1985 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4911 ]

CONTENTS

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985 (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4911

Oral Questions

Federal-provincial forestry management agreement. Mr. Skelly 4911

Education funding cuts. Mr. Rose –– 4911

Small business incentive proposal. Mr. MacWilliam –– 4912

Social assistance. Mr. Williams –– 4912

Transport Of Dangerous Goods Act (Bill 45). Hon. A. Fraser.

Introduction and first reading –– 4913

Elevating Devices Safety Act (Bill 15). Committee stage

section 19 –– 4913

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading –– 4913

Motion 36 –– 4913

Mr. Pelton

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Davis

Constitution Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 47). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4917

Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 43). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 4917

Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Richmond.

Introduction and first reading –– 4917

Financial Information Act (Bill 36). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4917

Mr. Stupich –– 4918

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4918

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 41). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4918

Mr. Lauk –– 4919

Mr. Rose –– 4920

Mr. Ree –– 4920

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4920

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 42). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith 4921

Mr. Lauk –– 4921

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4922

Mental Health Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4922

Mrs. Dailly –– 4922

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4923

Mental Health Amendment Act (Bill 33). Committee stage

section 6 –– 4923

Mrs. Dailly

section 7 –– 4923

Mrs. Dailly

Third reading –– 4924

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 39). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4924

Mrs. Dailly –– 4925

Mr. Lauk –– 4925

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4925

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 40). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4926

Mr. Lauk –– 4926

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4926

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 38). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4926

Mr. Lauk –– 4926

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4928

Mr. Mitchell –– 4928

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4928

Tabling Reports –– 4929

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr Heinrich.

Introduction and first reading –– 4929

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1985

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I see that today's horoscope

says this of a member of our assembly — not indeed a member, but a

great participant in the affairs of this House: "Diplomacy and devotion

to work marks him as executive material." Indeed we have executive

material in the person of our law clerk, and a very happy birthday to

him.

MR. HOWARD: I want to join with that, but I hesitate to sing the chorus.

I want to ask the House to join me in welcoming and recognizing a

couple of people in the gallery. One is Mrs. Dorothy Skelly, mother of

our esteemed leader of this party; the other is Mrs. Alexandra Skelly,

wife of our esteemed leader of this party. In addition to that, we

extend to the leader of the New Democratic Party and his wife Alexandra

our warmest congratulations and wishes on this day, the 20th

anniversary of their wedding.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, let me join in offering best

wishes to the member and his wife on their anniversary. Let me say it

is rewarding to hear that it happens to other members as well — that we

always get warm applause for our wives and mothers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce

two people who are in the gallery today, visiting this House from

Nelson, B.C. Will the House welcome Mr. and Mrs. McKillar.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985.

Bill 37 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.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FORESTRY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Forests. Today in the House

of Commons the Member of Parliament for Skeena asked the Minister of Regional

Industrial Expansion, Mr. Stevens, to confirm the B.C. forest minister's

statement in the House yesterday that the reason for the delay in signing the

federal-provincial forestry agreement "is a matter of the federal government

finding funds to pay for their part." Mr. Stevens' response was: "That

is not correct." Is the minister prepared to reconsider his statement made

in the House yesterday?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I am not. By the way, to the newlyweds: happy anniversary.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, is the minister accusing the federal Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion of making an incorrect statement?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I am not.

MR. SKELLY: I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that they're both wrong.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Would the member please rephrase that question.

[2:15]

EDUCATION FUNDING CUTS

MR. ROSE: I want to lob a soft question over to the Minister of Education,

if I might. When you count inflation, government cutbacks in education funding

will amount to a staggering 25 percent by 1986. Since the quality of education

cannot be maintained for B.C. kids under these extreme conditions, when does

the minister intend to halt the cuts and restore school board autonomy?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that

we have a program over three fiscal years. The statement with respect

to a 25 percent.... I suppose figures will dance to anybody who is

advancing them. It seems to me that if we were going to control

expenditures in the public school system, a new method of financing was

required. I might remind the member that at the time we introduced the

new funding system, as well as capping the budget — you will recall

Bill 6, which was amended twice — a statement was given by the B.C.

School Trustees' Association which specifically said: "At this point in

B.C.'s economic history it is not inappropriate for the government to

do what it has done." However, I think it only fair to say that in my

extensive tours throughout the province, meeting well over 50 school

districts within the school district and at their board offices, a

number of suggestions were made. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have

taken note of a number of the items which have been advanced, and this

matter will be addressed.

MR. ROSE: I was afraid the minister was going to tell us that he was

received with warm embraces when he went all over the province.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Not always; not by the trustees. Please don't point at the leader of the opposition, Mr Minister.

Since the minister's funding inflexibility appears to be chronic,

does he at least intend to meet with a group of concerned parents from

the interior, from the Island and from the lower mainland who are going

to be here tomorrow and have asked to meet with the minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will have a look at my

diary for tomorrow. But I think it would be unfair if the member were

to leave the impression with all members in the House that I have not

met with parents in many parts of British Columbia. I might also add

that all of the discussions

[ Page 4912 ]

which were conducted with school boards were really

most helpful to all of us in government, as well as to school

districts. The object of the game was to seek solutions and to share

the problem. As a matter of fact, I think it has worked very well for

the most part. As for a meeting with parents tomorrow, I will check my

diary and see whether or not it can be accommodated.

MR. ROSE: I think it's fair to say that the boards share the problem, but the minister caused the problem.

I wonder if I could ask a question of the Premier. Yesterday, in his

latest round of teacher-bashing, the Premier is reported as saying that

the Minister of Education had done an outstanding job and that he was a

model in community relations. I would like to ask the Premier whether,

perhaps to reward the minister for his hard work and his good work, he

intends to promote the minister to some sort of high-ranking job, such

as B.C. House, before he permanently destroys the whole education

system.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Education is in perhaps the

highest priority in this province now. As Minister of Education he's

trying to balance, with funds from government.... He has the very

difficult task of realistically facing the difficult times of the

economy, working with school boards and trying to make sure our

children get a quality education that isn't measured only in the amount

of dollars — but, of course, that's a factor.... This minister is

already in the top priority job of this government — education — and

will continue to be.

SMALL BUSINESS INCENTIVES PROPOSAL

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development. On October 10, 1984, on behalf of the

New Democrats of British Columbia, and, I might add, in the spirit of

cooperation and consultation, I presented to the Ministry of Finance a

detailed proposal on small business taxation and economic growth in the

province of British Columbia. The paper outlined a series of proposals

for small business incentives. Is the minister aware of the brief and

has he perused the recommendations made therein?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I take it under advisement and will report to him later.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to furnish the minister

with a copy of that paper, and I will do so later in the session or in the day.

I would request that the minister consider his support of the implementation

of those proposals as a means of redressing the economic needs of our small

business community.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's query,

I think he's jumping the gun. There have been statements from the Premier

and from several cabinet ministers that indeed, as a result of our Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) travelling around the province, meeting with the

small business community, meeting with people in the commercial business, meeting

with everybody, that we have taken a look at the whole tax structure in the

province of British Columbia. I would ask the member to be patient, because

I'm sure that the member will want to stand up in this Legislature and support

the budget when it is presented in the House. Please take note, and we will

look forward with anticipation to your response and support of the new economic

package in the budget when it is tabled in this Legislature, hopefully in the

not too distant future.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

MR. WILLIAMS: My question is to the Minister of Human

Resources. In view of the fact that some 190,296 hampers have been

distributed by the food bank in the greater Vancouver area, through

several churches, and still on occasion people are turned away because

of the inadequate resources of those groups, does the minister feel

this should be a priority concern on her part, since it is clearly an

indication of need and hunger within a community such as we've never

seen before?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Human Resources has

addressed the need, which has been demonstrated by the number of people who

have called on us during this economic downturn that we have just gone through,

and through the international recession. We have responded by making available

greater funds for income assistance. We have not only a statutory obligation

to provide income assistance, but a moral obligation as well, and we have done

so in a meaningful way. In fact, this year, in the past few weeks, we have extended

the income assistance portion of the Ministry of Human Resources budget beyond

the contemplated amount. We will be spending another $159 million, I believe

it is — I may be out a few dollars, in those figures — beyond this past year's

allocation. So yes, we are meeting and responding to the need.

I would like to address the member's concern regarding the food

banks. Food banks are done through the voluntary sector, through

churches and different organizations in the province, and they continue

to provide help as part of their ministry or as part of their volunteer

work within the community. The Ministry of Human Resources does not

take money from income assistance, through our Ministry of Human

Resources funds, for an additional amount of money to fund food banks.

That's a voluntary source of food and a voluntary source of work that

is being done by different organizations. We applaud the efforts of

those people, but we do not wish to take over their job; nor do we

believe that they are wanting to take over ours, which accounts for by

far the greatest amount of dollars that are being spent. Out of my $1.2

billion budget, Mr. Speaker, approximately $850 million will go to

people, assisting them through their welfare income assistance.

MR. WILLIAMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, more money is being

granted for welfare in this province; indeed it is, because our unemployment

rate is now at 16 percent — an unprecedented level. No wonder!

My question is: is this a priority concern, in view of the fact that

it does indicate hunger and need in the community? If it is a priority

concern, then why has the minister not ever met with the people who

handle the food banks, and carried on a dialogue to see whether she

might play a more significant role with the needy of this province?

[ Page

4913 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I have met with

people who have provided this extra amount of money over the years. When the

member accuses the government of putting forth more money, he either is critical

of that or he is unsupportive of those to whom we give the money. You can't

have it both ways,

Also, Mr. Speaker, I have to say to you that I have met with those people.

The Salvation Army does probably the most outstanding job in this province of

providing in terms of need. They provide food to people in need, and I had the

opportunity of meeting with the Salvation Army this month. I also have had the

opportunity of meeting with members of a church organization. To say that I

have not met with people is not correct.

But I also wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the job that is being

done by food banks is a job that is being undertaken in a voluntary way

by very many people, but our ministry has no wish to attempt to screen

people who go to those agencies for help. We leave that screening to

those people. We leave that screening and that approval of giving out

food and whatever else they wish to give to the voluntary sector, and

we do not plan to get involved in that part of the voluntary sector. It

is really up to them. Anything I could meet them for would not be of

any help to them financially or in any other way. I have publicly said

that I have supported the voluntary sector and I will continue to

support the voluntary sector. I will make my time available to people

who reach my office, and not make appointments on the floor of this

House.

