1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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)

FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4143 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 55). Hon. Mr. Williams

Committee stage –– 4143

Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 64). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Committee stage –– 4143

Ministry of Environment Act (Bill 59). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Committee stage –– 4144

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications Act (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. McGeer

Committee stage –– 4144

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act (Bill 63). Hon. Mr. Gardom

Committee stage –– 4145

Ministry of Tourism Act (Bill 53). Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Committee stage –– 4145

Ministry of Finance Act (Bill 49). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Committee stage –– 4145

Livestock Act (Bill 50). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Committee stage –– 4145

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm

Committee stage –– 4147

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Committee stage –– 4147

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act (Bill PR403). Mr. Ritchie

Committee stage –– 4149

An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act (Bill PR404). Mr. Davis

Committee stage –– 4149

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

Committee stage –– 4150

Holiday Shopping Regulation Act (Bill 56). Hon. Mr. Williams

Committee stage –– 4158

Forest Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 17). Hon. Mr. Waterland

Committee stage –– 4159

British Columbia Place Act (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Committee stage –– 4160

Family and Child Service Act (Bill 45). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Committee stage –– 4161

Employment Standards Act (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Committee stage –– 4170

Revised Statutes Correction Act (No. 2), 1980 (Bill 61). Hon. Mr. Williams

Third reading –– 4180

Municipal Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Committee stage –– 4180

Utilities Commission Act (Bill 52). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Committee stage –– 4182

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Mr. Stupich –– 4187

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

Votes 189 to 192 inclusive approved –– 4188

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Gardom)

On vote 141: minister's office –– 4188

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Macdonald

Votes 141 to 145 inclusive approved –– 4188

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 211: minister's office –– 4189

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

Votes 211 to 219 inclusive approved –– 4189

Committee of Supply; Auditor General estimates.

Votes 3 to 5 inclusive approved –– 4190

Committee of Supply; Ombudsman estimates.

On vote 8: computer and consulting charges –– 4190

Mr. Lauk

Committee of Supply; Legislation. estimates.

On vote 1: legislation –– 4190

Mr. Howard

Mr. Hyndman

Ms. Brown

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Cocke

Supply Act (No 3), 1980 (Bill 65). Hon. Mr. Curtis

First, second and third reading –– 4192

Royal Assent to bills –– 4192

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Tourism and Small Business Development annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 4193

Appendix –– 4193

FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In our gallery today are 18 members of CGIT, Canadian Girls in

Training, who are celebrating their sixty-fifth anniversary in Canada

this year. They are accompanied by Mrs. Joanne Taylor, who is the

girls' resources coordinator. In introducing them to the House, may I

pay tribute to the remarkable work that has been done over 65 years in

Canada by the Canadian Girls in Training. I'm proud to have been a past

member of the organization. I'm pleased to introduce them to you today.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 55.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 55; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 42 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 55, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 64.

HORSE RACING TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 64; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the minister to clarify for me this change

in the

section which puts the responsibility with the Racing Commission for deciding

how the 3.5 percent is to be divided means that the statements of the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) that the 1 percent increase would go to the bonus fund and

another 1 percent increase to the incentive fund. Does that mean that that's

going to happen or does that mean it's riot going to happen?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, through you to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, it's

my understanding that that is going to happen. I listened carefully to

the comments made by the hon. Attorney-General in second reading on

this bill, and the member will know that while the bill is being

piloted by the Minister of Finance, the responsibility for the Racing

Commission and for racing matters and so on rests with the

Attorney-General. That is historic in this province. Therefore I think

that it's desirable — and indeed it is the intention of the legislation

— that the Racing Commission will have the opportunity for initiative

in matters of this kind, in consultation with the Attorney-General and,

if necessary, in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

MRS. WALLACE: Will those specific figures be in the regulations?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that is the intention.

MRS. WALLACE:

So what the minister is telling me then is that how this 3.5 percent is

spent is not going to be at the discretion of the Racing Commission,

how this 3.5 percent is spent in line with the points that precede that

particular line. It's not going to be at their discretion; it's going

to be laid on by cabinet regulation.

AN HON. MEMBER: By negotiation.

MRS. WALLACE: Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In order to assist the member, Mr. Chairman, I would defer to the Attorney-General in this regard, if that's the wish.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, in the development of these regulations, with the

assistance of the Racing Commission, formulas will be established for

dealing with the way these moneys are used.

MRS. WALLACE: A formula?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Formulas which will attempt to follow as best we can the previous

practice. The member is aware that there has been half of 1 percent to

the breeders and 1 percent for first supplements. Therefore in the

development of the formulas the same proportions are intended to be

used.

The member is also aware that not only do we have

thoroughbred racing in this province, we also have standardbred racing.

That is a growing sport, and therefore whether the pool will be divided

between the two types of racing or not and exactly how the purse

supplements will be applied may depend upon the development of the

industry.

We also have in this province a developing segment

which is interested in quarterhorse racing. It has not yet achieved the

levels of thoroughbred and standardbred racing in this province, but

those who are supporters of it hope that it will be one day. Therefore,

as the circumstances change, as

[ Page 4144 ]

the

nature of the races and the nature of the industry change, it is

desirable that there be flexibility in dealing with these funds. When I

made the joint announcement with the Minister of Finance with respect

to this matter I indicated that we would be establishing in the

industry, working with the commission, an advisory group so that as

circumstances changed the Racing Commission could have the benefit of

input from the breeders and horse owners in the various racing

categories in this province.

The experience in other

jurisdictions is that the provision of flexibility in dealing with

these matters is essential if we're to overcome some of the pitfalls

that the member has already identified. She talked about the effect on

claiming races and so on. If you have rigid formulas — and this was the

problem with the previous legislation — it creates patterns that are

not in the best interests of the industry. I wish to assure the member

and the committee that it is the intention of the Racing Commission and

this ministry to ensure that those difficulties don't arise.

With

regard to the making of grants, these moneys, as the member knows,

accumulate month by month as the racing season goes on. They're

deposited, and interest is earned on those moneys, because the

distribution doesn't come until the racing season ends and all the

records are complete. The interest on those moneys, we anticipate, will

be sufficient to provide the grants to the three segments of the

industry I referred to — in particular to the equine health research

fund. If I could just comment on that for a moment, it has been the

practice of the B.C. Racing Commission and all the racing commissions

in western Canada to make grants through the veterinary school at the

University of Saskatchewan for this purpose. We sincerely hope that in

this particular way we will be able to provide even greater financial

assistance than has been the case in the past.

MRS. WALLACE: The Attorney-General makes a very good speech, but unless I missed it, I didn't hear the answer to my questions.

The

first question was: will the regulations specify that 2 percent goes to

the B.C.-bred owners' bonus fund, and 1.5 percent, which would be the

changes that the Attorney-General has indicated, will go into the

incentive fund? Will the regulations specify that, or is the

distribution of that money going to be left to the discretion of the

Racing Commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker,

the distribution of the moneys will not be left to the discretion of

the Racing Commission. The regulations will specify the formula by

which the fund or funds.... There may be two or four funds. There may

be a fund for purses for thoroughbreds, there may be a fund for purses

for standardbreds, and there may be a fund for breeders for

thoroughbreds. The proposal is to utilize this 3.5 percent in a way

which will be most effective for the industry.

What I said

to the member was that the development of the formula is that the

relationship between the moneys which are presently flowing to breeders

with those which are flowing to the purse supplements will be

maintained.

MRS. WALLACE: What is happening then is

that the cabinet, by regulation, will make the decision as to how this

money is to be spent in consultation with whoever and whatever. But the

cabinet is going to make that decision behind closed doors rather than

having it included in the legislation, as it was before.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The work of the cabinet is always behind closed doors, but the

recommendations will come from the B.C. Racing Commission, and the B.C.

Racing Commission will be communicating with the industry on a regular

basis to ensure that the regulations that are in place from time to

time are those which are most supportive of the industry.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 64, Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 59, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 59; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 59, Ministry of Environment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,

SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. NICOLSON: I just want to say that the minister hasn't expanded the purposes of this. Taking into cognizance

[ Page 4145 ]

the

fact that about 5 percent of the people really care about science and

technology and where it is going, the minister should embody in the

purposes of the act something a little bit more enlightening and

informative towards enhancing people's consciousness toward a healthier

attitude to scientific development.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think the member's point is extremely well taken.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

58, Ministry of Universities, Science and Technology Act, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 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 63, Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 53, Mr. Chairman.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM ACT

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. BARBER:

Does the Ministry of Tourism have any staff left? We've had a question

on the order paper for some weeks now about all the resignations. I

wonder if the minister could inform us whether, while establishing her

ministry, she has any staff left.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: To the hon. member, I appreciate his interest. Yes, we not only have quite a number of staff left, we have added new staff.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 53, Ministry of Tourism Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 49, Ministry of Finance Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK ACT

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have some concerns about how it is proposed to establish a pound

under this act. The old act, which this one is replacing, covers the

establishment of a pound in sections 2 to 5. It indicates that before a

pound is established, a notice of intent has to be filed; it has to be

posted within 30 days. There are eight proprietors who object. There

has to be a hearing, there has to be notice of the hearing posted, and

there has to be an appeal.

This bill simply says in

section

6(2) that the recorder may establish a pound district. There is nothing

to indicate what has to happen before this is done. Under this piece of

legisla-

[ Page 4146 ]

tion,

if it is passed as it stands, we could simply have the recorder moving

in and saying, "This is a pound district," and ranchers would wake up

some morning and find that all their cattle were impounded. It seems

very strange to have removed those kinds of protections and that kind

of information from this bill, with nothing put in its place. I wonder

if the minister can tell me what....

