1984 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4811 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

MTOC advertisements. Mr. Lank –– 4811

Consultation with Alberta Minister of Health. Mrs. Dailly –– 4812

Hunting rights for non-Canadians. Mr. Passarell –– 4812

Services for handicapped students. Mr. Rose –– 4812

Income assistance rates. Mr. Barnes –– 4813

BCSC building space, Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 4813

British Columbia Human Rights Code, 1984 (Bill M207). Mr. Gabelmann

Introduction and first reading –– 4813

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 29). Committee stage

section 17 –– 4814

Mrs. Dailly

Third reading –– 4814

Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act (Bill 22). Committee stage

On

Section I –– 4814

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lauk

section 10 –– 4816

Ms. Brown

Mr. Rose

section 20 –– 4817

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 4818

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No, 2), 1984 (Bill 31). Committee stage

On

Section I –– 4818

Ms. Brown

section 8 –– 4818

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Rose

section 15 –– 4819

Mrs. Wallace

section 16 –– 4819

Ms. Brown

section 17 –– 4820

Mrs. Wallace

section 19 –– 4820

Ms. Brown

Mr. Macdonald

Division

section 20 –– 4821

Division

section 27 –– 4822

Mr. D'Arcy

section 31 –– 4822

Mr. D'Arcy

section 45 –– 4822

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. D'Arcy

section 69 –– 4824

Mr. D'Arcy

section 76 –– 4824

Mr. Passarell

section 77 –– 4825

Mr. Passarell

section 78 –– 4825

Mr. Blencoe

section 81 –– 4826

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rose

Division

section 87 –– 4829

Mr. Segarty

section 89 –– 4829

Mr. D'Arcy

Third reading –– 4830

Bill No 1,

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR401). Second reading

Mr. Pelton –– 4830

Mr. Lank –– 4830

Mr. Pelton –– 4830

Bill No 1,

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR401). Committee stage

Third reading –– 4831

Education Statutes (Fiscal Year) Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 27). Third reading 4831

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 45: minister's office –– 4831

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cocke

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: premier's office –– 4834

Mr. Howard

Division

Committee of Supply: Legislation.

On vote 3: ombudsman –– 4836

Mr. Reynolds

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Reid

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations. (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

On vote 43: minister's office –– 4838

Mr. Howard

Mr. Veitch

Expropriation Act (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Gardom

Introduction and first reading –– 4839

Supply Act (No 2), 1984 (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4839

Tabling Documents –– 4840

Royal assent to bills –– 4840

Appendix –– 4841

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The House would like to pay a special and

very cordial welcome to Mr. Kunio Katakura the newly appointed

consul-general of Japan in Vancouver. Welcome to British Columbia, sir.

MR. SEGARTY: I would like all hon. members to join with me in

wishing the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) a

very happy birthday today.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would also like to greet the new consul-general from Japan.

MR. NICOLSON: Later today, touring the galleries, will be

students from W.E. Graham High School in Slocan, with their principal

Mr. Jack Edson and parents and other teachers. I wish the House would

make them welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, some 20 years ago my wife

taught school at Nicola-Canford Elementary School in Merritt. Today

we're very happy to have a group of 27 students from that school,

accompanied by their teacher Mr. Gage and other chaperones. I would ask

the House to please make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce five

visitors in your gallery today. They represent the Association of B.C.

Professional Foresters, and they made an excellent, positive

presentation to our caucus today. They are William Dumont, president;

Peter Ackhurst, past president; Randall Chan, vice-president; Arthur

Walker of the Vancouver Island

section of the Institute of Forestry;

and Alan Furniss, the registrar. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Oral Questions

MTOC ADVERTISEMENTS

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the second member for Surrey

(Mr. Reid), as chairman of the MTOC. Recently we have heard

advertisements on radio with respect to the current labour dispute

between the Metro Transit Operating Company and the Independent

Canadian Transit Union. Would the second member for Surrey, in his

capacity as chairman of MTOC, please indicate to the chamber how much

has been expended for such radio advertisements? And why have the radio

advertisements continued long after negotiations have been recommenced?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member allow the Chair one moment. I

believe that the question can only be addressed to the chairman of a

committee who is appointed by the House. If the member would allow just

one moment, I believe I can cite the appropriate authority.

MR. LAUK: Will the clock stop?

MR. SPEAKER: No, but Hon. member, citing from Parliamentary Practice

in British Columbia, E.G. MacMinn, page 78, both May's nineteenth edition

and Beauchesne's fifth edition suggest that the only possible way for questions

to be addressed to private members is if such members are chairmen of certain

House committees. Hon. members, that would preclude the question to that particular

member being in order.

MR. LAUK: I certainly wonder whether the Speaker is going to rely on such dubious authority for all of his decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: While taken in jest, hon. member, such a remark

cannot be left unchallenged by the Chair. I must ask the member,

notwithstanding the jest of the remark, to withdraw the same.

MR. LAUK: Well, all right. I've read that volume on many occasions, particularly when I'm on holidays.

I direct the question to the minister in charge of transit, the

Minister of Human Resources. Under what authority were such

advertisements authorized, and what was the budget set aside for them?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I thank the member for his

interest. First of all, the source of the authority the member requests

is a decision made by the board of Metro Transit, MTOC, and I cannot

share the expenditure with the House because I haven't the knowledge of

that amount.

MR. LAUK: We have been instructed in this chamber and

elsewhere that the MTOC runs on a break-even, year-to-year operating

budget to keep the cost to the user and the taxpayer as low as

possible. With that in mind, has the minister decided to investigate

how the MTOC can raise the money for such advertising expenditures?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I have no intention of making that

inquiry I'm sure it is kept within a modest means, because everything

that board has done during the time I've had this responsibility has

been done with restraint in mind. I have been appreciative of that, and

of the board and of the service our member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) has

given to that board in his leadership of that board.

In addition, I would just like to say that I do believe it's not

only required of but an obligation of the board and the company to

share with the riding public their concern that the service will be

maintained for the customers they serve. As you know, there has been a

problem with coming to an agreement on their contract, and I think it's

imperative for the riding public, who are very appreciative of our

service to them, to have an explanation of any work stoppages, and

that's exactly what is being given by the board. Certainly I will

concur with their decision to do so.

MR. LAUK: As the minister is refusing to make an inquiry

about the perhaps unsavoury expenditure of MTOC's funds on media,

perhaps the minister will consider investigating the competence of

those who have decided to use such advertising. In light of the fact

that the ads call upon the union to get back to the negotiating table,

five days after they did get back to the negotiating table under the

auspices of

[ Page 4812 ]

Clark Gilmour, has the minister therefore decided

to investigate the incompetence of the board's decision in continuing

the ads after that event?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it is

difficult for the member to change the question when it's all written

out for him. I had already answered that question: that I believe the

competency of the board is excellent and I don't question it one little

bit. I think it should be noted that the board has always been waiting

to bargain at the bargaining table. They wish to settle the dispute;

they wish to operate the buses for the citizens of British Columbia and

the citizens of Vancouver, and their position hasn't changed. It was

the union that asked the mediator to book out nine weeks ago, not the

company. So I'm really pleased that Mr. Gilmour, the company and the

union are exploring ways in which this dispute can be settled. I'm

confident that they will come to some agreement in a very short time,

and I'm hoping so for the good of those who use the service and

appreciate the service so much.

MR. LAUK: If the minister does not consider that

incompetence, in light of the fact that Clark Gilmour, head of the

mediation service, ordered a media blackout while these ads continued,

has the minister decided to make inquiries about that kind of insolence

toward the labour process on the part of the MTOC?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a news

reporting blackout is very much different than information that has

been given by both sides of the table, and I don't think either side

has withdrawn its information to the public.

MR. LAUK: First of all, the minister suggests that I'm

reading from prepared questions. If she thinks my extemporaneous

questions are that bad, she should read the ones that were prepared for

me,

Summing up then, Mr. Speaker, I take it the minister suggests that

running these advertisements five days after Metro Transit has been

back to the negotiating table, when the advertisements call for getting

back to the negotiating table, is not incompetence; that using

operating moneys that were to help the bus service is not incompetence;

and that in fact she feels that all of these events are consistent with

her view of the board's competence. Will she submit to a review of some

legislative committee about her competence?

MR. SPEAKER: The question itself is out of order. The minister may wish to respond.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will ignore the question from the

member, but I would say that if research of the NDP caucus wishes me to

take their case, I'd be delighted to do so.

[2:15]

CONSULTATION WITH ALBERTA

MINISTER OF HEALTH

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Health. Documents

released in Edmonton recently show that the Alberta Minister of Health

plans to consult with the B.C. government before launching a major

initiative to privatize the Alberta medical health insurance plan. Will

the Minister of Health in British Columbia advise us whether this

consultation has taken place with the officials of the ministry in

Alberta?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The minister in Alberta frequently consults

with British Columbia with respect to mutual problems, but I haven't

heard from him with respect to privatization of health care service.

Although I did hear a reference to it on the air the other day that

they were considering it, I haven't heard from anyone about it.

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister tell us if perhaps some of

his officials are involved in consultation with officials from the

ministry in Alberta?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not that I am aware of with respect to that

specific. Obviously the ministry officials and the Alberta officials do

speak about various problems constantly, but I am not aware that they

are having any consultation with respect to what the member speaks of.

MRS. DAILLY: Final supplementary. Will the minister perhaps

give a commitment to this House that he will at a future date inform

this House if such consultation takes place in the province of B.C.?

MR. SPEAKER: That's future action, hon. member.

HUNTING RIGHTS FOR NON-CANADIANS

MR. PASSARELL: A question to the Minister of the Environment.

The regional director of the fish and wildlife branch has testified in

the B.C. Supreme Court that there is nothing he can do to prevent

non-Canadians from acquiring trapping, guiding and outfitting rights

normally reserved for our citizens. What action is the minister taking

to untie the hands of his administration and prevent the control of

trapping and hunting rights falling into non-Canadian hands?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, as the member will probably

appreciate, I am reluctant to comment about actions that I'm going to

take when something is before the courts. I think the member is

interpreting a bit, and I don't know whether the press release is also

interpreting. I believe that the act says, as in any situation, that

the trapping licence must be in the name of a Canadian citizen. If that

person takes out a licence, then obviously it is in his name. If he

makes some arrangement with someone else.... I believe the staff member

is trying to point out that it is not within the law, or his

jurisdiction, to decide who can walk where on somebody else's land. We

can control who owns land or who has a lease, according to certain

conditions. We certainly might like to try to tell anyone in this

province how they must behave and with whom they must speak or deal,

but it would be impossible, and not within the law, to enforce it.