Introduction of Bills

TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT

Hon. A. Fraser presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Transport of Dangerous Goods Act.

Bill 45 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.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 15.

ELEVATING DEVICES SAFETY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 15: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

MR. GABELMANN: I think the question to the minister raised

yesterday by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) could best be

answered under

section 19.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If I recall the question correctly, it

had to do with this: if a device was closed down, having been found

unsafe or defective, and if an appeal was launched to the director from

the inspector, would the device continue to be closed down? It's my

understanding that there would be no change from the previous practices

that once issued, the stop-order is in effect until the matter is

resolved. That matter would then not be resolved until an appeal was

finished, and that appeal, following the appeal to the director.... The

director cannot change an inspector's order unless it's appealed. It

could be appealed by the operator of a device. If the director

overturned, then I assume the device could be operated again. But there

is, again, another appeal beyond that to an external appeal body, which

is under the Building Safety Standards Act, I believe. As long as the

stop-order is there, the device would not be allowed to be operated

until the appeal is fully resolved.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to be sure that when the minister

says "until the matter is fully resolved," does that mean until the

entire process of appeals is exhausted? In other words, if an inspector

ordered it to be shut down, the elevator would remain shut down until

all possible appeal avenues had been exhausted. You're saying no to

that. You're saying that if the director overrules an inspector, the

elevating device can then resume its operation, and it continues to

operate while the next level of appeal is carried out.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, no device is ever shut down unless

there's a life-threatening situation of some kind. You've got to say

that somebody's life may be threatened in the operation of that device.

What happens is that if an inspector says, "Okay, your elevator's faulty;

shut it down," the operator has the opportunity to appeal to the director.

If the director then says he doesn't agree with his inspector's ruling

and the elevator should be operated again, it would be incumbent on the person

who was concerned to make that further appeal. If that appeal was not made,

then the elevator would operate again; but if the appeal was made, then yes,

you're correct. The full course of the legislation has to be carried out

before the stop-order can be lifted.

Section 19 approved.

Sections 20 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: 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 15, Elevating Devices Safety Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. PELTON: I ask leave to make a motion appearing in my name under

No. 36 of the Votes and Proceedings of the House.

Leave granted.

MR. PELTON: I move that this House adopt the unanimous report of the

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills dated February

11, 1985, and order that the amendments therein recommended to the Standing

[ Page 4914 ]

Orders of the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia come into force and effect at the

commencement of the next session of the Legislative Assembly.

Shortly after the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills was constituted, a meeting was held relative to how the

committee could best fulfil its obligations. Early in these

deliberations it became apparent that a consensus in relation to goals

would be desirable. Unanimously established in March 1984, the

committee's objectives were (1) to improve public understanding of the

Legislature's work, (2) to create interest by better debate, (3) to

encourage more meaningful participation by more members in the House

and its committees, (4) to provide opportunities for members to raise

important issues other than through question period or estimates,

(5) to establish a better balance between the government's right to govern

and the opposition's right to oppose, (6) to make more predictable the

calling of sessions and the timetabling of government business, (7) to

develop means to make ministers and members more accountable for what

is being said in debate, and (8) to ventilate and examine current rules

and procedures and to evaluate how each contributes to or frustrates

the foregoing.

I presume, Mr. Speaker, that I would not be offending any

parliamentary rules if I indicated that the committee owes a

considerable debt to the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) in

respect to these objectives.

With these goals in mind the committee proceeded with its deliberations, and

the report which resulted is lengthy and detailed. All members having now received

this report will note it deals with, primarily, three issues: first, the rules

and procedures of the House; second, the question of radio and television of

its proceedings; and thirdly, the matter of members' services. The full

report and all of its recommendations were unanimously adopted by the committee,

and I take great pride in this fact.

The proposed amendments to our Standing Orders ,

the rules and procedures which govern the conduct and business of the

House, represent the most complete and substantive changes in more than

50 years. The members of our committee displayed an attitude and

approach, during the nine months we worked together, that was in the

best parliamentary tradition. The committee met on more than 25

occasions, and the deliberations and discussions were conducted in an

atmosphere of good will and courtesy.

You have, in the report which you received yesterday, all of the

proposed amendments. However, I would like to comment briefly on the

highlights.

The committee has provided for a private members' day during which

private members may bring up any matter they wish to discuss which may

either be of importance to them in their own ridings or a broader

matter affecting the province or country as a whole. This, I believe,

will overcome the difficulty in the past of finding an appropriate

place to slot in matters of concern to the private members. This is the

new standing order 25A, called "Private Members' Statements." The setup

of the order paper has been simplified to make it much easier to read

and understand. Indeed, a large part of the amending process throughout

had, as its goal, the demystification of the standing orders.

Hon. members will have no difficulty in recalling the almost obscure ritual

associated with interim supply. The committee now considers that the procedure

will be easily understood by everyone. Where in the past, as I recall, we went

through some 18 different procedures in arriving at the final result, we have

managed to recommend that these be reduced to 4.

The rules relating to a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose

of discussing a matter of urgent public importance have been improved

dramatically. This is number 35. Over the period of 50 years, from I

guess about 1931 to this time, although the standing order has been

utilized many times, the debate has been allowed only a handful of

times. We suggest to this House that what we have done will change that

considerably.

Appeals from the Speaker's decisions have been abolished, which puts

our House in step with the most progressive parliaments in the

Commonwealth. No serious student of parliamentary law could suggest, or

would suggest, such appeals be continued, and our committee had little

difficulty in agreeing that such appeals be abolished.

The ancient Committee of Ways and Means has been abolished,

simplifying the procedure for the introduction and passage of message

bills. Members will be interested to know that this committee was

abolished many years ago in the British House of Commons.

Time limits on speeches have been shortened, which I am sure will be

a change welcomed by not only the general public but the members.

The daily oral question period has been enshrined in the standing orders for the first time in the history of this province.

There is provision in the standing orders to refer bills and estimates to select

standing committees. The new standing order numbers, if you wish to read them,

are 78A and 60A.

The rules relating to the bringing of a witness before a committee of the House have been clarified.

Procedures relating to filing of petitions with the House have been

streamlined. Hon. members might be interested to know that I have had

occasion to do a little bit of research on some of these things, and

one of the oldest things in the British parliamentary system has been

the filing of petitions. I have found that petitions were filed as long

ago as the early part of the fourteenth century and that the methods

for the filing of these petitions required in those days that they be

although there was no requirement that you be a citizen in order to

file a petition.

[2:45]

Even to this day in the House of Commons in London there is a large green baize

bag which hangs on the Speaker's chair in which the petitions are placed

when they are presented to the House. In the

article I read, the gentleman who

wrote it stated that when your petition reached this point, it was surely "in

the bag."

Private bills practice has been completely revamped and simplified. There are

ten practice recommendations contained in the report, which while not technically

binding on the House will be extremely persuasive. If I could summarize the

impact of the practice recommendations, they tend to encourage consultation

and the giving of notice prior to taking action in the House. For instance,

consultation is encouraged in practice recommendations numbers 3 and 6, and

the courtesy of notice is encouraged in practice recommendations numbers 7,

8 and 9.

The portion of the report dealing with radio and television

broadcasting of debates speaks for itself. The Saskatchewan model looks

like the best in the country, and with further

[ Page

4915 ]

information and study such a system might well be suitable for installation in our Legislature.

Like the radio and TV coverage, the matter of members' services is

adequately described in the report. Further detailed discussion will be

possible when the necessary legislation comes before the House.

I believe the recommendations we have made in respect to the rules

and procedures represent a significant step towards ensuring that our

Legislature functions and operates in an efficient and practical

manner. The changes, and there are a hundred or more, were considered

carefully and at great length. While they are substantive and

far-reaching in nature, I believe they will be beneficial and serve the

best interests of our parliament and the people of British Columbia.

As an institution parliament must consider and adopt changes in its

traditions and practices with great care, to ensure that the rights of

its members and the constituents they represent are not eroded and

harmed in any way. This we have done. I repeat that the committee's

endorsement of its recommendations was unanimous, but the ultimate

decision on adoption of them in part or totally rests with this

Legislature.

Let me add one final word of caution. While I believe the rule

changes recommended by this committee bring our assembly into line with

the most progressive parliaments in the Commonwealth, it is the members

themselves who will ultimately determine whether or not the new rules

work.

The committee has built a comprehensive and well-balanced framework

within which all members have ample opportunity to express their views.

If we all have the will to serve the great institution of parliament,

these standing orders provide the way.

I would like to say I've been proud to chair this committee during what

has been a long and involved process, and to offer my grateful thanks to its

members: to the hon. government House Leader, to the hon. opposition House Leader,

to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), to the hon. Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), to the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose),

to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), to our Deputy Speaker

and to the government Whip. I would also like to express my thanks to Mr. E.

George MacMinn, QC, Deputy Clerk of this House, who was so helpful in all of

our deliberations. Finally, but certainly not least, I would like to thank Virginia

Adrian, who acted as our secretary.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments to make

with respect to the motion before us and the endorsement of the

committee's report. I would advise those who are interested that, from

what we can gather, these new rules may be upon us within a matter of

two to three weeks. It would, I think, behoove hon. members to pay

extreme and close attention to what the committee has developed and

what it is recommending, because these rules will be upon us and we'll

have to function under them. There will be a tendency, as I know from

personal experience from another House, to remember what it used to be

like rather than what in fact it is under the new rules.

Of course, Mr. Speaker should be the one who pays the greatest amount of attention,

because there will be demands upon him to ensure that the new rules are dealt

with and understood by all. I hope that, if errors are committed in the course

of our conduct with respect to abiding by the new rules, Mr. Speaker will in

his usual gentle fashion take account of the fact that some of us in this chamber

are slow learners and may not be able to immediately grasp the significance

of those new rules.

I want to join with the chairman of the committee in paying tribute

to my colleague on the committee from the New Democratic Party, the

member for Coquitlam-Moody. He came to the first meeting of the

committee — or the second, the first meeting was perhaps the

organizational one — with a statement of objectives to reform the

British Columbia Legislative Assembly. The objectives outlined in that

document were paid attention to by the committee in the development of

its ideas and in the resolution of its proposals with respect to

changes in the rules.