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I would refer the member to the regulations under subsection 19(2)(

c) respecting the establishment, disestablishment and variations in the

boundaries of a pound district by the recorder. Regulations would be

put into place which really take care of the method which is used at

the present time. Those regulations would guide the recorder and would

allow for people to appeal and to apply, etc.

MRS. WALLACE:

I assume the minister is assuring the House that the same, or very

similar, items that are in the present bill will be put into

regulations. But again, Mr. Chairman, this is the same thing that we

object to time after time on this side of the House. Things that are in

legislation are lifted out and taken over into cabinet under regulation

behind closed doors, subject to change from week to week with no real

knowledge of what's going to happen, no assurance that it is in fact an

established procedure, because those regulations can be changed at the

whim of a cabinet minister. We object very strenuously to this, and we

have made our point on other occasions regarding this. I'm very tempted

to call for a division on this

section because of that point. But I

think we have established very firmly and very clearly that that is

where we stand. This is one more example of how this is being done, and

we do object to that attitude on the part of this government.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Just briefly, the principle dealing with the establishment of pound

districts is basically in the bill, and will be, of course, in the act

once it's passed. As for the regulations that are set up, I can

understand the member's comments about wanting to come to the floor of

the House on all items; but we also have to look at the service to the

public. In having regulations there we have that flexibility, rather

than waiting a year to come back to the House should there be a change

required to benefit the farm community. Having it in regulations allows

us to react more quickly to the needs of the farm community, and that's

the reason I support it being in the regulations.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

MRS. WALLACE: I hope I'm on the right section, because the

thing I want to talk about has been dropped from the act — that is,

what happens to a person who has had animals impounded. In this

particular

section it sets out all the things that the pound-keeper

shall do — 8(

c) says: "...and the keeper shall pay the balance, if any,

to the owner of the livestock sold." Let's suppose those animals are

impounded improperly. The old legislation made provision as to what

action an owner of stock which was improperly impounded could take.

That's completely dropped from this, and I haven't been able to find it

in the regulations. Does that mean that any owner whose stock is

impounded improperly, or who suspects that his stock is impounded

improperly, only has recourse to the courts under this new legislation?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In regard to the improper impounding of animals, the individual

concerned can go to the keeper and express his point of view that they

were improperly impounded. He can also go to the recorder, who is the

person who deals with the regulations. If there is a concern and an

appeal is made to the recorder, according to the regulations, then he

can get relief that way. Or, if he has to, he can of course, in the

final step, refer to the courts.

MRS. WALLACE: Would the minister be good enough to give me the

section in the act or the regulations that refers to this?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Section 19(2)(h), "respecting the sale or destruction of impounded

livestock and the disposition of proceeds unclaimed by the owner," and

(f), "respecting the powers and duties of keepers and the recorder...."

Those particular regulations would deal with the opportunity for the

person to state his case if he felt there was improper impoundment.

MRS. WALLACE:

Will the minister assure the House unequivocally that those

regulations, when they are drafted, will specifically include a

reference to the means whereby a person who has livestock improperly

impounded can take action rather than having to go directly to the

courts?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes. The last thing I would

want would be to have animals impounded improperly, and I would not

want somebody who had that problem to only have a defence in court. The

regulations will indicate to them that there is a method they can take

prior to court action.

Sections 8 to 22 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MRS. WALLACE:

I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, to

amend the title by inserting the following words: after the word

"livestock" insert the words "pound district, bull control areas and

artificial insemination centres." Then the title would read that this

would be the Livestock, Pound District, Bull Control Areas and

Artificial Insemination Centres Act.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I just want to refer to the previous acts that this act consolidates.

The Animals Act, which dealt with artificial insemination — they

couldn't tell from that title — the Livestock Act, dealing with pound

keepers and bull districts, etc., and the Livestock Production Act are

three acts which we are consolidating.

If the member refers

to the Contents on the first page of the act, the index there shows all

those various things that she is concerned about. I think the Livestock

Act identifies the act properly, and I could not support the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE:

Just because the acts weren't properly identified previously — the old

ones that we're getting rid of — that's no excuse to do it all over

again. It really is very

[ Page 4147 ]

broad

terminology. When we do have livestock public sales acts, livestock

brand acts, and other livestock acts which identify what they cover, to

take these three unrelated items and throw them into one act called the

Livestock Act just isn't a parallel with the other acts that this

minister has under his control. I very much regret that he is not able

to support this amendment, because it would make it much easier for the

farm community to identify where the legislation which affects them

lies, That's a difficult thing to establish when you're out in the

hustings, far removed from these chambers. It's very difficult to

establish just what piece of legislation gives you the authority or

puts the control on you. I regret that the minister does not see fit to

accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 50, Livestock Act, reported complete without amendments, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 48.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 48, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: , When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 48, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 57, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ACT

The House in committee on Bill 57; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved,

section 3.

MRS. WALLACE:

Subsection 3(2) says: "A person appointed under this

section need not

be a public officer." Could the minister explain just what the intent

of that particular statement is?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In

some cases we call on individuals to act on behalf of the Ministry of

Agriculture. To give you an example, in the previous act we dealt with

a keeper. For impounding of livestock a rancher in a certain area who

has a corral may be appointed keeper and not be a public officer.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would move the amendment standing in my

name on the order paper. I think that we have to establish once and for

all what

interpretation that side of the House puts on the word

"acquire," and my amendments are exactly the same as those introduced

at the request of the then official opposition when the land bill was

introduced. The wording is, "by adding after 'acquire' the words

negotiated'," and that is for both

section 5(

l) and

section 5(2), where

the word "acquire" appears — there are two amendments.

Mr.

Chairman, I think it will be very interesting to note whether or not

the members of this House who were so vehement about our bill that

talked about "acquiring land" still take that stand, or if now that

they are government, they are prepared to exclude the word

"expropriation" from the wording in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I move

this amendment.

On the amendment.

[ Page 4148 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I did explain this in second reading, but one of the

other ministry acts that are available to the members, of course, is

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, which says: "To carry

out his duties, powers and functions, he may acquire or dispose of

land." And I point to the bill itself that we're dealing with. In

section 5 bill 57 says: "For purposes relating to agriculture and food,

the minister may acquire, administer, dispose of...land. " There are

other pieces of legislation in place, if I can refer to them. The

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act says: "The

minister may, to carry out his duties, functions and powers related to

energy, acquire and dispose of land." The Ministry of Forests Act says:

"To carry out his duties, powers and functions, the minister may, on

behalf of the Crown, acquire land."

Then, Mr. Chairman, I

just want to refer back to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways,

because there is a specific

section 1n that piece of legislation which

deals with and gives the power of expropriation to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways, so in one

section he has the right to

acquire and dispose of land, but also he does have a specific

section

which gives him the power to expropriate land. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I

refer the members, and possibly the Ministry of Environment critic for

the opposition — and I appreciate the discussion we had in second

reading — to the fact that the members over there just approved without

debate the Ministry of Environment bill which said under

section 5 that

"the minister may acquire and dispose of property." So I feel that this

particular

section deals with the acquisition of land, and it doesn't

follow that expropriation powers are there.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, we don't necessarily disagree with what the minister has

said, but when it comes to agricultural land, members of that

government who sat in this House in 1973 expressed very vehemently

their belief that in a bill dealing with agricultural land, the word

"acquire" included expropriation. That's why this amendment is on the

order paper today, Mr. Chairman; we want to find out whether or not

they still believe that.

MR. COCKE: Just speaking for

a moment on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully

during the debate in 1974, and virtually every member that was then

here — unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), for

his edification, wasn't here then — spoke vociferously with respect to

this whole question. What we want is some consistency from this gang of

thugs.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would you ask that member to withdraw those insulting remarks.

MR. COCKE:

I withdraw the remarks, Mr. Chairman, but I only wish that you and the

Minister of Agriculture had been here then. I've never seen such a

disgraceful spectacle in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on an amendment in committee.

MR. COCKE:

That's right. It's the same amendment that was put forward at that time

and, incidentally, accepted by the government of the day — only because

this group became almost unmanageable around this issue.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Vehement, or venomous, or whatever you want to call it. Venom is full

of snake oil, and I think you would probably know something about that.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I very much support this amendment, just for the sake of consistency.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I was the person who was then the minister who accepted

such an amendment from the opposition of the day and heard the present

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) speak in contradiction to the

opinion proffered by the real property division of the bar association

of British Columbia, who said that "or otherwise acquire" does not

include the right to expropriate. To see this bunch today refuse an

amendment can mean but one thing — that this government does intend to

use these powers for expropriation. I want the minister to get up and

tell this House if the minister intends to acquire land by

expropriation.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, as my

colleague from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has pointed out, the

wording of this is identical — precisely the same in every aspect — to

that put forward by the Socreds on the same issue seven years ago. If

anyone thought the Socreds were hypocrites....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please....

MR. BARBER:

I'm speaking hypothetically. If anyone thought the Socreds were

hypocrites, they might expect the Socreds to deny this amendment today,

but we all know the Socreds are sincere and not hypocritical, and we

all know that they meant then what they said then, which was that

specific powers of expropriation should be excluded from the language

of the statute. If they were hypocrites they might oppose our amendment

today, because it's their amendment seven years later. It is their

amendment restated; it is their own amendment in their own words

dealing with the same issue. If anyone thought they are hypocrites,

today is the day to be set straight and to realize that the Socreds are

not hypocrites, that they were actually sincere then and are equally

sincere now on the same case for the same reasons, and that they will

therefore have to accept their own amendment that we have put forward

this year, seven years after the first amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was

looking for a response to the question he raised, and my answer is no,

it is not my intention as Minister of Agriculture to expropriate land.