SERVICES FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS

MR. ROSE: My question to the Minister of Education concerns a

directive sent on April 18 by the ministry to various colleges and

institutes concerning support services to adult handicapped students.

The ministry says it will not provide interpreters or personal

assistants any longer but "will liaise with the appropriate ministries

and agencies" — I

[ Page

4813 ]

guess to produce the services that have been

withdrawn. I would like to know whether the minister can advise the

House which ministries or agencies will be looking after the needs of

the handicapped college students. What is the provision for the

necessary services, and does the minister have any assurance that the

other ministries will provide, and guarantee, the services that are

needed?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm unable to give a full answer to that question and will take it as notice.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is taking that as

notice, perhaps he could take the rest of it as notice, because I have

another little portion as well.

A special fund has been announced for support services to

handicapped students. Something like $400,000 has been taken out of the

$300 million to the college operating grants. I want to know whether

the ministry can assure the House that the $400,000 is sufficient to

provide the service, and whether or not these funds will be granted

annually in future years.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I took the first part as notice. I presume

that the member was just adding the second part of this question; I'll

take that as notice as well.

INCOME ASSISTANCE RATES

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

Resources. Effective April 1, 1984 — a few days ago — the minister

reintroduced age discrimination in income assistance rates. Does the

minister have any studies which show that persons under 25 years of age

require less nutrition than those 25 years of age and over? I realize

the question seems a little facetious. But the point is that the

minister has indicated in the past that these people were more mobile

or had family to support them. We're talking specifically about those

people who do not have those resources. What studies has the minister

done to justify the age discrimination?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think the member's question was

answered at the time that the ministry's policy was announced. Figures

were given at that time. I'd certainly be pleased to give them in

general now. I can give them more specifically to the member. There is

a quicker turnover in that age group. Fifty percent of those who come

on income assistance today will be off income assistance within four

months. The age group that has a faster return to the workforce is that

group under 25 years of age. The other reason for changing the policy

in respect to that age group is that they're more mobile, which you

have just quoted. Also, they do have other resources. Those under 25

years of age are very often able to return to their families and have

home support, which those who have spouses and children are unable to

do. It was in order to retain the core services for the many others who

are coming to us on income assistance that that group was singled out.

Thank you for the question.

BCSC BUILDING SPACE

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a series of questions from

the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) we dealt with occupied floor space versus

unoccupied floor space at the headquarters of the British Columbia Systems Corporation.

The member is not present, but for his convenience when he reads Hansard perhaps

I might deal with that briefly.

I indicated that one ministry was already in place in the Systems

building and that it was reasonable to expect that a portion of another

ministry would be there in due course. First of all, the Ministry of

Labour is a tenant, occupying the third floor — approximately 36,640

square feet. I don't know how large that is in Celsius, Mr. Speaker.

The Buildings Corporation is acting on behalf of the Systems

Corporation to rent the entire second floor, which is 50,000 sq. ft. —

or 84 Fahrenheit. The member for Nanaimo can ignore the last comment,

the very last part. All other space in the building is occupied by the

Systems Corporation. With contracting out of the operations of a

portion of the Systems Corporation, it could be expected that a small

amount of this space would be rented to the contracting party or

parties.

I trust that will help the member in his inquiry.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MICHAEL: I would ask the House to make welcome the

students and teacher from Len Wood Elementary School in the beautiful

agricultural community of Armstrong-Spallumcheen who are visiting the

precincts today

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to return to introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair was informed previously that there was to be a....

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is the purpose of it.

MR. SPEAKER: This is the purpose? Thank you, hon. member.

Leave granted.

Introduction of Bills

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled British Columbia Human Rights Code, 1984.

Leave granted.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, 1984

On a motion by Mr. Gabelmann, Bill M207, British Columbia Human

Rights Code, 1984, 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.

MR. REYNOLDS: I rise on a matter of privilege. A member duly

elected to this chamber has the undoubted right to attend all sittings

unless the House by express order has taken away that member's right to

sit or unless the member has been ordered to withdraw by the Chair.

Neither this

[ Page 4814 ]

House nor the Chair has placed any restriction on

my right to attend sessions of this venerable chamber, and accordingly

any session called and held in secrecy amounts to a breach of my

privileges.

An accurate and unimpeachable source, the CBC, in a public

television broadcast yesterday disclosed that this chamber sat until

four o'clock in the morning for purposes of discussing a certain piece

of legislation. Not only was I not advised, Mr. Speaker, of this secret

sitting of the House, but it is my understanding that a number of hon.

members were also excluded from that particular sitting.

I wish to emphasize that had the source of this information been

other than the CBC, I would have dismissed it as an inexactitude or a

poorly researched report. In view of the source of this information,

Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that indeed this House may be

embarking upon a dangerous course of action, and I ask you, sir, as

guardian of the rights and privileges of all members of this honourable

House, to take whatever steps are necessary to see that such secret

sessions are discontinued forthwith.

MR. LAUK: On the same question of privilege, I was the only

member in attendance until four in the morning, and I think the report,

therefore, of the CBC was accurate as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will undertake the usual perusal and reply accordingly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to bills.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 29.

[2:30]

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 5 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MRS. DAILLY: I note that this changes the regulations, and

it's concerned with the registration of adoptions, so that the adopting

parents can now appear on the registration of birth as the parents of

the child. I applaud that; I think that's a good move.

I'm not quite sure of the timing. I'm not raising any objection, but

I wondered if the minister knows if that appears after the adoption is

finalized or at the time of it. It's a question that has been asked of

me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the amendment permits the

registrar to provide space on the application form for the names and

place of the birth of the parents. At the present time it is a separate

certificate. The birth certificate now does not contain space for that

information; it will now be integrated into the form. Where the

information is sought for a person who has been adopted, the names and

place of birth of the parents shall be those of the adoptive parents.

That is now the procedure. This basically amalgamates two forms and

provides further information than that which is now on the birth

certificate; but, yes, the protection is accorded at this time.

Sections 17 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: I have the pleasure to submit the 1983 annual

report of the ombudsman to the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia. Due to a printing problem, there is an addendum which has

been inserted into each copy. The final and bound form will be

presented within the next ten days.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 22.

YOUNG OFFENDERS (BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MS. BROWN: The reality of the situation, Mr. Chairman, is

that my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

would very much like to speak on this bill, so I have two options: I

can tread water until he gets here or....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Which sections does he wish to speak on? There are lots of sections.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I know. I think he wanted to speak on

Part I, which

talks about the whole business of offences by young persons. I don't know

whether he is near enough to his microphone to hear what's happening. If

the second member for Vancouver Centre is near his microphone Mr. Chairman,

I know he wanted to talk about

Part 1.

Maybe the minister sitting in for the Attorney-General would allow

me to welcome the member for Vancouver Centre, who is now here.

MR. LAUK: I want to deal with the Young Offenders Act in a

way that it has not been dealt with before, I don't think, in the

chamber, having studiously reviewed Hansard from the second reading debate.

In dealing with the

interpretations, I want to point out to Mr.

Chairman and to the chamber that the real practitioners of criminal

defence work and prosecution in Canada, if asked for an opinion about

how to deal with young offenders, would, I suppose.... When you ask the

experts in Indian affairs, they say: "Take the Indian Act and chuck

it." I don't think the Young Offenders Act is a heck of an improvement

[ Page

4815 ]

on the Juvenile Delinquents Act. It provides

protection for juveniles where it's not needed, and takes away

protection where it is needed. To learn respect for the law young

people have to have a sense of legal security. That does not mean they

should be left to the whims of social workers and that army of

do-gooders who want to reform the person, even before we determine in a

court of law whether the person has committed an offence. That's called

predisposition. The Oxford dictionary has a definition of

"predisposition" other than that, but it's a predisposition through

injustice.

If a young person is going to learn what the benefits are of the

adversary system and of the administration of justice under a British

trial system, they must learn at an early age. One of the best ways to

learn is that they are charged with an offence, protected by the law

from making statements, particularly protected concerning their rights,

entitled to legal defence counsel, and they should not be dealt with in

a legal way prior to the trial or disposition of the offence with which

they've been charged. I particularly remember the charge of

incorrigibility under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, and the other

insidious use of

an act that was put in place to protect young people

but which was really put in place to persecute young people, and was

misinterpreted and grossly misapplied. I think the young person must

learn — in most cases, in open court — that a criminal charge must be

made, clearly set out, particulars given, a trial had, and a conviction

or acquittal entered, and then disposition takes place. Insofar as the

probation procedures and all the rest of it, you're not going to get a

young person — or an adult — to respect the laws of society when

punishment is the only answer, or some sort of fake punishment, such as

the ones outlined in the Young Offenders Act.

I think the law is effective vis-à-vis young offenders — or adult

offenders — when apprehension is predictable, when conviction, if

guilty, is certain, and when the disposition is the outflow or logical

consequence of the act, and not some sort of fake punishment, silly

disposition or social-working of the individual. The only answer for

the young offender is the logical consequences of their acts. To some

extent this is reflected in the new act, but not anywhere as seriously

as the drafters of this act should have taken it. The logical

consequences of their acts means to help repair the damage and to

recognize, through some sort of imposition of a penalty, their

responsibility for their actions. It also means a move away from

punishment per se to logical consequences per se. I cannot give an

example to the committee offhand, except perhaps theft. If, as a

convicted offender, a person has not got the financial resources to

repay or reinstitute the loss to the victim, then as part, or all, of

their sentence that person should be put into the service of the

community or the victim until the equivalent of that loss is repaid.

This is the kind of disposition for young and adult offenders that

I'd like to see imposed in the criminal law across the country, because

it makes sense. We can get away from all of this academic, post-war

gobbledegook about rehabilitation, when in fact logical consequences is

the best rehabilitation that any offender can experience.

Before the Young Offenders Act passed committee, Mr. Chairman, in

Section 1 or any other section, I wanted to place on the record.... As

a person who did eight years of criminal defence work, a lot of it with

young people — not very much these days — and as one who has always had

that abiding belief that we were so wrong in dealing with young

offenders in that in many cases we perpetuated them as criminals,

rather than brought them back into a society with a sense of

responsibility, it seems to me that the Young Offenders Act, after so

much inquiry, deliberation and effort, has come out with pretty much

the same thing that we've had since 1921, and it's a pity.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon.

member for his thoughtful and well-experienced remarks. I think it goes

without saying that throughout the country the concept and the

philosophy of the federal statute has been under severe criticism, by

both all of the Attorneys-General in the country and, insofar as

implementation is concerned, even, I believe, the majority of the

Premiers in the country, if not all of them — certainly from the

perspective of the dollars being imposed upon the provinces to take

care of it.