Some of the objectives outlined by the member for Coquitlam-Moody

could not be dealt with by the committee precisely because they went

beyond what the committee would have to deal with. For instance, no

matter how the rules are structured or what words are contained within

them, the rules are not going to create interest by better debate.

What's going to create interest by better debate are the individual

members in this assembly, no matter what the rules are.

In that regard, I also want to pay tribute to my seat-mate, the

leader of the New Democratic Party caucus, for his publicly declared

initiative in talking about the spirit that should prevail in this

assembly and in the relationships between elements within the assembly,

the essence of that spirit being cooperation and working to serve the

public interest.

From my point of view, one of the most significant moves made by the

committee was not so much in the proposed new rules themselves as in

the development of what the chairman of the committee referred to as

the "practice recommendations." The most significant of those practice

recommendations were the ones that identified the need for a

consultative process to take place. Consultation between government,

which we all know under the proposed rules and under the old rules —

and it has been this way for a long long period of time.... As we all

know, government is the power. Government has the authority over the

Legislature. Government is supreme. It is government's decision what

items will be called for debate. It is government's decision whether or

not anything will be referred to committees, and if so, what. The

Legislature simply responds. So long as we have the rigidity of party

votes — which I think should be reduced as much as we possibly can —

government remains supreme over the whole of things.

So the consultation process is thereby proposed to be between government and

other members of the chamber. I look forward to those. For a long time, as long

as I was in the federal House, I felt very tuned in to the policy and practice

there of consultation, of working together, of doing with respect to the orderliness

of the proceedings of the House and what's to be dealt with during what

times, and whether there are to be time limitations, or whatever, and that that

is worked out beforehand. Then government simply says, "Here is what has

been agreed to," with respect to whatever item it might be. So those proposals

are the most significant, as far as I am concerned. We'll do whatever we

can to work in that direction and to see that the consultation process results

in something meaningful so that this assembly serves the interests of the general

public.

I give you an example whereby.... Again, look to another

jurisdiction — another jurisdiction, incidentally, which, by virtue of

the proposed changes, will no longer be available for us to look at in

terms of procedural authorities.

[ Page 4916 ]

I'm talking of the great bulk of work, by people we loosely refer to as

"Beauchesne" or "Alistair Fraser," on proceedings in the

House of Commons at Ottawa. Nonetheless, we can take cognizance of some practices

that exist there. I think it would be extremely valuable, not only for this

chamber but for the general public who may want to make representations to members

of this chamber, if we could develop the practice that exists in Ottawa of having

some initial consultation about the business of the House, and then, on a Thursday

evening before the adjournment, having the government House Leader rise in his

place — as exists in Ottawa after many years of practice — and announce to the

public and to the assembly the business to be dealt with in the coming week,

subject always to availability of ministers or emergencies. That's taken

into account. To make that kind of announcement, so there's an expectation

of some orderliness in the coming week, and then also to be available any evening,

if necessary, to reconfirm the business on the coming day, that would help

tremendously.

[3:00]

One of the difficulties that attends itself with respect to the level of debate

in this House has arisen because of earlier days — and, I think, particularly

the session of the Legislature in 1983 — and that is the complete unpredictability

of what was going to be brought before the Legislature. Members simply had no

idea, in many instances, until they actually got here, sat down and found out

what was to be called for business. That, I know from experience, was a frustrating

experience to members on all sides. Frustration, in the normal psychology of

the human being, begets aggression. Sometimes the aggression is visited upon

fellow members in their own party, sometimes it was within cabinet. I know.

Sometimes it was within ourselves and sometimes it was across the floor. But

it did not add anything to the level of rational, reasonable, conversational

debate. I hope that what I can only classify as the stupidity that took place

in 1983 does not visit itself upon us again. The obligation, in the sense of

dealing with what the rules contain, of dealing with the force of the practice

recommendations, is going to rest with government, because government has the

initiating power as to what will be dealt with, not any other members. No private

member has that ability. Only the government through the government House Leader

has the authority and the power to do certain things and to call certain business,

whatever it might be. If government acts in that regard in a respectful and

responsible manner — and I don't doubt that it will — then the assembly

will respond in kind. The level of debate will be elevated. The rationale for

supporting or not supporting particular measures will be based on reasonableness

and consideration for the value to the general public.

The committee has done, I submit, whatever it could do to assist in

setting that kind of tone. The committee did the best that it could.

Naturally we didn't always meet eye to eye on every subject, because we

were acting as individuals, each trying from his own perspective to see

what might be acceptable or unacceptable. Out of it all came what I

think is the tone, the ideal and the direction.

Following upon that, the ball — and I don't say this to in any way

shirk responsibility — is in the government's court, to act in kind and

to respond favourably to the tone set by the committee. I look forward

to that. If the government will treat this assembly with the decency

and respect that is due it, then it will be treating the general public

with decency and respect, because we represent the general public. The

assembly will reply in kind and we will have a much better level of

conversational-type debate in this chamber than has been the case since

I came back into it in 1979. My hopes are high that the tone set by the

committee will be acceptable to government and will be responded to in

a favourable way by government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would very much like to compliment the two speakers

and the observations they have made today. I think that everyone in this House

will agree that there is no doubt in the public mind that anything that parliamentarians

and legislators can do to promote more light and less heat in their assemblies

would certainly be in the public interest.

The general public are perhaps not aware of this, and I think it

bears stating for the record that the standing orders of an assembly

would certainly not be at the top of anyone's "go to bed" reading list.

But they are a very important ingredient in the parliamentary

democratic process. They govern the operation of a legislature. They

are its own laws, much in the same fashion as the laws of Canada or,

indeed, of our province. They come from two sources too: first, the

constitutional and legislative; second, judicial decisions or case law.

Similarly, we too in this assembly have our book of rules which

establish the parameters of the process of dealing with the business of

the public. Where these standing orders are silent or where they are

open to

interpretation, then parliamentary case laws apply — that is,

the precedents that have been established by past rulings of the

Speakers of the British Columbia House and by Speakers of the British

parliament at Westminster, plus the customs or practices of the

assembly.

There's no question of the great value in the certainty and the

wisdom and the clarity gained from the past experience, but we must

appreciate that parliamentary rules are not static. They are dynamic

and are subject to temperate modification and effective change to

reflect the mores of the present. Parliament, along with the courts,

the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, plus a free

press, are really the foundations of a free and democratic society.

Each of them is very deserving of, but has to earn, public respect.

Those institutions and democracy are all best served when that public

respect occurs. We do know that democracy is a very fragile thread. I

am referring to the fact that acquiring public respect requires

constant effort. From the perspective of public respect today in our

country, our courts art most highly regarded, with parliament,

legislatures and the press being quite distant cousins — the order of

which I certainly leave for the judgment of others to determine. But we

all feel and we all hope that the amendments that have been proposed

today by the Chairman of this committee will be of assistance and

indeed will serve to increase that respect.

There's no question that it's high time for some updating. As the

first speaker stated, our standing orders were established in 1873.

Some remedial work was done in the late thirties. Except for some minor

changes in the late seventies they have not really been dealt with

since. It has taken 55 years, and I think the new proposals are a good

product. I would like to join in thanks to all members of the committee

and also to all members of the assembly who did have an interest in the

rule changes and who did contribute their views. Most certainly I would

echo the sentiments to E. George MacMinn, QC, our Deputy Clerk, whose

patience and commitment was invaluable. Indeed I would further like

[ Page

4917 ]

to express our gratitude to legislative counsel, Mr. Herb Thornton.

I'm personally pleased that the committee considered the desirability and

feasibility of televising or broadcasting some or all of the debates — an electronic

Hansard to enhance the public's access to and awareness of the province's

public business. In my view, Mr. Speaker, I think this would also serve to improve

the standard and relevance of debate. But there is no question, as the report

has indicated, that a number of technical and cost issues and guidelines require

more detailed consideration prior to final resolution. So I would say the committee

still has some work in front of it.

I would also respectfully suggest that the new time factors may

result in better researched and better delivered talks and perhaps

serve to obviate that rather delightfully articulate criticism by

Winston Churchill in referring to a political adversary as "having the

gift of compressing the smallest amount of thought into the greatest

number of words of any man that I know."

I think the committee took its task from the premise as to how the public could

be better served, how the business of the House could be better attended to

and how this assembly could better achieve the respect of the public for now

and for the future. All of those concepts are really highly interwoven.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker: in my view, the result is a good one. There will be

some growing pains. There may well be a requirement for some adjustment, and

there will be a requirement for more work.

I would like to conclude by restating that the House has never made

any secret of its very strong philosophical differences. They are still

present today. They are continuing, and some are mighty fundamental.

Those differences, which are survivable only in a democratic

parliament, carry with them an additional responsibility — that is, the

obligation to the general public to furnish effective government and

effective opposition.

I indeed compliment our Chairman. The occasion is a noble step

towards reaffirming this Legislature's commitment to better provide

good, effective and relevant methods for doing the people's business.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a couple of words on one topic.

I'd also like to say to the House Leader that it's all very well to

talk about shorter speeches, but it takes much longer to prepare a short speech

than a long one.

I do hope that the MLAs will have more work in the future in this House, and

I therefore applaud the approach towards referring estimates to a committee.

I think it's going to be even more important when there are 12 extra MLAs

in this Legislature. Often in Committee of Supply there are three or four people

sitting here, and it's a waste of time. The other aspect of it is that if

you do refer them to a working committee, that committee can hear the deputy

minister or the person who is in charge of a program and perhaps do some constructive

non-partisan work in terms of solution-finding. I think the MLAs will work harder

under that system. And I hope the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), if it's

to be this one, will encourage the use of that rule, particularly in the kind

of estimate problems where a lot of in-depth research and solution-finding is

appropriate. So that's a good change. It's an approach I've long believed

in, and I hope it will be used.

MR. DAVIS: This is essential legislation and it's long

overdue. There is only one area in which I have any comment to make.

Really I agree with all of it, with one possible exception: the

appointment of parliamentary secretaries. I think the government should

be able to appoint parliamentary secretaries, but in a small House like

this, especially in a House with a large cabinet, the appointment of

parliamentary secretaries further limits the number of back-benchers on

the government side. I think that's a concern.

