices which reflect the state of the provincial economy. These will include the consumer price index, provincial government revenues, provincial rate of employment, and levels of compensation settlements in the provincial private sector. In addition, the special-circumstances factor will continue to emphasize productivity. However, it is our view that savings realized by increases in productivity should be shared between the employer and employees. This is a key element in our program to improve the economic well-being of this province. Real, sustainable growth, benefiting all our citizens, can only be attained through improved productivity.

Under the revised guidelines the commissioner will have the flexibility of being able to weigh the factors that I've just mentioned without being bound by specific percentage figures, except for the overall top limit of 10 percent. If, despite his best efforts, the parties cannot establish a compensation plan with annual percentage increases which satisfy the guidelines, the commissioner may make a group subject to the regulations. Under the regulations, the commissioner and the parties will be constrained by precise percentage limits on the basic income factor, experience adjustment factor and the special-circumstances factor, the elaboration of which I spoke about, the total of which will set the allowable annual increase for a group.

In the interests of fairness and also for transitional purposes, groups which have finalized compensation plans between February 18 and July 27 will have them reviewed by the commissioner, under the guidelines — I emphasize under the guidelines — established in compensation bulletin No. 4. By following voluntary restrain under the spirit and intent of the guidelines, groups will not face the tougher, legally enforceable regulations.

In addition, I would like to expand briefly on the Premier's statement with respect to the 40-hour week. This change is to apply to all excluded staff in classifications not covered by a collective agreement. These guidelines and regulations recommit this government to the task which has occupied a great deal of our time this year: job security, the maintenance of vital services to people, and again, increased productivity as the only source of a continuing and growing economic well-being. I know that all British Columbians will recognize them as fair, equitable and a significant attempt to control the growth of government and, therefore, the level of taxes, and to put this province back on the road to prosperity.

MR. HOWARD: During the time that the Committee of Supply was examining the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and I both advanced opinions on the necessity for government to embark in a formalized, organized and structured way with respect to productivity, productivity committees and the involvement of people in the workforce in the functioning and management of the industries in which they live. At that time we received not a single, solitary recognition of the value of that idea either from the Minister of Forests or from anybody else on the government side.

I submit to you that productivity and the involvement of workers in a formal way in the industries within which they function is the proper way to go. That will produce productivity and a lower-cost product in this province, but it won't come about through some pious hope expressed by the minister that maybe, hopefully, somebody will do something. The minister is probably not talking about a work-sharing program as much as he is talking about a misery-sharing program, especially when he makes reference to productivity as some sort of theoretical thing, without the practical machinery to put it into effect.

The minister talked about the limited ability of the taxpayers to pay. We wish that he had had that attitude when he first became Minister of Finance and increased the expenditures of this province in that budget by 20 percent. We wish he had had the recognition in his second year and second budget, when he again increased expenditures by 20 percent, and when he levied an increased tax burden on the people of this province to pay for the lavish extravagances of this government — keeping in mind that at the same time that Minister of Finance, this Premier and this government were imposing 20 percent increases in expenditure on themselves, provincial government employees were under the constraint of an 8 percent increase in salary while faced with a 10 percent and 12 percent inflationary rate.

What the minister talks about today is an expansion on the rubber-room concept the Premier enunciated out in the corridors during the time this House was considering Bill 28. The Premier was then talking about things like 5 percent, 4

[ Page 9105 ]

percent, 8 percent or some other elastic figure. They're still in the rubber room.

What the minister has enunciated today is just a reiteration of the attempt on the part of this government to make a complete farce and mockery out of the concept of collective bargaining, We have this extended arm of government called GERB which, functioning under the government's orders, has not approached its relationship with the B.C. Government Employees Union in any sense of fair, free and true collective bargaining, as carried out within the law and as required by the law, but has carried out an instruction and a hope on the part of this government for greater and greater confrontation with public employees in this province, because the Premier has seen and sees — and this government sees it — that within the atmosphere and environment of confrontation they hope to make some political gains whenever that next election comes about.

This country and province cannot continue to live within an atmosphere in which the law is mocked, in which government mocks and ignores the law and issues instructions to its negotiating arm to ignore the law and not to bargain in good faith. That's what's been going on until now. It's 6 percent today. What will it be next week? Four percent? I understand GERB's offer was minus 2 percent. Does that reflect the government's attitude about 0 to 10 percent this year?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that debate is not in order in a reply to a ministerial statement.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't think I was debating it. I thought I was responding specifically to this government's challenge to free collective bargaining.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It has been brought to my attention that I have some constituents here from Gambier Island, Keats Island and the Thormanbys — all islands in the Islands Trust. There are too many to name. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them. In doing so, I may as well ask the Page to take this petition and place it on the Premier's desk, the Premier being absent at the present time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if petitions are to be presented to the Legislature, they must be laid on the table of the House. Any other communication which members may wish to send to ministers — or to each other, for that matter — and which they wish to take place in an informal manner, are ones in which, of course, the Chair has no interest.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the sixth report of your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills be adopted.