There is maybe one bit of a saving grace in that the current statute

is more of a justice model — and I'm speaking now of the federal

statute. As everybody understands, we're compelled to bring this in;

otherwise we'd be in a great deal of difficulty in law enforcement

insofar as juveniles in our province are concerned, So there is more of

a justice model now: specific charges will be dealt with as opposed to

the omnibus-type charge of delinquency; there will be fixed term

consequences.

You're perfectly correct that what we have here is a procedural road

map, which we don't like at all, The provinces do not like this and,

quite frankly, I'm hoping for a change of attitude or a change in

government — whatever is going to be necessary in the federal

administration for a review to see that this act, as it is now set

light and the law of our country.

I agree with you very much, hon. member, that juveniles have to be

accountable for their actions to the extent of their maturity. There

are great concerns here re the overlays, the protections and, once

again, the road map that has been presented vis-à-vis the diversion

process. But I can assure you that insofar as British Columbia is

concerned, the practice will be that only real cases will be dealt with

and put into diversion. By a real case I mean a case that would indeed

be prosecuted and subject to effective and proper prosecution — the

Crown counsel would make that decision before the actual prosecution.

So diversion is not going to become a capricious exercise. We have to

look at diversion, I suppose, from the perspective of the best interest

of the individual and the best interest of society. But I would very

much recommend that the hon. member continue to say what he's saying

and get it into the federal quarters and federal ears, because that's

where the final decisions will have to be made. What we're dealing with

here is a mess that has been imposed not only on our province but on

all the provinces in the country.

[2:45]

MS. BROWN: What we're dealing with, Mr. Chairman, are young

people who are here because the services which were needed at the

beginning were not there for them; we're dealing with the end-products.

Every time we cut services in infant development programs or services

to small children and we fail to have the resources that young people

need, we know that the end-product is going to be the law; they're

going to come in conflict with the law by the time they become

teenagers, if not sooner. That's what we're dealing with. It seems to

me that if we're going to criticize the road

[ Page 4816 ]

map, we should start right at the beginning and

talk about putting more money into prevention, more money into meeting

the needs of young people prior to their coming in conflict with the

law, and not so much about how we're going to punish them once they

come into conflict with the law.

The Young Offenders Act has been made worse, as the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations standing in for the Attorney-General

stated, because the provinces are not financially prepared to deal with

the legislation. One of the things the federal act does is include

provisions relating to the right to counsel. Under

Part 1, 3(

l) or

(2).... Maybe a third subsection should have included that right to

counsel. But in fact,

Section 11 of the federal act deals with the

right to counsel, so that those young people, when they do get before

the courts, are not standing there unprotected or unadvised, not

depending on a social worker or someone to speak on their behalf, but

having legal counsel guaranteed to ensure that justice is meted out to

them fairly. That's been eliminated from the act. Maybe this Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations, who at one time used to be

Attorney-General himself, can explain why it is that

section 11 of the

federal act, dealing with the right of these young people to counsel,

has not been included in this particular piece of legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just returning slightly, if I may, to the

costing element — and this is not just a beef, I would like to assure

the hon. member, of British Columbia; it's universal right smack across

the country — the B.C. cost alone comes to about $40 million per year,

imposed for a statute that the provinces don't want at this time. I

gather that there has not been any opportunity to receive any type of

federal contribution to the additional costs of policing or additional

prosecution costs, but there is some reasonable cost-sharing from the

federal government for confinement costs.

Dealing with the situation of legal aid, the province will support

the right to counsel in certain circumstances, but not to the notion of

an unlimited right. You do have to remember that the court can play a

role and has an historic capacity to play a role in designating counsel

in any event. I quite frankly can't see, and I would certainly hope

not, that we are going to get into circumstances that where counsel

might be required it would not be obtained.

MS. BROWN: I recognize that the province has made a

commitment to ensure that young people under federal offences are

guaranteed the right to legal counsel. If it's a federal offence coming

under the federal act, the right to counsel has been guaranteed.

Where it doesn't apply.... When one takes into account the situation

of legal services across the province right now, the tight budget that

the Legal Services Society is trying to operate on, the kids who are

charged under the provincial act are....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's some awfully minor stuff — parking tickets.

MS. BROWN: Well, if it were only parking tickets it would be

okay, but some of these kids are in for some pretty serious things, and

if they're to meet the criterion of the Legal Services Society as it

applies to provincial offences, most of the time they're going to be in

court without legal counsel.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As I've indicated, first of all is the

opportunity for the child to apply for legal aid. Secondly, if legal

aid is not granted, there is the opportunity — if the court decides

that the case merits it — to appoint counsel. There are a number of

situations where counsel would not be required. I can certainly think

of some where counsel would be required: where the individual is facing

the loss of his liberty — some type of confinement, I would tend to

think in those circumstances it would be reasonably automatic that that

would happen. But you can't ask me to give an undertaking that I

haven't got the capacity to give you.

MS. BROWN: I recognize that the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations is doing the best he can. As a matter of fact, he is doing

much better than the Attorney-General, and I think we are in luck today

that the Attorney-General isn't here, because I'm getting much more

cooperation, support and encouragement from the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations than I got from the Attorney-General.

One more question. What about the records of these young people? I

am raising this under this

section because it is dealing with the

application of the act. Again, the federal statute has provision for

the destruction of the records of these young offenders. The provincial

statute doesn't. What's going to happen to their records?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Really you're jumping to

section 20. Could I deal with that when we get there?

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MS. BROWN: I want to ask some questions on

section 10, and

I'm very happy to see that the chairperson of corrections is here,

because I know that he will be able to give the information which I

need. Are any more containment centres going to be built? Certainly my

visits to the one in Victoria and to Willingdon and a couple of the

others indicate that they are already overcrowded and will not be able

to deal with the increased pressure on them. Will any additional

containment centres be built? If so, are these going to be privately

run or are they going to be under not just the aegis but the

jurisdiction of the Attorney-General's ministry?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 10 seems to deal with community works.

MS. BROWN: Community works is all a part of it. It talks

about community facilities and what happens there. Maybe what's

happened is that the Attorney-General has indicated to a number of

societies and organizations that as a result of the young offenders'

legislation, there is going to be a need for additional facilities. I'm

just wondering how many are going to be privately run. How many would

the government itself be building?

HON. MR. GARDOM: First, by virtue of the provisions of the

federal statutes.... Again, I'm hopeful that they will turn the comer

on this thing over the next year, but whether that will happen, who

knows? But according to the present structure, which must follow, yes,

need will be created for the addition of centres to deal with

17-year-olds. I think you asked the question of whether they would

become

[ Page 4817 ]

private-type situations or not. No, they would be under the aegis of the Ministry of Attorney-General.

MS. BROWN: The reason I ask that is because the

Attorney-General has been speaking to societies and organizations

telling them that there are going to be all sorts of facilities needed

and that they should apply. There were ads in the newspapers. I

attended a one-day workshop where they were advised how to fill out the

forms, how to apply.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm referring just to containment centres. Attendance and work-service programs — that's a different thing.

MS. BROWN: The DARE program in Vancouver, the Metchosin camp,

Porteau Camp, the DASH program, Crossroads, New Directions — what's

going to happen to those programs? Have they been contracted out? If

so, I'm going to ask some details about costing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They're continuing but are in the process of being privatized.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister give me their budgets for 1983? I

would like to compare that.... I'm trying to make a comparison with

what those programs cost us prior to privatization.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With all respect, that really is beyond the concept of this bill. I don't have those figures for you.

MS. BROWN: What I'm trying to find out is whether the

decision to privatize these programs was based on money, whether it was

an economic and financial decision, or was an ideological decision in

terms of what's best for the young offenders. That's really what I'm

trying to find out.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would think it would be a combination of both.

MR. ROSE: I was going to save this until

section 12, but

since it's along the same lines of the question just asked, perhaps the

minister could provide some details. The Maple Ridge School Board used

to have a camp at Loon Lake. They had it for grade 6 outdoor education

in the spring and fall on the forestry grounds in the Loon Lake area of

Maple Ridge. The school board had to close it down. It cost them about

$75,000 a year to run this program. The rumour around that community is

that a program for young offenders will be located on the same site at

a cost of about three-quarters of a million dollars, and that it's

going to be run by a private contractor, W.J. Stelmaschuk and

Associates. I'd like to ask for confirmation or denial of these

allegations.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I missed your question. I heard the

preamble.

MR. ROSE: Is the rumour about a young offenders' program

costing some $733,000, run by a private contractor, W. J. Stelmaschuk

and Associates, proposed for the Loon Lake area of the UBC forestry

grounds...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: First, I would like to reiterate the point

that in these privatization situations, which I alluded to a moment

ago, there is no question that the program criteria will have to be met

in all circumstances. I would say that and repeat it and underline it

doubly.

[3:00]

Vis-à-vis Loon Lake, I gather that at one point it was a school

property. I don't have those figures for you today, but if you'd like

I'll do my level best to find out for you.

MR. ROSE: I accept the minister's offer, but I just didn't know what form....

HON. MR. GARDOM: The answer is yes, the site will be used.

MR. ROSE: What about the contract, both the amount and the person?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't confirm the amount.

MR. ROSE: Ever?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I will seek that information. I don't have it.

MR. ROSE: And get back to me the next sitting of the House?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, with the greatest dispatch.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, submissions were invited by the B.C.

corrections branch from persons, agencies or corporations for the

provision of community service order programs from some of the

following communities: Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Delta, Langley, Mission,

Port Coquitlam, Hope, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Surrey, Courtenay

and Nanaimo. I am wondering if any of those agencies or corporations

have yet been awarded contracts for the 1984 fiscal year and generally

something about what kind of negotiated agreements they are. I know you

haven't got the question. I am posing it to you because I know that you

will undertake to get the answer and bring it back to the House in the

very near future.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I will relay it to the Attorney-General.

Sections 10 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You were concerned, Madam Member, about the

automatic document disposal provision in the federal side and not being

automatic in the provincial side. Was that the tenor of your question?

Well, our Document Disposal Act provides that generally documents

can't be destroyed before the end of seven years. As I said, the Young

Offenders Act of Canada requires destruction at earlier times, This

section that we have here will provide, should the province be forced

to establish record destruction procedures, that that can happen and

there will not be any conflict with our own Documents Disposal Act.

[ Page 4818 ]

So I take it, from our discussion, we have maintained a degree of flexibility.

