1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 30, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1093 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings.

Oral questions.

Hometown Lumber. Mr. King –– 1094

Release of government reports. Mr. Hall –– 1094

Functions of John Elliott. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 1094

Release of government reports. Mr. Hall –– 1095

Report on Princess Marguerite . Mr. Barber –– 1095

Foreign purchase of Peace River farmland. Ms. Sanford –– 1095

Aid to developing countries report. Mrs. Wallace –– 1096

Report of salmon industry. Mr. Hanson –– 1096

Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act (Bill 32).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1096

Mr. Macdonald –– 1097

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1098

Committee stage.

section 1 amendment. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1098

section 2. Mr. Barber, Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1098

Report and third reading –– 1099

Automobile Insurance Non- Discrimination Act (Bill 33).

Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1099

Mr. Hall –– 1100

Mr. Brummet –– 1101

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1101

Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 1102

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act (Bill 20).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1102

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Hall –– 1102

Mr. Hanson –– 1103

Report and third reading –– 1103

University of Victoria Foundation Act (Bill M 209).

Second reading.

Mr. Smith –– 1103

Mr. Barber –– 1103

Committee stage.

section 9.

Mr. Barber –– 1103

Mr. Smith –– 1104

Report and third reading –– 1104

Legal Services Society Act (Bill 27).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1104

Mr. Macdonald –– 1104

Mr. Hall –– 1105

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1105

Committee stage.

section 3.

Mr. Hanson –– 1105

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

section 5 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

section 9 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

Mr. Macdonald –– 1106

section 11 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

section 14 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

Report and third reading –– 1107

Energy Amendment Act (Bill 23).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1107

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1107

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1108

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1108

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1108

section 3 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1109

section 6 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1109

Report and third reading –– 1109

Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement Loan Repayment Revolving Fund Act (Bill 28).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1109

Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 1109

Land Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 16).

Report and third reading –– 1109

Metro Transit Operating Company Act (Bill 26).

Committee stage.

section 12 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1110

section 2 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1110

On

schedule 2 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1110

Division on report –– 1110

Report and third reading –– 1110

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 31).

Committee stage.

section 6.

Mr. Stupich –– 1111

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1111

section 10 amendments.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1111

section 28 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1111

section 29 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1111

Report and third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 30).

Committee stage.

section 16 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1111

section 19 amendment.

Mr. Nicolson –– 1111

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1112

Mr. Macdonald –– 1112

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1112

Mr. Barber –– 1112

Division on the amendment –– 1113

section 19.

Mr. Barber –– 1113

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1113

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1113

Mr. King –– 1114

Mr. Barber –– 1116

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1116

Mr. Barrett –– 1116

Appendix –– 1120

MONDAY, JULY 30, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I bring

sad news to the attention of the House. Mr. Arnold Alexander Webster

passed away Friday last. Mr. Webster was a Vancouver East MLA from 1953

to 1956, during which time he served one year as Leader of the

Opposition. He was Vancouver-Kingsway Member of Parliament from 1962 to

1965. Mr. Webster was born in Vancouver in 1899. He took his BA and MA

at the University of British Columbia, and took his Bachelor of

Pedagogy at the University of Toronto. In 1940 Mr. Webster entered

civic politics as a commissioner on the Vancouver parks board. He acted

as board chairman for four of those years. Following the resignation of

Harold Winch from provincial politics in 1953, Mr. Webster was chosen

to succeed him as party leader. He was subsequently elected as MLA for

Vancouver East and entered the Legislature as Leader of the Opposition.

was a constant champion for the dignity of the common man, urging the

government to establish a bill of rights. He pleaded in the name of

human decency for the discontinuation of atomic testing and nuclear

weapons stockpiling. Mr. Webster, upon leaving this assembly, then

served in the federal House as a member from 1960 to 1965.

Arnold

Webster once described his philosophy of democratic citizenship in

these words: "Every thoughtful person knows that building democracy in

Canada is unfinished business. Citizens must be aroused to understand

that only a strengthened and inspired democracy will survive the

twentieth century. This condition will not be achieved through the

cultivation of individual virtue of kindness, honesty and toleration

alone. Enlightenment and determined group action is also essential." He

will be missed by all who knew him, and by his wife who was also a

member of this Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, if I may join in the tribute to Arnold Webster and the

mourning of his passing, I too had the pleasure of knowing him. His

family attended school in the Kelowna area during the early 1940s. I

also knew Arnold Webster as a politician when he was in this

Legislature. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word, and brought

great distinction to political life in this province, and it is true

that all British Columbians will mourn his passing.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps it would be acceptable for the Speaker to offer the appropriate message of condolences.