Leave not granted.

Oral Questions

PROTECTION AGAINST
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES

MR. LEA: To the Minister of Finance: the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have passed legislation to protect homeowners who have suffered mortgage foreclosures from being sued by mortgage companies for any balance remaining after their houses have been sold. Has the government decided to provide a similar protection for mortgage-holders and homeowners in this province, such as is now enjoyed by all western provinces except ours?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The precise question is: has the government decided? The answer to that specific question is no.

MR. LEA: All available indicators show a marked increase in mortages — both mortgages in arrears and foreclosures by the banks in this province. In view of the fact that house prices are falling at the same time, does the government propose to leave unemployed British Columbians in a position of not only losing their homes but being left a crushing debt at the same time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question really speaks to the heart of the statement that I made just a few moments ago in terms of the cost of government, the increasing demand for services and the cost of delivering those services. With respect to the specific aspect of the question, I have had a number of conversations and discussions with those who are active in the mortgage field in British Columbia — credit unions, credit union managers, banks, trust companies — and those discussions are continuing. I'm monitoring the situation, as I'm sure my colleagues the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and others are. I think that the member would want to be reassured that those discussions do not just take place every once in a while but are going on almost continually.

MR. LEA: It's my understanding that this wouldn't call for the expenditure of money. It would possibly cost the banks a bit of money, and we feel they can afford a little bit of money, and we'd like them to share in the downturn also.

Would the minister agree with me — by the government not having decided to move now to protect homeowners against being sued by the banks for the difference in money after the house is sold — that this program wouldn't cost the government of British Columbia any money to institute?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member opened his comments with respect to the profits being made by banks. I indicated very carefully that we're meeting with trust companies, credit unions and banks. There is one bank, Mr. Speaker, which would have more money to send to government through taxation if the absent, irresponsible member for Vancouver Centre had not driven down the stock.

Interjections.

[ Page 9106 ]

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please. Hon. members, question period is only 15 minutes in duration.

MR. LEA: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister has stated that the major reason he went to Scottsdale, Arizona, was to read and to think. I don't know why he chose it over Pugwash or Couchiching, but I guess that's the minister's option. While he was there thinking, did he think of any way that he might save the homeowners of this province having to pay the difference in money to the mortgage companies that I was questioning the Minister of Finance about? Has the minister decided on any concrete plan that would help the householders and the mortgage-holders of this province not to be gouged by the banking system?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the presumption of the member's question is not correct, but I'm happy to remind him that soon after my return my ministry convened a conference on innovative home-financing techniques. We brought in as the keynote speaker the leading American expert on the topic. Subsequently work has been done, particularly on the share appreciation mortgage, and work is continuing. Certain of the financial institutions in this province are considering the possibility of the shared appreciation mortgage. I should also add that with respect to the principle of seize or sue under mortgage lending practices, I've been in active discussion with several of my colleagues on that topic.

MR. LEA: Yes, I have a copy of the pamphlet the minister spoke about: "Surviving a Personal Financial Crisis," subtitled "How to go under gracefully without bringing embarrassment to the government or your neighbours."

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the member has a question.

MR. LEA: Yes, I do. Has the minister decided to put out another brochure, this time informing the people of British Columbia of what positive steps the government has decided to take in order to save them from having to pay the difference between what the bank or mortgage company sells the house for...? As these houses go down in value and the foreclosures happen because of this government's economic problems, caused a great deal by themselves, have you now decided to put out a brochure to tell people that you have a plan to prevent the mortgage companies and the banks from suing the unemployed for that difference? Is there a brochure in the works?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: There are several questions there. First, as the member perhaps doesn't know, about one-third of the home mortgages in this province are held by the credit unions. With respect, however, to the banks, to which he's alluded on several occasions, may I confirm that on several occasions in recent months I've been in touch with the B.C. chairman of the Canadian Bankers Association. We have worked to ensure that each of the chartered banks in this province now has internally what are called review committees, and the purpose of those is to review all hardship cases of potential mortgage foreclosures. Those are at work, and working well. I can also advise that my ministry recently has provided several pieces of publication to our public with respect to early steps to protect one's home.

MR. LEA: It sounds like a Cosgrove clone.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member knows that debate is not in order in question period.