I would also comment that although I wasn't here in 1973 when the

debate was taking place, there was a considerable amount of debate on

the impact of Bill 42, I think it was at that time, and some of the

amendments that were put forward were accepted by the government

because of the reaction out in the farm community to the attempt to

control of people on the land. I think the first member for Victoria

[ Page 4149 ]

(Mr. Barber), who also was not here at the time, would recall the reaction from the farm community.

would just refer again to the number of acts that have acquisition

rights there and to the one act that specifically has a

section on

expropriation, Just to repeat my answer to the member for

Nelson-Creston, it is not my intention to expropriate land.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

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, my impression was that a member

could not vote twice on the same issue, negative and positive. I saw

the House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom), vote "aye" and "nay."

MR. NICOLSON: Further

on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, Erskine May is very clear that

where a member does not vote, where he remains in his seat, it is

counted as an affirmative vote. I should think that if a member were to

vote twice it is automatically recorded as an affirmative vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members. The vote having been recorded and stated so, the matter is closed.

Sections 5 to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 57, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR403, Mr. Speaker,

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CULTUS LAKE PARK ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR403; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill PR403,

An Act to Amend The Cultus Lake Park Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR404.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR404; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill PR404,

An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee on Bill 60.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, the House Leader should ask leave. We've gone

through order of business for Friday — standing order 25, page 7.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave, leave, leave.

Leave granted.

[ Page 4150 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1980

The House in committee on Bill 60; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On behalf of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) I

move the amendment to

section 1 standing in her name on the order

paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have just a brief question on this. This

section amends

section 8 of

the Land Commission Act, which is entitled "agricultural land."

Inasmuch as

section 10 is entitled "land reserves," I'm wondering why

we're adding a

section here which relates to the establishment of

agricultural land reserves. There's a sentence here that does it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're talking about

section 3 under this bill here; you mentioned

section 10 under the act.

MRS. WALLACE:

What we're talking about is

section 3 of Bill 60 which amends

section 8

of the Agricultural Land Commission act.

Section 8 of the Agricultural

Land Commission act is entitled "agricultural land," while

section 10

is entitled "land reserves." I'm wondering why we're adding this

sentence relative to land reserves under the

section entitled

"agricultural land." What is the thinking there?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

With regard to

section 8, the revised act that we have gave power to

the commission to designate land as agricultural land, but it failed to

add in the same subsection that the subject land is then an

agricultural land reserve. That was in the old act, and as a result the

sentence had to be added to rectify the omission in the revised act.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MRS. WALLACE:

This is the

section that amends

section 10, which deals with land

reserves. What it is doing is removing the sentence which deals with

giving some responsibility to municipal and regional governments. This

is shades of the expropriation clause, because this was a

section that

was added to the bill at the insistence of the opposition when the

Agricultural Land Commission bill was first introduced in 1973. I'm

wondering why it is now deemed necessary to remove this section.

Section 10 reads: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may approve a

land reserve plan as submitted by the commission with or without such

alterations or variations as he may consider advisable to carry out the

intent of this act." Then it goes on to say: "On approval, the

commission shall, for municipal and regional plans, and may, for

commission plans, designate the agricultural land shown in the plan as

an agricultural land reserve." Why is this government now taking the

stand that it not be mandatory to declare land an agricultural land

reserve if a municipal or regional government submits a plan that so

requests?

It seems very strange that this section, which

really gave some clout to local governments, is now being removed from

the bill. It is simply leaving it up to the commission entirely. It is

a complete reversal, again, of the stand that that government took when

they insisted that that

section be added. It makes one wonder, you

know, if this is just Big Daddy government at work. Or is it that they

are getting some interference from some of the more progressive

regional and municipal governments that have come up with some

commitment to the agricultural land reserve, and they want to be able

to ride roughshod over that commitment? Is that what they're wanting to

do?

I'm almost paraphrasing the words of the members for

Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) when she spoke in the Agricultural

Land Commission debate in 1973. She said that was what the then

government was trying to do. Now here we are having this clause which

was inserted at the request of people like the member for Okanagan

North, who fought very long and forcibly on the floor of this

Legislature for their contention that we were riding roughshod over

local governments. Here we have this minister now coming in and taking

that very

section out of the act. I'm just completely confused by what

this government's trying to do. They think they can take one side when

they are in opposition, and they take another stance when they are

government.

MR. BARBER: Are they hypocrites?

MRS. WALLACE:

No, I wouldn't say they were hypocrites, Mr. Member. It can't be that.

I wouldn't say that, because the Chairman would call me to order if I

said that.

Here we are again in a most amazing situation,

where we have one bill, and now another bill, taking away this very

thing that they asked to have put in. Of course, it's obvious they

didn't trust us to administer it in this form without that particular

clause in there. Once they're in government, they want to do away with

it and ride roughshod over the local governments. This can be the only

possible explanation for this particular amendment. I would urge the

minister to withdraw this section. It's just a slap at local

government. We don't really need to have this kind of centralized

control in the hands of this government.

It has been working

reasonably well. There were a lot of difficulties at first, but it is

working reasonably well now, and it should stay the way it is. Local

governments should have the right to participate in these decisions. If

local government decides that they want to institute an agricultural

land reserve plan, then it should be mandatory that the commission goes

along with that. If that land is classed as agricultural land, then it

should be in a reserve.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The revised

act obligated the commission to designate approved municipal and

regional plans as agricultural land reserve. But the old act, prior to

the revisions, did not include that obligation. What we're doing

[ Page 4151 ]

finding an error in the revised statute and changing that word "shall"

back to "may" — the same as it was in the old act prior to revision. It

was an error in the revised statutes, and that's why the

section 4 in

this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980, has been put

in. Nothing's changed, Madam Member; it is just an omission in the

revised statute.

MRS. WALLACE: There's no mention of

municipal or regional government in your new amendment. You take it out

completely. Now that's not just a change of a word from"shall " to

"may." There's no mention at all. It's gone. So it's more than just an

incorrect word.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. LEVI: Who can I direct a question to, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, are you handling this section? Listen, you Cariboo chip-monkey, keep quiet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if that's unparliamentary or not.

MR. LEVI: Oh, that's parliamentary. Alec knows that's parliamentary.

Can I ask the minister, Mr. Chairman...? Are you leaving, Alec?

HON. MR. FRASER: Is it to do with Finance or the railroad?

MR. LEVI: It's really to do with finance, so it's really the minister. Is he coming in? Oh, there he is.

the first two reports of the auditor-general, she recommended that

changes be made in respect to how the deficit of the BCR is handled.

She actually went as far as to say that because the BCR will never be

in a position to pay off the debt, the government should now assume its

guarantor role, and actually show it as a deficit on its own books.

What

the minister appears to be doing here is providing $70 million which

presumably will just pay for the interest on the $700 million. I'd like

to ask the minister: what about the general recommendation, which has

been made twice by the auditor-general, that something very specific be

done with this debt? As the minister knows, the Crown corporations

committee had lengthy hearings with the people from BCR; we were always

running into the continuing problem that BCR is not going to be able to

do anything in an independent fashion because of this incredible debt.

All we're getting here is just paying off the interest. It's really, I

suppose, the same as extending the subsidy. What we do now is subsidize

them. We are now going to subsidize them to the extent of another $70

million. But that doesn't tackle the basic problem in terms of what

they are going to do with the large debt. They are not going to be

viable unless there is something that that the government is prepared

to do.

I understand, from asking questions of the president

of the railroad, that they made a number of submissions to the

government recommending how they might make some moves to get out of

this very difficult predicament they're in. I wonder if the minister

would comment on this. All they're doing right now is paying off the

interest.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the hon. member, this

will be seen as a first step. I don't know that the British Columbia

Railway company has made several submissions. Certainly in my short

time as Minister of Finance one major submission has been made; it was

more of a briefing than an actual submission.

It is correct

that the auditor-general has commented on the BCR and, particularly,

has offered some views with respect to the financial viability of the

company in meeting its annual debt-servicing costs. In addition, the

royal commission that studied and reported on the railway also gave

considerable attention to the question. In the budget address on March

11 of this year I indicated that the government was concerning itself

with this. I don't think the undertaking was made that legislation

would be introduced in this session. But certainly legislation will

come before members of this House at an early date — I can't be more

specific than that — in order that we can provide for the province's

ongoing commitment to the debt of the British Columbia Railway. In the

meantime, it is a step for this year — a step with which I'm sure the

member would agree.

MR. LEVI: I just have one other

question. The minister said this is a first step. All right, the first

step is really making money available for debt servicing.

Just

in reference to what the auditor-general said — and I think the royal

commission also — if the railroad is going anywhere at all in terms of

any kind of development, it somehow has to be able to get out from

under this particular $700 million debt. That really means that the

guarantor, which is the government of British Columbia, now has to

assume that debt. That was the recommendation of the auditor-general.

Perhaps the minister would like to share some ideas on what other

options there are. Frankly, I don't see that there are other options.

It's got to the stage where the company is bankrupt, and in that case.

of course, the guarantor has to step in to cover the situation.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Thank you to the member and to members of the committee. I think it

would also be appropriate to observe that, at the time of the awarding

of a triple A by Moody's and by Standard and Poor, organizations,

companies and Crown corporations such as the British Columbia Railway

came under considerable scrutiny. So a number of agencies or

individuals in government and outside of government are examining the

BCR; the auditor-general is one of them. There aren't man), options,

but there is more than one. Today I can be of no further assistance to

the member than to say that we are now earnestly examining those

options, and ultimately the proposal upon which we decide will be

brought to the floor of this House.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I've discussed this subject before in this House on numerous occasions.