I happen to have been a parliamentary secretary. I was parliamentary secretary

to Lester Pearson from 1962 to 1967. I know firsthand that if you're a parliamentary

secretary to a minister you'd better not be making statements anywhere in

public in the area of responsibility of that minister. Clearly parliamentary

secretaries' freedom to express their own personal or independent constituency

opinion is limited. If they're a parliamentary secretary to the Premier,

they are limited absolutely. That is a concern, and I would hope therefore that

the numbers of people appointed as parliamentary secretaries will be limited.

I personally would prefer that an increase in pay go to chairmen of committees

rather than to positions such as parliamentary secretaries.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[3:15]

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 47 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.

COMMODITY CONTRACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 43 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.

EXPO 86 CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 44 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. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 36.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move second reading of Bill 36, Financial Information

Act, and look forward to responding to some specific questions when the bill,

hopefully, is referred to committee.

[ Page 4918 ]

This statute, or more correctly its predecessor, was originally

passed in 1961. It was then called the Public Bodies Financial

Information Act. The name of the statute was changed to the Financial

Information Act in 1979 when the Revised Statutes

of the province were published. Over the course of the past 24 years no

major changes to the statute have been made, and I'm sure members will

agree that that has caused it to become considerably outdated.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to disclose to the public

financial information in respect of those public bodies set out in the

statute: for example, schools, universities, hospitals, local

government and selected Crown corporations. I'll have a little more to

say about the adjective "selected" in a moment.

The new act has been developed following an extensive study of the

present legislation, and this involved dealing with the more than 400

public bodies to which the bill applies. The large number of public

bodies covered by the legislation arises from a very wide range of

entities governed by the provincial statutes. I refer the House to the

schedule 1 list. Specific corporations are listed in

schedule 2.

The major changes proposed by this legislation focus primarily on

improving disclosure to the public we serve in three important ways:

including organizations which came into existence after the passage of

the original legislation and which are therefore not presently subject

to the act — an example is the British Columbia Development

Corporation, and there are others which will be apparent to the

members; secondly, improving access by providing statutory provision

for making information to be disclosed more readily available to the

public; and thirdly, requiring the establishment of internal government

procedures for the administration of the act. The measure also provides

for raising the reporting levels for expenses, thereby reducing the

cost of compliance to the public body without, we believe, compromising

the basic information required to be disclosed by the existing

legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, the act is a continuation of initiatives aimed at

improving the public awareness of government financial administration.

Quite apart from discussion or debate in principle, I may be able to

assist members of the House when we move the bill to committee. I think

the important point is that it is an updating of legislation which has

proven itself to be valuable over time to the public, and I see no

the people of British Columbia.

I move second reading.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to compliment the minister and the government

on bringing forward this legislation. It does show that at times the government

does listen to members from the opposition. Just by pure coincidence I happen

to have a Hansard extract of the debates dated August 25, 1983, when the hon.

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), currently the Leader of the Opposition and

soon to be, we hope, Premier of the province of British Columbia, was speaking

in second reading on Bill M203. He expressed the same concern about the number

of public authorities that were not covered under the old legislation, and the

minister said in his opening remarks that they weren't covered because when

this act became law these organizations just didn't exist, and of course

nobody had done anything to clean up the situation since. So the minister is

now including everything that I can imagine we have that's worth reporting

on but is also leaving the door open for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

add more as they are created, and that's good. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

doesn't have the authority to delete but does have the authority to add,

and I compliment him on that.

The opposition is pleased to have this endorsation of the bill put

forward by the hon. member for Alberni some two years ago and certainly

will support it in its passage through the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for

Nanaimo. I was not aware of Bill M203. I'm sure I was at the time.

Nonetheless this should be seen as an extension of financial reporting

reform, which this government has undertaken since 1976 — indeed, since

the period immediately preceeding December 1975, when we indicated,

among other things, that we would have an auditor general in the

province of British Columbia.

The member is quite correct in terms of the ability of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from time to time to add to the list,

and it seems to me that that is a useful mechanism. I don't believe

that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council should have the right to

delete, but at least that will clear the legislative calendar in the

context of this bill, as it is found appropriate to add some other

provincial or public body to the list on the schedules which have been

discussed.

I thank the member for his remarks, and I move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 36, Financial Information Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

after today.

[3:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Second reading of Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading

of Bill 41, the Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985, which makes provision

for the creation of a real estate foundation. This foundation will be

wholly financed by interest on general trust accounts of real estate

agents and will fund projects and programs that will benefit the public

in matters relating to real estate in this province.

As the hon. members are aware, Mr. Speaker, real estate agents are currently

required, under the Real Estate Act, to place in trust all money held for or

received on behalf of a client. Because of their position as trustees, agents

are prohibited from earning any interest themselves on the trust moneys they

hold. As a result, all such funds retained by an agent must be placed in one

or two types of trust accounts: either a separate trust account opened in the

name of the client, in which case the client receives any interest earned on

the funds; or in the agent's general, non-interest-bearing trust account.

Separate client trust accounts are rarely opened in non-commercial transactions,

because the amount of money deposited is so small and the length of time it

is to be held is so short that the interest earned would be less than the cost

of setting up a separate account. Thus the majority of deposits in

[ Page

4919 ]

residential transactions are placed in the agent's

general trust account, which generates no interest either to the

individual involved or to the agent himself.

The proposed amendments to the Real Estate Act require agents to

maintain their general trust accounts in interest-bearing accounts and

would require the interest earned on those accounts to be paid to the

established real estate foundation, thus activating those funds in the

public interest. The foundation would use this money for real estate

related good works, such as public and professional education programs.

Because the public, rather than the real estate industry, would be the

beneficiary of the interest earned on these accounts, the position of

agents as trustees would not be compromised.

Any deposits likely to generate a significant amount of interest

would continue to be placed in separate trust accounts where that

interest would accrue to the benefit of the individual client, rather

than to the foundation. So we are not taking anything away from an

individual who, because of the amount involved or because of the time

the funds would be held, would normally direct the agent to set up a

separate trust account for that money. It would earn interest, and the

individual would be paid interest; that will still continue. What we're

really addressing is the non-interest-earning money that at the present

time sits in a bank account and is of no value to anyone except, I

guess it's fair to say, possibly the banks who would have the use of

that money without cost.

The funds available to the foundation would be in the range, depending on,

of course, the activity in the real estate market.... It is anticipated

that the range would be between $500,000 and $1 million per year. That's

a sizeable amount of money, but though the individual account would be quite

small, when accumulated it adds up to a fair amount of money which could be

put to good work.

Administration of the fund would be conducted by a five-member board

consisting of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or his

appointee, a person other than a real estate licensee appointed by the

minister — in other words a person not engaged in the real estate field

— and one representative from each of the following: the Real Estate

Association, the Real Estate Council and the Real Estate Institute.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a proportion of the revenues accruing to the

proposed foundation will be used in programs where they will serve to

offset the costs that would otherwise have to be met by the taxpayers.

It will be up to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to

provide direction as to how and when these funds will be spent.

In

summary, this bill provides a means for activating interest that

is not currently paid to the public or to the real estate industry, and

for putting it to work on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

With those comments, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is opposed to this bill

in principle. We initially thought that in itself the bill had some

salutary aspects, but it has a number of problems which we find

accumulate to such a serious extent that we cannot support it in

principle in its present form.

Let me explain to the minister why we cannot offer our support at this time.

The question of funds being placed with real estate agents in their companies'

trust accounts is a narrow commercial aspect. In other words, it involves the

conveyancing of land only. We cannot equate the law foundation's use of

trust funds in lawyers' accounts, which amounts to large amounts of money,

with the legislation that the minister has asked us to accept. First of all,

the governance of real estate agents is governed by a statute that is designed

specifically for their operations in the real estate field; it does not cover

those self-governing provisions that will allow for the kind of oversight,

if you like, supervision of trust funds for public good. Although we do not

question that the motive is good and the result may be beneficial, our understanding

of the practice of placing in the hands of real estate agents what really are

deposit moneys for people wanting to buy houses....

It is the practice that if there are even relatively small amounts,

many would-be vendors are requesting that they be placed in

interest-bearing accounts, particularly since 1983. Housing transfers

have been few, and the deals, if you like, or the contracts, for the

purchase of lands and premises are slow in being processed because of

the numbers of conditions placed on interim agreements; so currently —

I'm not saying this will always be the case — moneys are held by real

estate agents for a very lengthy period of time. It is for that reason

that many would-be purchasers are asking for the moneys to be placed in

interest-bearing accounts. There has to be some assurances that these

clients, if you like, these purchasers, will be informed, almost as of

a right, that in these circumstances they can have interest on the

moneys they are placing with the real estate agents and their

companies. Otherwise it becomes a form of tax on purchasers of land. If

they're not informed initially of what happens or what they're entitled

to, it may perhaps be just an involuntary acquiescence, the funds going

into the general trust accounts interest-bearing for these real estate

companies.

The second aspect, which causes us perhaps even more concern, is the

very loose objective stated in the bill with respect to the foundation

or the charitable corporate entity, if you like, that will be

dispensing these funds. We would like to know more about the purposes;

whether initially we can assure ourselves that these funds, which are

really in the form of public funds at this stage.... The benefits of

interest from trust funds really become public funds, and the

government, in its wisdom, is proposing that these funds be at least

partially directed by the real estate representative group for its own

purposes and good works. We would like more assurances that that's

going to happen. We would like to know how that's going to happen. I

think there is provision. The minister can look at the Law Foundation

funds, which go for educational and artistic purposes at large. The

guidelines are well published; financial reports are well known; there

is a diversity of interest; and there are no narrow interests to which

these funds are going to be put. So we can say as a Legislature that

these are legitimate public purposes.

It is not enough to say that the minister has assurances that this is what is

going to happen. It is not enough to say that the minister has control under

the act, which he's asking for. He wants power to direct or approve how

these funds are going to be used. Although I trust this minister to make the

kinds of judgments that will be beneficial to the greatest number of people

in the community, before we delegate that authority to the minister we want

assurances that there are guidelines that can be attached — that something added

to the bill, essentially in principle, will be an overview principle of how

these funds are to be expended, in the judgment not only of the minister but

of the public at large. That's how these public funds, which they really

are, should be used. It is for that reason that on principle we're not supporting

the bill.