MR. LEA: Has the minister decided to consult with the Junior League to find some solutions to this financial crisis that many people are experiencing, whether it's in Scottsdale or in that little office in Vancouver East? Has the minister decided to consult with the Junior League to see how we can best help the people of the province?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'm always quite prepared to help educate members opposite about the work of the Junior League of Vancouver. Certainly, the well-known fellow NDP member, the Mayor of Vancouver, for example, only recently was extolling the virtues of the various work and projects of the Junior League of Vancouver, whose current major project is in Vancouver Centre and is regularly supported publicly by that vacationing first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

TAX INCREASES

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. During the early part of the resumption of this session or it might have been on budget day, as a matter of fact the minister was asked to confirm that the government had already imposed tax increases for the 1982-83 fiscal year of some $300 million to $500 million in the form of fees and user charges. In the ensuing four months — I believe it was from April — has the minister been able to compile that information and make it available to the House?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member hasn't done his homework. In the course of debate on my estimates just over a week ago, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is absent — with leave, I believe, unlike the first member for Vancouver Centre — asked for that information. There is a question on the order paper. I have undertaken to provide the material to the member at the earliest possible time. We are in the process of compiling that information. It will, either through this House or directly, be communicated to the member for Nanaimo.

MR. HOWARD: Contrary to the erroneous assumption of the minister, I had done my homework. We knew that. We were just seeing whether he had the information available, that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Debate is out of order, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: The minister, Mr. Speaker, with respect, should not be permitted to get away with statements which are not factually correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Debate is not in order.

MR. HOWARD: The minister, at the same time that I'm talking about, was also asked why he had failed to impose any limit on government fee increases, such as bus fares, ICBC rates, medicare premiums and so on. Has the minister now decided to give the House the benefit of his examination

[ Page 9107 ]

of that subject matter, and to provide the House with an answer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That examination, to use the member's word, is ongoing with more than one ministry.

MR. HOWARD: Lots of things are going on.

The minister has stated repeatedly here that the quarterly financial report — I believe it's the second one, or the first one for this fiscal year — would be released in the last few days of July or the first few days in August, roughly speaking. Can the minister tell the House why it is that the Ministry of Finance information officers are now saying, as of this morning, that the report will not be released until mid August?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As a minister, I have to take responsibility for statements made by staff within the ministry, certainly, but that's the first I've heard of it, Mr. Member. I'm not looking for a date anywhere as late as the middle of August. I have the material in front of me now. As the member will know, the quarterly reports are printed rather than issued in manuscript form. I am still targeting for the first few working days of August.

BOARDS OF REVIEW

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. By the end of the year, the backlog at the boards of review will be such that injured workers will have to wait a full year to have their appeals heard. Two weeks ago today the minister stated that he would consider appointing another board of review: that's in addition to filling the positions that are now vacant. I'm wondering if the minister has now decided to appoint an additional board of review.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is that I have not yet decided to appoint another panel. But with respect to the one and a half appointments, this was a subject of debate during estimates, and I gave my assurance to the member that the appointments would be filled by the end of this month.

MS. SANFORD: How long are those injured workers going to have to wait to have their appeals heard before the boards of review? When can we expect a decision out of this minister, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I thought this particular subject was canvassed in some detail during the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. I also advised the member that the Workers' Compensation Board has reviewed its policy so that when new evidence comes forth, whether it's 3, 6, 9 or 12 months hence, there's the opportunity for readjudication. In addition, I advised the member that there are a number of other areas in here; one is that the appointment of another panel is not going to handle that backlog with any degree of efficiency whatsoever. It was the first thing I did when I assumed the portfolio, and it really hasn't done any good at all.

UBC DECISION ON PROFESSOR KANE

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I took on notice a question posed by the member for Nelson Creston (Mr. Nicolson) with respect to Professor Kane and the decision made by the University of British Columbia. I'd be prepared to provide an answer if the House would indulge me for a moment or two.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted for this answer now?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McGEER: I undertook to seek a legal opinion as to whether, under the Universities Act, there was any way in which we could look behind the decision reached by the University of British Columbia. It is with some regret that I report to the House that there is no way under the Universities Act. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with the decision, and I hope the University of British Columbia will review both the decision and their procedure.

MR. BARRETT: Will that include leave of absence?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm undertaking, Mr. Speaker, to answer the member for Nelson-Creston and not the usual jabbering of the Leader of the Opposition. If I can have the indulgence of the House for just a moment, if not of the Leader of the Opposition, I'll finish my statement and the House can get on with its business. Will that be agreeable to the Leader of the Opposition?

MR. BARRETT: Extended leave of absence.

HON. MR. McGEER: I may ask for an extension of that leave of absence just to assist the government of British Columbia get better service than it got under you and your....