MS. BROWN: In other words, a young offender at age 17 isn't

going to become an adult and still be carrying those documents with

him. The decision could be made to destroy them prior to the

seven-year....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That type of decision could be made, yes.

Sections 20 to 67 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: 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 22, Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1984

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman,

Section 1 gives the Attorney-General

the power to define as a public body and establish legislation...being

established by legislation or by the Crown anything including boards,

commissions, councils, whatever; in other words, from ICBC to community

colleges to hospitals, wherever boards have been appointed. Under this

section any of those agencies are going to be unable to hire a lawyer

or legal services without first getting the approval of the

Attorney-General. I'm not quite sure what the reason for that is. I

want to point out two of the dangers I see. One has to do with the

centralization of all this decision-making in the hands of the

Attorney-General, and the other is the temptation to patronage. I want

to express my grave concern about that, because although I recognize

that it's a good management tool in that the Attorney-General can keep

an eye on it and see to it that some boards are not paying their

lawyers more than other boards are, I think that could have been

arrived at simply by setting a fee, rather than by taking all of that

power into their hands. So I just want to say that I'm very unhappy

with this section, and I disapprove of the Attorney-General's

concentrating all of that power in his hands.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. PASSARELL: This is a very short

section amending the

Court Order Enforcement Act. If I may just paraphrase what's written in

the book on it, it provides that foreign judgments for loss or injury

caused by asbestos cannot be enforced in the province. Original

proceedings in the province are not affected, but where the loss or

injury arises out of the province in respect of British Columbia

asbestos, the law of the province applies. As you know, Mr. Chairman,

there's only one asbestos mine in the province, at Cassiar. This deals

with foreign judgments against the asbestos industry.

Is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) taking this?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay. I have a couple of questions for you.

Why is this being done? Is it because of a judgment in the province of

Ontario in regard to the problems of death and disease caused by

asbestos, and similar acts that are being brought in by the province of

Ontario in regard to the asbestos industry? There was an

article in the

Toronto Globe and Mail of May 9, 1984, on page 5, in which the

leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, Mr. Bob Rae, brought

forth documents in regard to the asbestos industry and the problems

associated with working in that industry. I think most of us in the

Legislature are aware of the problems associated with asbestosis, a

disease that has crippled, killed and injured numerous residents and

citizens across this country. I would like the minister's reasoning as

to why you're bringing in

an act that to a certain extent protects the

industry in regard to damages, lawsuits and claims related to

asbestosis and the asbestos industry in this province. As I say, we're

just dealing with Cassiar, because that's the only operating asbestos

mine in the province of British Columbia. I'd like the minister's

response.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If you would bear with me just a few

moments, it's rather a complicated subject. First of all, if this bill

was not brought in, Cassiar could be exposed to closure. That's

essentially what could happen if the United States judgments were

enforced in Canada. At the present time, the general law is that if one

secures what's known as a final or conclusive judgment in an

extraterritorial jurisdiction, you can sue on that judgment in — we'll

use British Columbia — a British Columbia court. Just prove the

mechanics of the judgment itself, presuming there was a fair and proper

trial. If it's not a final and conclusive judgment — e.g., a judgment

from maintenance, which is subject to variation — you cannot sue upon

that foreign judgment in the B.C. court. We have had the situation of a

final judgment which is developing as a result of these

products-liability cases in the United States relating to production,

manufacturing and use of asbestos fibres, and certainly as a result of

the somewhat recent changes in the United States workers' compensation

laws, wherein, if people aren't party to the workers' compensation laws

through the total process, from producer almost to consumer, these

people who have suffered disabilities, without question, do have tort

claims. Well, we're now, I gather, into many millions of dollars with

those types of claims in the United States. But Cassiar in British

Columbia is prevented from raising the kinds of defences that would be

open to Cassiar to raise against those people across the line. We're

saying that it will not be possible to enforce

[ Page 4819 ]

foreign judgments in British Columbia in these

specific kinds of cases. It is definitely related to asbestos-type

cases. That does not mean that an individual in British Columbia cannot

initiate a case here for just and proper cause, providing he can prove

his claim. The capacities to prove the case in the United States are

far broader. So you get an easy judgment in the United States — in

Canadian legal concepts — haul that judgment into Canada and close up

the mine. What we're doing here is not novel to our country. Similar

legislation — I can't say it's precisely the same, because I'm not

aware of that type — has been introduced in Quebec.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's

response. As this House is probably aware, Cassiar is the only mine

that's operating in my riding right now. We have to keep some type of

operation going on up there for the many individuals who are employed

by it.

I have a couple more questions for the minister. What happens if an

individual moves to another province? For instance, let's say that an

individual employed by Cassiar and living there gets asbestosis and

then moves to Quebec. Could an individual from another province bring a

lawsuit in regard to the province of British Columbia or the mine of

Cassiar after going to another province? I understand the foreign

country aspect and what is happening with the Johns-Manville case in

the United States with regard to asbestosis. What would happen if the

individual moved to another province? Would he or she still have the

protection of bringing a lawsuit under this

section of the act, if it's

passed?

HON. MR. GARDOM: His rights would be unchanged. This

section doesn't affect that.

MR. PASSARELL: That's fine. Thank you. That's more or less

what I wanted to know. I understand the part about a foreign country

and lawsuits in this

section 8. My concern is that, because it's such a

transient population that works in the asbestos mine, there are a lot

of individuals travelling between the provinces. But it more or less

negates a foreign country bringing a lawsuit against Cassiar.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think if you direct your attention to

section 41.1(3), it says:

"Where a person has a cause of action under the

domestic law of the province for loss or injury" — that's B.C. — "that

is suffered outside Canada and arises out of or exposure to or the use

of asbestos mined in the province" — in B.C. — "he may commence an

action under the domestic law of the province notwithstanding that a

judgment has been given in respect of loss or injury or that a

proceeding might have been commenced outside Canada for the same

relief."

[3:15]

MR. ROSE: One thing I object to about the report of the

Ontario commission — and so do a lot of other people — is that in that

industry they accepted the principle of a tolerable level of death,

which doesn't particularly comfort me, nor should it anybody in the

industry. The only reason they've cleaned up their act is because of

all the surrounding publicity. People have been put under massive risk,

and early death has been their reward. A lot of these people, as my

colleague said, are transients. Miners move all over the place in

search of work; certainly Quebec miners will come out to work at

Cassiar, and presumably the reverse is also true. I'd like to ask the

minister: is there any action that can be started, on the basis of

health and safety regulations, against a company operating in British

Columbia if that person who is sick and old now lives in Quebec? What

is open to him if he is destitute, as many are? His rights are

unchanged, but they are certainly not enhanced, as I understood the

minister's reply.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There wouldn't be an enhancement here.

Probably workers' compensation would apply in the instances you've

given. This amendment primarily deals with product liability situations

in the U.S.A. We're not building special classes of actions in British

Columbia for asbestos situations. This deals with a foreign judgment.

MR. ROSE: I understand all that. I've also had some

experience dealing with workers' compensation, where a person is

injured in one province and then moves to another. There is no federal

liaison for workers needing appeals under workers' compensation. Many

of these people are indigent, they're sick and they're told to appear

in Toronto on such and such a day for their appeal and hearing, when

unfortunately they live in Mission, British Columbia. So this is a

concern. It may not he a concern absolutely central to this amendment,

but I think it's important, for the record, to raise it as a concern,

because another amendment might well be contemplated to enhance the

health and safety of working people in hazardous industries.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, by agreement we will proceed to

section 14.

section 14.

MR. COCKE: Yes, we are a party to that agreement.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick query about this

one. As it is no longer necessary to include RRSPs in a will, will they

still be considered part of the estate if in fact the beneficiary has

been named by other means?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

MS. BROWN: This is the Motion Picture Act that's being

amended. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say how pleased I am by

this amendment, which extends the coverage — or certainly the

supervision — that motion pictures will have outside of the theatre and

even into halls, private buildings, rooms and places of premises. What

the act says is that once a film has been through the classification

board and parts of it have been taken out because they're deemed to

contravene community standards or whatever, the unexpurgated version

cannot then be shown in a community hall or

[ Page 4820 ]

somewhere else. I think that's good, and I wouldn't

want this

section to go by without commenting on the fact that we have

taken this small step for mankind. I'm hoping that by next year, when

another act of this nature comes in, this will extend to video, because

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) has made a commitment to look at

the whole business of classification of video as something that

certainly should be introduced. I hope he will not be too long in doing

that, because I think the whole classification process is one way of

dealing with the proliferation of pornographic video in the province. I

hope the Attorney-General will move with all deliberate speed in this

direction.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

MRS. WALLACE: We just discussed the Human Rights Bill, which

said that there should be no age discrimination as far as hiring goes.

This seems to be a discriminatory thing: that you will not appoint

people who are under 55 or over 70. I would like to know what the

rationale is for this.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Insofar as the 55-age year is concerned,

that is the year when provincial court judges can qualify for pension.

It was not the intention of the attorney, in proposing this amendment,

that a judge would retire at age 51, shall we say, and then apply and

become a supernumerary judge at age 52, when his colleagues are still

on the bench till 55. That's the first question. The second question,

the age of 70 years, is one that was set by him, in his wisdom, as an

appropriate age. If people wish to perform judicial duties after the

age of 70, I suppose they can become arbitrators. I'm sure my colleague

from Vancouver East, as he's fast approaching those years, is thinking

of perhaps getting involved in that kind of work, and I'd wish him well.

MR. MACDONALD: Seventy sounds kind of fun.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

section 19.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to make a comment — which I could have

made under

section 9 — having to do with the whole concept of the

privatization of court reporters. Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that

within the next year or so these people will have to move out of public

facilities into their own private facilities when they become

privatized. Who is going to pick up the cost of the rent and all of the

others perks which they used to have when they were part of the public

system? Is that going to be passed on, transferred on to the litigant,

or is there going to be some arrangement to ensure that privatizing the

court workers does not end up being a burden on people who need to use

their services? That would make the justice system inaccessible to some

people, poor people for example. Surely that would not be the goal of

the government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't give you a definitive answer,

chapter and verse, as to specifically what is or is not going to be

included in it. But I can assure you, Madam Member, the official court

reporters are fully aware of their capacities and interests and indeed

their duties. Furthermore, there is a process that is made available in

the amendment wherein the Attorney-General, following consultation with

the Chief Justice, can make specific regulations. They'll be looking

into all of that very carefully. What you're talking about is really

administration. We're not trying to build an administrative road-map

legislatively.

