1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7193 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Cercomm Electronics lease. Mrs. Wallace –– 7193

Investigations into escort services. Mr. Lea –– 7194

Special enterprise zones. Mr. Williams –– 7194

Dominion Glass plant closure. Mr. Williams –– 7194

Financial institutions. Mr. Blencoe –– 7195

Esquimalt graving dock. Mr. Mitchell –– 7195

Disposal of government documents. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 7196

Tabling Documents –– 7196

Ministerial Statement

Energy supply and cold weather. Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 7196

Mr. D'Arcy

Securities Act (Bill 37). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 45). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 54). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 60). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 62). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Charter Of Rights Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage 7198

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Hanson

Division

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Committee stage –– 7203

Mr. Williams

Equity Investment Plan Act (Bill 73). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7203

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Committee stage –– 7204

Mr. Williams

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lockstead

Third reading

Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage –– 7206

Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Reynolds

Notaries Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 47). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage ––

Third reading

Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee

stage –– 7209

Third reading

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985 (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee

stage –– 7209

Third reading

Foreign Arbitral Awards Act (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage 7210

Third reading

Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 66). Hon. Mr. Hewitt. Committee

stage –– 7210

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Cocke

Third reading

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR402). Second reading

Mr. Parks –– 7213

Mr. Rose –– 7213

Mr. Parks –– 7213

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Nielsen. Committee stage –– 7213

Mr. Cocke, Mrs. Dailly, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Lauk, Mr. D'Arcy

Third reading

Tabling Documents –– 7217

Appendix –– 7217

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1985

The House met at 2: 10 p.m.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in my role as parliamentary secretary

to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) I address the House today

on the passing of Mr. Bill Sands, who passed away on November 25, 1985.

Mr. Sands was born in Kelowna 72 years ago. He organized and was union

representative with the Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union in the

Okanagan, and he was a member of the Kelowna fire department for 19

years. He was made Deputy Minister of Labour by the late W.A.C. Bennett

in 1952 and served in that capacity for 21 years, until he retired in

1973. Shortly after his appointment as deputy minister he was also made

chairman of the B.C. Labour Relations Board. He was also made chairman

of the Board of Industrial Relations. During his term as deputy

minister he was active in the Canadian Association of Administrators of

Labour Legislation; he was president for a number of years and was made

an honorary member. He was a delegate to the International Labour

Organization and was part of the Canadian government delegation at the

Geneva conference. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the condolences of

the House be sent to the family.

MR. GABELMANN: May I just add a few words to those of the member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain. I didn't know Bill Sands very well. He was deputy minister

and then chairman of the Labour Relations Board. His last days in those

jobs were just as I was beginning my first days in both politics and

the labour movement. Along with a lot of other people, I had a lot of

respect for Bill Sands. He had a very difficult job. Not to inject too

much politics into it, Mr. Speaker, you'll remember that there were

some very tumultuous days in labour relations during some of the years

that Bill Sands was deputy minister. He managed, through all of that,

to maintain his ability to deal with both sides and to continue to

command the respect of those people who needed to rely, if not on the

Minister of Labour of the day, then certainly on the Ministry of

Labour. All of those people, and I too, will remember Bill Sands with

some fondness.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is the express wish of the

assembly, the Chair will undertake the appropriate message on behalf of

the assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, an outstanding British

Columbian, Pat Morrow of Kimberley, has recently accomplished what can

only be described as an outstanding feat. He has now successfully

climbed the highest mountain peaks on all seven continents. He is the

second person in the world to have achieved this. I hope the House will

agree to extend him our sincere congratulations.

MR. NICOLSON: In our gallery today we have Mrs. Arvid Schneider visiting

us. I had the pleasure of teaching some of her children over the years. I wish

the House to make her welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I know I extend your personal welcome

to the guests I'm going to introduce today: Mayor Ernie Burnett, who

has just been elected for his fourth term as mayor of Delta, and his

wife Betty — also breeders of standard-bred horses; and long-time

personal friends of mine and, I know, friends of yours, Mr. and Mrs.

Ron Stewart. Ron Stewart is president of the Delta Social Credit

constituency association, vice-president of the Delta Chamber of

Commerce and a very active community person. Mr. and Mrs. Stewart and

Mayor and Mrs. Burnett are attending the police awards ceremony this

evening at Government House. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery, representing the

industrious, productive Cowichan Valley, from the Cowichan-Malahat

riding, I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Austin Fraser and Dr. Gavin

Sutherland. Would the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd like the House to join with me in

welcoming two very dear friends from Victoria, Mr. and Mrs. Gaddes. I'd

like the House to give them a very warm welcome.

[2:15]

MRS. WALLACE: I would just like to add my welcome,

particularly to Austin Fraser, who has served our constituency very

well as our economic development officer. I wish him well.

MR. PARKS: In the members' gallery, I notice that we have

with us this afternoon M. Marc Roy, the immediate past president of La

Federation des Franco-Colombiens. I would ask the, House to make him

welcome.

As I looked up a moment ago, I noticed that I have two constituents

also in the galleries: one of the lower mainland's most eminent trauma

doctors, Dr. Herb Parkin from Royal Columbian; and I trust that is Mrs.

Parkin with you, Herb. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: In the members' gallery today is a renowned

artist from the Prince George area and the west. I would like the House

to welcome Mr. Bob Sebastian.

Oral Questions

CERCOMM ELECTRONICS LEASE

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing in his capacity as Minister of Lands. I have in my hand a

lease dated April 26 for a ten-year period. It is licence number

100831. It is a lease for Crown land with Cercomm Electronics of

Nanaimo. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that the

purpose of this lease is to install a radio microwave station for the

U.S. Navy.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll have to take that question as notice and get the particulars.

MRS. WALLACE: A further question for the same minister, Mr.

Speaker.

Article 5(01) of the lease reads: "The licensee shall not

assign the licence or sublicense any part of the land without prior

written consent of the owner." I am wondering whether the fact that

this land has been leased in

[ Page 7194 ]

this way and has, in effect, been subleased to the

U.S. government means that this government is prepared to have on our

shores radio microwave equipment sending signals to nuclear-carrying

armed subs and warships, which will ply our waters for another ten

years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I gather the member has taken

the opportunity to make a speech on some point. As I said, I will take

the question on notice, and I'll try to get the particulars back to

that member as quickly as possible. I can only take for granted that

she knows what she's talking about in these statements.

INVESTIGATIONS INTO ESCORT SERVICES

MR. LEA: I have a question to the Attorney-General in his

role as chief law enforcement officer for the province of British

Columbia. Would the minister agree with me that it is a gigantic waste

of the taxpayers' money to spend tens of thousands of dollars, in some

cases up to $50,000, to investigate escort services for prostitution?

HON. MR. SMITH: Tempting as it might be to answer an inviting

question of that kind, I am mindful of the fact that a jury in this

town is either out or about to go out. Therefore I will not answer the

question.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about a specific case

in front of the courts. I'm asking a general question about whether the

Attorney-General feels it is a waste of money to spend tens of

thousands of dollars investigating escort services. I know that there

are many police officers and many politicians who believe that that may

be the way to go. It gets prostitution off the streets, out of the

neighbourhoods and puts it into escort services. Does the

Attorney-General not agree that that's the general way we should go,

and that it's a waste of taxpayers' money to investigate those escort

services?

HON. MR. SMITH: I repeat the answer I gave previously.

MR. LEA: In order for a joint investigation between the RCMP

and a local city police force to go forward, is it true that there has

to be approval from the Attorney-General's ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no. That is not true.

MR. LEA: At any time during the last 18 months, has any

investigation gone forward that the Attorney-General is aware of, where

approval was received from the Attorney-General's department on a joint

investigation into escort services?

HON. MR. SMITH: I take the question as notice.

SPECIAL ENTERPRISE ZONES

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker. A

year and a half ago the minister took forth a proposal to cabinet with

respect to special enterprise zones, and six months ago we passed

legislation in this House regarding those zones. Can the minister

advise us how many jobs have been created to date as a result of this

legislation?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no zones have been

established at this time. We're still in discussions with the federal

government on some taxation matters.

MR. WILLIAMS: Taxation matters were dealt with by the budget,

Mr. Speaker. Does that mean the minister is awaiting the next federal

budget with respect to these zones?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise us how many zones are

under discussion currently, at any rate, and whether any companies are

lined up at the door? And what number of jobs does he anticipate in the

immediate future as a result of this two-year effort on his part?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

DOMINION GLASS PLANT CLOSURE

MR. WILLIAMS: A further question to the Minister of Industry,

Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise us whether he met with Dominion

Glass, the plant in Burnaby that announced closure just recently —

another 300 jobs lost to British Columbia — or with representatives of

the people who were laid off in that plant?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've met with the people from Dominion Glass, yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House whether any

provincial changes might have improved the circumstances for Dominion

Glass in terms of their reconsidering that decision?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of

changes in the March budget which helped all businesses in British

Columbia. The elimination of the machinery and equipment tax would

have.... I don't have a dollar figure, but it would have saved

thousands and thousands of dollars for that company. The reduction of

the school taxes would have saved thousands and thousands of dollars

for that company, and the total $1 billion reduction of taxes over

three years would have saved that particular company many hundreds or

thousands of dollars as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is saying: "Nevertheless, the

company is leaving." Is that so? The company is not staying in business

despite your program. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? Could the minister

advise us if he has met with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) with respect to policy on aluminium canning

processes versus bottling systems, which was a factor in the closure?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I meet with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs almost every day.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister advise the House whether he

discussed the problems of Dominion Glass with the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs with respect to liquor distribution and other

allied problems?

[ Page 7195 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: What are the results, Mr. Speaker? Despite this, the company closed, is that correct?