MR. BARRETT: As a Liberal or a Socred?

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. HOWARD: You get another ten years as a Socred.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Skeena knows well the rules of the House. I ask the member for Skeena to now withdraw from the chamber for the rest of today's sitting.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Gladly, Mr. Speaker. I just did not see Your Honour — I was looking in the other direction.

HON. MR. McGEER: To conclude very briefly, it's not the policy of the government to open up every act every year. But it is the policy of our ministry to open the Universities Act for the next legislative session. While we're giving no undertaking that this would be one of the loopholes we would correct, I invite the advice of the opposition and invite the general public to make suggestions as to what changes in the Universities Act would be appropriate.

[ Page 9108 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of section 27(l) of the Constitution Act, which allows a motion without leave and sets out the procedure, I read this motion, and hand a copy to Your Honour. I read it quickly, because some of the facts are well known. Pursuant to that section, the undersigned alleges that the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) has contravened section 25 of the said Constitution Act, and moves without leave that the matter be referred forthwith to a committee to be named by the special committee appointed under standing order 68(1), and that this committee inquire into and consider the matter and report back to the Legislative Assembly whether the said member has contravened said section 25, and should therefore cease to be a member and vacate his seat.

Particulars of this allegation, as called for by section 27 of the Constitution Act, are: (1) that the second member for Vancouver South accepted moneys from the Crown contrary to section 25 of the act, and not within the exceptions provided in section 26(l)(b) of that act — namely, reasonable out-of-pocket travelling and other expenses incurred by a member in the discharge of his duties; and (2) that the moneys accepted are referred to in the report to the Legislative Assembly to the assembly of the auditor-general, dated July 23, 1982. The moneys, to a total of $1,509, were claimed and received by the member seven months after returning from a trip of February 21 to February 28, 1981 to Arizona, U.S.A. From said report and answers of the minister it is apparent that the trip was arranged a month before February 21, and no prior appointments or business were arranged. In Arizona the member heard about a meeting one or two days before it occurred and attended, and seven months later claimed and received $1,509 from the Crown for expenses covering the whole period of February 21 to February 28, 1981. Such reimbursement was not reasonable and not in the discharge of his duties. The member has contravened section 25 of the Constitution Act, and his seat should be vacated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I must interrupt the hon. member. The provisions of section 27 of the Constitution Act referred to by the member require that notice of a motion shall be tabled with the House and not read. Secondly, it provides that the motion be made in accordance with the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. Those provisions allow that a motion to be brought forward in this House be brought forward during the time assigned on the order paper for that kind of business. I would refer the hon. member to our Journals of April 29 this year, which says:

"Akin to this dilemma is the problem which arises when hon. members at random times rise in their place and seek "leave to move a motion," apparently based on the assumption that at any time they are so entitled to ask leave. This cannot be the case if the House is to proceed with its business in an orderly manner; therefore there are limitations in place on when such leave may properly be sought. Further, when leave is sought to move a motion without prior notice and without disclosing its content or subject matter, members are in the undesirable position of having to make a decision without knowing the nature of the motion sought to be moved."

The hon. member is aware of the fact that the motion cannot be deemed to be in order.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to enter into a long debate about this. The section....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The motion is not in order, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order raised by Your Honour, section 27 does say "without leave under routine proceedings." I think I'm in the right time. The question of whether prior notice should be given is a separate matter, and therefore I ask leave of the House that the motion proceed at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for moving motions is assigned on the order paper. Section 27, with great respect, does say that the motion shall be tabled and not read, and that the motion must be in accordance with standing orders. The standing orders of our House are very explicit in this matter.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, as the question of the timing is, I submit, a difficult one, I file as well notice of motion. So I filed the motion with Your Honour, and I file the notice of motion in the same terms.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, specifically in relation to standing order 9: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal of the House without debate." The request for the member for Skeena to leave, obviously under this section, is one that is understandably difficult for the Chair at any given time. It is a judgment call. The member for Skeena accepted your judgment, without appeal to the House; that's a matter of record. But I am particularly disturbed that yesterday in this House the Premier of this province was in flagrant abuse, in the same manner, of this standing order of the House, and he was not asked to leave. His abuse was much more severe, of much longer standing, and certainly more provocative, than the ruling made today on the member for Skeena. I would ask the Speaker, so that we have complete understanding that this is fairly applied.... It might be advisable for all members of the House, including the Premier, to have a written interpretation from the Chair of when standing order 9 will be used fairly by the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept any suggestion that the rules would be applied unfairly. But, hon. members, just so that there should be no surprises, the Chair has been chastized about warnings, so the Chair is a little bit cautious about giving warnings. Nonetheless, this is the proceeding which I follow. When disturbance or disorder occurs in the House and it no longer responds to a call for order, the Speaker stands. The disorder that is in progress at that time must certainly be given an opportunity to subdue, as in the case today, when both the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) were engaged in gross disorder. They were given the opportunity to at least have that disorder subside. However, in the case of the member who was asked to leave the chamber, the member for Skeena, he began his disorder after the Speaker was standing. Hon. members, unless we can have a response to the call for order, we have to resort to the Speaker standing. This is the only

[ Page 9109 ]

way we can have some finality to the disorder itself I try desperately hard to do it as fairly as possible, hon. members. I would think that that's all that can be expected, myself being human.