[ Page 4920 ]

We think that the bill as presented to this Legislature is inadequate. It's

vague in its purpose. There's not enough accountability to the public, not

enough requirement on the government or the real estate organization that will

be dealing with these funds. There's not enough responsibility to this Legislature

or to the public at large for how the funds are to be used. If we leave these

kinds of powers to the government through the minister and to this organization,

it will give the opportunity — and I'm not suggesting that there would be

— of abuse. If we could stop that and characterize this project more carefully

and more clearly, certainly the opposition would then support such a bill. But

at this stage we cannot.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I won't be speaking very long on this.

However, I do speak in support of our own member's position: that is,

in opposition to the bill. I do so for this reason. At my hoary age, I

have had the opportunity to buy and sell a number of properties.

Frequently it's required that if I make an offer on a property, or if

somebody makes an offer to buy my property should I have any left, then

that is usually accompanied by a deposit. The deposit usually comes

from his or my bank account, depending upon which way the transaction

is occurring. It comes out of a bank account that usually carries a

daily interest adjustment, and I get the benefit of daily interest on

that money if I leave it in the bank. If I take it out of the bank and

make an offer — let's say a thousand dollars — on a piece of property

and I'm required to give a thousand-dollar deposit to show my good

faith, of course I'm not making any money in daily interest on the

thousand dollars which I have tendered the real estate company. Now if

I am rather naive and unschooled in these matters, I might not know

that the real estate company can take my money, a deposit cheque in

trust, and put it in their own trust account, which is interest-bearing.

Under this bill it will be of benefit, not necessarily to an

individual agent but of benefit to the real estate industry, to use it

for its own purposes under the direction of the board or council

established by the minister and under the approval of the minister. But

I don't think that alters the fact that that's really my money. I'd be

much happier with a law that we would be considering here which would

require an agent, upon the receipt of a deposit in trust, to advise the

depositor or the prospective purchaser that he has the option of

putting that money in an interest-bearing deposit account to his

benefit rather than to the benefit of any real estate company or any

real estate agent.

I really feel that it is wrong in principle, because it is only the ignorance

of the prospective purchaser, who in this case becomes a depositor, which will

allow any money whatsoever to accrue to the Real Estate Council, for whatever

worthy purposes they deem to use it. They may plan to use it for education,

or maybe training schools for real estate agents — I don't know the purposes,

and I assume they may be worthy. The last thing I want to be accused of, Mr.

Speaker.... Some of my best friends are real estate agents. It's not

an attack on the industry. The industry is important in our province. It provides

a valuable service, and the criticism we place here is in no way related to

any reluctance we have about or any grievance we might have with the real estate

industry. That's not the point at all. The real point of principle here

is that it is only because of the ignorance of those people who forward a deposit,

and therefore are denied the interest on that money while it is in the trust

account, that any money at all will accrue to the real estate industry.

[3:45]

I think that instead of having and considering a bill such as this,

which in effect takes the public's money, which they know nothing

about, awarding it to a particular council for a particular segment of

society, we should instead have a requirement upon all real estate

agents, upon receipt of deposit, to advise prospective purchasers that

they have the option to have that money held in a trust account which

is interest-bearing and to the benefit of the purchaser, or the

depositor.

MR. REE: I think this legislation is good, and I support it.

My two colleagues, or the previous speakers — I should say "colleagues

from this side of the House," although I don't share the same political

philosophy as the people on this side of the House — have done a bit of

an analogy of the trust account being set up with that of a system of

interest being paid on deposits in solicitors' accounts. The real

estate industry, like lawyers, does receive money from time to time for

deposit in trust. The real estate industry receives it, certainly in

most instances, as a deposit on the purchase or the sale of property.

Lawyers receive it for other purposes. The moneys quite often are

flowing in and out of the trust accounts daily because of the

multiplicity of clients that the moneys are being held for.

Historically, solicitors with large deposits would, when they knew the

large deposits were going to be held for a long time, recommend to

their clients that they be put in a segregated trust account to bear

interest. Responsible real estate agents have done the same.

But there are many funds in real estate offices and in solicitors'

offices — where the moneys are held for a short period of time, or the

size of the deposit does not really warrant an overnight segregated

trust account interest arrangement — that are flowing back and forth in

these accounts. The time, trouble, cost and effort to segregate it into

an interest-bearing trust account is far greater than the interest that

would have been earned. When you add all of the real estate companies —

and all the lawyers — in the province that have trust accounts and this

type of daily flowing of trust moneys, the quantum becomes extra large,

and has in the past generated considerable interest which has not gone

for the benefit of the public but of the banks.

I commend this type of legislation because with this control — this interest

being earned on these flowing trust deposits — these moneys will not be going

for the benefit of the bank; they'll be going for the benefit of the public,

through better education of the members of the real estate industry or through

improvements for the protection of the public. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker,

that I will certainly support this bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll just make a few comments. I think my

colleague from North Vancouver–Capilano summed it up quite well. In my

opening remarks I mentioned that clients of real estate agents have the

opportunity at the present time and would still have the opportunity to

direct their agent to put the funds in an interest-bearing deposit

account. It's fair to say that if the amount involved is material,

agents would, I think, as good businessmen, recommend to their client

that that money should be placed in an interest-bearing account rather

than into their general account where neither the agent nor the client

benefits. The only benefactor is the banks. As I say, the member for

North Vancouver–Capilano summed it up quite well.

[ Page

4921 ]

With regard to the member for Coquitlam–Port Moody (Mr. Rose), who

was opposed, I think he recognizes the validity of this type of

approach of trying to take money idle at the present time and put it to

good use. Under the legislation in existence now, the real estate agent

can't earn interest as an individual himself on general trust accounts.

There is no need for him to advise the client to put the money in a

trust account where it would earn interest for the client, but he does

so at the present time. As good business practice, as I said earlier,

he would continue to do so.

If we were going to follow the member for Port Moody's argument that

we should have some sort of law that directs agents to put money in

trust accounts so all clients would be paid, we would probably find, in

a number of the cases where these amounts are small or are in for only

a short period of time, that the cost of administering those individual

interest-bearing trust accounts would be far greater than the revenue

which was going to the individual from the trust account.

I can say to the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is also

opposed, that although he didn't question our motive — and I thank him

for that — he was concerned about the type of use the money would be

put to. I think it is fairly clear in

section 18 what the money is to

be used for and the involvement.... It's not just for the benefit of

"real estate" or people involved in the real estate industry but for

the benefit and education of the public with regard to real estate

matters. I think the act is quite clear. I do not think it's vague in

its purpose, as the member for Vancouver Centre said. I think it is a

piece of legislation that's been needed for some time. As I said, Mr.

Speaker, it makes funds available that can be used in the public good

with regard to education and information rather than having it sit idle

or sitting there interest-free or cost-free to the banking community.

With those comments, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 41, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985, 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. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: The bill is, I hope, the first of a number of pieces

of legislation that we'll be bringing in to implement some of the recommendations

of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. The Law Reform Commission

is a very credible, hard-working and erudite but unsung body. It has proposed

many good changes over the years in civil law, particularly in the commercial

field. They've tried to show us legislation that needs modernizing. For

instance, sections 7 and 8 amend the Law and Equity Act and after the Statute

of Frauds, which is a piece of legislation that has bound us for over 300 years.

When it was passed, that legislation was supposed to prevent fraud by making

it impossible for people to transact in land without their agreements being

in writing. Unfortunately, over the years, due to the diligence of the legal

profession, that statute was used to assist people in backing out of agreements

untainted by fraud more than it was used to prevent and protect fraud. So the

changes that we are proposing here are the same changes that the Law Reform

Commission recommended to us and will provide a more workable, up-to-date legislative

model.

You will also notice that

section 5 deals with agreements for sale, which is

another long-overdue reform. It basically puts an agreement for sale on the

same footing as a mortgage in a foreclosure. Under the old law a person who

is a purchaser under an agreement for sale was always at a disadvantage to a

mortgagor. He was frozen and fixed in his remedies, and he never had the benefit

of the six-month redemption period that all mortgagors did. He found that if

he wanted to extend his redemption period, which was usually three months and

not six, the court had no power to extend it, and the court also had no power

to reopen a final order. This kind of inequity has existed in the law and has

frustrated commercial transactions and frustrated the consumer in the case

of people who had to purchase property subject to an agreement for sale. By

recommending these changes to us, the Law Reform Commission is helping us to

improve our law and make it more meaningful.

I'm also pleased with sections 11, 12 and 13, which repeal in

entirety the Bulk Sales Act — I'll allow some time for unrestrained

desk-thumping. The Bulk Sales Act repeal should really have a major

impact in reducing the legal costs which have to be borne in the

purchase and sale of a business and the transfer of business assets.

It's a really important piece of commercial deregulation. I know that

the member for Vancouver Centre and I will both be pleased at the

passing of this legislation. While it may be the end for some of the

activity in some of the law firms in preparing these very lengthy,

cumbersome and useless declarations which we have all had to wade

through in our years in practice, I think that this will be

particularly welcome to small businessmen.

I should also introduce to the Legislature Mr. Arthur Close, who is on the

floor of the House and who is the chairman of the Law Reform Commission of British

Columbia. I have assured Mr. Close and his commission that I will try to regularly

bring to this Legislature useful and practical recommendations from his commission.

It wasn't that we didn't appreciate his recommendations in the past;

it was that they seemed to get sidetracked in the legislative program. I think

it's important that each year we bring forward some of them and do them.

This is what we're doing today in an omnibus bill. That's all I propose

to say by way of my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker. I'd be glad to deal with

sections of the bill later.

[4:00]

MR. LAUK: The opposition is going to support this bill. It's

commendable. We think that it's a good precedent for the

Attorney-General to bring in these bills from time to time, but in a

seasonable way and not constantly ignoring the law reform

commissioner's recommendations. I am instructed that the commissioner

has received input from members of the bar and those practising in

these areas and that these matters have all been well canvassed — so

that no hidden problems arise. I am putting that on as a rider, like a

warning from the Surgeon-General. But we certainly support the

amendments with respect to infant contracts, the long overdue making an

agreement for sale have the same redemption qualities as a mortgage,

and so on.