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. The minister has virtually washed his hands of

financial institutions that are in trouble in this province, and the

minister must be aware of the widespread concern about the financial

deficiencies in firms such as Victoria Mortgage Corp. and the Teachers'

Cooperative. What steps has the minister taken to improve reserve

requirements, liquidity requirements, inspection and regulation to

prevent the loss of millions of dollars of hard-earned savings by B.C.

depositors?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the member mentioned

B.C. depositors, because in place for banks and trust companies is the

Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, which ensures up to $60,000 of

deposits of their customers and clients. Credit unions in British

Columbia, under the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation, have in

place a fund which guarantees the deposits of the credit unions in this

province. The two institutions that the member mentions, the Victoria

mortgage and investment company — and I stress the word "investment" —

and Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative, are strictly

investment institutions and are not deposit-taking institutions. They

are no different from people who may wish from time to time to invest

personally in the economy of British Columbia or Canada or any other

part of the world. It is an investment, not a deposit, and as a result

they don't fall under the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation or the

Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation. But I will tell the member

that with regard to the Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative, I

have met with officials of that cooperative. I compliment them on the

action they have taken; they have protected their shareholder members

to the best of their ability and are working on a restructuring

program. They have access to my office, and we've advised them that for

any assistance we may be able to give, within the purview of my

ministry, our doors are open to them.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is very aware that the legislation

and the policy in these areas for these particular financial

institutions is lax. There is very little consumer protection, very

little inspection, very little reserve requirement. We need new

policies to protect consumers. In view of the concern of the financial

community in terms of very few protections for such investors, has the

minister decided to get involved with such situations, and has he

decided to introduce a preventive program so we can prevent this sort

of thing in the future?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not sure about that party over there,

but I guess what they want to do is guarantee everybody a mediocre

opportunity in life, whether it be in this province or anywhere else

that they may get into power. But I would tell you that the investors

who invest in the economy of British Columbia, Canada or any other part

of the world benefit and have the right to make a profit on their

investment, and they also accept the right and the possibility of

losing part or all of their investment, because that is the marketplace.

Just to further clarify for the member, so that he is aware: both

the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Credit Union Deposit

Insurance Corporation are funded by assessments from the member

institutions. The credit unions in this province contribute a portion

of their funds into the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation's

fund. It is not supported or assisted or subsidized by the taxpayers of

this province, and that's the way it should be.

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE: A final supplementary. The minister is aware

that thousands of senior citizens in Victoria and Vancouver invested

thousands of dollars in Victoria Mortgage Corp. The minister is aware

that much of the advertising for that company was misleading and misled

those senior citizens to invest thousands of dollars. He has a

responsibility to introduce legislation to avoid that kind of

situation. Is this minister abandoning those thousands of senior

citizens? Will he not introduce a preventive program so at least those

investors know what they're getting into?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, there are remedies to deal with

misleading advertising. If there is evidence of misleading advertising,

what can be construed and proven as misleading advertising, then

necessary action can be taken by the individual who has been misled. In

regard to the investment community, there are prospectuses that must be

filed to state information. They must be factual or the party involved

commits an offence.

Mr. Speaker, if the member across has evidence of misleading

advertising, I certainly would be pleased to see it. I hope he wouldn't

just refer to a brochure that he has advised is the misleading

document. If that is the case then maybe he should ask the people

involved who have a claim to make that an issue. That brochure has been

referred to the superintendent of brokers for investigation.

ESQUIMALT GRAVING DOCK

MR. MITCHELL: My question is to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. I would ask him about one of the facilities

that has been around Esquimalt longer than I have, and also is the

heart of the industrial area of Esquimalt: the graving dock. The

minister is aware that the federal government has given notice that

they intend to privatize it or shut it down. Has the minister met with

the federal government or any of their officials, or any of the

employees of the drydock, to establish that this facility is going to

continue to operate as the heart of both the defence and industrial

area of Esquimalt? Has he met with them and can he assure the people of

Esquimalt that that particular facility will continue to be in

operation?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I haven't met personally with members of

the federal government on that specific issue. I would undertake to

find out whether any of my staff have. I would believe that they

probably have, but I'll be happy to find out for sure and bring the

member an answer later.

[ Page 7196 ]

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to a question posed last week.

I will be as brief as I can in this regard. If I could refer you, sit, to Hansard ,

page 7029. The Leader of the Opposition in two questions with

interjections in the interval asked if I would confirm that

confidential documents on computer stock were stored on the back of an

open truck at Allan Paper Stock Co. Ltd. on Tyee Road for a week prior

to Allan Paper Stock disposing of that computer paper. Then the same

question with slight variation was put again. I was absent on Tuesday

and could not respond at that time.

Insofar as I have been informed and as I have been able to determine

in the interval, I suggest that perhaps the information which was

offered to the Leader of the Opposition was not correct. I make it

clear I do not accuse the leader of misleading the House; rather, the

information provided to him leading to the question may have been

incorrect.

To briefly recite again: on Friday, August 10, 1984, at

approximately 5:30 p.m. the paper removal commenced. I dealt with that

at length in the statement on November 20. That work concluded in the

early hours of Saturday. The new facility — the new storage area — was

secured. Nothing occurred on August 12, 1984. Security guards were

hired on August 13, 1984, remained in place on August 14 and 15, and on

August 16, 1984, at approximately 8 a.m., Allan Paper commenced loading

and finished approximately at noon. On Friday, August 17, 1984, Allan

Paper Stock delivered two vans by the 7 a.m. sailing of the British

Columbia Ferry Corporation out of Swartz Bay, with 19.8 tonnes of paper

which were destroyed later that morning at Belkin Paper in the greater

Vancouver area, and receipts are available for that paper destruction.

The company verifies the times and dates.

Mr. Speaker, while there may have been a vehicle either owned by or

leased by or somehow associated with the firm in question, there is

nothing I have determined which would suggest that there was veracity

to that which the Leader of the Opposition indicated, in terms of this

paper sitting in an open truck for not one day, not several days....

Indeed, just to take one more moment, material was loaded into Allan

Paper Stock vans, 40 feet and 26 feet in length. Those are closed vans.

I hope that satisfies the Leader of the Opposition with regard to that

question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this might be an opportune time

to table a few reports: the Pacific National Exhibition report and

financial statement, ending March 31, 1985; the thirtieth annual report

of business done in pursuance of the Legislative Assembly Allowances

and Pension Act,

Part 2, for the year ended March 31, 1985; the B.C.

lotteries branch annual report, 1984-1985; finally, but not least, the

report on applications pertaining to the Public Service Labour

Relations Act dealt with by the Labour Relations Board of British

Columbia during the year 1984.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I wish to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

ENERGY SUPPLY AND COLD WEATHER

HON. MR. ROGERS: For the first time in the recorded history

of the province, the meteorological conditions in this province have

required that the energy sector in British Columbia meet capacity

demands that have never been met with before. I rise to report to the

House how the energy sector in this province has been responding to the

unprecedented demands placed on our electricity, gas and oil

production, and delivery systems with this unusually cold weather.

I'm pleased to be able to assure the House and the people of British

Columbia, who rely on these systems far more than they realize, that

the energy sector is responding magnificently, and there will be light

when you flick the switch, and there will be gas at the burrier tip.

However, I have some additional information which the members opposite

may find interesting before they adjourn for their afternoon coffee.

B.C. Hydro has advised me that they are now depending on the capacity

of the Revelstoke Dam, and have been for several days. If it were not

for the Revelstoke Dam, we would have cut off all our exported power to

the United States, now running at 960 megawatts and earning us about

$800,000 Canadian a day. Not only that, we would have to buy a further

400 megawatts of electricity for domestic use, either from the

Bonneville Power Administration or from Transalta in Alberta. It just

goes to show that a little additional capacity is a very useful thing.

Because of Revelstoke, B.C. Hydro was able to serve the province and

continue to meet our export requirements.

I can also report that West Kootenay Power and Light is continuing

to serve all of its customers without interruption, thanks in part to

some additional electricity provided by B.C. Hydro and Cominco. Cominco

deserves credit for adjusting its production

schedule so that they

could maximize the amount of power for deliveries in West Kootenay. I

might also report that B.C. Hydro is buying power from Alcan and

wheeling that into their system to meet our electrical demands. For

those of you who are interested in statistics, during the peak hour 5

p.m. to 6 p.m. yesterday, B.C. Hydro set a record in electrical use of

6,715 megawatts. That's 600 megawatts higher than our old record of

6,102 megawatts, set December 22, 1983.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the number again?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It'll be in the Blues , or if you can get your members to quiet down.... Or if you like, I can come over and give it to you privately later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. ROGERS: Either you people keep it down so that he can hear, or he can read it in the Blues . It's as simple as that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's nice to see you here. We missed you for a long time.

Anyway, that's just a statistic, and behind the statistics there are

some people. At the height of the snowstorms, B.C. Hydro had line crews

working up to 16 hours a day repairing downed lines, during wind-chill

factors in excess of minus 50 degrees.

[ Page 7197 ]

I'd like to talk momentarily about exports. Thanks to Revelstoke, we

have been able to earn millions for B.C. Hydro while building up this

province's reputation as a reliable energy supplier. For the first

eight months of this fiscal year, B.C. Hydro has earned $173 million in

electricity exports. That's almost as much as the total for last year

of $182 million, and the heavy export months are still to be done. Last

year, for example, March was our biggest export month for electricity

exports, so we will obviously set a record.

In terms of gas, Mr. Speaker, there are some very interesting

ramifications which the members may find of interest. Behind the scenes

in the gas industry the gas utilities are scrambling somewhat to meet

the increased demand, and doing it successfully. Bob Kadlec of Inland

has reported today that demand is up and the system is at full

nomination; all firm commitments are being met. Art Willms of Westcoast

Transmission advises me that his operation is working flat out at

absolute capacity and moving 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas a day.

Both systems, of course, have cut off interruptible deliveries and

are concentrating on meeting only firm demand. However, interruptible

customers are able to switch over to other energy forms such as

residual fuel oil or biomass. No one in British Columbia has been sent

home from the job because of lack of energy.

Every gas producer in the northeast that is connected to the west

coast system has been called upon for every MCF that they can deliver.

With the temperature there around minus 40 degrees, getting that gas

out is no mean feat. Putting wells into production is a cold enough

task that at the present time metal is cracking, and it is a difficult

and dangerous job. I know the members will want to join me in paying

tribute to those men and women in the frozen north who are providing

the energy for the still-frozen south.

I also have to recognize and express thanks to our neighbours to the

south. In a fine demonstration of international cooperation, Northwest

Pipeline has been helping British Columbia meet its gas requirements.

Because of that cooperation, B.C. Hydro has been able to draw more gas

out of storage at Jackson Prairie, Washington, than is actually

contracted for.