MR. BARRETT: I do not dispute the difficulty of the job of the Chair. I'm asking for an interpretation. In the member's defence, he pointed out that he did not see the Speaker standing. However, be that the case, there's no doubt that I was out of order, along with the Minister of Energy. We were companions in our disrespect for this House, and I apologize on behalf of both of us.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier stood his ground when you stood up in the Chair and did not sit down immediately in respect to the Chair. Sir, I want to tell you that did not go unnoticed by me — and no action was taken against him yesterday.

HON. MR. McGEER: On the same point of order, perhaps how you stand in interpretation depends on where you sit. I sit very close to the Premier and it was my impression, from sitting more closely at hand than the Leader of the Opposition, that the Leader of the Opposition is quite incorrect in what he says. Of course, if your objective is to disrupt the member and not the Chair, you frequently look away from the Chair. Members who sit in this part of the House see it rather differently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That will conclude the matter.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order as well. Today in question period and in recent days in question period, I have been concerned that some of the questions posed may offend against the well-known rule with respect to anticipation. I therefore wonder if, to assist the members, you might consider this matter, provide us with an appropriate definition of anticipation, or examples thereof, and the application of those interpretations to the rule in order that we won't be offending.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We'll review again the proceedings in question period and bring a written decision to the House, hon. members.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2) 1982

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in debating this bill, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, (No. 2), 1982, I wish to advise the House of our continuing and, in fact, growing concern for our motorists and citizens in the province, and the dangers of the drinking driver. This province has initiated new programs over the last few years in an attempt to curb this most serious of problems, and I think it is fair to say that they have been effective to a degree; but we must provide greater emphasis on such programs to deal with the drinking driver, who is causing a great number of fatalities and injuries on the highway system. This amendment does not change the fact that people are still asked to take a breathalyser test if a police officer suspects that they have been driving while under the influence of alcohol. What this amendment does allow is that a police officer may request that if a person is unable to provide a breathalyser test, a blood test be taken to ascertain his blood-alcohol content level. For through motor vehicle accidents the deaths and injuries of many innocent citizens are caused, and people are not apprehended for their misdeeds. In fact, they are back behind the wheel of vehicles without having to deal with the motor vehicle branch or the court system. This amendment will ensure that we will have one more valuable tool to deal with and, hopefully, curb the carnage caused by the drinking driver.

Mr. Speaker, in an article in one of our daily papers it was noted that this was an unprecedented step, and I think everyone in this House will agree that this type of action is required now. It is this type of universal support for the fight against the drunken driver that will eventually lead to the solution of this very serious problem in society.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. COCKE: We all recall that there was a bill before this House recently, and at the time of the debate on that bill — Bill 9, as I recall — a number of us discussed this question. I particularly remember my contribution to that debate, which was that somehow the offending driver has to be accountable for his offence.

First, let me congratulate the minister for bringing in Bill 69, which, if enacted — or if anything along the line of Bill 69 is enacted — there will finally be a means of really attacking this problem. When the question of civil liberties, human rights and all the rest of the discussions are over, the one person who is continually forgotten is the victim of the person driving that lethal weapon, a car. Having once been the Minister of Health and having spent a considerable number of hours and days in different hospitals, in different emergency wards, seeing what happens as a result of the careless, stupid handling of a 4,000-pound vehicle on a highway, I can't help but agree that what is necessary is that the person behind the wheel be responsible, and responsible to the extent that the person agrees that driving is not a right but a privilege, a privilege that he or she offends if in fact they take that car out on the road and it becomes a lethal projectile.

I'm sorry that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has announced that it has to be held up to some extent. In any event, I'm delighted that this is now at least a warning to people on the road that things are going to be a lot tougher. I've heard some criticisms already; I've heard people say: "Oh, my goodness, what right has a person got to take my blood?" I ask: "What right has that person to take the life or the blood of a person who is totally innocent?" And we've all seen it. There is hardly a family, hardly a group in this province, that hasn't seen the result of the fact that people are out there driving irresponsibly. The one thing that we can stop, as they have to a large degree in Scandinavia....