It really bothers me that this little

section which is hidden away in

this miscellaneous

[ Page 4152 ]

bill

once again chips away at the power of legislative authority and places

certain powers in the hands of cabinet. This government seems to have

developed a pattern of doing this quietly and hidden away in various

bills — in other words, taking authority away from the Legislature to

perform duties that we were elected for, and putting these powers into

the hands of cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

It's a very serious matter, Mr. Member, and I'm really concerned about

it. It certainly goes against my principles and the very basic

principles of the parliamentary system. I think that every time a

government chips away at the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy in

this fashion it must be opposed. I have no intention of calling a

division on this matter — we did that yesterday on the same issue and

on other occasions in this House — but I just did want it on record.

It's no big item but, as I say, in my view it's chipping away at the

very cornerstone of what democracy is all about. At least in a voice

vote, I'm going to vote against this section, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I'd like to have just a brief explanation from the minister on

section

14, dealing with increasing the powers of the weigh-masters, and this

kind of thing. Basically what this

section of the act says is that

these people will have all the powers and duties conferred on them, and

the immunities of a constable and all the powers associated thereto. I

agree that these people are doing a good job in their own field, but

what we have here is a situation where people are not necessarily

trained to deal with certain situations that may arise. I wonder if

perhaps the minister could give us a brief explanation on this section.

HON. MR. FRASER:

My

interpretation of it is that these constables are mostly on duty on

freeways and major structures in the lower mainland. It's my

understanding they do get some training through the police prior to

going to work. They're confined to those areas. The intention is to

confine them to those areas.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, the Corporation Capital Tax Act has always been a subject

of a lot of debate between the sides of this House. When the previous

government introduced this, they got hammered by the opposition for

putting it in. Now that it's in, the government doesn't seem to want to

let it go. This particular

section now increases its revenues. Is the

minister able to tell us roughly what he expects to gain from that

amount of money, which was paper, now classified as cash on deposit?

What is it going to add to his revenue? I think it is about $50 million

a year at the moment, or a little bit more. How much more is he going

to get on this? Is it a large outstanding amount that we've not been

getting?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, within this

fiscal year the amount would be in the neighbourhood of $1 million to

$2 million. That's quite a spread, but it's of that magnitude.

MR. LEVI: I'll accept the spread from the minister. What's a million here or there!

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I didn't say that.

MR. LEVI: You didn't say that, eh? Neither did I. But boy, I sure got that one tagged to me.

Sections 16 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman,

section 24 is an innocent looking section. It's a

section

that allows the minister to go into a denticare program. I discussed

this question with the minister and indicated that we've had our debate

to some extent on this issue. I did note this morning, however, that

B.C. Is launching a major blitz on this whole program. It's in the

morning Province . I suggest

very strongly that tub-thumping over an important medical issue is one

thing. And certainly getting people registered for a plan which,

incidentally, I criticized by virtue of the fact that I believe that

the College of Dental Surgeons has pretty well called the shots on the

issue.... There are less expensive and far more adequate ways of

handling the program. The minister knows what my proposition is.

The other day I picked up some obscure little paper from a community up north.

On the front page of that paper, I note the picture of the minister beside a

nice innocent little child sitting in a dental chair. And the minister had a

piggybank with $700 written across it. It was shades of Belly-flop Butler as

far as I was concerned. I really think that that kind of hype over this kind

of program is uncalled for. I know the government is desperately reaching out

trying to find some area where they can be well thought of, It's desperation,

no question. No doubt we'll be debating the advent of this plan for some

time. But I will say this to the minister: it's a lot better than the one

that was originally proposed, and the one that the department had given a great

deal of credibility to in the first place. At least this has the flexibility

where one can move with the plan in the future. From that standpoint I'm

delighted, but I believe it's going to be very expensive for what we get.

I hope that it doesn't resolve itself into just a major hype across the

province to try to give the government some credibility. The credibility they

could best earn would be to straighten out some of the other areas. I'm

not talking about this ministry; I'm talking about some of the other areas

of government.

Sections 24 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

MR. BARBER:

Section 58 is, of course, an amendment which provides, under the Urban

Transit Authority, for the more appropriate designation of a transit

tax. As the government knows, this amendment was argued for by us two

months ago, and we're glad to see it here. The New Democratic Party is

pleased to support the amendment that we ourselves argued in favour of

before it was introduced. It will

[ Page 4153 ]

remove

the anomalous and unfair situation wherein, as for instance in the city

of Victoria, Eaton's with one meter only for its entire building, pays

one transit tax, and a motel on the Gorge Road with 13 separate meters

pays 13 times as much. This is an attempt to overcome that unfairness,

and we congratulate the government for doing so. That's a good thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just for the record, could you move the amendment standing under your name.

MR. BARBER:

To begin with I was congratulating the government for 58 as it is. The

first thing to do is to congratulate them for

section 58 as it is, and

the second thing is to ask them to accept the amendment standing in my

name on the order paper — where it's been for some time — which would,

in the proposed

section 12(5), line 2, by deleting the word "bylaw" and

substituting the following, then read: "bylaw, or alternatively the

bylaw may establish variations in the rate of levy applied to an area

of a municipality corresponding pro rata to the relative level of

transit service provided that area."

The ability here is one

which would be granted, I think, in particular here in the Capital

Regional District, where it's become a major issue — not just on the

Gulf Islands, but also in the Port Renfrew and outlying Sooke areas,

where clearly, for all practical purposes, transit is not going to be

provided for some time, and where at the moment the regional district

does not have the flexibility to recommend, nor the law to allow, a

pro-rated transit tax based on the electrical surcharge or on some

other of the four formulas allowed in the original legislation. I think

that the transit authority here in the capital region would find such

flexibility a welcome and prudent thing, and would overcome in advance

the next arguments against unfairness that we've seen put forward

concerning the Hydro surcharge related to the number of meters that a

building happened to have.

The purpose of our amendment is

to allow somewhat greater flexibility in a most desirable way so that

the same anomalies cannot be created which we saw inadvertently created

by the original bill and which are now being amended by the main body

section 58 of this statute. It is in that spirit that we put forward

this amendment, which has been on the order paper for some time, and

which I hope the government will accept.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The thought certainly has merit, and we've considered this in the

ministry, particularly as it applies to the gasoline levy in the

Greater Vancouver Regional District where a number of people — gas

station operators particularly — have been making representation to

government for such, or similar, change. I don't really knock the

suggestion or the idea, but it cannot be done. We found during our

research that we as a provincial Legislature cannot delegate this

power, according to

section 92 of the BNA Act. It would be allowing

municipalities to legislate if they could develop a power surcharge or

a gasoline tax that might be varied according to zones. So on that

count it doesn't pass, and I assure the member we've considered this in

a number of ways and we've had a number of meetings — with the GVRD

especially and their solicitors — regarding this.

Secondly,

if we could do it, there is some problem with the wording here, in that

it would possibly create a discriminatory process of taxation. Finally,

it's rather impractical especially for Hydro — to try and sort out

different rates for different homes and businesses in any given area.

But aside from the impracticality, it cannot be done for constitutional

reasons.

MR. BARBER: The proposal would not

necessarily require that Hydro determine which homes among different

kinds of homes or buildings among different kinds of buildings would be

exempt. The proposal — "prorated" — is to take into account

geographical factors. I'm well aware of the case in Surrey-Langley —

the poor service station operator just across the border has really

been hurt; his business has been hurt in a really unfair way and

hopefully some exemption can be found.

The principle here is

to allow flexibility, Now certainly municipalities have flexibility

already. One thinks, for instance, of the authority that municipalities

have — not contrary to the BNA Act — to create special taxation

districts downtown, wherein businesses only pay a certain tax in order

to put forward, for their own benefit, certain municipal improvements —

for example, widen sidewalks. I think of the Yates Street mall, which

was a special tax in downtown Victoria related to a geographical area;

I think, for instance, of the Chinatown development going on now in my

city; I think, for instance, of a special business tax which will be

put forward to help subsidize the losses of the Victoria convention

centre. These are all zone taxes. They're related through the device of

the business licence, which is how they're calculated. but they are in

principle no different from the outcome of the amendment we put

forward, which would be related through the device of geography rather

than business licences. Of course it's discriminatory in a preferential

way — sure, you bet it is — just as the current special taxes that

downtown businessmen often pay are also discriminatory in what for

them, in the long run, is a preferential way, because they think it's

worth the investment.

I don't think that there are in fact

sound constitutional and practical arguments against it. If the

government has alternative language, we'd be happy to accept it. If the

government has an alternative proposal, we'd be happy to support it.

But one way or another, we predict the government will be coming back

here a year from now to put into law some more flexible option to allow

transit authorities on a geographical or zonal basis to prorate the

levies for transit. They will have to do so because of the increasing

criticism at local government level from those who say: "We live 40

miles out of town;we've got no bus; we're not going to get a bus for 40

years. Why should we pay for the buses if we never use them?" Now

because of that political criticism — and the minister knows it at

least as well as I do and probably a lot better: we get the same

letters, he and I — the government, I suspect, will have to come back —

if not an hour from now, certainly a year from now — and ask for

something or other very similar to the amendment we put forward. It's

just a matter of flexibility, and it's a matter of the reality as well

of the application of the transit tax.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the act now before us certainly provides the option for a

regional district to exempt an area from the hydro surcharge. We

already have that authority for the gasoline levy, and frankly, that is

what the Greater Vancouver Regional District has

[ Page 4154 ]

done.

They've requested that the boundaries be drawn back some to exempt

those three boundary stations which were giving considerable difficulty

and where a very unfair situation existed. So that was provided for.

Now the act provides for the exemption of an area from the hydro

surcharge, and the CRD can request that of government and we could

provide the necessary letters patent.

However, you cannot

compare that with the establishment of zones with different levies for

the establishment of a specified area within a municipality to provide

a particular service unique to the area. There is really no comparison

there, and we've checked the constitutionality of it several times.