Again for the books, B.C. Hydro has moved nearly 600 million cubic

feet of gas a day to its customers. The average for November is between

350 million and 500 million cubic feet a day. The system can continue

to meet the demands being placed upon it, barring any unforeseen

difficulties and breakdowns. I am advised by the petroleum sector that

there are ample supplies and deliveries of both furnace and stove oil.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the report given by the

Minister of Energy, and I certainly do commend all those utility

companies who are acting like any prudent business people would when

there is a sudden demand for their services, which are normally

underutilized. They would do everything they could to deliver those

services as a business as well as a responsibility to the public.

I would also like to remind the minister and the House, Mr. Speaker,

that everyone in British Columbia is working hard to do their job at

this time. I am talking about miners, loggers, marine workers,

transportation workers, mailmen, health care workers.... It's difficult

in the cold weather, and everybody, including Hydro linemen and B.C.

Tel linemen, is working hard. So let's remember all of them.

[2:45]

I also want to perhaps remind the minister that it is excellent to

know that the Revelstoke Dam is at last contributing something, even

temporarily. But let's remember that we have thermal capacity in this

province which is presently mothballed, whose operating costs, if it

were running, would be substantially less than the finance charges and

water taxes on the Revelstoke Dam.

I would also like to remind the minister that while it's wonderful

that we have sold $170 million worth of export power — I'd like it to

be $270 million worth of export power — the fact is that most of that

export power, as the minister knows, could have been supplied through

surplus capacity other than Revelstoke throughout most of this year,

with the exception of the present time, here and now.

So while what the minister has said is correct and commendable, the

fact is it's not the full story. So let's remember that, and let's

thank heaven that we have in this province the kind of resources of

natural gas and hydroelectric power which allow us to be so blessed in

a time of great need for energy to both generate and deliver those

sources to the people of British Columbia and the industries of British

Columbia.

MR. ROSE: Well, we have been entertained by a series of

lengthy and often provocative statements by ministers over the past

week, and I'm a little bit concerned about this. I don't have every

known source of parliamentary guidance here at my disposal, since I

didn't intend to be speaking today, but I do have one source which I

think has some validity here, and I quote from page 87, paragraph 262:

"Statements by ministers have now been given a recognized place in

routine proceedings. The standing order is specific but considerable

latitude has been left to the Speaker to set limits on the

participants. The Speaker has emphasized that both the government and

the opposition contributions should be brief and factual. The purpose

of the ministerial statement is to convey information, not to encourage

debate." I recommend that citation from Beauchesne's fifth edition to

the wisdom of the House in this regard, because I just think that

perhaps the brevity which is suggested by this source has sometimes

been transgressed — frequently transgressed.

MR. SPEAKER: The member makes a valid observation. The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order that's been raised, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Speaker could make discreet inquiries about

whether or not both the speech of the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources and other ministerial addresses to this House could

otherwise be given to the Rotary lunches that.... I know that it's been

difficult for the ministers to get luncheon engagements these days, but

to subject the House to this kind of after-dinner sleepytime nonsense

is really too much — for the sake of Hansard , Mr. Speaker, if not for the sake of the rest of the members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, while you're making your discreet inquiries, I was wondering if you could review the Blues on the ministerial

[ Page 7198 ]

statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources to see whether there was anything provocative in

that statement, as was suggested by the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. Numerous points have been raised regarding ministerial statements, and....

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't talking about....

MR. SPEAKER: I was though, hon. member.

Order, please, hon. members. The Chair would find it very difficult

to determine on its own volition when or whether a statement exceeds

the bounds of a ministerial statement. However, once a ministerial

statement has been made and a considerable period of time has been

expended, it is only reasonable to assume that that same amount of time

could be expended in response to a ministerial statement. If members of

one side or the other feel that a statement has been political or has

brought forward points for discussion or debate...

MR. LAUK: Is there anything in there about boring or dull?

MR. SPEAKER: No, there's nothing in there, hon. members.

...then, of course, it is that member's right to reply in kind. I would

ask members to give that some thought in response.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether

you could also make discreet inquiries to see what it is that put the

member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) to sleep.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

SECURITIES ACT

Bill 37 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 45, I

don't have any indication from my book of bills that the bill is

properly reported to the House. There is no indication on the

government bill that it has been reported to the House as considered.

MR. SPEAKER: Page 16, hon. member, of Orders of the Day , should....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the bill?

MR. LAUK: The bill is to be given to each member as reported.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has the specific bill. I'm sure if the member possibly.... It may have been misplaced in his book.

MR. LAUK: I apologize to the House. It was just pointed out to me.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, individuals are not above making

the odd honest mistake from time to time. Once or twice it has happened

to the Chair.

Bill 45 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

Bill 54 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 60, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Bill 60 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Bill 62 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 33.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On

section 2, Mr. Chairman, I would move the

amendment standing in the name of my colleague the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Smith) on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: This is an amendment to the

section purporting to

amend the Adoption Act, and I wonder if the committee couldn't be

informed by the acting Attorney-General that the original proposed

amendment.... "The parents or surviving parent of the child, but where

the mother is unmarried at the time of her signing the written consent

to adoption and the child has not previously been adopted, only her

consent is required." The amendment proposes to delete "is unmarried at

the time of her signing the written consent to adoption" and substitute

"where the father and mother have never gone through a form of marriage

with each other." This still doesn't resolve the problem, and I wonder

what the

[ Page

7199 ]

government's policy is with respect to the rights

of a putative father in the adoption of his child. This offends, it

seems to me, the equality provisions of the Charter. Is not the

Attorney-General anticipating a challenge to that section? Because it

does not afford equal rights to the father of a child, except if there

is a form of marriage between the mother and the father. It seems to me

that that reflects....

The way I see the amendment is that you can dispense with the

consent of a father for the adoption of the child, if there is no form

of marriage between the mother and father at the time of the consent of

the mother. Does that make it clear? In essence then, the putative

father of any child, if he's not married to the mother, has nothing to

say about whether that child is adopted. That's the way I read this

amendment. Am I misreading it or not?

HON. MR. GARDOM: My understanding is that if there is no

relationship between the two parents, the father per se is not

requested for a consent. The purpose of the amendment deals with a

situation where the female parent could have been divorced.

MR. LAUK: That doesn't answer the problem of dispensing with

the rights of a putative father. Surely the Charter of Rights was not

intended to eliminate the rights of a putative father. The amendment

does that, and the proposed amendment to the amendment doesn't solve it.

What is the policy of the government? Does the government say that

putative fathers have no rights with respect to whether or not their

child, the child they sired, will be adopted or not? You see, the way

to resolve that is: any adopting parents can go to court, or the mother

can go to court, and dispense with the father's consent if it's

unreasonably withheld. Why don't we leave well enough alone, and let a

judge make a decision on all the facts? If the putative father wanted

to adopt the child totally, or to care for the child, why shouldn't he

have some rights?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, insofar as the putative fathers

are concerned, it's the maintenance of consistent policy at the present

time. The new words are really a more accurate description of the old

concept of illegitimacy in this context. That's the purpose of it.

MR. LAUK: The government seems to be relentless in this

regard, but I want to point out that the way I read the

section in

relation to the other sections of the Adoption Act is that it's

dispensing with the rights of the putative father to give or not give

consent to an adoption.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, you'd have to get the consent of the putative

father, or go to court and dispense with that consent. This would

change that.

Amendment approved.

[3:00]

Section 2 as amended approved on division.

Sections 3 through 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask the Deputy Attorney-General the

reason for the first amendment under

section 11, the deletion of the

words "on female and on male persons under the age of 7." I'd like to

ask the reason for it. I think I know, but I want to make sure I do.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is to eliminate the male-female discrimination aspect under the Charter. That's the purpose of the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I'm not sure it does that. As a matter of fact, I

thought the minister was going to get up and say that it eliminates the

age discrimination under the Charter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It does that as well.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know that it does the former, but it probably does the latter.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, I've got it here. I think there's no point in

wasting time on it, but I do have a concern expressed by the, president

of the B.C. Barbers' and Hair Stylists' Association. My correspondent

makes this point. He says: "Yes, it does these things, and there's no

question that that sort of thing should be supported." You see, what

happened in the past was that the barbers could cut hair for everybody

because they were properly licensed, and they took courses. Their

standards were relatively stringent. This now will permit the

hairdressers, whose training I wouldn't say is any less, but it's

different, to compete with the barbers. Certainly their training in

things that are of real concern to the general public is relatively

limited.

There are far larger numbers, in terms of hairdressers, than there

are barbers. Barbers have dwindled in our society over the years, and I

suppose I'm a prime example of it, if anyone were to look at me. I

understand that short hair is coming back, and it may help them.

However, this business of unisex and all the rest of it has, I think,

given the hairdressers — I don't want the imagery— a leg up in this business, anyway.

I don't want to be accused of hairsplitting here, but I would like

to quote from what he has to say: "This is giving the right to cut

men's hair without having to show any ability or qualifications to do

so." So what it is is we have two sets of training here, and because we

want to change the nature to remove age discrimination, and also

male-female discrimination, what has happened as a result is that a

certain group of people operating under the Barbers Act and another

group operating under the Hairdressers Act with quite different kinds

of criteria and training are treated equally, and they aren't equal in

terms of their training.

So perhaps there should be an amendment also to another act, or

maybe the clause could be stood until this matter and the implications

thereof could be investigated. It probably involves about 1,600 people

in the whole of British Columbia, as far as barbers are concerned.

Apparently their training courses are not the same. The health and

sanitary standards and training are quite different. I think it bears

some sort of investigation. The objection is not to the male-female

stuff, but the fact that many of the hairdressers do not have to pass

barbers' examinations. In other words, you can go through

[ Page 7200 ]

now a back door with a lesser kind of training program, and yet be entitled to do the same work. That is the concern.

I see the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) is getting a little

fidgety. He probably has a number of other more detailed comments on

this whole question. But I think that until the implications are

examined.... With one stroke of the pen we give one group an advantage

without similar public protection in terms of licensing. That's what my

correspondent wished me to raise, and I've done it,

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've made some very valid observations,

hon. member, but they're not really germane specifically to the

amendment that's before the House this afternoon, which deals with the

Charter.