Incidentally, I bring to the attention of the House that Scandinavia has been for years champions of civil liberties and so on, but the one thing they will not put up with is drunken driving. Do you know what the people do now? They either take a taxi or they share a vehicle with a person who isn't going to be drinking, because it's so tough. I agree

[ Page 9110 ]

that we have to make it tough. I'm pleased also that the person who refuses to provide the blood sample is then deemed to be chargeable with the original offence; at least the law has access to the extent of the law behind this act.

I really feel that every legislator should stand for the innocent person out there; I've always felt that. This bill goes a step forward in standing for the innocent person.

MR. MACDONALD: I entirely support the hon. member for New Westminster in what he has said. I look at the bill, however, and regret that it is not proceeding. If it is not proceeding through all stages at this session, I ask the Attorney-General to have a look at it in terms of its wording. I would have preferred to see an amendment to the Evidence Act. It seems to me that we are unnecessarily creating a criminal offence in terms of the .08 which is already in the Criminal Code. There could be a challenge on that basis. I would have thought it should have been treated as a matter of evidence and made compulsory, with the necessary penalties in the event that somebody did not yield up the blood sample. It's very important that the testing begin just as quickly as possible. I make those legalistic remarks merely for the consideration of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to make a few comments as the minister responsible for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Our statistics indicate that a tremendous number of accidents in this province result from the drinking driver. I'm pleased to stand in my place today to compliment the Minister of Highways for introducing this bill in the House and can only say that I also support entirely what the member for New Westminster said with regard to those people who say it's an infringement on their personal rights to have their blood tested after an accident. I say to them, as he said, that they, in possibly being responsible for the accident, are responsible for taking somebody else's blood. I think that was a very profound statement that was made. As minister responsible for ICBC, I support the minister's bringing this bill into the House at this time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to rise in support of this bill and to say that what we are doing here is attempting to close that last gap that exists in the legislation that we have with regard to the fair detection of the person who is so irresponsible as to drive, having consumed alcohol to a level which interferes with the manner in which he can control, as the member for New Westminster says, "a dangerous weapon." We would be aghast if we were to allow the people of our communities to wander about irresponsibly with what we generally term offensive weapons, and yet we don't seem to think any problem exists so long as they get inside a couple of tons of steel and plastic and go charging off at speeds and in conditions where they can't control the vehicle they are driving.

The manner of blood testing has been a subject of debate in Canada for some time. There's a provision in the Criminal Code that it cannot be utilized with respect to the drinking driving sections. Yet when we examine what has happened in most European countries — Sweden, Finland, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, United Kingdom — a driver is obliged to provide a blood sample when requested to do so. Similar legislation in New Zealand, most of the states of Australia and two of the states of the United States of America make this requirement, but in Canada we are left with the breathalyser as the only real test. As the member for New Westminster has pointed out, the use of the breathalyser can be avoided, necessarily in most cases, by persons who are injured. Unfortunately — and this is the experience in other jurisdictions as well — it can be avoided by those who would feign injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident. We're trying to close that last gap.

My colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), when he was Attorney-General, took the initiative in the fall of 1978, and a six-month pilot project was undertaken in the emergency wards at Royal Columbian Hospital. That hospital was selected because it probably has one of the largest trauma operations of any hospital in the lower mainland, as the member for New Westminster has on other occasions pointed out. During that six months, persons who came to the hospital as a result of motor vehicle accidents were asked to give blood samples voluntarily. The results were startling. In that six-month period there were 776 victims of traffic accidents; 422 of them were the drivers of vehicles. Of these, 31 percent had been drinking. When you consider those who were drinking, 81 percent had a blood-alcohol level above the bottom impairment level of .08. Even more startling is that 47 percent, almost half of those drivers, had a reading over .15. They weren't impaired; they were drunk. With them, above the 422 drivers, totalling the 776 persons were passengers, cyclists and pedestrians. They were the innocent victims, in most instances, of the consequences of those drivers having consumed alcohol to such an extent that almost half of them were drunk.

They couldn't be prosecuted on the basis of breath analysis, and were excused prosecution because they had contributed to this pilot project. Some of them were prosecuted, because the evidence available without the use of blood alcohol content analysis permitted some of them to be charged with impaired driving, irrespective of the blood alcohol level. This test discloses that 50 percent of the injuries occurred between 4 o'clock Friday afternoon and 4 o'clock Sunday morning; the weekend parties. They also showed that the age of the injured persons tended to decrease as the lateness of the hour increased. The later at night, earlier in the morning, the younger the person was who was injured in those accidents.