Amendment negatived.

section 58.

MR. MITCHELL:

What I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister is that under

this

section he has detailed the types of places that are classed as

residence. Also 12(8) now says, "Where a person is liable for more than

one account for the supply of electricity on the same parcel of

land..." then it can be exempt. What I found — and I've had a lot of

inquiries from various officials throughout my area — is that in many

cases in farms and in rural homes they have pumps or power supplies

located off the main parcel of property, but they are part of the

residential home as they supply water to that home. They are in all

cases for the residence, but they will have to pay, or they have been

paying the commercial rate up until now. I was wondering if the

minister has given any thought to including all power supplies for the

residents. In some cases they are off the main land; they are near

lakes or creeks.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member is

quite correct. The purpose of this amendment, as a matter of fact, is

to overcome the inequity and the problems which existed with the

legislation regarding those who had more than one meter. Previously the

charge was made on a per customer or per meter basis and we, in fact,

did have many situations where the dwelling had a meter, plus the

swimming pool in the back had a meter. We also had farms where the

farmhouse had a meter, and a barn some distance off had another meter.

now have a definition for residential dwelling units, and the

definition, as the member will note, is very all encompassing. It

provides for almost every situation of...we'd like to think for every

situation of a residential type. They will be charged a flat sum, so if

there were two or three meters it wouldn't matter. There is one charge

per residential unit.

However, we certainly realize there

may be the real oddball exception on some island, or in some far corner

someplace, which perhaps would not be provided for in the definition.

We've thus given a further option to the regional district, or the

municipality, as we call it, to exempt that situation.

MR. MITCHELL: Like the member for Victoria, I would like to state that

I support the intent of the amendments. They've gone a long way to rectify

a horrible mistake that was made. But there are these personal residential supplies

which are off the property, and they are supplying the property because of pumps.

They're not some oddball cases. In a lot of farms and in a lot of areas

where they are supplying irrigation or even the domestic water supply, they

are part of the resident supply. But the meter is actually located off the property

and it is being charged at a commercial rate. If there were only some amendment

to have it charged at the residential rate, and not at the commercial rate that

it is now....

Sections 58 and 59 approved,

section 60.

MR. BARBER:

Again, this is a

section which we support in principle, because it now

establishes a new principle that was not present in the old act. It is

a principle which would allow, as the notes provided by legislative

counsel read: "That it become discretionary whether or not the board" —

this refers to the local transit services board or to the UTA itself —

"establish a transit commission in every transit service area."

Formerly, the language read "shall" and it now reads "may" and it gives

thereby, in that discretionary inflexible way, a more important local

option of choice. That's a good thing.

I have a further

amendment which relates to a specific problem of choice and, again,

it's been on the order paper for some time. I hope the government will

accept it. My amendment to

section 60 in proposed 18(2) line 1, would

read as follows: by inserting prior to the word "section" a new

section

as follows: "section 1(d), but shall not include any designated islands

under the Islands Trust Act, unless a bylaw adopted by the Islands

Trust requests inclusion of any designated islands in a transit service

area. "

The principle of this is really extremely important

in the Capital Regional District and, as the minister knows full well,

has been highly contentious.

If the government accepts it,

the effect of our amendment would be to allow the locally chosen body,

which is probably better able than any other in the greater Victoria

area, to determine whether or not to establish transit services on the

Gulf Islands. Specifically, of course, I refer to the Islands Trust

itself.

With the exception of Bowen Island, which is, of

course, within the GVRD, the islands of Salt Spring, Galiano, Mayne,

North and South Pender and Saturna are those where this particularly

applies. It is a matter of record that the member for Saanich and the

Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has said that he proposes to have those

islands excluded from the transit levy and the transit services area.

I'm sorry he's not in his seat right now, but I know I quote him fairly

because it's been in the papers many times. It is precisely because the

member for Saanich and the Islands shares our point of view on this

that we put forward the amendment, and I'm sure he'll support it.

regard to the question of the transit levy, I'd like to read for the

record — very briefly — a letter dated June 10 of this year from Tony

Roberts, the manager of the Islands Trust, directed to Dennis Young,

the executive director of the CRD.

The letter reads:

"The Islands Trust has requested that I forward to you resolutions

of opposition to the gasoline hydro surcharge which have been passed by the

following Trust committees: Galiano Island, Mayne Island,

[ Page 4155 ]

North Pender Island, Salt Spring Island, Saturna Island, South

Pender Island.

"It

is requested that these resolutions be distributed to your directors

for the meeting of June 11. It is appreciated that this comes as

somewhat short notice, and the enclosure of 20 copies may therefore be

of some assistance.

Yours truly,

Tony Roberts''

I'll just read one of the resolutions; they are identical.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I'm sure that the proposition the member is putting forward is one that

is worthy of consideration in debate. However, on a point of order, I

must point out that we are dealing with an amendment to

section 18(2)

of the Urban Transit Authority Act. The amendment which is proposed by

the first member for Victoria is a proposed amendment to

section 18(1),

and therefore it is not before this House for consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair so rules, hon. member, that the amendment therefore is out of order on that basis.

MR. BARBER:

In regard to your comment, Mr. Chairman, what I clearly stated....

Perhaps it wasn't heard. May I read it again, or do you have the

language at hand?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are attempting in 18(2) to amend 18(1).

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just because he's the

Attorney-General doesn't mean he has the last word on the matter. You

can amend any

section in committee that's opened up by the legislation:

not subsections — any section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yet, hon. member, you cannot move an amendment beyond the scope of the section, which clearly is the case in this matter.

MR. LAUK: Not if you open up the

section — that's the scope.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

established at the beginning that the principle of the amendment put

forward by the government is to allow discretionary power and to change

the word "shall" to the word "may." It is on the basis of this

principle that we hold that our amendment is in order. What we are now

saying is: the principle which says that local transit service areas

"may..." must specifically be further complemented by the amendment

we've put forward now to specify that in the case of the Islands Trust

that body shall have the power to determine by bylaw whether or not to

be included in a transit service area. It's the government's own

principle, which we accept and support and which I named at the outset.

On the basis of that, what we've done in

section 18, in the clearest

possible language, is take the government at its word that it wishes

flexibility, and we have named, for the particular caution of

flexibility, the Islands Trust area, where there's a major fight and

where the member for Saanich and the Islands has himself said that he

wants the islands to be able to be excluded. With all respect, Mr.

Chairman, our amendment is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I have indicated that the amendment is not in order, and I

have outlined the reasons why. Clearly, if the amendment were adopted

it would render invalid the previous section. On that basis the Chair

must indicate that the motion is out of order.

MR. BARBER: How does it render it invalid? Have you got the UTA Act there, Walter?

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order with respect to this matter, and looking at what we

did yesterday in considering Bill 61, the Attorney-General gave notice

of a number of amendments to Bill 61 which did not amend any

section in

Bill 61 — completely outside the sections. Take

section 82, for

instance, of Bill 61. It sought to deal with

section 9(2)(

i) of the

Seed Potato Act. But the Attorney-General proposed — and it was

accepted — an amendment to establish a brand new change — being

section

82.1 — to the Small Claim Act. That was perfectly acceptable, yet it

didn't amend anything in the bill.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Precisely. I'm submitting that this is what should prevail here.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, the member for Skeena has made my point.

Section

60 of Bill 60 purports to amend

section 18(2) of the Urban Transit

Authority Act; that's what we're dealing with. My point is that the

member cannot in the consideration of this particular

section amend

some other

section of the Urban Transit Authority Act. If he wishes, he

has the opportunity to amend Bill 60 by an additional section; but it

cannot be properly considered when we're dealing with the amendment to

section 18(2) of this act. If he wants to add another

section to the

bill, as I did yesterday, I'm not objecting to that. The difficulty is,

Mr. Chairman.... The reason I raised a point of order is not to

discourage the debate which the member wishes to propose to this House;

it is only that as a matter of order he cannot, when dealing with a

second subsection to

section 18, contemplate an amendment to a previous

subsection.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Your amendment is out of order, that's all.

MR. HOWARD: So was yours yesterday.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't have to give instructions to the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

One moment, hon. members. I think that if we just pause for a very

brief moment we might be able to resolve something in this matter.

MR. BARBER: Are you suggesting an alternative wording you would accept? That's fine with me.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You've got to get yourself into a new

section of this bill, Charles.

MR. BARBER: Would you accept it as rewritten in order to move it as a new section.

[ Page 4156 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not what he accepts; it's what I accept.

MR. BARBER:

If you'll accept it, that's fine with us. We feel it's in order; you

don't, but if you'll accept it in another way, that's fine with us.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, to summarize this, it's not the motion per se that's out

of order; it's the

section reference that makes it out of order.

MR. BARBER:

I appreciate your helpfulness, and that of the Attorney-General on

speaking on a point of order. I heard the Attorney-General say — please

correct me if I did not do so properly — that if this were put forward

as, in effect, a new

section then he would find it in order. Do I take

it that the Chair would as well?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be for the Chair to find in order or not. I've indicated that the

section itself is in order but the numbering is not.

MR. BARBER:

With respect, Mr. Chairman, we read it differently when we prepared

this. However, if the Chair's advice is that in order to make it in

order I renumber it, I would appreciate the courtesy of the Chair

telling me what number I should insert, at which point I would be

pleased to correct it, although I wasn't aware the correction was

required. Then if it's in order, we'd be pleased to debate it with, I

hope, the support of the government. Is that fair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Possibly you might carry on the debate until we resolve this particular matter.

MR. BARBER:

Speaking to the principle of the amended

section 60, let me just

continue, if I may, reading the resolutions put forward by the Islands

Trust, which are germane no matter how it's debated.

Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that if we pass 60 it is then acceptable to move 60.1.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. Now you've got it.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate the advice, and we're pleased to allow 60 on that basis.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

As I said when I rose on a point of order, I wasn't trying to stop the

member from raising the issue in debate. As the member may know, when

these sections are passed they go through the Clerks' office,

legislative council, and the Queen's Printer, and we have great

difficulty in making sure that the bills are printed on report. They

aren't proper unless they come in this way. As a point of order, I

wasn't arguing against your principle.

Section 60 approved.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to go on record as appreciating the courtesy of the Chair, the Clerk and the Attorney-General in helping us do this.

I would like to move

section 60.1 that

section 18(1) shall be amended by adding after

section 18(1)(

c) the following: "Section

(1)(d): But shall not include any designated islands under the Islands

Trust Act unless a bylaw adopted by the Islands Trust requests the

inclusion of any designated islands in a transit service area." I so

move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, and debate having already taken place, the member continues.

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to read, if I may, the resolution which is identical to that of six passed by islands in the trust. By way of example:

"It

was moved and seconded that the South Pender Island trust committee go

on record as opposing the imposition by regional government of urban

required taxation on the rural areas under their jurisdiction such as

represented by the gasoline and or Hydro surcharge being imposed on the

southern Gulf Islands by the capital regional district."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Again

I should point out that identical resolutions have now been passed by

the Galiano Island trust committee, the Mayne Island trust committee,

the North Pender Island trust committee, the Saltspring Island trust

committee, the Saturna Island trust committee, and the South Pender

Island trust committee, these, of course, being the principal populated

islands in the Islands Trust area. The reasons for it are really quite

clear. Each of the Islands Trust local island committees within the CRD

have formally adopted resolutions opposing transit levies on their

islands. In addition hundreds of individuals have now signed petitions

and written letters opposing the same. In further addition the

Saltspring Island Chamber of Commerce and the Saltspring Island

Transportation Committee, which is an elected group that deals with

B.C. Ferries and the highways department on the question of

transportation to the islands generally, have strongly opposed

inclusion of the islands in the transit service area. The reason they

do is quite simple and straightforward. The islands have two

characteristics which distinguish them in critical ways from the rest

of the capital regional district. Geographically they are clearly cut

off by a water barrier, and they are the only area with a special

statute, to wit the Islands Trust Act, which is designed to control

growth in order to preserve the present quality of life and relatively

low density of population on the islands. Each of these distinguishing

features militates against the likelihood of a transit service ever

becoming a really practical proposition for any of the islands — likely

including Saltspring as well, which is the largest, of course. It

therefore seems unfair to them — and to us and, I gather to the member

for Saanich and the Islands, who's been on public record saying the

same — to tax the islands for service that they do not receive now and

will likely never receive, simply because they are islands. Buses don't

float — even Volkswagen buses.

The islands are excluded from

a number of other CRDwide programs. The community planning of the Gulf

Islands is now under the jurisdiction of the elected Islands Trust. So

in a number of ways, as well the case currently exists that the islands

are exempt from several of the ordinary activities and programs of the

Capital Regional District. And that's how it should be. We don't oppose

that. The islands are special, rare

[ Page 4157 ]

and circumstantial. Unique factors apply to them, and they have to be governed in a unique way. We don't oppose that at all.

Therefore

it seems to us only logical, rational and fair that the Islands Trust

itself determine whether or not there is justification for including

any of the islands in a transit service area. It is on that simple

principle that we propose the amendment, which we hope the government

will accept.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Firstly, I think I

should clear up a misconception that appears to exist with so many

people that the Islands Trust was established to control growth.

Nowhere does it say that the Islands Trust was established to control

growth. The Islands Trust was established to ensure we have the

appropriate type of land use so as to best preserve the islands and

their characteristics for all British Columbians. It's not a matter of

controlling growth.

However, I, like the first member for

Victoria and others, I'm sure, have received considerable mail on this

question as to whether the islands should be included or not. It

depends on where your letter was posted as to what the letter contains

or says. Certainly any of those which I have received from the islands

obviously have requested an exemption in total from any surcharge or

gasoline charge.

On the other hand, naturally I have

received letters from other areas, mainland Vancouver Island, mainland

British Columbia, which say: "We pay for ferries; we don't use them,

perhaps. So why don't they pay for buses, even though they don't use

them?" The argument cuts both ways, naturally. I appreciate the concern

expressed by the islanders. I've certainly been very sympathetic to

their requests. But we cannot take this authority away from the Capital

Regional District, which is now legislatively, and in every way, the

municipality responsible for transit.

We cannot here and now

amend the Islands Trust Act to also give them authorities other than

where provided them legislatively. The Islands Trust Act was

established by another government to deal with zoning permits,

subdivision and planning-related matters. It had nothing to do with the

taxation of the public for a specific use. So we cannot now in any way

designate the Islands Trust to pass a bylaw to do what we, in

legislation, authorized the Capital Regional District to do.

After

this amendment passes, the Capital Regional District can, by

resolution, request that we exempt any one or all of the islands from

any of those charges, but it'll be them. not some other body which now

does not have the legislative authority to take on a taxation function.

MR. BARBER: Unfortunately, the Capital Regional District has recently moved that it will not exempt the Gulf Islands.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That was just last week.

MR. BARBER: That's right, it was just last week. You bet.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And they did not have the authority. They won't have the authority until after this passes.

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Municipal Affairs says they won't have

the authority until this passes. That's correct, and that's why we support

this

section as the government proposes it. What we ask is simply that the government

extend the principle to a unique circumstance where unique factors prevail that

cannot be found in any other area of the province.

The

minister raises the question that we all pay for roads, but not

everyone uses the roads. We all pay for ferries, but not everyone uses

the ferries. We all pay for universities. and not everyone goes to

university. Of course, I take that for granted. There's no dispute

there. But we don't all live on the Gulf Islands, and we don't all have

an opportunity and an obligation to protect and to preserve the rare

environmental qualities and way of life of the islands. One of the

issues which touches islanders is transit. I think the islanders

themselves are nearly unanimously opposed to the imposition of a

transit tax for a bus service they do not have and likely will never

have, and in fact may well not want, in order thereby to diminish

further urbanization of the islands themselves.

I would like

to point out that if our amendment fails there is then no protection in

law at all, because it will have been denied by Social Credit for the

islanders to exercise their own choice in this special circumstance.

That would be a shameful thing. I hope the government reconsiders and

accepts our amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Barrett

Howard

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Roaers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

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

Sections 60 to 65 inclusive approved.

section 66.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move a new

section 65, I standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Section 65.1 approved.

[ Page 4158 ]

Sections 66 to 73 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Bill 60, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 60, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

HOLIDAY SHOPPING REGULATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 56; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, on

section 3, I note that the government have opted for a

change in their original proposition, which would have created chaos

through the province. Still, with

section 3 allowing a municipality to

opt out, they are going to provide some areas with a good deal of

embarrassment and a good deal of trouble.

I can imagine a

municipality such as Richmond, which for a long time had major

merchants open on Sunday, forcing the surrounding areas into a similar

situation just by virtue of this particular section.

Mr.

Chairman, they are making it a little more difficult but there is

basically no change. It's still a copout. Still, the government is not

prepared to act even-handedly across the province, dumping the final

responsibility on the municipality in such a way as to say, "it's their

fault, not ours."

MR. LEGGATT: This provision which

allows local option in fact allows the province, and particularly the

lower mainland, to be totally open on Sunday. This is the chink in the

armour that in fact leaves this bill inadequate in principle; this

government simply hasn't had the courage to regulate Sunday shopping

province-wide, as the province of Ontario has. Mr. Chairman, that makes

this bill totally inadequate for us; that makes this bill a bill that

we can never support, because it's quite clear that the commercial

interests in certain of those municipalities will whipsaw the other

municipalities into shape in nothing flat.

In my community I

have several large shopping centres, and in the city of Port Coquitlam

they have a regulated Sunday. It will be a matter of time when we throw

our total riding fully open, on the simple ground that the small

merchants won't sit there and suffer at the hands of the big merchants

which are open right across the border. The popular will will have some

sympathy for those small merchants, and the result will be an open

Sunday. So what you've done with this bill is simply opened Sunday

right across the province, and particularly right around the lower

mainland.

Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, this hole in the

bill is the hole that all the large merchants have been looking for —

and they've got it. I am sad to say that this government hasn't

examined other provinces. It hasn't examined, for example, the province

of Ontario, which has a regulated Sunday province-wide, which has

caused very little problem in that particular jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly oppose this

section and for those reasons we will be opposing the bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised to hear the member for Coquitlam-Moody make

those statements. With respect to the Ontario legislation, there is a

provision for local option and it has been used. I think the member

must also recognize that the Retail Merchants Association, which is

representative of the small business community in this province, and

the Retail Council of Canada, which is representative of the large

retailers in this province, have both expressed their views as being

against the passage of any such bylaws, and to suggest that municipal

governments would be pressured by them is to fail to recognize what

they have said both in writing and in their visits to these buildings.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

[ Page 4159 ]

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

Sections 4 to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedule A approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 56, Holiday Shopping Regulation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

MR. SKELLY:

I sent over earlier a copy of a proposed amendment to the hon. Minister

of Forests and I apologize for not handing it to him earlier, because I

was a little unprepared on this bill.

What we are concerned

about in this new

section 1s that the minister may be able to subdivide

tree-farm licences and switch them around between companies. Also,

we're concerned about the fact that it may be possible under this

section to allow a company to dodge its cutting obligations by

combining areas that have been undercut with areas that have been

overcut, and to dodge its liability for penalty stumpage and that type

of thing.