Dealing with the overall issue, my colleague the Minister of Labour

informs me that the ministry is having discussions with each group, and

the issues you have raised are under consideration. I can remember

myself that this statute is one of the older and hoarier ones in the

province, and I think there is certainly a requirement to have it

looked at. I'm sure that is going to happen, sir.

MR. ROSE: I don't wish to quarrel or argue with my hon.

friend the assistant deputy minister, but he just said — or I thought

he said — that this really has nothing to do with the Barbers Act, but

amends the Charter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's an amendment to the Barbers Act flowing from the Charter.

MR. ROSE: That's exactly what we are concerned about. The

fact is, we wish to bring our laws a little past the three-year time in

line with the federal Charter. In doing so, we put in jeopardy — or

possible jeopardy — some group of.... I don't know what to call them;

certainly they are tradesmen or professionals, whatever you want to

call them. Until we can see the implications of it, unless we know what

the amendments are going to be to the Barbers Act and the Hairdressers

Act, then it might be prudent for us to stand the clause. That's what I

am saying.

Section 11 approved on division.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether

section

13 opens the door to those multinational chains that do haircutting —

discount shops and so on and so forth. I am just asking the question.

It strikes me that one of the most imaginative ads I've ever seen was

in a hair shop in my town which said: "We repair $6 haircuts." I

thought it was rather imaginative. Sometimes one takes their life in

their hands by going to some of these chains that whip across the

country,

HON. MR. GARDOM: There doesn't appear to be any relationship to chains whatsoever. It's a certificate.

Section 13 approved.

Sections 14 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment

section 23, and that would be to add 23(l). Yes, I have provided the

clerk with a copy. It would be that

section 2(

l) be amended by deleting

"19 years" and substituting therefore "18 years." That is to bring the

voting age of the province of British Columbia into line with the

federal Elections Act, which provides for voting in federal elections

at 18 years of age. I think it is an injustice. We should unshackle the

people who are 18 years of age in this province and allow them the full

franchise as Canadian citizens — provide them the liberty of full

citizenship, which they deserve.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Attorney-General was discussing this in

the House, I do believe in another issue, over the last couple of days.

He articulated the government's policy that the amendment is not

acceptable at this time.

MR. HANSON: First of all, Mr. Chairman, we did provide this

amendment when we had before us the Election Act for the province of

British Columbia, and the Provincial Secretary would not accept it. It

would seem to me that the Attorney-General has an authority and a

responsibility that goes beyond the other ministers to ensure that the

statutes of the province of British Columbia — all legislation — comply

with the spirit and intent of the Charter. That is, people should not

be discriminated against on the basis of age, certainly with respect to

the full citizenship rights granted to those citizens who are 18 years

of age.

This seems to be a real anomaly, an anomaly that is unacceptable,

and it really can't be justified in any way. People can belong to the

armed services; they have the right to drive; they have the right to do

all sorts of things in society. They should have the authority to take

their place in a democratic society and vote for the government of

their choice. Really, I would think that the acting Attorney-General

would be making the kind of gesture that is in the spirit and intent of

the Charter, and that to eliminate this kind of inequity would be most

acceptable, certainly during International Youth Year. I don't have to

remind the minister of the fact that this is International Youth Year.

Why not grant the full right of citizenship to those citizens of Canada

who are within the boundaries of the province of British Columbia,

happen to be 18 years of age and have a full voice nationwide from here

to Newfoundland, and yet cannot exercise their franchise within the

province of British Columbia? Surely that logic holds. All the minister

would have to do is accept this amendment, and we'd bring that voting

age into line. It's a totally reasonable and rational suggestion.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Dailly

Cocke

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Williams

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

[ Page

7201 ]

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Segarty

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

Johnston

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Davis

Mowat

Reid

Parks

Ree

[3:15]

Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

Sections 28 to 35 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move proposed new

section 35.1 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Proposed new

section 35.1 approved.

Sections 36 to 78 inclusive approved.

section 79.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 79 as amended.

MR. LAUK: This enables husbands and wives to sue each other

for tort. Tort means a wrong committed — usually by way of negligence,

but it could be assault and battery and so on. But really the purport

of this change to the tort law is that where a spouse is a passenger in

a motor vehicle driven by his or her spouse, he or she can sue his or

her spouse for negligence and get redress for any injuries she or he

may have suffered as a result of that negligence.

However, it is interesting to note that the government proposes to

proclaim many of these sections and have them operate retroactively.

However, in

section 55(

l) of the Law and Equity Act, the new

section

they're proposing, the last subsection indicates that it does not apply

where the cause of action arises before this

section comes into force.

Now, ask yourselves why the government has done that. You see, the

government is not playing fair, because the government owns and

operates ICBC. Because they own and operate ICBC, there are a whole

number of actions which have arisen, even in the last few weeks, months

and years, where spouses have been seriously injured and have not had

compensation from any source.

From a public policy point of view, the government is being very

callous in cutting those people off from any compensation whatsoever,

and they can take their time in proclaiming this section. Until it

comes into force, no spouse can sue another spouse for negligence and

receive proper compensation for injuries. There are spouses who are

paraplegics and who are permanently and totally disabled, and who have

to rely on the continued employment of their spouse; they have become

totally dependent. They are not receiving the proper medical care or

the proper rehabilitation care because this government is so callous

and cruel.

If, out of public policy, the Attorney-General and the government

wanted to draw a line, why couldn't they draw a line back a couple of

years so that really old cases that have been obviously settled...? I

would say retroactive five years would be reasonable, but at the very

least the cause of action since April 17, 1985. Every other provision

in these amendments to bring them into line with the Charter may be

brought into force retroactively to April 17, 1985, when the equal

rights amendment was proclaimed and brought into force.

This is the one

section where they have taken great pains to avoid

the extra cost that may be attributable to ICBC and have cut off people

who are injured. You see, the Attorney-General this morning mentioned

we have to protect the taxpayer, the premium payer and so on. What he

fails to mention about ICBC is that payments out of our funds in ICBC

for personal injury are a fraction of the amount of money that is

expended by that corporation for fender-benders, for material damage

and for the legal counsel that they hire. Millions of dollars they pay

out for legal counsel to defend against these grasping, selfish people

in wheelchairs who want compensation.

It's a callous act on the part of the government to have subsection

(5) there. I completely oppose that. I think it should be exposed, and

I'm going to talk to the full press gallery, who are here in force, and

hopefully they will take the message — quite right, Mr. Chairman — that

this government has callously cut off an opportunity for compensation.

They have with the one hand pretended they are complying with the equal

rights amendment, but they have callously brought in subsection (5) to

try to avoid the cost. It's a niggardly, narrow-minded, penny-pinching,

nasty, cruel thing to do to those people who are waiting in line to get

compensation.

I think that the Attorney-General, on reflection, is going to stand

up and withdraw subsection (5). It's totally not needed. The

proclamation sections can make it retroactive, and I submit that at the

very least the government should make the

section 55(1) amendment to

the Law and Equity Act retroactive until April 17, 1985. That's the

fairest, most decent thing to do, and it even fits in with the

Attorney-General's nineteenth-century utilitarian philosophy — the

greatest good for the greatest number. Even he, with his silk

handkerchief and snuff-box, can accept that proposal. It's only the

decent thing to do.

[3:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, that was a wonderful speech to

the packed galleries, who hung breathless on every dulcet tone that

fell from that member's lips. He does not, I guess, recall the

memorable remarks that I made to this chamber on introduction, in which

I said — and I know he was listening raptly because I saw his eyelids

drooping — that

[ Page 7202 ]

I was going to make these provisions retroactive to

April 17. That is the very reason why we have on the order paper the

amendment to

section 126, which will be 126(2). I can tell him yes, we

are and always intended to make 79(5) come into force April 17, 1985.

So I thank him for supporting me.

Section 79 as amended approved.

Sections 80 to 85 inclusive approved.

section 86.

MR. LAUK: I've read the decision with respect to the striking

down of the old

section of the Motor Vehicle Act, Mr. Chairman, and

there is a disagreement with respect to legal opinion on that decision

of the court — and I forget the name of the decision — as to whether or

not this amendment solves the problem. Is the Attorney-General

satisfied that he's acting on the best legal advice?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, the Robson case is the case that dealt

with this section. The basis upon which the old legislation violated

the Charter was that it dealt with the language of "reason to suspect"

that alcohol had been consumed, and the court of appeal felt that it

was far too vague a basis on which to utilize this section. So we have

replaced that with the language, which is really Code language,

"reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver's ability

is affected by alcohol, " which is in keeping not only with Code

language but also with another subsection of our breathalyser

legislation, which the court referred to as being okay. So we're really

complying totally with the court of appeal's direction to us. Instead

of appealing further and wasting court time, we're doing it this way.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Section 86 approved.

section 87.

MR. LAUK: This section, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman,

disallows non-Canadians from serving as elected municipal officials and

school trustees, which some of us think is long overdue. Or am I

jumping the gun here? Is it

section 89 I'm talking about?

My understanding is that the effect of these amendments will

disallow non-Canadian citizens from running in municipal elections.

That's fine, but I want to know what provision has been made. What is

the status of the non-Canadians currently elected when this

section

comes into force? Are they disbarred from office, and does that mean

that there must be by-elections to replace them? A minister of the

Crown over here says yes, that's true. Does the minister know how many

non-Canadians there are who will not be able to run again because of

this change? I mean, what is the work-up on this section? Am I just

anticipating non-problems? How many non-Canadians hold office now? Will

there be by-elections, or is there something to grandfather them in for

at least the term that people have elected them for?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't think it's a non-concern. We have

a committee now with the Union of B.C. Municipalities that is looking precisely

at that. It's not our intention to proclaim that

section until we're

assured that we're not going to evict someone from office by the operation

of the statute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Regardless of political party are you going to put that in?

HON. MR. SMITH: Do I have to go that far? Yes, regardless of

stripe. It is not the intention of this legislation to remove somebody

presently in office. It is the intention of the legislation to make

Canadian citizenship the sole test in the future, next time at the

polls. This legislation has been expected and recommended by all sorts

of people for some years, and it still has to be brought into force

with a transition period. So we won't proclaim that

section until we

are assured that there are not office-holders still affected.