MS. BROWN: I'm not discussing administration; I'm discussing

access to the system. I realize that qualifications are going to be

set, and that's good; there's nothing wrong with that. What I'm

concerned about is that there is going to be an increased cost on the

litigants, and I want to be assured that justice is not going to be

denied to people who are too poor to meet these costs as a result of

this. It's not administration. I'm sure that the administration part

will be taken care of. It's the access that I'm concerned about. I'm

wondering what kind of plans have been made by the government to ensure

that no one is denied the use of court reporters because they haven't

got the money to pay. That's all.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, even today that is

unfortunately a fact of life in certain lawsuits. I can well remember —

and other practising lawyers here will recall — situations where people

did not go to the court of appeal because the cost of a transcript of a

three-week trial was essentially prohibitive to them; yet they weren't

the kind of people who could qualify for legal aid or assistance.

Mostly in civil cases, and sometimes maybe cases that were brought by

them as plaintiffs and lost, they eventually decided, "Well, heck, this

is not worth any more grist to the mill — extra legal fees or court

reporters' fees for transcripts," and they'd walk away into the night.

I can't give you assurances.

MR. MACDONALD: Nevertheless, there's a real philosophical

divide on sections like this. Access to the law is becoming more and

more difficult for people with limited means. This is part of the

Social Credit revolt of the rich against the poor. It is all very well

to say that transcripts have always been expensive. Of course they are,

but under this government they're becoming more expensive.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm sure of it. If you're going to put

the court reporters out of the courthouse where they pay no rent,

they're going to have to pay rent somewhere else and charge the client.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you bet your seat on it?

MR. MACDONALD: I'll bet my seat on it. This is part of the

revolt of the rich against the poor that Social Credit has inaugurated.

In this

section you're just limiting a little bit of access to justice

without considerations of cost, and you're doing it in other fields as

well.

MS. BROWN: The problem with this, Mr. Chairman, as the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations himself indicated, is that it's

already happening, and this

section is going

[ Page 4821 ]

to increase the number of people who are going to

be penalized in terms of access to the courts and justice system

because they haven't got the money.

I'm not reflecting on another piece of legislation, but as you know,

Mr. Chairman, legal services are being cut in a number of other areas,

and we find that the justice system is really shrinking and fewer and

fewer people are going to be able to afford it. It is quite possible

that the government has made provision to ensure that these additional

costs are not going to be passed on to the litigants. If the stand-in

Attorney-General doesn't know, would he try to get the information, or

suggest to the Attorney-General that this

section be amended or not

proceeded with or something? I think this is very serious.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll request the information that you require from the Attorney-General, and I'll give him a copy of your remarks in Hansard .

I think everybody knows here that as far as litigation is concerned —

rightfully, wrongfully or indifferently — it's been essentially

user-pay, save and except in criminal or legal aid cases. If you decide

you want to sue me for whatever, then it's your baby to take that on

and you pay for those expenses. Society provides a courtroom and a

judge for you through the taxpayers' pockets. It costs you to get in

there. You have to pay for the issuance of your writ. If you choose to

have an official court reporter, or if the court orders one, that's

part of your responsibility. The system is not changing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just costing you more.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Then it's costing all the taxpayers more. You can't have it both ways.

[3:30]

MS. BROWN: I want to ask the Attorney-General for an example.

In ICBC cases where a settlement cannot be reached and a person decides

to go to court, would this be one of the instances? Would that be

included? You need a transcript. We all know of examples of our

constituents, Mr. Chairman. I am thinking, for example, of one person

whose husband was killed by a drunk driver. They could not resolve the

thing out of court because ICBC just would not come up with a

reasonable settlement. Now this woman has no alternative, because she

is a single parent, but to go to court. So she's already deprived of

the primary wage-earner in her family. She's having to scrape together

whatever funds she can in order to sue ICBC. This is an additional cost

which she would not have had to deal with prior to this piece of

legislation becoming law.

So it's not a matter of a lot of idle litigants going through the

courts who are hurt by this. A lot of genuine people who can't afford

it are going to be hurt and penalized by this amendment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the acting minister says the

cost of the courthouse and the judge and all this are being paid by the

taxpayers anyway, so he pays a little more directly in this case when

he takes a case to court. But that's why I say we have a major

philosophical division between ourselves and these Reaganites. The

taxpayers out there are not equal in their ability to go to court.

There are glaring inequalities of wealth out there — most of it

inherited, for that matter. What you're doing is giving a leg up to a

person who has a good case and a good bank account and a leg down to

the person who has a good case and a weaker bank account.

MS. BROWN: I just want to add that this is not something that

is covered by legal aid. Under these circumstances you're not entitled

to a legal aid lawyer. So here you have a good case but no money. So I

don't know — maybe the minister has had an opportunity to rethink.

Section 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom,

Curtis

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Brummet

Waterland

Reid

Segarty

Veitch

Ree

Reynolds

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Wallace

Lockstead

Brown

D'Arcy

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't hear

the reading of the list because that little right-wing cabal down there

were making so much noise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The vote will be recorded in Hansard , hon. member.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member

for New Westminster was right. There was some talking down here, but we

were talking to all the Vickers supporters down at this end.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might suggest that the points of order are questionable.

[3:45]

Section 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom,

Curtis

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Brummet

Waterland

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Reid

Reynolds

[ Page 4822 ]

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Wallace

Lockstead

Brown

D'Arcy

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

MR. D'ARCY: This should be to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), but it will be the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) instead. If these

sections are unnecessary and irrelevant, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the

minister could tell us why they were enacted in 1977. What has changed?

Why were they necessary then and not now?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sorry, Chris, I didn't hear you.

MR. D'ARCY: These two sections being repealed are only seven

years old. The government decided they were needed in 1977 and the

opposition didn't object. Why are they unneeded now?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you referring to the cost of borrowing,

etc.? Am I on the right

section with you? Sorry, I was being a little

distracted over here. This is the cost of borrowing and related matters

under the Consumer Protection Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Okay. The object of the amendments is to

allow the extension of credit at a variable rate of interest. Variable

rate credit is currently being offered by the lending institutions, but

it's technically illegal because the cost of borrowing has to be

specifically disclosed in advance; when you have a variable rate, you

can't specifically disclose it in advance. So these sections require

disclosure of the cost before the extension of credit, and the

amendments will permit the cost of borrowing for variable rate credit

to be estimated by using the interest rate existing at the time of the

transaction. The time reduction in the other

section — I may as well

speak to the whole thing while I'm on my feet; the 90 days to 30 days

appears under

section 30 — is because the federal cost-of-borrowing

regulations, which have been in effect now, I understand, for over 12

months, allow 30 days as opposed to the 90. So the provincial side has

to dovetail, which is equivalent to procedures, I understand, in the

rest of the country.

MR. D'ARCY: I appreciate the minister's efforts in showing us

that he can read very well. The point needs to be made, though, that if ministers

of the Crown, who are being very well paid to carry out their legislative duties

in this chamber, would be here and on the job when their particular legislative

responsibilities are being debated, I think things would go a whole lot more

smoothly. The fact is that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) is not here when there are major sections under his responsibility

in this particular statute.

Sections 27 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

MR. D'ARCY: The

section making the changes to the Insurance

Act does create an insurance council and essentially allows, as I see

it, for a fair amount of self-regulation by the insurance industry.

While there are some merits in increased self-regulation, the fact is

that the history of self regulation by self-interest groups, whether

they be professionals or business people, in this province has not been

a healthy one. Among doctors, lawyers and other groups self regulation

has primarily led to secrecy when investigations were taking place, and

in fact has led to a lack of public trust. Even if the decisions they

may have made regarding their own self-regulation have been the right

ones, the fact is that, to use the old saw, not only must justice be

done but it must also appear to be done. I have some concern that there

will be a lack of public disclosure when problems do arise in the

insurance industry along the lines of the lack of public disclosure we

have seen within the medical profession and other self-regulatory

bodies within the province of British Columbia. As I say, I'm not

philosophically opposed to allowing some self-regulation. I am opposed

to any provision that allows anything to be done behind closed doors

when it is manifestly in the public interest that the sunshine should

be let in. The public have the right to know what is going on inside

such an important industry as the insurance business in the province of

B.C.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thank the member for his observation, and

in response — and I think the response can apply to the other two areas

that have been dealt with in these amendments of my colleague the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — the documents relating,

say, to licensing and processes and so forth, which will be handled by

these self-regulatory organizations, will be open to public scrutiny.

If you'd like me to make a few general observations about this, I'm

very happy to do so now. It might be an appropriate time to do it,

subject to what you wish.

AN HON. MEMBER: Under

section 45.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll wait until we get to 45.

Sections 31 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 45.

MR. MACDONALD: We're dealing here with insurance and, as the

acting minister said, the same thing applies to real estate and even to

the stock exchange. But

section 45 changes the Insurance Act so that

the superintendent of insurance, in the exercise of his powers, can

delegate any of his duties.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's permissive.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's permissive. We'll never know whether

he does or not; but given the privatizing zeal of this government, I

suppose you might as well let it happen,

[ Page 4823 ]

eh? That's why we're passing this

section — "...any

of his duties to the council." Well, the council are a very estimable

body of men, but they're in the industry. They're not the public.

They're not the consumer. They're insurance people. When you come to

the real estate industry, you're going to delegate any or all of the

powers to the Real Estate Council. They're realtors — they're in there

for 7 percent or a flip. When you come later to the stock exchange,

which is the most egregious example of them all, you even give this....

In your privatizing zeal to transfer the protection of the public,

through a quasi-judicial proceeding — the protection of the public that

has historically been the role of government, looking after all of the

people — you're delegating it and giving these private bodies the right

to collect the fees and to make the decisions within their own

industry, where they're bound to have a financial....

Supposing Smith's case comes up, and he says: "Smith can't sit on

the council but Jones...." His own case may be a very similar one two

months down the road. They're privatizing the jails. They're

privatizing services to children, and now they're privatizing part of

the justice system — the protection of all of the citizens. I don't

know what more there is to say about it.

The acting minister talked about secrecy. All we're doing here is

applying to the council the rights of secrecy that the superintendent

used to have. Their decisions and formal reasons have to be made

public, but that's all. It can be a secret.... The public can't go into

the hearing, can they? Show me where it says that. Just the affected

parties can, and then the reasons and the decisions are printed. But

that's all. This is really so absurd, in terms of Reaganite revolution,

to go so far as to privatize the protection of the public from

unscrupulous insurance practices when they happen. I don't say they

happen every day, but I say they do happen, and who's going to check

them? The industry. It's just ridiculous.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dealing with

section 45, Mr. Chairman, I'd

just like to discuss some specifics, and then I'll make a somewhat more

general statement. First of all, we're dealing with licensing capacity

here.