We do have a question, though, Mr Attorney-General, with respect to

section 16(5), an application to the public trustee. This causes me

some concern. Our experience with the public trustee in the practice is

not what we'd call salutary

[ Page 4922 ]

at the best of times. They seem to be understaffed. It is the view of some

that decisions are made by the public trustee and the public trustee's staff

that are not always in the interests of the infants involved or of those, say,

who come under the Patients Property Act, and so on. I would not like to see

the public trustee have the kind of judicial power, if you like, to make the

kind of decision the commissioner in his wisdom has recommended that judges

make — and it's all carefully set out for the judge. That's a judicial

proceeding where debate is heard, argument is heard, submissions are made and

evidence can be gathered. I don't think that simply because the issue of

an infant contract arises underneath the purview of the public trustee that

he should be given these fairly sweeping powers with respect to infant contracts.

I looked carefully at the bill and I see no provision for an appeal

other than by an infant who wants to be involved in a contract. Pardon

me. "Where...the public trustee refuses to grant capacity or ratify a

contract in respect of which the application was made, an application

for review on behalf of the infant may be made to the court...." I am

assuming that if the infant is under the guidance of the public trustee

he could only make such an application through the public trustee. That

puzzles me. And there are other problems with that. I don't think that

that particular

section can be supported, but I don't need answers now.

I would like to respectfully request that the Attorney-General inform

himself on that section, because we will be raising that vigorously

during committee debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: I just want to say that the infant's position

vis-a-vis the public trustee should not give the member concern,

because if an infant wasn't granted capacity by the public trustee, he

could get to the court not by appealing the public trustee's refusal

but by going to the court directly through a guardian ad litem, as I

understand it. The application would be made to the court on behalf of

the infant by a guardian at litem.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I will be pleased to deal with it in committee. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 42 to a Committee

of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave not granted.

Bill 42, Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985, 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. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Bill 33 encompasses a number of amendments to the

Mental Health Act. Generally they would clarify various procedures under the

current act and ensure consistency in the practices at provincially operated

mental health facilities and at the relatively newer psychiatric units of public

hospitals. There are some new

definitions which have been added which would

parallel authority granted to various people in charge of such facilities throughout

the province. It would also permit the minister to exempt a class of patients

from the specific daily charges which are levied for treatment. An example would

be patients who have been committed involuntarily or those who receive one of

the various allowances of the Ministry of Human Resources.

There are also amendments in this Mental Health Amendment Act, 1985,

which make it clear that various committees do have specific

authorities. It would provide protection against liability to those who

take

part in review panels. It would also clarify a situation with

respect to two physicians having the capacity to sign certificates for

an involuntary patient. There has been a disagreement in law with

respect to whether two physicians who work in the same area have the

capacity to co-sign such a certificate, and that's being clarified.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We have also made amendments to a

section of the act which would permit hearings

by a three-member review panel to be held into the continued detention of an

involuntarily admitted patient after the patient has been held for 30 days.

In addition they have the right to appeal their involuntary admission to the

supreme court. The review panel process is more commonly used, and the amendment

would also provide that there be a 90-day period of time after a first review

before a subsequent review, although the chairman of the panel could shorten

such a period of time should new information become available to him.

In addition, various procedures which are conducted in public

hospital psychiatric units will be brought in line with those which now

apply to provincial mental health facilities — such as a patient on

leave, or continuing the authority for the patient's detention where

the patient is on leave.

One new

section would enable jailed prisoners and inmates of child

care resources who are admitted under the Mental Health Act to use the

provisions of the appeal to the supreme court.

In addition, we have made alterations with respect to those patients who are

transferred to British Columbia from other provinces. There was a question of

whether jurisdiction occurs at the time of transfer across the border or at

the time the patient reaches the facility.

And finally, we have made some modifications with respect to the

forms of warrants which are required to apprehend escaped patients or

dangerous mentally disordered persons so that such a warrant would

apply on a provincewide basis. Again, the lawyers had found what they

thought could be some bit of difficulty.

It's difficult to speak on second reading without going into the

details, because the bill is primarily descriptive in its own specific

amendments to each section. Perhaps a better understanding will be

available when we debate the sections in committee. I move second

reading.

MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I agree with the minister that we

can best deal with this in committee stage, but I would like to make a

few general remarks before we move to that stage.

First of all I want to thank the minister for the courtesy extended

to me yesterday in taking time to go through these new amendments. I

certainly appreciated it. Since then, of

[ Page

4923 ]

course, I've had time to look at it further, and in

this act particularly there are a couple of major concerns which we

feel should be discussed further with the minister. Whenever one deals

with the changing of anything to do with mental health patients, it is

indeed one of our most sensitive areas, particularly for the person

with some mental health problems who is in an institution. Any changes

would, I am sure, arouse concern in that patient. If I unfortunately

happened to be in an institution at this time, there are a couple of

things here I would really be concerned about unless we have further

elaboration from the minister. I don't know if I can go into those

concerns now or if it's preferable to wait for the committee stage.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I can only rise now to close

debate on second reading. I would be pleased to discuss with the member

for Burnaby North the various sections and the concerns or questions of

any member. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 33 to a Committee

of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 33, Mental Health Amendment Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MRS. DAILLY: There is a change in

section 6, if I understand

it correctly. Prior to this amendment, for a person to be involuntarily

committed to a mental health institution, two physicians who are not

associated with each other had to sign medical certificates. The

amendment removes that, and I would like to ask the minister why. I

guess he knows I'd like an explanation of why we would be making such a

sensitive area looser, shall we say, which might mean it's perhaps open

to lack of protection for the person involved.

[4:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Section 6 would clarify the provisions of

section

20 concerning the relationship between two physicians signing medical certificates

for the involuntary admission of a patient. The intention of the provision is

that the two medical opinions shall be completely independent of each other.

But

section 24(

e) has been interpreted to mean that two doctors in a group

practice cannot both sign such certificates for the same patient. This can and

does create difficulties in towns where there is only one mental health facility

or hospital, and all physicians in the area have privileges in that facility

or are in group practice together. The amendment would permit certificates to

be signed by two doctors who practise in association but not in a legal partnership.

Certificates could also be signed by two physicians who are employed at the

same mental health facility or psychiatric unit or who arc consultants to the

same facility. The previous legislation was too broad, at least in its definition

of association. In many small communities there may be one such clinic, and

it would be impossible for the doctors not to be associated. What we are attempting

is to permit such physicians to sign the certificates even though they may be

associated at the same facility or as consultants but not in a legal partnership.

They would be independent of each other; they happen to share the same clinic.

In many instances, in small communities, that's the way of life. It still

protects the patient.

MRS. DAILLY: I believe you referred to this, but I would like

a further explanation on the second part, as you said, in 4(f). It

prevented a person who could benefit financially from being part of the

decision to involuntarily admit. Why has that been repealed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am advised by legal counsel

that the provision is obsolete, because all such physicians now receive

benefits from the Medical Services Plan. So it would encompass all.

MRS. DAILLY: With the help of the legal counsel, maybe he could clarify

it for us. A person who could benefit financially.... Do you mean that that

clause was in prior to medicare? Is that what you are saying?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I believe it's a holdover from days gone by, yes.

Originally it was in with respect to private mental health facilities; it had

the consideration of a physician who could commit a patient to his own facility.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MRS. DAILLY:

Section 7 is the one which we are really concerned with,

Mr. Chairman. To refresh the minister on this matter, the major concern here

is over the change in time for hearings before the review panel. At present

a person can apply for a hearing 30 days after being admitted, and again 30

days after that hearing. Apparently this change would allow an application to

be made for a hearing after 30 days. But then they have to wait 90 days before

they can get another hearing. We know that the chairperson may allow having

this hearing earlier if he happens to determine that it is in the patient's

interests, or there is new evidence.

There is another part of this. The two-day notice of hearing is

removed, which had allowed a patient time to prepare. We are concerned

about this because we think that in this area of mental health.... I'm

sure that all of us have had some experience in knowing someone, or

being close to someone perhaps, or even reading about it, who has had

to be confined to a mental institution. I remember having a close

relative whom I used to visit in such an institution. I can tell you

that the only thing a person wants to do, even though he may get good

care, is to get out. Many people, with proper therapy, after 30 days

may be quite sure that they are ready and want to produce evidence to

show that they can come out. That is why it was originally put in — to

give the benefit to

[ Page 4924 ]

the patient, so it would be down to 30 days for the

second one. I ask the minister: if the concern for the mental patient

is paramount, why have we moved this ahead to 90 days? I am putting

myself in the position of a mental patient, which I think we would have

to. I would like to know why it was done. It wouldn't make me feel very

secure.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect, I believe the member is not

interpreting the existing

section absolutely correctly. It is not 30

days, then 30 days. Maybe I could have a look at that section. "A

person admitted to a provincial mental health facility under

section 20

shall, at any time after the expiration of 30 days from the date that

he was admitted, on his request or on the request of a person on his

behalf, be entitled to receive a hearing, of which he shall have at

least 2 days' written notice...." At the present time, upon having

completed the appeal or the hearing the person may apply for a

subsequent hearing the next day. That is the existing ability. We felt

that it was inconsistent with good practice to go through a hearing

which could take a reasonable period of time and listen to the judgment

of the professionals in the field, and to have an appeal launched the

next day. In consultation with the people at the unit and others, it

was felt that 90 days was a reasonable period of time between such

appeals for anything significant to have occurred to the patient's

condition, rather than review the information almost immediately after

the appeal has taken place and been conducted.

Mr. Chairman, we are speaking as well of patients who are confined

and obviously will be advised of any such hearing. We're certainly not

trying to make it difficult. The patients are in care. They are in

care, so of course they will be advised; usually they're advised well

in advance of two days before their hearing takes place. But the

professionals in the field felt it would be best — the public would be

best served, as would the patients — if a period of 90 days were

considered the standard waiting period before the second or subsequent

applications, recognizing that there could be individual concerns or

there could be new information. We also provide that the chairman will

be given the authority to abridge those 90 days should he have reason

or information to do so. And we believe it will work quite well.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the minister is

doing this under advice from, as he says, professionals who feel it

will be better. But what I can't quite understand is.... This 30-day

provision has been in for a number of years. Was there a great concern

about it? I mean, were people expressing concern to the ministry

specifically about this? Had they serious problems with it? I think for

the patient, and for anyone who has been a patient, to read this.... It

appears that the government is trying, perhaps, to delay this appeal.