Sections 87 to 92 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has some question as to whether the

question was put on the amendment to

section 79. The Chair would ask:

was the amendment to 79 passed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Sections 93 to 119 inclusive approved.

section 120.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm happy to advise the member for New

Westminster that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) warmly

supported the deletion of

section 120. Indeed, I think the member was

right, that it was something inappropriate for a Charter bill. It had

been slipped in here somehow as a staff wish-list thing which really

had nothing to do with the Charter. So it is going out, and we're

delighted you brought it to our attention.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances I gather

the government will be voting against

section 120. I would like to say,

on behalf of a lot of widows, thank you very much for tolerating my

speech.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, the amendment on the

order paper is to delete

section

Section 120 in the bill says

section 6(11) is repealed. Is it in order to move the amendment, or is

it necessary simply to vote against

section 120 as printed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment to

section 120 is out of order, so there will be no vote to the amendment on

section

Section 120 negatived.

Sections 121 to 125 inclusive approved.

section 126.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 7203 ]

Section 126 as amended approved.

MR. LAUK: I forgot to ask a question under

section 126. Is

the government enabled by that

section to proclaim some sections and

not others? Is that the

interpretation of proclamation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 33, Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985, reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved..

section 3.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

MR. WILLIAMS: This raises the whole question of tree-farm

licences, and the abandonment of some parts of tree-farm licences in

the province — or all of them. It begs the question of desirability and

the question of obligation with respect to some of these matters. We

have tree-farm licences in this province that have been grossly

mismanaged. That has been documented. Independent foresters have

reviewed the activities of both licence-holders and the ministry, and

have concluded that there has been serious mismanagement and frequent

breaking of the rules and laws with respect to management requirements

on those lands. There clearly should be severe penalties and

obligations and requirements in terms of the process. The Crown has

granted significant public assets to these companies. We are talking

about millions of acres of land. When these lands are mismanaged, that

leaves a terrible obligation on the public, the Crown, the people of

British Columbia, to clean up the mess.

That's precisely the case in the northwestern part of the province,

on the tree-farm licence controlled by Westar, which is a subsidiary of

B.C. Resources Investment Corp., a creature of this government. An

independent forester, Mr. Herb Hammond, an RPF, studied what had

happened to TFL 1. He concluded that there had been a high-grading

pattern of development on that TFL. He said that Westar had harvested

primarily the most accessible, good-quality timber and had left the

poorer-quality timber behind. He said, further, that substantial

amounts of merchantable timber had been left to deteriorate on the

ground. He said that the annual allowable cut permitted by the Ministry

of Forests had been manipulated to permit Westar to accelerate its

harvesting of the good quality timber while at the same time ignoring

the poorer quality and less accessible stands. He also said that

reforestation obligations had not been fulfilled, to the extent that

the process of regenerating much of the area which had been denuded was

eight years behind schedule. Studies by the Ministry of Forests with

respect to silvicultural activities on that tree-farm licence came to

the conclusion that between 1970 and 1983 there were 4,100 hectares

harvested but a modest amount planted — only 1,100 hectares, plus 500

hectares of natural regeneration, with the effect that 2,500 hectares

were left denuded or NSR land. Sixty percent of the land that this

corporation was responsible for managing was left in bad condition —

non-satisfactorily restocked land, a legacy of weeds in terms of their

activities, or non-activities, on that tree-farm licence. Is it any

wonder that the ombudsman concluded, after reviewing that work and the

files of the Ministry of Forests and their professionals, that it was

doubtful whether in fact there was any economic value left with respect

to significant parts of the tree-farm licence.

[3:45]

So we now face the prospect of having these lands returned to the

Crown, to the most compliant minister in the history of this province —

getting rid of their junk problems and their obligations. There are no

satisfactory statute requirements for dealing with these matters. All

of the options are essentially with the minister in terms of living

with the denuded landscape and accepting the tremendous soil erosion

and degradation problems in huge regions of the province, such as the

Nass basin and elsewhere. The companies are able to run off and carry

on investing in North Sea oil, or wherever else they might choose to do

so, as BCRIC has done. The prospect is there, Mr. Chairman, of these

companies having millions of acres of land available to them that they

can high grade — abuse the standards, ignore the laws, not obey the

rules, not reforest — and then dump them back in the public sector,

with us having to deal with the mess. That prospect is there in that

tree-farm licence in the northwest, and it's there elsewhere as well,

It's not acceptable that there are no significant obligatory

requirements in terms of this process, in order to save the public from

huge future expenses resulting from abuse of the land by corporations

which leave much to be desired in their managerial and business skills

and, clearly, in their silvicultural and forestry skills.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted to leave to sit again.

Introduction of Bills

EQUITY INVESTMENT PLAN ACT

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

a bill intituled Equity Investment Plan Act.

[ Page 7204 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Bill 73, Mr. Speaker, is an important

component of this government's continuing commitment to economic

renewal for the province of B.C. and for its citizens. The bill

presents a program that will encourage British Columbians to make

equity investments in companies carrying on business essentially in

British Columbia. The program will also provide an impetus to the level

of financial activity taking place in B.C. — activity which is growing

quite significantly, Mr. Speaker — and provide better access by firms

with a British Columbia presence to equity financing. This equity

investment plan bears further witness to the government's commitment to

enhancing the development of Vancouver as a leading financial centre,

in fact the leading financial centre in western Canada.

The equity investment plan will provide investors with a cash

payment of 25 percent of the cost of eligible newly issued shares to an

annual maximum of $2,500. Each investor may earn these incentives on

$10,000 of eligible equity purchases in each year the plan operates.

The incentive is repayable to the government on a pro-rata basis when

the investor sells his shares up to the limit of the incentive

originally advanced. If share prices advance, individual investors will

earn the profits and the full amount of the incentive will be repaid to

the government. If the share prices fall, the government will share in

the loss by forgoing repayment of 25 percent of the share price decline.

The plan will be available to firms that meet certain tests which

will be very rigidly prescribed by regulation. These tests will ensure

the new equity raised through the plan benefits British Columbia firms,

investors and employment.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the light is on with respect to the time

allotted for first reading comments. I look forward to second reading

debate, but I move now that the bill be introduced and read a first

time.

Motion approved.

Bill 73 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Ree in the chair.

section 3 as amended.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has some

obligation to discuss this

section and the problems or lack thereof as

he perceives them.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd be very pleased to discuss this

section if the member would like to address some comment to this section.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is one of a number of

sections handling certain finance proposals in the same way. Normally

tax changes come into effect on midnight of the day that the budget is

presented. These particular changes say that the tax change comes into

effect the day after the budget was presented. I'm wondering whether

it's correcting a mistake in drafting at the time the budget was

presented and the legislation was introduced; or is it that the

government didn't decide until the date this bill was introduced just

when they intended these particular provisions to come into effect?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm advised that these amendments were

required as a result of a court decision, but mostly to validate

assessments that were made before the budget. That's their purpose.

They are assessments before the budget. They are not reaching back

retrospectively; they're validating prior assessments.

MR. STUPICH: I know the Attorney-General is having a bit of

difficulty with this. I just wonder why the original legislation which

this is correcting did not specify the date at that time. Why did it

take this long to decide what date we wanted these to come into effect

when, as I say, finance legislation changes normally become effective

on the day the budget is presented?

HON. MR. SMITH: Really, it was simply to correct a drafting

error. The previous draft referred to "before the coming into force of

this section" and we're substituting "subsection." We're not doing

anything more here. There was a drafting problem arising out of a court

decision, and we're not changing the policy or suddenly moving in a new

direction.

MR. STUPICH: I suggested that one possibility for an answer

is that it's correcting a drafting error, and that's fine. That's what

the Attorney-General has intimated.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. A. Fraser) is not here. I have a question under

section 10, and

section 10 does relate to highways. Perhaps the Attorney-General can

deal with this briefly.

As I read it, this

section would possibly — I'm not sure; this is

why I'm on my feet asking the question — deny the public access to

roads that are funded by taxpayers for construction purposes. While I

have a quick look at this, I wonder if the minister could advise me.

I'm very much aware that certain logging roads are declared open to the

public at certain times — during the day usually, weekends, these kinds

of things — when they're not in use or if they're not in a dangerous

condition, even though they had been built by private companies but at

taxpayers' expense through writeoffs under

section 88 of the Forest

Act. Would the public have access to and full use of these roads that

are paid for by taxpayers' funds?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I guess it's true that that is one of

the consequences of such an amendment, but the purpose of the amendment

isn't to deny access, because there isn't access now in the sense that

the member means it. There isn't

[ Page 7205 ]

the right of access on these roads, because they

are now private roads. What it does is permit the government to spend

money on the construction or improvement of private roads — resource

roads, roads that will create jobs in your riding, hon. member, for

logging or mining, or for other resource-industrial purposes. Once

those public moneys are spent, that doesn't then convert them — if

these amendments are passed — into public roads under the Highway Act.

If they are converted into public roads, it means of course that the

Crown then has to maintain them and has a liability to control and

operate them. We want to assist in the opening up of mines and other

industries without taking on the charge of maintaining these roads as

public highways. I think it's almost axiomatic in this province that

private users — certainly in most cases — do make these roads available

after hours.

[4:00]

It's a resource-development initiative. There's a trade-off in it,

isn't there? I mean, we want to have the industrial opportunity and

encourage mines to open up. We're particularly interested now, for

instance, in the Mount Klappan project, and in the Serem project as

well. These projects require the borrowing of moneys to expend on roads

and other public works, but we don't want to take over the operation

and maintenance of them and have them forever as a public highway. It's

a trade-off.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On this same point, Mr. Chairman. I'm not

quite satisfied with that answer, because we now have a situation, and

my riding is a good example, where the public has access on roads where

Highways are not liable, financially or in any other way, for

maintenance or snow-clearing or anything — on logging roads primarily.