MR. MACDONALD: No, any powers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, with a licensing capacity. It doesn't

deal with discipline. It doesn't deal with investigations, which are in

other sections of the act. By way of a general provision, which I think

will be of assistance to the hon. members, the amendments to the

Insurance Act, the Real Estate Act and the Securities Act, all of which

we'll be discussing this afternoon in the committee.... The

observations are really essentially relevant to the three of them. The

amendments will provide for the superintendent to create regulations

and to delegate to appropriate self-regulatory organizations his powers

to issue licences. We are dealing with the issuance of licences.

Now let's deal with them seriatim. First of all, under the Insurance

Act, the insurance agents, adjusters and salesmen will have the

capacity to be licensed by the Insurance Council. Insurers — those who

undertake insurance contracts — will continue to be licensed for

business not by the council but by the superintendent.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the real estate area all real estate agents will be licensed by the Real Estate Council. And the Securities Act........

I'm now talking again, as I did in the first two illustrations,

about licensing: brokers, brokers' dealers, investment dealers and

securities salesmen will be licensed, depending upon their membership,

either by the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada or by the

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Security issuers fall essentially into the

same ambit.

The licensing provisions themselves have been clarified to confirm

an applicant's right to a hearing. We are looking at this from the

perspective of an application for a licence or indeed a person who has

a licence. If the licence is refused or an application is refused, that

individual is entitled to a hearing.

Next, the documents that relate to licensing — the decisions that

are made by these self-regulatory organizations — will be maintained

and will be open to public scrutiny. Individuals who happen to be

refused a licence.... Are they going to be denied an appeal? No,

they're not. They're going to have an appeal to the Commercial Appeals

Commission from any decision taken by the self-regulatory organization.

The superintendent himself will become a party to that, so there's a

complete interplay between the superintendent and the self-regulatory

organization. And a very important point: the superintendent may, when

he deems it necessary, withdraw from any one of these self-regulatory

organizations any matter that is before a hearing, and he has the

capacity to make his own decision. The doors are never closed to the

superintendent at all. They are open to him. In order that they can

perform these licensing functions, the usual protections and privileges

are afforded, the superintendent can request any reports and any

information concerning licensing from the self-regulatory organizations

at any point in time and for any reason — doesn't have to establish

cause — and the superintendent will have to require that they collect

licence fees on his behalf, which you would anticipate, and they would

issue the licences, but under the signature of the superintendent. With

all respect, you are raising a bit of a pink herring in suggesting that

the superintendent is going to be out to lunch. No way. He's still very

much in the act.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister

once again — if it's going to be in order to deal with these numbers of

sections, because they're basically the same; the question applies

equally to each one — will there be public filing of regulations and

qualifications? Will the public have some input — shall we say — to

that information, to the formulation of those regulations, to those

provisions, and will those provisions be in the public domain in terms

of a public statement either by the government or by the superintendent

of insurance brokers or real estate, as the case may be?

[4:00]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Affirmative.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you look at the reality of these situations, and the acting minister says....

In the case of the stock exchange, for example, you've got some

pretty influential people there — guys like Peter Brown and Mike Ryan —

and he says the little superintendent sitting in Victoria without much

staff left can intervene if you have an appeal to him, and he can ask

them to give a report. But the reality is that the industry is going to

be run by itself. The

[ Page 4824 ]

stock exchange is going to be run by people who are

selling stocks. That's the social reality of it; you're transferring

the power down there. You say: "Oh, you might be able to fight back and

get a public hearing" — and you can on an appeal, but the reality is

that you have transferred the power down there. Some things come to the

public notice, sure, but not the hearing, the decision, the regulations

they make, things of that kind.

On the question of cancellation of a licence, suppose the powers

that be, who now have that authority in this insurance thing, say: "I

don't think we'll cancel that licence." This guy has been hawking the

insurance a little bit free and easy here and maybe not quite in the

public interest, and you get some consumers to complain, and they're

not cancelling the licence. The superintendent here, who's bereft of

his staff and everything, says: "Oh, I've heard about that; I know all

about that; I'm going to step in."

The reality is, you're giving away the powers of government, the

protection of the public, to very powerfully influential — as far as

the Socred government is concerned — groups in the community. I'm not

knocking them, but I'm saying they're the friends of this government,

and they'll be increasingly the friends, grateful friends, when this

goes through. The stock exchange is the best example of all, where all

kinds of things will go on in terms of bamboozling the public, and

they'll be checked by the very people who may do the same thing the

next day. That's privatization gone mad. You might as well let Jim

Pattison regulate his magazines, eh. Well, all right, I'd be prepared

to let Jim Pattison regulate himself, but I'm not prepared to let

Hell's Angels regulate themselves and then submit a monthly report on

their depredations to the government. That's practically what you're

doing. It's just ridiculous.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us whether

the licensing provisions that the superintendent of brokers will now

have discretion to do will allow him to license commodity traders? As

has been raised before in this chamber, that's the major loophole in

terms of securities regulation in the province of British Columbia,

where we have boiler-room operators — either through deliberate actions

or through incompetence — fleecing a lot of legitimate investors in

British Columbia, resulting in our getting a bad name in some of those

areas. Certainly there is not as much concern about the other area of

investment licensing, but certainly in those areas there is a major

loophole that needs to be plugged. Can the minister tell us whether

this is going to give the superintendent discretion to plug that

loophole in our securities investment community?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I understand that that specific group you're

speaking of would still remain with the superintendent. You mentioned

"fleecing;" if you have any specific information that anyone else

doesn't have, please tell him.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, can we receive an absolutely

genuine assurance that there will not be the use of the regulatory

powers of the superintendent or any regulation to do what has happened

all too often in this country and others when a body is given

regulatory power under the guise of protecting the public interest? In

fact, the regulations are basically used to prevent entry of

competitors into the field. We only need to look at the chartered banks

and airlines until recently in Canada to know that that regulation can

be abused in that way. Certainly we on this side of the House want to

see an honest operation, but we also want to see new operators with the

ability to get into the field and compete with the established

brokerage firms.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The power is purely permissive, and if there

was abuse, if I had anything to do with it I would order the

superintendent to draw back on it.

Sections 45 to 68 inclusive approved.

section 69.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister can give us

some indication as to what this change involves. Do they have any

specific private railways that they are concerned about? Is the

government thinking about industrial railways engaged in hauling logs,

coal or some other commodity? Why does the government need this change?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member for

Rossland-Trail,

section 69 is consequential to several others which

commenced earlier in the bill, and relates to the British Columbia

Railway only.

Sections 69 to 75 inclusive approved.

section 76.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I haven't heard the Minister for

Intergovernmental Relations talk so much in this Legislature since the

debate he had with the Hon. Joseph Martin a few years back.

Mr. Chairman,

section 76 deals with the Motor Vehicle Act. The

opposition will be supporting this amendment, but one problem with it

is that the superintendent of motor vehicles will be able to refuse a

driver's or motor vehicle licence, and/or plates, because of an unpaid

fine. I agree with that, but as the critic for Transportation and

Highways a number of people have contacted me because of the employment

problems out there. I just dealt with one with the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), in which a cab driver

received a number of points and was laid off his job. He therefore had

no source of income and wasn't able to pay his fines, and at the same

time couldn't renew his driver's licence. He was caught in a catch-22

situation, because if he couldn't renew his driver's licence he

couldn't get a job.

In passing this amendment this afternoon I think we have to keep in

mind that sometimes individuals who are employed in the motor carrier

sections do need some kind of support, in that if their principal job

is driving a cab or other vehicle and they get into trouble with fines,

there should be some kind of allowance for that situation. I was able

to work that situation out with the minister, and I would hope that

some kind of a principle could be brought in where an individual who

can't pay their fines won't lose their driver's licence, and that some

kind of a program can be worked out. What happened on this one was that

the individual had about $300 in fines, but was able to go to motor

vehicles and pay it off at $50 a month or so. I would hope that it is

not the intent of this act to make people pay off traffic violations

all at once. The opposition will be supporting

section 76.

[ Page 4825 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: In fairness, I would like to respond to the

member for Atlin. It is my information that the first implementation of

these provisions will not come about until about a year from today. It

will take that long to work into the system. Initially it will only

deal with drivers' licences; it will not go to the other side. If I

might, since the hon. member really did make a philosophical

observation about the process of fines, I completely agree.... I've

always felt that the fine system is not the most appropriate system.

It's a pretty simple thing for a person who has a degree of wherewithal

to pay a fine. In many cases the hardship of paying a fine and losing

the licence is borne more by the family of the individual than the

individual. I tend to think that some type of social agency would be a

better process to be followed. We might be a few light-years away from

having that happening, but I've been preaching it for quite a while.

Section 76 approved.

Section 77.

MR. PASSARELL: I want clarification on this from the

minister. It states that this new act reads.... "Without limiting the

generality of any provision of this act," it is declared that the power

of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations extends

to.... And it goes on. Could the minister give this House a reason why

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council makes regulations without

restricting the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act? I guess that is

what it's implying in

section 76. Was it the advice of counsel to add

that?

Another question. "The power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

extends to...." Why do you need that regulation in this act, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm backfilling. The explanatory note says....

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a very good explanatory note, I want you to know.

MRS. WALLACE: We can read.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes. But I'm having a little difficulty

reading it, because the print is so small. It's two lines in length,

and it says: "Section 77 adds back a reference to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council which was removed erroneously in a

previous amendment." Now there's good reason for you, sir.

Section 77 approved.

section 78.

MR. BLENCOE: This is a fascinating section. It has some

marvellous algebra in it — some equations. I think I have a handle on

the situation, but I'm wondering if the minister would like to give his

full explanation of the details of the equations and the changes.

[4:15]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I just couldn't wait to be

asked that question. Algebra was never one of my better subjects. I

will attempt to explain it in a more simple way. Actually what we are

doing here is making that conversion from the old mill rate to the tax

rates. This

section is dealing with the borrowing limits. In order to

do this properly....

MR. BLENCOE: I agree.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Are you following?

MR. BLENCOE: I agree with that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very good, Keep assuring me that you understand; that way I won't have to repeat it.

In order to arrive at apples for apples, we have taken 1983 and

converted that back from the actual value to the assessed values. Then

we have 1981, 1982 and 1983 all equal apples for apples.

Are you laughing?