In the case of areas where TFLs need to be

combined for example, the B.C. Forest Products ones on Vancouver

Island, where there have been large deletions as a result of the

creation of Pacific Rim National Park.... We see the need for that, but

in our opinion that area should be treated as a brand-new tree-farm

licence and it should go to public hearing. The public should be given

full opportunity to examine the new licence, the cutting rights, and

just what is going to be happening in central Vancouver Island as a

result of the creation of that new forest management licence.

So I would hope that the minister, having examined the amendment, will give his approval to it.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I only received this proposed amendment a

short time ago. As the member fully understands, the Forest Act is

quite a complex act, and changes in one

section can make unintended

changes to other sections. So it would take some time for me, my staff

and the legislative counsel to fully go into all the implications that

such a change might have on the act itself.

However,

the intent to avoid cut control by manipulating tree-farm licences is

certainly an administrative thing that we'll keep well in mind. If

perhaps the member would like to discuss with me between now and the

next session the necessity of having such an amendment in the act, I'd

be very happy to consider that for next year. As far as the part about

having public hearings for the change of tree-farm licences, there is

no intent to change the ownership of them and there's no possibility of

changing the ownership of them under the amendments to this section.

It's for administrative convenience. I would not accept going to public

hearings on that type of change. because you're not really creating a

new tree-farm licence. you're just breaking one down into several. The

public hearings on new tree-farm licences will, of course, continue.

But as far as any attempt to get out of cut control by changing the

shapes and sizes of tree-farm licences.... As I say, it's

administrative, and I'd be very happy to discuss the possibility of an

amendment for next year.

MR. SKELLY:

I thank the minister for his assurance that that will be done and that

our concerns will be looked at if tree-farm licences are going to be

changed around under this section. What I was referring to in the

requirement of public hearings is specifically to do with the B.C.

Forest Products licences, which I understand will be combined as a

result of the large deletions for the creation of phase 3 of Pacific

Rim National Park. It appears to us that with new Crown land being

turned over to this company in the Cowichan Valley and a large area of

land being deleted, this actually constitutes a new tree-farm licence.

The public should have an opportunity to examine the proposal by way of

public hearing before that new tree-farm licence is created. This is

one of the specific instances where a public hearing would be

appropriate.

Amendment negatived.

Section 13 approved.

Sections 14 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved.

section 32.

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

Amendment approved.

[ Page 4160 ]

Section 32 as amended approved.

Sections 33 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 45.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order

paper, which includes the addition of

section 45.1. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman,

section 45 has been dealt with, and

has been amended. The minister proposes to add a new

section 45.1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That should be a separate motion.

section 45.1.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the addition of

section 45.1 to

section

Section 45.1 approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 66 inclusive approved.

section 67.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 67 as amended approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the addition of

section

Section 68 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 17, Forest Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 17, Forest Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PLACE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. LAUK: Does the minister have any amendments to

section 6?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MR. LAUK:

Nowhere in the Commonwealth is there a

section like this. It says: "The

Crown in right of the Province may, on terms the Lieutenant Governor in

Council" — the cabinet — "approves, guarantee the payment of principal

and interest of the notes, bonds, debentures or other securities issued

by the company."

Subsection (3) is the most offensive, and

that is the one that I don't see anywhere in the British Commonwealth.

It defeats the very purpose of parliamentary democracy and is totally

consistent with the attitude of some people with alien philosophies who

attack that parliamentary democratic principle throughout the course of

the legislation introduced to this Legislature. Subsection (3) states:

"Money required to be paid in respect of a guarantee under this

section

shall (

a) in the absence of an appropriation, or (

b) where money

appropriated is insufficient, be paid out of the consolidated revenue

fund without any appropriation other than this section." I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, it's ultra vires; I suggest it's not constitutional. It's an

offence even going back to Magna Carta. I don't know of any parliament

that's given a blank cheque to a Crown corporation of appointed people

on the board.

It's a very sad situation when the minister's

first effort at legislative draftsmanship should end up with such a

botch-up as this act. The expropriation sections and the appropriation

sections are offensive to the very fundamental and basic democratic

sensibilities in the British parliamentary system.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Waterland

Nielsen

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

[ Page 4161 ]

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Mr. Lauk requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals

of the House.

MR. LAUK: Being the member for Vancouver Centre, I would ask that my name be placed in the Journals of the House as requesting the recording.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not actually done, hon. member, but the recording is ordered.

section 7.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 46, British Columbia Place Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

HON. MR. ROGERS: With leave of the House now. Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 46, British Columbia Place Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

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

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI:

There are many things missing from the bill, but one of the things that

is certainly missing is: who within the department is going to concern

themselves with what happens to children?

One of the serious

problems that existed previously with respect to the job that was done

by the superintendent of child welfare was that the superintendent in

fact was an administrator. He had to run a whole

section of the

ministry and was involved in all of the bureaucratic administration

that the head of a

section has to do. If in fact the minister is

serious about the intent of this bill which is directing itself to

children, what is needed is somebody who devotes all his time — away

from the bureaucracy. Inside the ministry if necessary, but certainly

away from the bureaucracy — and concerns himself or herself with the

ongoing problems that children have, so that he or she can — again, as

I said, outside the bureaucratic administration — say on the matter of

advice to the minister: "This is what's happening out there with

respect to children." That function cannot be done by the

superintendent of child welfare.

First of all, it should be

understood that the superintendent of child welfare in respect of this

province has actually been the deputy minister of the department. The

role of deputy minister is onerous enough without also having to be the

superintendent of child welfare.

We don't know, for

instance, in respect to this act, what the minister has in mind for a

superintendent of child welfare. All we know is that this

section deals

with administrative functions as well. I'm moving this amendment so

that we can have somebody separate and distinct.

We now have

in this province an ombudsman who concerns himself with those things

that basically affect adults. We should have somebody who concerns

himself — or herself, depending on who is appointed — with children.

That would be very much in keeping with what the minister wants to do.

I don't want to get into a second reading debate on this thing, but

there is nothing really in the legislation that the minister can't do

now. All of it is possible. The minister, because of the previous

legislation. can do any kind of thing — can be as flexible as possible.

She couldn't set up an ombudsman for children, but that's why I've

moved this amendment. We want somebody separate and distinct whose

total function, really, is to sit aside from the bureaucracy and to

view what is going on in terms of children — the kind of thing that

exists today where the minister had to go out and ~et somebody from the

community, a former deputy chief of police, to look at the problems of

child prostitution. If you have somebody who is concerned about

children on a full-time basis — an ombudsman for children — you're not

going to have to wait until you get articles in the newspaper saying

that there's a very serious situation with child prostitution down on

Davie Street.

That's the kind of monitoring that an

ombudsperson would do. He would know what is going on in the field, and

would have an opportunity to move around the province and talk to the

staff. and to say: "What are the ongoing problems? What are the new

problems that we're noting in respect to children?" That's not done.

It's very difficult to have that thing filter up from the line to the

deputy minister and to the

[ Page 4162 ]

minister.

But if you have somebody who is separate and apart, has a roving

commission to do that very valuable work, then it makes a lot of sense

in respect to the attempts the minister is doing in the general part of

the bill.

But without that ombudsperson they're never really

going to know, because the bureaucracy is busy. We're going to have to

rely on the press, I suppose, which is always the way we tend to get

problems called to the attention of government; occasionally we get

letters. Basically, that's a role that is worthwhile. I urge the

minister to give consideration to this, because that's where the

minister and the deputy minister can say: "We do have somebody out

there who is outside of the bureaucracy and who is not tied up with the

day-to-day running of the department, and who can devote himself to

that function." That's a worthwhile function.

I don't want

to go past the business of when I was doing the minister's job. I was

very concerned about the fact that the superintendent of child welfare

was doing what he was doing, and not really devoting himself to the

function of looking at children. I didn't want to make the changes at

the time, because we were waiting for the Berger commission. But we are

making changes now. One of the things that is missing.... We are that

concerned about children that I'm putting it to the minister, Mr.

Chairman: who is going to look after that concern? It can't be the

deputy minister, who is too busy all the time. It can't be people in

the bureaucracy who are going to be doing all sorts of functions —

their day-to-day functions don't allow them to set themselves aside

from the bureaucracy to look at this. It needs a separate position and

an expensive position: a roving commission. You say to that

ombudsperson: "Your function is to go out.... What are we doing with

children? Are we doing the right things? What should we be doing? What

kind of problems can we expect down the road?" It's not to have to

react to complaints from the community, although we have to certainly

acknowledge that there are some.

I think the Davie Street

question, Mr. Chairman, is really the essence of what I'm talking

about. It put pressure off the press and the criticisms and the

discussions about prostitution law, and the minister finally had to

appoint somebody. That doesn't deal with the problem at all, because

it's not an easy problem to deal with anyhow. But that's not the only

problem related to children. There are other problems that are bound to

come up, and the ministry really needs to be in an anticipatory role —

have some idea of what's coming down the road. Now the person who can

tell them that is the ombudsperson, and that's why I would urge the

minister. Even if she's not going to vote for it, I'd like to hear her

comments about it, because it's something that governments must give

consideration to in terms of children.

One of the sad parts

the government before — that we did not decide that one ministry should

have the responsibility for children. They're chopped up all over the

place: Attorney-General's ministry, Education, some parts of Health and

Human Resources. That's the step that has to be taken. It's possible

that, with the use of the ombudsperson — having seen what goes on out

there — they'll be able to say to the minister that it is important

that there be one ministry for children, and if the ministry needs to

have services, they purchase those services from other ministries. But

sooner or later we're going to have one minister responsible for

children, not four or five — we're going to cut out this business of

cutting up children. So I would like to urge the ministers to agree

with this amendment to provide an ombudsperson for children; it would

be a great step in terms of child welfare. We could lead the way in

this province; we don't have it anywhere else, and we could lead the

way.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would just

like to respond to the member, because I know that he's sincere in his

regards for the children that come into our care.