I may have misunderstood you, Mr. Minister, but I understood you to

say that where public moneys are expended in a different way, such as

your proposed mineral roads into the Klappan coal area, the public

would not have access even though public funds have been expended. I

strongly feel that the public should, since it is public funds, and the

Ministry of Highways would in no way be liable for snow-clearing or

maintenance or anything else, as in other roads of this nature.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In this particular section, if you look in

the explanatory section, it says: "Consequential amendment to

section

11 of this act." It should read: "section 12 of this act." That is a

section that we will be coming to, and if you'd like, I will speak to

you about that section. But the object of that

section dovetails very

nicely with this one. It's explained there. This

part is consequential

to it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I accept the minister's explanation, but

before we pass this portion.... Because we can't back up when we're

dealing in committee stage with these acts — we can't go back to 10.

What if I don't accept the explanation?

AN HON. MEMBER: You will. You're a very reasonable member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I'm trying to be. I'm not hollering or anything right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Can we have assurance that when public money

is being spent on public roads, the public will have access? I look

forward to the explanation of

section 12.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, you cannot have that assurance, but I'm

glad that the minister who really has charge of this matter was here to

draw your attention to

section 12. The explanation of

section 12 that

he'll give, the reason why that's needed.... It is a requirement under

section 9, if we're going to take that route to provide for financing

of private road development for those purposes. I think there is a

requirement that, consequentially, the immunity from being under the

Highways Act with those obligations has to flow. We just do not have

the resources to take over the responsibility for all these roads

simply because of the provision of some funding — not the provision of

funding to maintain them or for all the construction, but any funding

provision under the old act would, as I understand it, render it a

public road.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think that we'll likely get some

clarification when we get to

section 12. Nonetheless, I would like to

have it on record that I'm opposed to the spending of public funds for

these purposes, if the public has no access on these properties and on

these roads, because it is public money, Mr. Chairman.

Section 10 approved on a division.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I undertook to explain to the member what

this particular

section is about. If you recall the gold property in

the Toodoggone area proposed by a French consortium of a company by the

name of Serem, that's the reason for this particular

section more than

anything else. When the company asked government for assistance on its

various developments, we proposed — instead of giving them a grant,

which would have been normal in some circumstances — to cover the

taxpayers' investment in it by putting in a rather complicated formula

which tied a payback to the price of gold. Where the price of gold

accelerates, there is payback of this loan. Under the existing

provisions, we didn't have the right to make a loan.

In terms of access to the road, the public isn't the big problem.

The problem is: if I'm going to get one company to pay for the road,

then we'll have to work out a formula. If somebody else discovers

another property in the immediate area, why should the first company

necessarily do it? So, it's a mineral access road, and it's our

intention to allow mineral-staking people to go in there, people who

want to go in on a recreational basis, but not on a commercial basis.

If someone wishes to use it as a fuel-haul road for their mining

development, then the other companies.... We're going to have to work

out a little deal, because the money has been advanced by the first

company.

Under this agreement with Ottawa we don't have the provisions to be

able to make loans to companies for the road purposes, and that's what

this

section is for. It allows us to make a loan because it's repayable

on that complicated schedule. I'll send you a copy of the

schedule if

you like. If you recall, as the price of gold goes up the rate of

repayment

[ Page 7206 ]

comes back quite substantially. There was a floor

in there of about $3.20 U.S. per ounce. So that's what it's all about.

It's not our intention to restrict the use of the road by prospectors,

or even by recreationists, but it is our intention to make sure that

industrial people do it. So I think that explanation will assist you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I do accept the minister's response on sections 10, 11 and 12. It is on record, and I'm satisfied with that.

Sections 12 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 70, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 70, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, in

section 12 it says: "For the

purposes of locating and apprehending a child in accordance with an

order under

section 1, a peace officer may enter and search any place

where he has reasonable and probable grounds for believing the child

may be...." I'd like to know if I can have some type of definition that

would cover "reasonable and probable grounds." Who would set those

standards?

HON. MR. SMITH: The court in looking at the lawfulness of the seizure

later would determine whether there were reasonable and probable grounds. If

you were a person who had no contact with that child or with those parents and

just happened to be in the line of fire, they couldn't enter your premises

and start searching it for the child. But suppose there was information given

by a neighbour that the child had been seen in your house, and that evidence

had been given to the police; then that would be a reasonable ground to go and

make search and seizure for the child. But the court would determine whether

there were reasonable and probable grounds.

Unfortunately it's lawyers' language, and the rest of the world

finds it hard to understand. Lawyers craft fees in trying to interpret

it. But an example of how that language is used in another area is with

the breathalyser. If I am a policeman, and you are driving your car

home to your relaxing abode in Surrey, I can't just poke my schnozzle

in your windshield and say: "I am going to give you a breathalyser

because I feet like giving you a breathalyser." I would have to at

least note that your conjunctiva was suffused or that you had a

distinct stench of alcohol on your breath, or something like that, so I

would have reasonable grounds then to say that I was making a demand on

you to come down and blow in this little instrument. But I couldn't

just do it on caprice. I can't just do it because I say: "There's Mrs.

So-and-So. I don't like her." I have to have some reasonable and

probable ground that there is a basis for it. But have I helped you or

have I merely confused you?

[4:15]

Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, a case arising out of this kind of

situation arose. I brought it to the attention of the

Attorney-General's ministry. This was a case involving circumstances

which I have been informed have since been resolved satisfactorily to

the parties. But it arose when a Canadian couple who had been living in

Seattle separated, and the wife returned to British Columbia with the

children and sought an order for custody in our family courts. An order

was granted by a judge.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the meantime, even though there was some evidence that the

husband-father was aware that the order for custody in British Columbia

had been made.... Even though the husband-father in Seattle had some

notice, it was believed, that an order for custody had been made in a

British Columbia court, he sought a divorce, and although he had

evidence of his wife's address in British Columbia, he substitutionally

served his wife and obtained an order for divorce custody of the

children then with the wife in British Columbia. He crossed the border

and went before the family court — a different judge — and obtained an

order enforcing his Washington state order, and with the cooperation of

the Port Moody and city of Vancouver police went to the address,

scooped up the children and took them across the border to Seattle.

Now there are two problems there, and the reply I received from the

Ministry of the Attorney-General is not in any way satisfactory. The

first problem is: why isn't there some system in place so that judges

of the same family court division are aware of previous orders? The

offices of the court should have some kind of filing system that would

have brought to the attention of the second family court judge that a

previous order of that division had been made and that it conflicted

with the Washington order. There's a provision for resolving that

problem. The resolution of that problem does

[ Page 7207 ]

not mean enlisting the support of the police in carrying out the Washington order.

The second issue, just as grave, is that when the mother brought to

the attention of the police and showed the police the order of the

family court division granting her custody, they proceeded to enforce

the Washington order in any event. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that

the Attorney-General should implement guidelines for the police in

enforcing such orders. Where there is clear evidence of a conflict in

the order, they should suspend their operation to enforce and seek

guidance from Crown counsel or the Attorney-General's office or the

family court division. As I say, this situation seems to have been

satisfactorily resolved, but more serious situations can clearly arise,

and I ask what the Attorney-General's policy is with respect to it.

HON. MR. SMITH: Not knowing this complaint or having seen

this file, it's hard to give him a good response. In that case it seems

that there was probably bare compliance with

section 22 as to notice

but that no notice was given to the wife. It also seems that the lack

of a data system between various provincial branches of the family

court has created a problem here and has alerted us to a problem. So I

don't think that all those problems are solved by these amendments. I'm

not even sure that the amendments particularly bear on those problems.

They're problems of data gathering and problems of giving notice and

proper enforcement. They're not so much legislative problems.

MR. LAUK: But seeing we're on the issue, what policy decision

has the Attorney-General made to make sure that a similar situation

does not arise?

HON. MR. SMITH: I can't say any more other than that I will

personally look at it. It's never been brought to my attention before,

and I would want to investigate the circumstances before I gave any

assurances as to what we would do in future policy.

MR. LAUK: I'm hurt, Mr. Chairman. I thought that every letter of inquiry from an MLA was dealt with by the minister himself.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I sent it to the ministry, to the Attorney-General.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, along the same lines, and I'm not

sure if the minister will recall. I know I had long conversations with

the previous minister in that ministry. It was a similar case to the

one my colleague referred to. In this particular case there was a

divorce, the wife got custody of the child, she then married a member

of the armed forces and moved out to British Columbia. The father went

to the New Brunswick court and got another order for custody. He came

out to British Columbia and went to the supreme court and had it

endorsed. On that endorsement the RCMP went to the school and picked up

the child and then they got on a plane and flew back. Parents do have a

right to make an application for custody, but I feel that where the

police or any authority comes in and seizes a child in another

province, the child should at least be held somewhere so that the other

parent can have an opportunity to review the facts and review the

application that was made.

In this particular case that I'm referring to, when they went back

to New Brunswick they found that the application had been falsely made,

but it still cost that family $12,000 — $12,000 from a family that

could not afford it — to fly back and forth and to take legal action

within the courts in New Brunswick. I can understand two parents

fighting over a child. But I feel that the courts and the

Attorney-General's office and society as a whole must take some strong

stand. If a child is picked up by the police from school, the parent

who has custody of the child and who has been looking after it and

sending that child to school should at least be notified before the

child is allowed to be taken out of the country. The previous

Attorney-General assured me that he was looking at that, and he was

going to bring in something that he thought would stop that abuse. I

can't see anything in the present amendments that is going to stop it.

We have the police getting involved in custody cases in which you

really need someone to sit down and negotiate, a marital counsellor.

These children are not runaways who should come under the jurisdiction

of the police; they're not criminals. But they become footballs in a

marital problem. I feel that there has to be some protection. It

doesn't matter if it's a wife or a husband; when either partner has

taken the responsibility of looking after that child in the

jurisdiction of British Columbia, even if it has been done illegally,

they should have a chance to review the information that is being

submitted to get that order, so that the child is not just taken out of

the country. I can agree with the Attorney-General that you can take

that child back to the wife and say: "Now settle it out." But I feet

that if the child is picked up on an order by the police, or any

authority, the child should at least be held in some sort of

holding-place until both parties have a chance to review it.

I feel that the whole issue — the costs, the emotional problems that

occur within families and to a child who is plucked out of school....

He has gone to school with his lunch bucket full, and at 10 o'clock the

police come in; they pick him up, turn him over to this father, and

he's rushed out to Pat Bay and flown out of the province. This is

something that's going to live with that child for the rest of his

life. I feel that the ministry has a responsibility to look at this

seriously, and come up with some protection for the children and the

families involved.