You had professionals advise you, but had they real concerns with what

had happened before? What are the examples?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, there is no 30-30. There's the 30

days after admission, but there is no period of time that refers to 30 days

thereafter. It's open. We have had examples of where there has been an appeal

almost immediately thereafter, yes. Psychiatrists have said there's not

much point in reviewing it again because the condition of the patient has not

changed, and they feel 90 days is a reasonable period of time in which to review

the matter again. But it's not an automatic 30 and 30. The chairman, of

course, may bring that appeal about earlier if information is provided.

I might mention, Mr. Chairman, that the manner in which these appeals are handled

at our institutions is with great responsibility. It is a very difficult area;

I certainly agree with the member.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate that the intent is to do the right

thing for the patient. We're lay people, so it is somewhat difficult

for us always to know the reasoning behind the professionals who work

there every day. As I say, I am trying to look at it from a patient's

point of view.

The other point of the two-day notice of hearing being removed....

That fits in with what you had said prior to it. I guess one of my

concerns is that, when I discussed it with the former Minister of

Health, he was concerned about it too and felt it had worked correctly

before. We thought it was 30-30, and there seems to be some confusion

here.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 33, Mental Health Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 39.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. NIELSEN: This omnibus bill, Bill 39, is similar to the bill

previously discussed. It embraces a number of separate statutes, and I'll

run very briefly through the highlights of the amendments being offered to the

House.

There will be amendments to the Health Act with respect to the role of the

provincial health officer. As an example, one provision gives the senior official

the power to order a local medical health officer to take appropriate action

when the senior official considers that the health of the public is or may be

endangered. It would also provide that provincial health officer the ability

to take on the powers and authority of the local medical health officer, which

would be outside the jurisdiction of the local board of health. There are very

few areas in the province, but nonetheless there are some, such as the UBC Endowment

Lands.

This

section would also empower the provincial health officer to

exercise the powers and the authority of the local medical health

officer in emergencies without having been appointed by a local health

board.

Some minor amendments are included as well, many of which are either redundant

or are paralleled in other acts and are no longer necessary. We have some highly

technical modifications of

definitions with respect to contaminants. We are

eliminating what was a rather confusing definition and using the statement:

"...a substance that is or may be injurious to the health, safety or

comfort of a person rather than the previous definition.

[ Page

4925 ]

There will be requirements that the notification of a discharge of a

contaminant be made to the medical health officer rather than to the

local board, because we feel that the medical health officer should be

the first person to receive the information.

[4:30]

We are asking authority to modify the Health Emergency Act and change the concept

of the commission, which at the moment must consist of at least five persons.

At the moment they are public servants. It is my desire to eliminate the need

for five and utilize the services of the one-person chairman to be the commission

for purposes of the functioning of the health emergency services. The person

would be the senior official responsible for the ambulance system, who, in my

opinion, would be well suited to take on the role of the commission. Sometime

in the future. of course, we could always put more on should that be the desire.

It's consistent with the manner in which many of our commissions in health

are now handled.

We will be deleting the hospital insurance fund, since it no longer

exists, in a number of the sections and various statutes. In the

Hospital District Act we will be modifying

section 22, which authorizes

regional hospital districts to raise funds primarily for their share in

the purchase of equipment. Some hospital districts have not exercised

that fundraising authority, others have. The amendment would achieve

consistency by requiring that all do. In the Hospital Insurance Act, we

will be modifying the definition of "hospital" slightly to take on some

institutions which are neither hospitals — not specifically a hospital

— nor do they provide direct services to hospitals. There are one or

two examples in the province which really, for want of a better

definition, could be described as "rural clinic," but they are not

under the strict definition of hospital, and we would like to include

them so we can fund them.

Reference to hospital insurance fund will be eliminated from the

various sections. The Ministry of Finance discontinued the fund some

years ago. All funding required will now be from the government rather

than from the hospital insurance fund, so the word "government" will be

substituted.

We'll also be dealing with the eligibility of members of the

Legislative Assembly to receive payments from the medical services

plan. At the moment it appears to be in contravention of the

Constitution Act, and you never know when a doctor may wish to run for

public office. It cleans it up, although we may not need it for a

while. Nonetheless....

Mr. Speaker, another amendment would enable the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to exempt specific groups of

beneficiaries under this act from daily charges for hospital services.

I mentioned earlier those who are involuntarily admitted and some other

special cases, such as TB patients at Pearson Hospital, who may be

transferred to another hospital. They then would be required to pay

daily charges. We'd like to exempt them from that, as an example.

The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) might be interested in this;

it's one of his specialties, I understand, in law. It concerns the Marriage

Act. We will be amending various sections of the Marriage Act by permitting

the director of vital statistics to cancel the registration authorizing a person

to solemnize marriages if that person is found not to be keeping records, because

we'd like to know.

There are other requirements under the Marriage Act which are of little use

and very costly, such as a requirement for the annual publication of all the

names of clergymen and others who have the capability to perform marriages.

We feel there is no longer a need to publish that each year. It would also repeal

the provision that automatically provides that certain officeholders be marriage

commissioners. Many of these are government agents and sub-agents. We feel there

is no need to have the law that automatically provides them with that authority.

We appoint marriage commissioners individually. We feel that some of these uses

and commissions, offices which at some point in our history may have been required,

are no longer required. We will be repealing that. We will also permit the minister

to appoint marriage commissioners rather than require cabinet to do so.

Under the Naturopaths Act, we will be permitting doctors of

naturopathic medicine to use the title "Doctor of naturopathic

medicine" if they have the appropriate academic qualifications, or have

equivalent qualifications, in the judgment of an examining board. This

is similar to what we provided last year for chiropractors,

optometrists and podiatrists.

The Nurses (Practical) Act will see a number of amendments, primarily to change

the name of these practitioners from practical nurses to licensed practical

nurses, and some other subsequent amendments to make some slight modifications

in their act. Similarly, we will be amending the Nurses (Psychiatric) Act, again

changing the name, and other changes which will allow lay representation on

the board. And there are some modifications to their own internal authorities

which have been discussed and requested, I believe, by these various associations.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: It is a fairly lengthy bill. It has a lot that we certainly

could pass and will pass without any debate, but there are a couple of major

sections, particularly one dealing with changes to the Nurses (Practical) Act.

In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I think we'll wait until committee stage to

go into it in further detail. We are not prepared at this time to move on to

committee.

MR. LAUK: Just to add,

section 3 proposed for the Health Act

should be read in conjunction with other legislation brought in by the

government. We want to have some time to study the implications of this

usurpation of power under the provincial government with respect to

such places as the Expo site, and be able to debate that with some

feedback from the communities affected by this power grab. That's why I

don't think we can consent to have this matter debated in committee at

this stage.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 39, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, 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. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 40.

[ Page 4926 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: There's a vast variety here of provisions,

Mr. Speaker, so I think second-reading speeches really would be of very

little value. I will commend them to the House and conclude my remarks.

MR. LAUK: Although we agree substantially with the amendments

proposed, we need time to consider the section-by-section implications

of some of them. So we will agree to second reading but not to the

committee's being heard today.

HON. MR. SMITH: I close debate and move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 40, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, 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. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: There are a variety of amendments ranging

from a provision in the Criminal Injury Compensation Act that puts a

time limit on appeals and brings them in line with the Workers

Compensation Act provisions. There are the Fire Services Act

amendments, which will repeal some regulations that related to

operating projection equipment. This was an enactment dating back to

the time when the film shown in movie theatres was combustible, and

when the legislation had a fire purpose; it was fire services

legislation. It's sought now to repeal that because there is no fire

merit in continuing with that unnecessary regulation. The matter is now

thoroughly covered by the building code.

There is an exciting amendment to the Law and Equity Act which removes cognovit

actionem warrants of attorney, which the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

warrants. We look forward to hearing him on that.

There's an amendment to the Law Stamp Act which is a piece of timely

deregulation, since it will mean that the Crown doesn't have to charge

itself a fee to file a document in a registry.

There is a repeal of a minor nature of the Municipal Act as well.

The Offence Act is amended so that it will be possible to have the

service of process by municipalities from private process servers.

There are some changes in the Supreme Court Act which are of an

administrative nature and which will give the chief justice a little

more discretion in dealing with civil jury trials and non-jury trials.

And there's a correction in the Young Offenders Act.

With the exception of the amendments to the Fire Services Act, I don't

think they're very controversial. I move second reading.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we're going to

have to hold up a little bit. The minister's quite right when he says

that most of the amendments are inconsequential except for the Fire

Services Act. They're so inconsequential, related to the seriousness of

the repeal of the fire services provisions, that if I were a more

suspicious person, I would think that the fire services repeal

section

was planted there under the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, a

general omnibus act, to perhaps accelerate its passage through the

House — perhaps even unnoticed. I'm sure that the Attorney-General

didn't have that in mind. In any event, if he did it didn't work.

The repeal of the Fire Services Act provisions with respect to movie

theatres is not quite as the Attorney-General has set out; at least let

me rephrase that. It's not our understanding of the situation with

respect to safety in theatres. When you read the new bills placed on

the table today and the bill passed by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen), you can see that the government is taking power unto itself

that municipalities had to take care of health and safety within their

own jurisdictions — and not by centralizing it. In a democratic

country, especially in the 1980s, we expect that the government will be

doing its best to decentralize these kinds of controls, and merely

oversee, as the senior government, their enforcement.

[4:45]

Now the actual enforcement of health and safety on the Expo site is called

into question. We have a situation with respect to fire and safety in theatres

being raised by the repeal of the Fire Services Act. One thing that the Attorney-General

did not point out is that the fire commissioner, Mr. Gordon Anderson, held hearings

between the motion picture owners, the theatre owners, and the projectionists'

union, and non-union projectionists within the projectionists were not consulted

until recently. And then, only some of them. But after several days of hearing,

the fire commissioner, a high ranking public service to the province of British

Columbia, recommended that they keep these provisions. He was not making a

judgment about labour relations issues; he was making a judgment about safety

in our theatres. I think the Attorney General has not carefully considered the

implications of removing fire safety regulations from theatres. The ordinary

provincial laws respecting fire safety, by the repeal of

part 3 of the Fire

Services Act, will not apply to theatres.