We think the time has come when those persons should be tested, and if necessary called to account for a number of reasons. It's for their own benefit. People who will drive a motor vehicle who have a blood-alcohol content of over .15 have got an alcohol problem and need some assistance. The taking of blood samples also indicates to the medical profession some directions they should take in the treatment of these people, aside from the victims. Therefore we are introducing this legislation so it can be examined in this House and community as part of a continuing debate.

As the member for Vancouver East has said, there are other ways of approaching this problem. The province of Saskatchewan has looked at doing it on an Evidence Act concept. They've been struck down in their court of appeal. Every one of the Attorneys-General in the ten provinces is examining this problem. It was discussed at the meetings last October and will be discussed, I trust finally, at the meetings to be held this October.

We wish to introduce this legislation and have it debated in principle in second reading, but we will not proceed with its enactment at this time, because we wish to have the

[ Page 9111 ]

opportunity of examining the legislation at the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which takes place next month, because we believe there must be uniformity across this nation. It may be that the best way of achieving that will be to amend the Criminal Code. We hope we can encourage the federal government to do that.

We know there will be challenges on a constitutional basis. We believe that as a province we can meet those challenges. We know there will be challenges with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those challenges have already been raised with respect to the breathalyser tests provided for in the Criminal Code. If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to interfere with the enforcement of drinking and driving legislation, I'm afraid I will have to introduce legislation in this House which will avoid the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this particular case, because while the rights and freedoms of all our individuals are important, someone has to speak for the rights and freedoms of the person who dies or is injured as a result of a drinking driver. I think society is no longer prepared to accept conduct on the roads such as we are experiencing in this province and nation.

I trust we will have the support of the civil libertarians in this province. Some of them have already spoken out. It's a difficult choice for them to make, but I think when they consider what the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has said — whose liberties are really being affected? — they will know what the proper answer will be.

The legislation will also enable us to focus attention on some of the serious medical-legal problems which this legislation raises. It's easy to talk about the concept of blood testing, but until we can focus attention on the specific details of what must be done in order to make this legislation successful, I think that we can resolve some of the outstanding medical-legal questions.

We will also be challenged, I'm sure, when the legislation becomes law, by lawyers who defend people who are charged because they drink and drive beyond the limits we have here. Well, a person who is charged with an offence is entitled to his defence, but I must say that I find some difficulty when I consider the ingenuity that is being used in the defence of people who find themselves in this position.

As the Attorney-General I am pleased to note from the debate today that we have on both sides of this House support for legislation of this kind. I think it will offer hope to the Mothers Against Drinking Driving, an organization in this province and elsewhere which deserves the support of every citizen. The mothers and the fathers in school groups and the students in this province who are trying to tackle this problem will, I believe, take heart from the introduction and the indicated support for this legislation.

It is my hope that we will quickly come back with this legislation — perhaps improved as a result of discussions with colleagues in other provinces — and will see it become the law of British Columbia. We can then move to other areas of traffic safety and let this question of enforcement rest, because enforcement alone will never be enough. Education and the other concepts which are evolving will produce the attitudinal change which will enable us, I hope, to beat this growing social problem.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of the bill. I congratulate the government for bringing it forward, and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) for pressing so hard to bring some kind of legislation.

There are a couple of things that should still be said. I'm one of those who defend impaired drivers from time to time, and there is a misunderstanding about the civil liberties nature of the requirement to blow into a breathalyser and, if this becomes law, the requirement to provide a sample of your blood. It is a privilege to drive a car, not a right, and I would like to suggest to the Attorney-General that when a person applies for his licence, he should provide in advance the consent to have the blood sample taken. Thereby one avoids the civil liberties problem of someone's being required against his will to provide evidence in court. The evidence question was dealt with, I understand, in Saskatchewan. I think a prior consent form may be one of the answers to this constitutional question. Every time one applied for a licence, one would sign a consent form in which he agreed to provide a sample of blood under circumstances as set out in the bill. When you renew your licence the same provision should be required; each time you apply for the privilege to continue to drive a motor vehicle, you should provide your consent that the law be entitled in proper circumstances to examine a sample of your blood, as they now have the right to require a breathalyser.

Now the second advantage to the bill is that all the breathalyser is is a way of measuring the extent of alcohol in the blood. That's a less scientific way to do so than actually taking a sample of blood; it's a far more accurate reading. By the way, speaking as one who defends people who are guilty of impaired driving, it's more difficult to defend an actual blood sample than it is to defend against the complicated system of the Borkenstein breathalyser. And so, in terms of certainty, it is very useful from the Attorney-General's point of view that we could in the future use the blood sample — the more accurate test of the extent of alcohol in the blood. Now I know there are going to be cries....