Section 17 approved.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, aren't we going to have any answer from the Attorney-General? Has he...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member wasn't recognized. However, the Attorney-General may wish to reply.

Section 17 has passed.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know what answer he expects. With all

these jurisdictional problems on custody, where orders from one

jurisdiction are brought in and children are swooped up, it really

depends on.... There's legislation here now that should protect people

who have the child here; but sometimes it doesn't. The only improvement

I can suggest that I might make is to add the notice requirement under

section 22 of the Family Relations Act, to include this new part that

we're adding for extraterritorial orders, so that

[ Page 7208 ]

if you had the situation that the member for

Vancouver Centre described — somebody comes down here to have a child

scooped up on a Seattle order — it just could not happen without notice

and the other spouse who had the child having a chance to have the

matter contested in court. I will certainly put in for an amendment —

if my friend on the other side will agree to leave for a floor

amendment — which will make the notice provisions apply to the

interprovincial, interjurisdictional sections we've put in now. It's

probably a good idea. That will help somewhat. But there is still no

substitute for vigilance, for courts being properly informed, and

everybody doing their job. No legislation, I guess, can ensure all

that. But the notice provisions might help. I'll be glad to propose

that, if you agree.

MR. MITCHELL: I think that would be a step in the right

direction. I can see that where either parent comes in and picks the

child up on his own and flees, but where the courts, the police or some

authority have been involved, there should be something in the notice —

before they give up jurisdiction. If the police have picked up the

child, before they give up jurisdiction they should hold that child in

the name of the parent until the other parent is notified.

[4:30]

If the minister can give me assurance that somewhere in the

regulations, where other authorities are brought in, notice and that

information have to be passed on to the other parent, so we just don't

have someone scooped out of the country.... Then, you know, all the

legal and emotional problems, and the costs that go to families — they

just can't afford it.

In my particular riding I do have a lot of armed forces people who

travel back and forth from one coast to the other. They have the same

problems with domestics as the rest of the community. Seattle is close

compared to Nova Scotia. I'd like some assurance that this is seen as a

problem. Could the minister do it with regulations or instructions or

memos? Both parties should be notified in all cases where authorities

are brought into it.

Sections 18 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

MR. REYNOLDS: I just wonder if the Attorney-General could

explain. It says: "Arrears of payment under a maintenance order, in an

amount not exceeding one year's maintenance at the current rate, have

priority over other judgment debts...." Can he explain that to me in

simple language and not the legal language?

HON. MR. SMITH: It simply gives the one-year default of

arrears top precedence that we're able to give it in terms of a debt

under provincial law. It wouldn't take priority over the trustee in

bankruptcy in federal legislation, but it would take precedence over

other forms of secured creditor, unless it was a statutory secured

creditor under the Parliament of Canada's legislation. Garnishing

orders and anything else would all be second to that 12-month arrears.

That is predicated on the notion that was in the common law for a long

time: that you shouldn't be enforcing these arrears beyond 12 months.

You shouldn't be reaching back to wipe somebody out; 12 months is as

far as you should go. So I think it's reasonable that the debt

priority, in any event, reaches only 12 months.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm just wondering if the Attorney-General

could tell me what research has gone into seeing how this will really

work in practice. I'm thinking of a lot of cases where the woman or the

man who is receiving maintenance needs the money, and it's a problem.

There are a number of cases where maybe they don't need the money,

where both parties have their own means. I'm wondering what effect

that's going to have on people when they go to get credit, if you're a

separated person. This can be used against anybody wanting to lend you

money.

It may make it a lot more difficult for those people to borrow money

if they know that their debt is not secured. A maintenance payment gets

a first claim against it and even if it's only a year, if it's a

$300-a-month payment, that's $3,600 that's going to go to one party

before any other debtor can be looked after.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that's true, that it would to that

extent. But in the case that you mentioned of arrears that aren't

justified or aren't needed, you can under this act apply not only to

vary the maintenance order but to vary the maintenance owing in arrears

on the grounds.... Say the wife's status completely changed and you had

no notification of that change of status. Say instead of needing $500 a

month, she now needs only $100 or $200 because her status has changed

totally — remarried with a job — and she hadn't disclosed any of that,

and you were in bad straits or your family budget was stretched. You

could then make this application on the form to enforce the arrears or

you could answer it there or you could go in yourself and endeavour to

vary that 12-month arrears on the grounds that that order never should

have been made against you, that it should be wiped out or should be

reduced considerably. It is true that it can form a charge over other

unsecured debts.

MR. REYNOLDS: If a person wanted to do that, does the Crown

support him with legal aid in any way? I know at one time the first

party that wanted to claim used to get free legal help, and the other

side didn't. I'm wondering if that's still taking place.

HON. MR. SMITH: That would depend on your meeting the needs

criteria. If you were a male spouse in straitened circumstances, I am

happy to say you would still have the same rights to legal aid as the

female spouse. If you met those eligibility requirements, you could get

legal aid.

Section 29 approved.

section 30.

[ Page

7209 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 30 as amended approved.

Sections 31 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 34 as amended approved.

Sections 35 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 37.1.

HON. MR. SMITH: On

section 37.1, I would move the amendment

that you have notice of, which amends

section 22(2) of the Family

Relations Act by striking out the words "this part" and substituting

"this part or

part 2. 1" This would have the effect of making the

notice provisions available in those cases involving enforcement of

custody orders under the uniform custody jurisdiction part of the act;

that is, from other provinces.

Amendment approved.

Section 37.1 as amended approved.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 34, Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985, reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 47, Notaries Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment.

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

HON. MR. SMITH: With leave now.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Bill 47, Notaries Amendment Act, 1985, read a third time and passed.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I heard the

minister request leave. I didn't see any amendments to that bill, and I

was just wondering why he requested leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave was not required.

[4:45]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 57.

COURT ORDER ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 57, Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1985

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

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment

section 3.1 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Section 3.1 approved.

[ Page 7210 ]

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move first of all, the amendment

section 7.1 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Section 7.1 approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I also move the second amendment, wrongly

numbered 7.1, which should be numbered 7.2, standing under my name on

the order paper. [See appendix.]

I'll read that out for clarification. The second amendment I'm

moving will be 7.2, reading: "Section 220.2(

l) is amended by repealing

paragraphs (

a) and (

b) and substituting 'within the preceding two hours

committed an offence under

section 220.1" That amendment will correct

the court decision that struck down the provincial breathalyser

legislation.

Section 7.2 approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 58, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 58, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 67, Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, reported complete without amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 67, Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

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

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a concern about this, Mr. Chairman, and

it's the idea of getting rid of the prospectus and substituting a

letter. I'm quite sure the minister is aware of the problem I'm going

to bring to his attention.

Where a prospectus has been issued and people have bought property

and built homes, then would the prospectus, even after it has been

vetted and endorsed and stamped by the real estate

section of his

ministry.... If the company goes broke, goes bankrupt, then that

prospectus, even when it has been checked out, is unenforceable. People

have bought property, have built their homes — these homes are anywhere

from $100,000 to $200,000 — and access that was guaranteed in the

prospectus was never lived up to.

What I'm really worried about is that we're even getting away from

the prospectus. The developer can file a letter, but when it's

stamped.... I quite believe it's going to be stamped; that neither the

superintendent of insurance nor any other authority of the government

of the province of British Columbia has in any way passed on the merits

of the matter dealt with in this disclosure statement. This disclosure

statement has been filed with the superintendent of insurance, but he

has not determined whether or not it complies with

part 2 of the Real

Estate Act. From a legal point of view, that may be excellent for

getting out of something, but what happens is that when people receive

a prospectus, they still want to believe what the real estate salesman,

or the person who was looking after this particular sale, has told

them. I can understand the need to speed up the various red tape that

goes into opening up a piece of property. I can understand something of

this nature where it's a small subdivision in an area like a

municipality or a city where all the services are in — roads, sewers

and power. But in a general rural area such as my riding encompasses,

there is danger in not having some protection for the consumer. It's

the consumer who buys the property because he has been told that

certain things will come into effect. He eventually receives a

prospectus, but does this prospectus give him the real protection of

the prospectus that was filed before, endorsed and stamped and given

approval by the ministry?

[ Page

7211 ]

This is the part that bothers me. If it was to be used for small

subdivisions in areas within a city and was done to speed up the

procedure, I could understand it. But I have real reservations that

this will become the norm and people will get a prospectus that can say

nearly anything, but if they don't read all the small print, they are

going to be left with something without the enforcement or the

assurance that the ministry's stamp of approval used to give it.

I understand; it's a good legal out. But can we afford legal outs

when we're protecting consumers? I would ask the minister if he would

comment on it. The other

section later on is the

section dealing with

the three days for the prospectus.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's

concern. Perhaps without going beyond

section 2, I would say that if

you're concerned about consumer protection, there is a notification on

the disclosure statement advising the consumer that the disclosure

statement has been received and filed but not vetted. So that's a

warning, if you will, to look closely before you sign. Secondly there

is a recision period that was not there before, which allows the

consumers three days to, let's say, consider or reconsider the decision

with regard to this real estate transaction, and advise the vendor that

they're not prepared to go ahead. And finally, of course, the penalties

have been increased substantially to those people who commit an

offence, which would be in effect filing a misleading statement which

misled the purchaser. If they do that they have committed an offence,

and the penalties, as you will see in another section, are fairly

severe.

In most cases we find that because of the delays in vetting all

these prospectuses that we have — in many cases other approving

authorities are there now with regard to subdivisions within

municipalities, etc. — we see great delays and lost opportunities for

financing, and as a result this allows for speeding up the transaction

to get the properties available for purchase and still notify the

consumer what the development entails. This disclosure statement is

available to them.

I give you those three things that make the consumer aware: one is

the notification on the disclosure statement that it has not been

vetted but received and filed; another is the recision period to give

them an opportunity to reconsider; and finally the penalty should the

developer mislead the consumer.