First of

all, let me just say that the act does make provision for the

superintendent, and it does not have to be the deputy minister to whom

he made reference; it happens to be at this moment, but it does not

have to be. It gives us the flexibility to make the appointment to a

sole person. Let me say that we do not wish to produce an ombudsman who

would take away or preempt the role of the very many ombudsmen in the

province of British Columbia, the parents of the children. The point

that we would like to make in this whole act is that we're trying to

address the fact and also direct the concerns about the parents who

feel that they don't want their parental responsibility taken away and

preempted by the state. You suggest in your amendment that an ombudsman

or ombudsperson should be appointed, that there is in effect an

ombudsman for the first time in this province appointed for everyone in

the province, so a duplication for children, I think, is not necessary,

because the superintendent of child welfare, in effect, does act as

that.

In addition, may I just mention the interministerial

commitments that we have made. We do not do as you say — chop up

children and have them treated in isolation from other ministries. We

started some years ago a hope for an interministerial exchange. That's

very much happening in this province today. It's at the local level;

it's at the Victoria level — the deputy minister level; it's at the

ministerial level, and it is very much being addressed in an

interministerial way.

I would think that the accountability

in total must be with the minister, not any appointed official. That's

the job all ministers have throughout each of the ministries in our

government.

I do believe, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is out

of order because it does give a commitment for an expenditure of funds,

but I do feel that you would want to know my thoughts on the comments.

I appreciate the comments by the member, but the amendment would not be

suitable to the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

amendment on

section 1 is simply an

interpretation amendment. The

amendment coming to

section 3 is out of order. But we still haven't

dealt with the amendment to

section 1. Shall the amendment pass?

MS. BROWN: I'm on my feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, the hon. member for Burnaby Edmonds on the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I know I'm a bit inconspicuous, but nonetheless....

Just

to respond very quickly to the minister, what this bill deals with is

specifically children who are being taken away from their parents, or

children whose parents have failed in some way to discharge their

responsibilities to them, or children whose parents are fighting over

them. So, although I certainly agree that the greatest ombudsperson

that a child

[ Page

4163 ]

can have is either a parent or both parents, what we are dealing with specifically

in this legislation is children who do not have that ombudsperson, because the

parents are precisely the people who are missing as a result of this legislation.

So I think that the amendment calling for a guardian which was put forward by

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), specifically for the reasons

of this act, makes good sense, because the parents just aren't there.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, at this point, since the amendment to

section 1 hinges on

the amendment to

section 3, and

section 3 is out of order because of

standing order 67, I cannot accept any more debate on this amendment.

MR. LEVI:

We have to proceed in some kind of order. At the moment we're dealing

with the

interpretation section. I don't want you to anticipate what

we're going to deal with in

section 3. We're not dealing in block form

here. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think your observation is not

correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would caution you against lecturing the Chair.

MR. LEVI: I think that what we have to do is to deal in order, and at the moment we're dealing with the

interpretation section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and with that said can I call the question, hon. member?

MR. LEVI: No, I'd like to say something else. I had to make sure I could get the floor.

am not in any way persuaded by the minister when she says that because

they have an interministerial committee somehow children are not

chopped up. I know that's always been the case in practice. That's the

unfortunate part; interministerial committees do not solve the problem

I talked about. They don't, because you have to know the field as I and

my colleague know it — it goes on all the time. You should have one

ministry and purchase service. You don't sit down and develop policy

that way. That's not the way it should be done.

However,

just going to the ombudsperson.... We're not talking about somebody

that's separate from the ministry — what I'm saying is someone separate

from the bureaucracy. That's possible; you can have that. It's not in

any way pre-empting anybody's function; it's certainly not preempting

the minister's function within the ministry. The minister obviously has

the responsibility.

As my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown) said, who is going to speak for those children that are

being chopped up between the parents? That's the thing. It's tough

enough for the line workers to have that involvement; it's tough enough

for somebody from the Attorney-General's department because they're in

the unified family court having a go at them. That's two ministries

already, and then if one of them's got a psychiatric problem we're into

the Health department because of mental health.

Who stands apart and is able to look after the interests of the kid? A ministerial

person can't do that — they're battling other ministries — but an ombudsperson

can take a look at it and say: "Look, I'm here to protect the interests

of that child. Never mind how you want to squabble about the child. I'm

here for that particular function and you have to listen to me, because I'm

trying to speak in the interests...." I'm not convinced in any way

that the child advocacy program is functioning the way it should function. Nevertheless

we're not just dealing with individual cases of children; we want to deal

with the assistance that that individual could render in terms of the problems

that are down the road. Somebody has to be looking at that, and unfortunately

we don't do that. That's

the function of that. I'm not in any way convinced, from what the

minister said, that she has a real understanding of what actually takes

place in the field.

Amendment negatived.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, this is supposed to be a Family and Child Service Act.

Yet in outlining the principles, the

section says that the act deals

specifically with the well-being of a child and that that shall be the

paramount consideration. As I mentioned earlier, the promotion of the

family and the protection of the integrity of the family was covered in

the draft legislation which was discarded when this was tabled before

the House. The draft legislation talked about promoting the well-being

of children by supporting individuals, families and communities in

their endeavour to overcome difficulties which are detrimental to their

best interest; to promote and strengthen the welfare of the family by

the amelioration of conditions that are disruptive of family

relationships; to assist parents in the discharge of parental

responsibilities; and to encourage and assist the community and its

agencies to cooperate and co-ordinate their activities to serve the

well-being of the community, its families and the children. Now that's

very long-winded, and I accept that.

That's the reason why I

now move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which

says quite simply that the

section will read: "In the administration

and

interpretation of this act the safety and well-being of a child and

the preservation of the family, shall be the paramount consideration."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, this would not be acceptable. Also, it's out of order. But

before your ruling on it let me just say that this is an instrument for

the court. It's not a philosophical paper or document. It gives

direction to the court when it comes to that point in time when

children have to go before the court, or the parents or those standing

for the child go before the court. The well-being of children is

paramount in this bill. It is very definite; the paramountcy is

underlined in more than one action in this bill. It is accepted in this

province and this nation. I would suggest that in most parts of the

world the well-being of the child is of prime importance. If we accept

that point of view and we say that the judge will accept that point of

view in every court in this land then we can't turn around and give

direction to the judge that the paramountcy and safety and well-being

of the child should be maintained and then say.... At the same time

you're giving conflicting statements to the judge. You're giving to the

court conflicting statements. They can't do both in some cases,

unfortunately. Those are the sad and tragic cases. But again, it's only

the sad and tragic cases that get to the point in time of the court.

[ Page 4164 ]

you've read the bill, the other cases where the child can stay within

the context of the family.... It's protected. We work with agreements

with parents, and we work right along. If you'll notice in the act, it

gives that transition from the child who can be treated within the home

of the natural parent, who can be given services within the home or

taken away from the home for a little while, given services and then

services to the family and to the child and bring them together. But

what we're addressing in this act as well are those tragic cases. You

get to the court, and you can't give the court a conflicting statement

that you are trying to give us in the rewording in your amendment, that

you must look after the child and address yourself to the importance

and the paramountcy of the well-being and the protection of that child,

and then at the same time say you must assist the parents. Because they

are in absolute conflict when it gets to that point. But the whole act

does give, as the member is trying to say in a different way.... For

the first time in this province it addresses itself to making sure that

the family and child — the child in the context of the family — is

addressed when possible. When it isn't, you can't give them a

conflicting statement. It is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the Chair finds the amendment out of order, because it

does impart a new principle to the bill, a principle that has been

passed in second reading. Therefore the Chair cannot accept the

amendment to

section 2.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I

don't know whether you read the press release which went out with this

piece of legislation or not, but it stated quite clearly that the

strengthening and preserving the family was precisely what this act was

supposed to do.

The minister is telling us that to instruct

the courts that the preservation of the family and the protection of

children is what this act is supposed to do is a contradiction. It is

absolutely unreal that one should see the preservation of the family as

contradicting protecting the rights of children. It doesn't make any

sense at all to me. It's precisely because the legislation doesn't do

that that there is such growing opposition to it. It's precisely

because the legislation is more committed to the disintegration and the

destruction of the family that there is so much growing opposition to

the legislation. Now there are a large number of groups, including

SPARC and the B.C. Association of Social Workers and the B.C. foster

parents, who are opposed to this legislation. As I mentioned earlier,

the word "family" appears in the title, and it never shows up anywhere

again. Nobody in this province who cares a hoot about children wants to

support legislation that sees the preservation of the family as

contradictory to the rights of children. It doesn't make any sense.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. BROWN:

Again, in the same light of the bill having absolutely nothing in it

positive in terms of commitment to the family, I have drafted what I

would like to have accepted as new sections 3 to 6, which deal

specifically with that.

"Subject to the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the minister may do such things as he

or she considers advisable to promote the growth and development of

community services and resources designed to support families in the

proper care of their children and to prevent circumstances that lead to

family breakdown.

"2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the

minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

where the minister considers it advisable:

"(

a) provide consultative services to assist in the coordination of existing

community and other services and in the development of new services;

"(

b) provide funds by way of loans, grants or otherwise to assist in the

research, development and maintenance of new community services and in

the expansion and improvement of existing services;

"(

c) conduct research with a view to ascertaining more effective methods of

providing community and other services aimed at promoting, supporting

and maintaining family life or carrying out the purposes of this act.

"4)

The minister may, in order to enable a parent to maintain a child in

his home, and in order to prevent the child from becoming a child in

need of protection, assist the parent by providing such welfare

services as the minister considers necessary and advisable.

"5)

The minister may make such pay