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: All my of my clients have always been innocent. Sometimes I have had a misguided judge.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to congratulate the Attorney-General, the member for New Westminster, who has been trying very hard to see this legislation come forward, and the Minister of Highways, who has brought the bill forward. He has the support of both sides of the House and I think he has the support of the majority of the bar of the province on this particular piece of legislature.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It would appear that this vote will be one of nemine contradicente, but I would like to add a few personal remarks because I think many of us have been personally touched as a result of tragedies involving impaired drivers. I had occasion recently to meet with a group of ambulance attendants in the province, and between them — attendants and drivers — they had over ten years of experience. I brought up the subject of impaired drivers and asked how often they attended accidents which involved impaired drivers. They said that between them they had not yet had enough experience to attend a motor vehicle accident where one of the people involved wasn't impaired, which really says a lot. It means that alcohol was involved in every single automobile accident they ever attended — either the victim or the person who was driving the car. Every case; 100 percent of the time. The Attorney-General spoke earlier about the time of day at which these instances occur, and the days of the

[ Page 9112 ]

week, and he tells me it's as reliable a way to set your watch as anything else. It's a tragedy that we must put an end to.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to join with this side of the House in congratulating the government and the minister for bringing in this particular bill. You will recall that I spoke out for this type of legislation in earlier debate. The reason I am so concerned with this is that I guess I represent or was part of the group that will enforce the legislation when it does come into effect. Also as one with a little bit of experience: if you check the Victoria court records, you'll find that the first case ever prosecuted in Victoria on the blood was a Robert Woodford, and the person who prosecuted him was myself. This is the only way of getting a true reading of blood alcohol content. I think it's really important, before the legislation does go into effect, that throughout the province methods are set up for gathering that evidence.

One of the problems in taking a blood test, even when people will volunteer to do it, is that neither the medical nor nursing profession wants to get involved in the court system. Even if you have convinced a driver that he should give a blood sample, getting the material and the vials and a way of taking and storing the blood have always been a major problem throughout the province. When they get down to the detail of the regulations, a program of acquiring the evidence and of protecting it so that it's admissible in court is very important.

I welcome it. The people who are trying to control the carnage on the highways need that extra piece of help. I hope it will be given as much and as wide publicity as the breathalyser test, and the improvement in the type of testing that can come from a blood sample.

HON. MR. FRASER: I certainly appreciate all the support that has been given from all sides of the House. Without any further ado, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 69, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on June 1, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 23 and 29, and July 5, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 27 and 29 be now received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the resolution from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund, the following:

1. $9,840,194 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, and

2. $7,232,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 (a) of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1982, and section 1 (a) of the Supply Act (No. 2), 1982.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the resolution.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The committee reports a resolution that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following:

1. $9,840,194 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, and

2. $7,232,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 (a) of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1982, and section 1 (a) of the Supply Act (No. 2), 1982.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 9113 ]

SUPPLY ACT, (No. 3), 1982

 HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 71, intituled Supply Act, (No. 3), 1982.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the committee rise and report to the House recommending the introduction of Bill 71.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been distributed, hon. members. I trust each one has his copy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 3), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Preamble 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. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 71, Supply Act (No. 3), 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Administrator is in the building and will be here shortly. I declare a short recess. I'll ring the bells when your attendance is required.

The House took recess at 4:05 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:12 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Administrator is ready to enter the chamber. Would we all please take our places.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1982

Police Amendment Act, 1982

Land Title Amendment Act, 1982

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1982

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982

Supply Act (No. 3), 1982

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1982

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982.

Bill 76 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled: the annual report of the Legal Services Society of British Columbia for the year ending March 31, 1981; pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada, the 1981 annual return with respect to part 4 of the Criminal Code, concerning the invasion of privacy; pursuant to the provisions of section I of the Court Rules Act, regulations dealing with supreme court rules.

[ Page 9114 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I wish to make a statement, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the government and, I'm sure, all members of the official opposition, we'd like to pay our respects and thanks to all members of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, the Pages and the guides for their courtesies and assistance during this first part of the session. I'd particularly like to recognize Mrs. Evelyn Moore, Mr. George Christensen, Mr. Gordon Meeks and Mr. James Anderson of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, who will be retiring at the conclusion of the current session.

MR. LEA: We would like to also go on record as thanking all the people the House Leader for the government has put forward.

There's one further I'd like to add. Over the past two years I've had as a secretary Marie Decaire, who's worked hard and long, not for me or the Legislature but for the people of the province. It's her last session with us. I'd like to ask everybody to join me in wishing her good luck.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the 32nd parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and as the case may be may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:20 p.m.