You've got to ask yourself why the government is doing this. Well,

let me speculate openly as to why they might be doing this. Perhaps the

exhibitors, the owners of theatres, don't want to pay the wages that

are payable to licensed projectionists, and it will save the owners of

these theatres a lot of money. Don't hold your breath and wait for the

price of a ticket of admission to these theatres to go down. And don't

ask the Attorney-General to explain to you why, in a miasma of

recession, the exhibitors — the movie theatres — are making more and

more money every year. So it can't be that we're trying to relieve

these hard-pressed exhibitors and give them more money for their profit

and loss statements. All it is designed to do then, I suggest, is to

enrich the exhibitors at the expense of a highly-trained group of

projectionists that have served the province of British Columbia well

for over 60 years.

When the minister suggests that these fire service regulations were

employed originally because the film was more flammable, he is

incorrect. The old film made — I think it was a

nitric-something-or-other type of film — gave off a noxious and

poisonous gas, and special training was needed

[ Page

4927 ]

in how to extinguish that particular kind of flame.

Now we have an acetate type of film, but it's more flammable. It does

not give off the noxious gas, but it's more flammable than the old

style of film. New projection equipment is not as much of a fire hazard

as old projection equipment but they essentially are the same kind of

equipment — even the modern ones. So the minister's argument that now

we don't need it because the film is not as flammable is incorrect.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Don't be upset.

What is the fire hazard in theatres today as opposed to yesterday?

First of all, there's nowhere else in our community that you get 200 or

300 people sitting in the dark for two or three hours. It's a situation

where people are required to sit there. They do not notice anything

unusual such as a fire starting in a theatre.

Now I've been told that there have been incidents of fires and risks

of fires as recently as the last few years in our theatres. Now what

happens if you do away with the licensing requirements for

projectionists? You can hire anybody, or you don't have to hire anybody

at all. You don't even have to have anybody in the projectionist's

booth watching the theatre and watching the equipment. There's no

requirement for it if you repeal these sections.

I'm saying I don't want to call "Fire!" in a crowded legislature or

in a theatre. But I don't think the minister has carefully considered

the safety standards that the public of British Columbia has learned to

enjoy — albeit in the last 20 years they don't know why they're

enjoying such good standards. It's because these projectionists are

required to be licensed after 1,000 hours of training, and they are

trained not only in managing the equipment but in fire control in the

booth and in fire safety drill procedures. How many ushers and

usherettes and managers of theatres are trained in this? There's no

requirement for them to be trained. The projectionist is. Over many

decades, a heavy reliance has been put by the public on these

projectionists, unwittingly. They don't know why they're so protected.

But these people are trained to do that kind of work.

If this

section is repealed, no licensing is required. You can have

your 13-year-old son running the projection equipment, or no one at

all. You just press a button or wander in occasionally or not even

that. I'm saying that poses a risk. I'm saying it poses a sufficient

enough risk that the fire commissioner of British Columbia recommended

to the government to maintain the licensing provisions.

The building codes of the province will take care of the actual

construction of the theatres for safety purposes, so perhaps

part 3 is

not required. Except that I caution the Legislature to look at other

legislation dealing with the Expo site. What kinds of theatres are they

building on that site that they have to eliminate these safety

features? What kinds of dangers are being posed to the people who are

attending Expo, with respect to theatres, as a result of the

legislation being introduced by this government?

Another serious risk is the type of fire that can possibly occur in a projectionist's

booth. One is the film. Now that has been greatly minimized. Two is an electrical

fire, and that's still as much of a risk today as it was before — even more

so. I ask you to consider a young person, untrained as a projectionist, who

comes across an electrical fire. That untrained person does not know whether

it's an electrical fire, another kind of fire, a chemical fire, or what.

Now, without these repeal proposals, it is required that there be different

extinguishers for different kinds of fires. If that lad pours water on an electrical

fire, he is risking electrocution. If the electrical fire spreads and the water

spreads, he is risking the electrocution of other staff or patrons of the theatre.

It's for these reasons that the projectionists are trained for 1,000 hours

— fire drill, fire safety, running the equipment.

The other thing is that it was a nice ancillary benefit to people in British

Columbia's theatres.... I don't know if you have attended theatres

in some places in Europe where breakdowns and interruptions in the showing

of a film are commonplace. In British Columbia they are very rare. That is because

projectionists know their equipment. They can make minor repairs or they can

spot major problems, so that the service to and the enjoyment of theatre patrons

will not be interrupted and the people will not be disappointed. Maybe the minister

does not think that is important, or he is leaving it to the good old free enterprise

system where everyone can wander from one theatre to another. I suppose we could

all go to the Ridge or something like that, because the service we're getting

elsewhere may not be satisfactory. But the point is that that is an ancillary

benefit that we've all had over the years because of trained projectionists

in the booth.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You cannot say there haven't been instances where fires

could have occurred. Very recently in the Fraser Valley a trained projectionist

was required to operate two booths in twin theatres. While he was in one booth

the projection equipment overheated in the other theatre. According to the report

to the fire commissioner, it was just seconds short of ignition. He corrected

the problem and reported it. As a result of his report, fire alarm systems in

twin theatres all around the province were ordered by the commissioner. The fire

commissioner thinks it's important that a trained projectionist's report

should be acted on, but the minister and the government do not.

With respect to the labour relations issue, I am concerned that this

government is delicensing projectionists under the guise that their

skills are no longer required. But it's really to benefit exhibitors

also, I think, to lower the costs of theatres at the Expo site. I

seriously think that that is what this government is attempting with

this proposal. There may be several dozen exhibition movie theatres on

the site; some of them are going to be new and technologically

advanced. By eliminating

part 3 you don't have to have a centre aisle

in the theatre. Did you know that? The National Building Code doesn't

require that. We do. The argument is that the smaller theatres may not

require one for safety. But any size of theatre will not be required

now to have a centre aisle. If you don't have licensed projectionists,

you are doubling the risks in these theatres. I want the patrons of

Expo 86 to feel comfortable and safe on that site. This is a family

exposition.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm not amused, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a serious

question. I'm calling into question the safety of Expo sites, and the ministers

opposite think it's very funny.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think you're funny.

[ Page 4928 ]

MR. LAUK: You may think I'm funny, but I'm trying to raise a

legitimate issue that should be addressed by the government. If all

you're doing is shaving dollars at the risk of the public attending

Expo, then you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. The government should

be, and it is, required to assure this chamber and the public that

safety measures are going to be employed. I cannot see that they will

be if you are eliminating licensed projectionists who are trained for

these hazards and for the more stringent building codes required for

theatres by the Fire Services Act. People will be bringing their

families, their children, to these theatres. I don't know whether you

have ever been in a panic situation, in a closed crowd situation, but

it requires skilled people around for orderly behaviour. Without

projectionists there to spot the problems ahead of time, you're

doubling the risk.

The other concern that is very real, which should be important to every member

in this chamber, is the question of.... Projectionists have gone through

a lot of training, and now they are going to be cut out of the marketplace.

One theatre owner is reported to have said: "As soon as this bill is passed

I will get my kid to run the projection equipment." If the presentation

of the film for the enjoyment of the patrons was the only problem, I would say:

"Let's leave them in there." But the added safety feature risks

are very important. I don't think the government has responsibly considered

this problem. I think they're kneejerk-reacting to both the exhibitors

and their needs as they perceive them on the Expo site.

[5.00]

It should be pointed out that the motion picture industry and the owners of

theatres in the province agreed with the fire commissioner that to eliminate

the building codes and have the provincial building codes apply rather than

just the Fire Services Act would be satisfactory in today's theatres, but

to keep the licensed projectionists in the booth. Everybody agrees: the fire

commissioner, the owners of larger theatres, the licensed projectionists and,

I dare say, an informed public. But the government does not. We've got to

ask ourselves the correct questions in analyzing the reason for the government's

introducing these sections to repeal. Therefore we oppose Bill 38.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to save my more

detailed comments for the debate — if we unfortunately get to it — in

the committee stage.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The comments I would like to make have been made by the member for

Vancouver Centre, and I don't want to repeat them at this point, but I

do want to urge the Attorney-General to recognize that this is not just

a simple amendment. It's not something that the industry wants. As the

member for Vancouver Centre indicated, the office of the fire

commissioner himself has recognized the requirements of having this

kind of legislation in place.

I wonder if the minister, when he closes second reading debate, would give

this House an indication as to whether or not he would be prepared to meet with

people who are affected directly by this legislation sometime before the debate

in committee, stage.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join my colleagues in

opposing the

section on the, fire requirements and the fire-prevention training

needed by trained projectionists. As I said before, part of my previous employment

was doing fire inspection. All of us who have moved around in buildings that

have public access know that if you leave the fire protection to untrained personnel,

you do not get the standard of safety that is needed for the protection of the

public.

I'm kind of shocked that the government would very offhandedly try

to sneak through — maybe I shouldn't say sneak, but put through — a

change in legislation that deals with safety. It's very much like that

on our ferries today. We have a requirement under the Coast Guard act

that there has to be a certain number of personnel on each public ferry

who have been trained in safety at sea. That is a requirement. Here we

have, Mr. Speaker, a building that is in darkness, that has crowds, in

which we are trying to eliminate the need for some person who is

trained in fire safety. A 13- or 14-year-old child or a 16-year-old

family member or anyone who is untrained can go in and maybe push an

automated button on a projector and run it, but there are the other

parts of the training that go with the projectionist. I say that we

cannot afford to endanger one theatre in which, because of some

carelessness of an untrained operator, a disaster might take place.

I think it's important that every one of us, if we're going to vote

for it, get up and go on record that we're endangering people. On our

side of the House we are opposed to it from the safety point of view. I

am opposed to it from my previous employment in firefighting duties. I

support the fire marshal, with all his training, with his research on

it and with his experience, that we cannot allow this to take place

without serious consideration.

I call on the Attorney-General to review that particular

section of

the bill, to meet again with the people who are going to be affected.

We hope he will withdraw that section. Let it die and quit reacting to

every lobby group that comes in advocating that we remove one piece of

legislation that is protecting and giving some assurance of safety to

the people of B.C.

HON. MR. SMITH: The fire commissione