MR. BLENCOE: No, I'm just wondering where the oranges come in?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Okay, we've reached that stage. Now we take

the average of those figures, and in order to arrive at the actual

limit we.... Because there are a variety of assessments and rates for

one municipality or another — residential versus industrial, etc. — we

have to arrive at a percentage by municipality that we will use against

the average figure in order to arrive at the limit. Using Abbotsford —

that's going back home — as an example, in order to arrive at their

borrowing limits, we come up with a figure of 16.11, and 16.11 of the

average of the three years' assessed value will bring them to somewhere

very close to what their limit was under the old system. Is that clear?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, I'm with you.

MS. BROWN: What is 16.11

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's the figure used in using Abbotsford as an example.

MR. BLENCOE: The common denominator may be wrong, but that's okay.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Does that answer your question fully?

MR. BLENCOE: Are you finished?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Completely, yes. Then, of course you know,

the first

section deals with cities, towns and districts, and we go on

using the same application for villages. It's all very simple.

MR. BLENCOE: I just wanted to check with the minister at this

time to get the figures and the background. Indeed, I agree. His

explanation is a very good one.

MS. BROWN: But what does it mean?

[ Page 4826 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's very complicated.

I did have some concerns about the algebraic equation. I suspected

that the common denominator of three may have been slightly off — by

0.92 — but after about three hours of figuring it out and close

calculation, decided the government's common denominator is indeed

quite accurate.

Does the minister know what I'm talking about?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As I said earlier, it wasn't one of my

better subjects. But be assured, my friend, through you, Mr. Chairman,

that this formula was worked out by very talented people, experts in

the field, and I am totally satisfied because of the example that has

been used to demonstrate just exactly how simple and accurate it is. I

am totally satisfied that indeed this is the best way to do it.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm not usually taking the minister's

word. I did, however, check this morning with UBCM, and I discovered

that they are reasonably happy with the equation and they see no

substantive changes to be worried about. I think that's good, because

UBCM of late hasn't been particularly happy with a number of things

that this government has done. I have to report, however, that they are

pleased with this section.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, the changes are adequate and we are going to support this particular section.

Sections 78 to 80 inclusive approved.

section 81.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't treat this

section quite so lightly.

This is indeed a very important section. I will provide a little bit of

background as to why I have some concerns. The minister will, I'm sure,

want to respond. I've indicated in the last ten months in this House

that the difficulties that the municipalities are going through in

terms of financial constraints are enormous. Unfortunately the minister

doesn't sometimes always understand the operations of municipal

government. He simply doesn't understand them, probably from having had

no experience in municipal government.

Suffice to say, Mr. Chairman, that in the last ten months we have

seen a number of changes in municipal acts, municipal affairs

legislation and granting systems. They have had dramatic impact on the

financial arrangements of municipalities. One which I have mentioned —

and I will mention again — is the whole funding formula for underground

services and the contribution from provincial government, which was

radically altered and has changed dramatically and will create

financial hardship. The other one, of course — and there are others; I

will mention just one more — is the transfer of sheriffs' costs and

this sort of thing, which I hope the government will compensate. Again,

it is a further transfer of costs to local government, which they

cannot meet.

Mr. Chairman, we have a

section here in this bill,

section 81, which

looks harmless on the surface but financially could be a great burden

for local government once again.

What the government has decided to do, and I suspect it's because of

some of the renegade back-benchers that come from the outlying areas on

the mainland of Vancouver, is give another gift to....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Name names.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, you wouldn't want me to, Madam Member; you wouldn't want me to name your name.

Here we have another gift — which we've already had in this House in

the last ten months; Bill 9, which got rid of regional planning, and

things like that — to the development industry. One of the things that

happens when a development is to go in is the development charges that

the municipality is entitled to collect from a developer. Currently,

all development charges are payable at two points only: at the point of

subdivision approval or at the granting of building permits. Those

costs are met by the developer, and it's a way municipalities know they

can recover their costs immediately or virtually immediately. Now, in

this

section here, we're going to have the minister being able to defer

or set a process of these charges, or he'll have the power, by

regulation, to phase in payments. Indeed, we don't know if the

development costs will ever be paid at all. There's no statement here

of how by regulation he is indeed going to do this.

My concern is that by doing this the municipalities will have to

bear the burden of the development costs because they will be delayed

by the developer having to pay those costs. It's a further

embarrassment for municipal financing, and I don't believe there is any

reason to change the existing system.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Did you talk to the UBCM about that?

MR. BLENCOE: I did indeed. Since a number of the

municipalities have discovered this was coming in, I've had a number of

calls today from local governments concerned, once again, that their

ability to collect costs and finance their arrangements satisfactorily

are going to be hurt again by this particular section. The only reason

I can consider why the government wants to change this is that it's now

another gift to their friends in the development industry. It's private

interest done under public legislation. It's protecting private

interests.

It will allow the payment of development charges by instalments and

can prescribe other unspecified conditions regarding the payment of

development charges. I have to categorically say that we are opposed to

that. On the grounds that municipalities are already struggling

financially, you cannot have an undetermined system of payments. It's

currently clearly laid out that it's at the point of subdivision or the

granting of a building permit when the municipalities get their

development costs. Now we have, I think, a gift to the development

industry again, and the poor municipality — and the local taxpayer — is

going to have to pay the burden of giving this kind of

credit-Chargex-American Express system to the development industry.

That's not right, and the local taxpayer is going to have to take up

the slack of this instalment program.

I don't see any reason why the current system should not stay in

place. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I see no guarantee or assurance to the

municipalities that development charges will be paid at all, under this

particular section, because it allows the minister virtually to waive

or put off the costs to a predetermined time. I know that

municipalities.... I've had a number of calls today saying that once

again this government is impacting on the financial ability of local

government to keep themselves above water. Here we have another chip

off the old block.

[ Page 4827 ]

I'd ask the minister to find some way to defend this particular

section, because he's got to be responsible for local government and

their financial arrangements.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I'd be very pleased to....

It's unfortunate that that member should spoil a good opening, as we

dealt with a previous remark, by some of his personal remarks. Again we

will forgive him because of his age and inexperience here. Certainly

this particular amendment is a reflection of someone who has no

preconceived ideas or any bad habits developed in respect to what

happens at the municipal or regional level. The matter here is one of

phasing in these developing cost charges. As we know, we have people in

the industry who are finding it very difficult indeed, under present

economic conditions, to come up with the amount of money required under

this program. I think the member should understand, having had that

vast experience of his, that not all of these development cost charges

are used right away. Indeed, I have recently been expressing some

concern that some of this money is sitting around too long — some, I

believe, as long as five years, and we may find some longer than that.

Any time that a charge is made under this particular program that sits

around for up to five years, then I'd question the need for the charge

in the first place.

The reason for development cost charges is to offset the additional

cost of trunk lines, sewer and water and roads as a result of a

development. In very few cases is all of this money used immediately.

Let me assure the member that UBCM will be working very closely with us

in drafting the regulations, as they work very closely with us in

everything else. When drafted the regulations will take into

consideration not only the developer who must put up the cash but also

the needs of the municipality. I think this amendment is fair not only

to the developer but to the municipalities and to the taxpayers at

large. It's overdue.

MR. BLENCOE: Avoiding the personal attacks, I'll try to get

into some of the specifics of why this particular

section is bad. The

minister is just not answering the question. Because of giving yourself

all sorts of powers down the line to be able to phase in the costs, do

you expect the local taxpayers to have to take up the slack and meet

those costs? That's what you're saying.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'll try answering it in another way.

First, let me clearly state that the purpose of development cost

charges is to cover the additional cost of trunk lines, sewer, water

and roads as a result of a development. Therefore those charges are

placed in accounts for that purpose. How you could take from that that

other taxpayers are going to be paying that bill, I don't know. What I

am saying is that not all of this money is required immediately; the

record shows that some of it is not required for up to five years. The

development still pays it, the difference being that they're not

expected to come up with the total amount immediately. They are going

to be allowed an opportunity to make an initial payment and the balance

over a period of two years.

[4:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Let me explain to the minister how it works,

because he doesn't know. In a major development you have to put in a

sewer or storm drain system, right? It's got to be put in and

completed. The costs are there. Currently those costs are paid for when

the development is approved or the building permit is granted. Say, for

instance, the development costs will be half a million dollars; that's

paid for. You're saying that you're going to phase in paying for that,

yet the municipality is going to have to put the system in and pay the

money, and the carrying charges are going to go to the local taxpayers,

because you want to give another boost to your friends in the

development industry at the expense of local taxpayers. We have a

system now that is fair. If you put in a system for your development,

you should have to pay for it. Now you're giving them a little bonus,

and the local taxpayers are going to have to pay for the carrying

charges, which could be astronomical. They can't pay those costs. All

they have to do is transfer that carrying charge onto the property tax.

Is that what you want, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What you've just said is nothing but

hogwash. We're only talking about off-site charges; we're not talking

about putting in sewers or roads within the development. If you can

indicate to me any municipality that immediately goes ahead and puts in

the additional volume lines, the larger trunk lines, and improves the

roads according to what they consider necessary as a result of the

development, then you point them out to me. You should understand, Mr.

Member, that very seldom is that the case. Most times a project takes

several months, and some could be over a year; therefore the increase

in trunk lines or roads, whatever, does not take place immediately but

rather over the period of the project and sometimes not until some

years after the project has been completed.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister refers now to something that is not

stated in this section. He says "off-site costs." Let me read the

section to the minister. "Notwithstanding subsection (2), the minister

may, in respect of all or different classes of developments, by

regulation authorize the payment of development cost charges in

instalments and prescribe conditions under which the instalments may be

paid." That's a wide-open statement on all sorts of costs, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Hush, Madam Member.

All I'm trying to say — and I know the minister is getting very

defensive about this — is that he once again is passing further costs

onto local government and giving cost breaks and incentives to their

friends, who are obviously the renegades who are pushing this

government to give more and more financial burden to local government.

He's still not answering my question. I'd like to know, for

instance, Mr. Minister: what are your recommendations? Over what period

should these costs be paid for? The other question is: you say you're

going to consult UBCM, but they have asked for consultation on a number

of things in the last ten months and have not had much success, Bill 9

being a major one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the section, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister said he was going to

consult UBCM, and what I'm saying is that the record of this minister

in consultation with UBCM is very poor. We've had a number of pieces of

legislation where they've asked for that consultation and it hasn't

occurred. Is

[ Page 4828 ]

the minister going to listen to the municipalities

and UBCM on this particular clause? Because I can tell you, if he

doesn't do it right and he transfers these costs over a long period of

time, the financial burden to local government is going to be

horrendous, and he has to answer that question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, let me repeat: the payments

will be spread over two years, if necessary. But let me refer the

member to

section 719(4) of the Municipal Act, which, again, he should

be very familiar with, with his background. It says:

"Development cost charges may be imposed under

subsection (1) for the sole purpose of providing funds to assist the

municipality in paying the capital cost of providing, altering or

expanding sewage, water, drainage and highway facilities and public

open space, or any of them, in order to serve, directly or indirectly,

the development for which the charges are imposed."