[5:00]

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I understand.... The only thing I can

really say is that the penalty has been greatly increased. But a lot of

this property is recreation property. People get out and look at some

property beside a lake or beside a stream or even, if they're lucky

enough, on salt water. They want that. They can see all these wonderful

opportunities. The prospectus doesn't always come up to what the person

who is selling it.... It's not always real estate firms, Mr. Chairman;

a lot of the biggest offenders are private developers who have 100

acres that they want to chop up into lots and make a quick buck on. The

average person, when he goes out, remembers what he's told. But he

reads all this legal garbage that will be stamped.... Again, I don't

know what size it will be on the prospectus — it may be in small print

at the bottom of the page. One should also have in there in large type:

"Read it — read it two or three times. This is the final document." Now

the minister spoke about the three days. That comes under

section 7.

Would it be better if I waited until

section 7 and dealt with that

section? He brought it up.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, he brought

section 7 up, not me.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond so the

member will have.... I think he has raised his concern, and I just want

to give him some information that may put his mind a little more at

ease.

We are the only province in Canada that requires a real estate

prospectus to be filed. In many cases, all those other approvals that

you go through with regards to a subdivision and putting it on the

market are the check and balance that is required across Canada. As I

say, here we are finding delays that in many cases are unnecessary and

cause further problems for both the developer and potential purchasers.

The other concern that the member mentioned, I believe, was small

print — consumers not being able to understand the disclosure statement

that is available to them. A standard form will be prescribed by my

ministry so that there will be no fine print or documents that are

difficult to read. It will be a standard form that all developers will

have to file with us.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I also have concerns about the

three days after you receive the prospectus. Now the seven days that

you have after signing the agreement and after listening to the

salesman, whoever it may be, does give you a certain amount of time to

digest what you've done. But what happens is that you receive a

prospectus, and, even if it is sent out on Monday, by the time it is

mailed and hits the post office, you're lucky if you get it by

Wednesday. The average person gets a prospectus, he comes home from

work, he reads it, and in many cases he is still excited about buying

this property. By the time he reads the prospectus and understands that

maybe what is in the prospectus is not what he was told when he was out

looking at the property.... By the time he understands that and

contacts a lawyer, if he has read it Wednesday night, it's Thursday by

the time he gets an appointment with the lawyer, and the three days are

up.

Why cut it down to three days? Why not leave it at seven days? It

gives a person a chance to sit down in the quiet of his home, to read

the prospectus and to understand it. If he feels that there has been

some discrepancy between what he was told out on the property and what

is in the prospectus that he may receive three or four weeks later, the

three days really doesn't give a person a chance to go over it. I don't

think another four days, a whole week, is going to stop any

development. It is not going to stop any financing. It is just going to

give that extra protection to the consumer that three days does not

give.

As I say, I'm saying that he gets it on the Wednesday. If he gets it

Thursday or Friday, by the time he goes through it and gets a lawyer to

explain what he has signed.... I know if I made an amendment, the

minister wouldn't accept it. I sincerely ask the minister to look at

that

section and consider making it seven days for everyone's

protection. I think it gives a person a chance to review what he has

been told and to

[ Page 7212 ]

understand it. I just don't want to see any consumer caught out on a limb because of the three days.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, for the record, although the

member kept referring to a prospectus, I think he really meant the

contract. The prospectus, that's just information. The recision period

deals with after the contract is signed, when he then has second

thoughts. He has already read the disclosure statement; he's made his

decision to buy; now he has second thoughts. He has three days from

then. And that's the difference. It's not the prospectus we're talking

about; it's if he enters into an agreement — a signed document. It is a

contract now; he has three days in which to change his mind. Under the

present real estate legislation he has no dates. There is no recision

period at all for transactions taking place inside of British Columbia.

The seven-day cooling-off period, or recision period, that he has now

deals with time-share and off-shore subdivision; that

section still

applies, Mr. Member.

MR. MITCHELL: No. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you can confirm....

The way I read it, he has seven days after he's signed the contract, or

he has three days after he receives the prospectus, whichever comes

later. He signs the contract when he goes out; he's shown the land, and

he wants it. He's happy. He signs the contract to buy it. He has seven

days to get out of that. But then if he gets a prospectus, which often

comes in the mail later on, he only has three days. He has three days

after he gets that to decide if what he was told at the site is not

exactly what is written in the prospectus; but he only has three days.

As they say, it could be three weeks or a month later. I mean, there's

seven days for changing his mind on the contract. Because he believed

everything he was told, he's quite happy with the contract. But when he

gets the prospectus, then he has three days from that date to change

his mind, if he's not happy with what he reads in the prospectus. This

is the part that bothers me. I don't think three days is enough, unless

I'm reading it wrong.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if you're looking under (

d) of

that section: when he received the copy of the prospectus.... So he has

it in his hand; he has three days from then. As I said earlier, for

land subdivided within the province, at this particular point he has no

time at all. Because we've moved from the prospectus to a disclosure

statement, we've added the protection of three days cooling off for the

purchaser, because the document has not been vetted. But I can assure

the member: if that is going to cause a concern after we put this

legislation into place, we may consider moving it to a longer term. But

at this point in time we were looking at the fact that there is nothing

there now, and three days would be enough time for the person to

reconsider if he so desires.

MR. MITCHELL: The minister seems to have missed the main

point. Before, when you went to buy some property, they had to provide

you with a prospectus before that land was allowed to be subdivided —

before they could sell it. When you went out and you met with the real

estate person, or anybody else, you were given a prospectus. Well, with

the new procedure to speed it up, they can sell the land without a

prospectus. All they have to do is file a letter; it's not vetted, it's

not checked or anything else. But then the prospectus comes out after

you have purchased. This is the part where the minister says that, yes,

you don't get a prospectus afterwards, but you're provided with one

before you purchase, under the present legislation. But with these

amendments, you're not provided with that, because they are taking a

shortcut. But then when you do get that.... I mean, it's good that at

least you've got three days. But I don't think three days is enough,

judging from some of the examples and some of the problems that come

through my office. If you're going to give that protection, give it for

long enough so that a person can sit down and digest it and can go and

get their legal advice, and not get caught in three days. I don't think

an extra four days will stop anything in this province. I ask the

minister to give it consideration.

MR. COCKE: I just want to ask the minister a question. It

strikes me that the three-day cooling-off period may give the.... Who's

to say? But it strikes me, the way I read it, that the purchaser has

the advantage, and the vendor is at a disadvantage, because, as the

vendor, once having signed, you're done. The purchaser, on the other

hand, has the advantage of the three-day proposition. So what was the

feeling about that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for New Westminster is correct.

Under the present legislation there is no time for reconsideration.

This was put into place because of moving to a disclosure statement.

At the present time — to try to get back and put the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's mind at ease — if I'm given a prospectus now,

I look at the prospectus, a very wordy document. I look at the land.

I'm satisfied; I sign; I'm now committed, under the present system.

Under these amendments I receive a disclosure statement, which meets a

standard form by my ministry. It's certified to be true and correct,

and if it is not, the developer may suffer the consequences, under the

offence section. You would end up by receiving that disclosure

statement, setting out all the same material that will be in a

prospectus under the current system.... You end up by entering into the

contract. Now we've said to protect the consumer, we're giving him

three days to have an opportunity to reconsider should he so desire,

which he doesn't have now. So I think if you were to look at this

section, with the exception of what is vetted as opposed to what is not

vetted, this is a greater protection for the consumer in getting out of

the contract, should he have second thoughts, than the present act

allows.

[5:15]

MR. COCKE: The only thing that I see that's a little bit

hurtful here, or at least it could be, is that I'm the vendor and now

they know what my price is. The consumer backs off and I'm stuck: you

know, the whole world knows that there was a contract out there. So if

you're selling a piece of property and you sign on the dotted line,

you're committed; the consumer can back away from it, and everybody in

the world knows that I took a $5,000 or a $10,000 drop on my.... Having

lost a few dollars in that particular arena over the years — having

gained a few, too, once in a while — I can see the timidity of a vendor

in this situation.

MR. MITCHELL: I think everybody's losing track and thinking

of their one little lot, but what we're looking at here is a

subdivision. A subdivision in many cases.... Now maybe in New

Westminster all the wild land is built on, but

[ Page

7213 ]

when you're putting in a subdivision, at the

present time you have to have a prospectus. The person reads the

prospectus and he understands what he is going to buy, and then he

sells the contract. But here, with the changes, you do not have to

provide the prospectus to rush through.

Now, I think it's important that the prospectus has to conform to

what you are told by the super-salesman. The super-salesman could be

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), but it still has to conform

with it. I say if it doesn't and it turns out, I think you need more

time to.... If you're not going to give it to him first, which I agree

with, the present principle....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I wouldn't buy off the member for New Westminster.

That is my concern, that you're changing the subdivision procedure.

It's not a piece of property that we may sell as an individual.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I may comment so the member will know that

we gave this considerable thought. You can see the division we have on

the opposite side. The member for New Westminster recognizes the impact

on the developer — the subdivider — should the consumer back out of a

transaction, and the other member is concerned about the consumer. I

can tell you that the industry was consulted in our deliberations on

this, and we said to them in moving to this system we wanted to give

the consumer some protection because of the prospectus system being

dropped, and as a result they concurred and have accepted that type of

approach.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive 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. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 66, Real Estate Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill PR402, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very straightforward piece

of legislation. It has in essence been requested by the city of

Vancouver. By and large they are administrative or housekeeping

amendments. The one notable exception to mere housekeeping amendments

would be with respect to the human rights enhancement of

section 272. I

don't think there's anything controversial there.

I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. ROSE: I believe that our party has no difficulty in supporting the

charter amendments. I too would like to call some attention to

section 272(

q) because I was just looking over the committee debate and I was looking for a

resolution within the committee minutes that would indicate the dropping of

the four final reasons for discrimination, or refusal of a business licence

on the grounds thereof. I thought the four, courtesy of Your Honour, had been

deleted. I find that now all my arguments have sort of gone out the window,

and I'm put in a position of congratulating the committee for their wisdom

of extending the rights beyond the B.C. Human Rights Act. So with great pleasure

I support this particular amendment in

section 5.

MR. PARKS: I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: Before this is put.... Are we still in committee stage?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we....

MR. ROSE: I can deal with it when it comes around to committee stage...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and with the greatest respect....

MR. ROSE: ...however, apparently I was pointed out the wrong

section. There was in fact an amendment which did not extend the rights

of individuals against discrimination that there had been an amendment

in the commi