The member, above all people, should understand what development

cost charges are all about. That is all laid out in the act, and

everyone out there is totally familiar with it. In the minds of the

people at council level there is no problem whatsoever with that. This

is simply saying that we will now allow them to phase in the cost of

this. They are now not going to be in a position to demand full dollars

up front. They will be allowed to phase it in over a period of two

years.

MR. ROSE: While my colleague is busy consulting with his House Leader, I'd like to pose a couple of questions to the minister.

When I was an alderman in Coquitlam, we had a very successful

prepaid water system. That was our policy. In other words, if there was

to be a subdivision or development, the water system had to be prepaid.

I would like to ask whether or not this amendment would preclude a

municipality from demanding that kind of prepayment in order to finance

a water extension; and if not, under what circumstances does this

particular

section apply?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not at all, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure

whether the member is talking about water connections within the

development or not. Or is he talking about the main trunk lines that

serve the development? What is he talking about — the services within

the development or the lines servicing the development?

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that that really matters very much.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, it does.

MR. ROSE: Well, it doesn't seem to, but it may be covered

elsewhere. I think it's wide open, because it's not specified in here.

Ultimately it might be specified in the regulations; I don't know. I

would be interested in the minister's response to that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I just read the

section in

the Municipal Act that deals with development cost charges, which quite

clearly states that these charges are used for the purpose of

increasing the carrying capacity of water or sewer lines, drainage and

roads, etc., as a result of the project, but have absolutely nothing to

do with the services within a project. I am sure the municipalities

will still provide all the necessary services within. We are only

talking about the impact of that development on the off-site services.

MR. ROSE: The minister is saying that he may authorize

instalments for the off-site services required by development not

contiguous to some other developed pattern. We well recall Surrey. They

had a development all over the place and nearly went broke because

ultimately they couldn't service it.

I think what is going to happen now is just the reverse. If the

municipality feels it is going to be out of pocket by an extension of a

development, I think they're far less likely to approve that

development. It may have precisely the opposite effect that the

minister contemplates in terms of encouraging development, jobs, etc.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, absolutely not.

The process that this will permit has been accepted out there already

by some that we have been talking to, who are running into difficulties

as a result of the demand for this up front money. In one particular

municipality we were talking about a couple of projects that

represented somewhere in the neighbourhood of 350 jobs, which were in

jeopardy only because the developer was unable to come up with a very

large amount of money for development cost charges, and of course the

act did not permit that developer to pay it in instalments. The

municipality was prepared to accept it, but they couldn't because it

wasn't permitted. But please keep in mind that seldom is all this money

used immediately; very often — I would say in most cases — it's used

over a period of two, three, four, up to five years. There will be no

burden on the municipality; as long as a municipality is not spending

the money, then why should they have to receive it? One could quite

easily say that they could put this into an account and make interest

on it, but that's not the purpose of this program. The purpose of this

program is simply to cover those additional off-site costs, not to

raise money to put into the bank and earn interest on.

MR. ROSE: I have two further remarks. I agree that that's the

case, but there are a couple of other.... I'd like to have time for

specific examples; we may not have them here today. I'm certainly not

going to vote for this amendment. What happens if the developer goes

broke? He has put all this development ahead, he's only been allowed to

pay instalments, and the municipality is stuck with it unless it's a

completely pay-as-you-go system. Lots of developments go broke, and I'm

afraid that if we allow this they could start on a small — not a

shoestring; not in terms of developments.... I'm not so stupid as to

believe that you can start on a shoestring. But I think the

municipality is vulnerable, and as long as it is vulnerable it will be

reluctant to take flyers and chances on extensions and developments if

this thing goes through.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, to allay his fears, the

regulations will cover that. We have here

part 6: "A person electing to

pay a charge by instalments must deposit with the treasurer of the

council at the same time as he pays the first instalment (

a) an

irrevocable letter of credit or undertaking from a bank; (

b) a bond of

surety, licensed under the Insurance Act; or (

c) a security duly

assigned." So the municipality is covered; there is no fear that they

could be left

[ Page

4829 ]

holding the bag for an expense caused by that particular developer.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to delay this section, Mr.

Chairman, but that

section which the minister read out does not

guarantee that the interests of the municipality are protected. It

depends on who has first call on the money. You know that in these

kinds of bankruptcies all sorts of problems occur. This particular

section is a weakening, I think, of the financial protection for

municipalities in this development cost area. Obviously you have

succumbed to the pressure from developers in the contracting industry

to ease and put the pressure — and the potential burden — on the local

municipality, and therefore the local taxpayer. We cannot support that.

The system as it is, is good. Sure, it may mean that developers have to

pay their costs, but so be it. I don't think the local taxpayer should

have to pay the carrying charges over a two-year period for services

that have been put in.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You don't know what you're talking about.

[4:45]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Minister, you are amending this

section to

allow you to charge the costs over a certain period of time —

instalment plan — when indeed those costs may already have been met by

the local municipality.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: When the development and the servicing go in,

the municipality doesn't put any money up? Sure they do. Come on now!

And the colleague to my right, who said that this indeed may be a

hindrance to development, is quite correct, because if there is a

feeling in the local government that they may not get all their

development costs in a reasonable period of time, they may indeed not

look at that particular development with much interest. So we cannot

support this, Mr. Chairman, It's a bad amendment and does not protect

the interests of municipalities.

Section 81 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Witerland

Brummet

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave the committee to make an introduction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I note in the gallery for a

short while a distinguished local government representative for greater

Victoria, Mayor Ken Hill of Esquimalt. I wish the committee to welcome

him.

Sections 82 to 86 inclusive approved.

section 87.

MR. SEGARTY: I just wanted a minute to speak on this

particular section, which basically legalizes the revenue-sharing

agreement between three municipalities in the Elk Valley: namely,

Fernie, Sparwood and Elkford. It is a project that I spent much of my

time with between 1979 and 1982, and I worked hard with the three

municipalities in the Elk Valley, along with the Regional District of

East Kootenay. I would like to take a minute to thank the former mayor

of Fernie, Gus Boersma; the former mayor of Sparwood, Henry Volkmann;

the current mayor of Elkford, Mayor Richard Pinotti, the councils of

the valley and the regional district of East Kootenay — in particular,

electoral area representative Jim Smith, along with the staff; and the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the minister for putting forward this

section and bringing it to this point. It's an agreement that's working

very well between the three municipalities, and I want to thank the

minister for bringing that forward.

Sections 87 and 88 approved.

section 89.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, this refers to the Company Act and

gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the cabinet, that is — the

power, it appears to me, to overrule the superintendent of companies on

the registration of company names or certain aspects thereof. We would

like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs — or whoever

wishes to answer — why the government deems it necessary to give

themselves the power to overrule the registrar of companies in the

approval of company names, which has traditionally been one of the

functions of that office.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's my understanding, Mr. Member, that this

is consequential to the amendments of the Minister of Finance dealing

with B.C. Rail and its subsidiary company proposals.

MR. D'ARCY: The problem we have with the answer of the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — and it's too bad he's not in

the House at this time — is that he said it only applied to British

Columbia Railway. Yet British Columbia Railway is not named in any of

the sections which he said refer only to the B.C. Railway. What other

companies might be involved? Any and all companies? Or only other

railway companies such as B.C. Hydro railway or the private railroads

operated on Vancouver Island, for instance, that haul logs? We don't

know that it only applies to the British

[ Page 4830 ]

Columbia Railway company, because it is not specifically stated.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have received the advice of the

legislative counsel too. It's essentially as I said. It's

consequential, so that the subsidiary which we formed under the Company

Act may operate as a railway.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wonder if I could ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, would the House welcome the

granddaughter of a former member of our House, who was a minister of

the government. Jennifer Skillings is in the gallery with her father,

David, and I would ask the House to give them both a warm welcome.

Sections 89 to 93 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to have third reading without report at this time.

Leave granted.

Bill 31, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984, reported complete with amendment, read a third time and passed.

[5:00]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill PR401, Bill No. 1

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

MR. PELTON: I take a great deal of pleasure in rising to move second

reading of Bill PR401. I don't think a great deal need be said on this

bill. All members will have read it. It deals with the Vancouver Charter and

contains a number of items, 14 in total, which relate to various housekeeping

matters. I suppose that would be as good a way of explaining them as any amendments

which the city of Vancouver would like to have made to their charter. This matter

was dealt with by the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private

Bills and we heard from the solicitor of the city of Vancouver. After quite

some discussion and some changes that were made, the committee accepted the

items that are contained in Bill PR401. If I might suggest this to all hon.

members, if there are any questions, they would probably be well received when

the bill goes into committee. So saying, I would move that Bill PR401 be read

a second time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I look with a great deal of regret at

the delay in the committee's report on Bill No. 2 respecting amendments

to the Vancouver Charter. It's unfortunate indeed that I have to rise

under Bill No. 1 to bring to this hon. chamber's attention the fact

that this government steadfastly ignores the democratic will of the

people of the city of Vancouver. It is another example of philosophical

inflexibility, of a right-wing doctrinaire approach to the government

of the province of British Columbia, when they cannot possibly

recognize the democratic will and statement of ordinary citizens in the

city of Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We are currently in second reading of Bill PR401.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there's something wrong with this mike.

MR. SPEAKER: The microphone's fine; it's the member that is out of order.

MR. LAUK: Someone has turned off the juice, Bruce. Are you drawing me to order?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member, I am. The hon. member is

familiar with the rules that guide us in second reading, what can and

cannot be discussed. Hon. member, we are looking at a bill before us

which contains certain things and does not contain other things. The

member may therefore debate what is contained but not what is not

contained. Having said that, are we ready for a question possibly?

MR. LAUK: What Mr. Speaker is saying is that I must contain

myself within that which is contained within the bill. I think that

this bill is wonderful. But think of how wonderful it would be had it

contained an amendment bringing in a ward system.

MR. PELTON: I have nothing more to say. I just move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

MR. PELTON: I ask leave to go to committee forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill PR401, Bill No. 1

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

The House in committee on Bill PR401; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 22 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

[ Page

4831 ]

MR. PELTON: I move the committee rise