HON. MR. MAIR:

As members of this House know, I have had the privilege of representing

this province in constitutional matters for two or three years and

meeting the federal ministers involved in that exercise, and I am very

pleased today to introduce to the House a gentleman who is going to see

a lot of me and vice versa, I hope, in the next little while. The very

personable new minister of federal-provincial relations for the

welcome Hon. Bill Jarvis.

I wonder, while I have the floor,

Mr. Speaker, if I might also bring to your attention and to the

attention of the House that Mr. Jarvis's assistants, Mr. Tim

Wolstencroft and Mr. John Miller, are also in the House today. Along

with them — but probably neither group knows the other is there — is a

constituent of mine, Mrs. Jean McAlpine, and while I have the floor

I'll ask the House to welcome her as well.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I had a very fruitful meeting this morning with three gentlemen, and I

would like to introduce them to the House and ask the House to bid them

welcome. They are the mayor of Abbotsford and president of the Union of

B.C. Municipalities, Mayor George Ferguson; the executive director of

the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Mr. Jeff McKelvey; and his assistant,

Mr. Jim Sewell.

MR. BARBER: There are two people in

your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, whom I would like to introduce. One of

them is a former friend of mine, Michael Ewen, the other his bodyguard,

Jim Bozo, and I ask the House to make them welcome — more or less.

[Laughter.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: In your gallery, Mr.

Speaker, visiting from Redditch, near Birmingham, England, are Mr. and

Mrs. Long. They are friends of noted columnist Jim Hume. Mrs. Long is

the deputy head of a special school in England, and is quite prepared

to offer to the Minister of Education any advice he may require during

the months she and her husband will be in Victoria. Will the House make

them welcome.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to join the Premier

in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Long, even though they are friends of Jim

Hume. [Laughter.] I just want to extend greetings to them, because as

one Brummie to another, I welcome you.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In the gallery today are students from Charles Tupper High School,

accompanied by their teacher, Robert Tomson. I would like to ask the

members of the Legislature to welcome them. Also will they please

welcome Commissioner Andy Livingstone and Mrs. Marie Livingstone.

Commissioner Livingstone is a member of the Vancouver Board of Parks

and Public Recreation; that is one of the only two organizations of

parks and public recreation that are elected in North America.

MR. HEINRICH:

I would ask the House to welcome two relatives of mine who are in the

gallery today and are accompanying Mr. and Mrs. Andy Livingstone. They

are my aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Bud Heinrich, who live in Ruskin,

British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the

House to join me in welcoming three guests: Ms. Brenda Knight, a

psychologist at the Jericho Hill institution in Vancouver, and her two

friends, Tracey Bannister and Lisa Dennis.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to welcome to British Columbia my sister-in-law, whose husband is a U.S. Congressman — of

somewhat right-wing vintage, I might add. But just to display that good

Canadian broadmindedness, he's still welcome in our family. I want to

welcome her.

[ Page 1094 ]

Also

in the gallery is my other sister-in-law, who happens to reside in

Ferndale, and whose husband is a judge down there. If you have any

trouble, let them know. I'd like you to welcome both good American

citizens.

Oral Questions

HOMETOWN LUMBER

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Forests. I want to

ask the minister if he has any plans to intervene in the pending

movement of Crown Zellerbach's store arm, Hometown Lumber, from British

Columbia to Alberta.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker,

the movement of any retail outlet, whether it stays in British Columbia

or moves elsewhere, certainly would not be something which falls within

the purview of the Minister of Forests.

MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, on a supplementary, I understand there are some 50 jobs

involved here, and it is an associated company, a subsidiary, as I

understand it. My question is: has the minister held any discussions

with Crown Zellerbach, the parent corporation, affecting this transfer

of jobs from British Columbia to Alberta, and if not, does he intend to

do so?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat the answer I gave to the first part of the member's question.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Economic Development. Is he aware of this pending move of jobs from

British Columbia to Alberta? Has he held any discussions? If not, does

he intend to?

HON. MR, PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, with

the great economic development that is taking place in British Columbia

and the amount of movement of commerce, mostly toward British Columbia,

I'm not aware of this particular movement, but I'll take the question

as notice.

RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT REPORTS

MR. HALL:

My question is to the Minister of Health. Is there any delay that the

minister would like to inform the House about regarding the non-arrival

and non-release of the Black report?

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

MR. HALL: I want to just point out that we have been asking for that report during the whole of the session.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to address my next question to the Minister of

Finance, and ask him if there is any delay or problem in releasing the

report on credit unions that the Minister of Finance is in charge of.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Questions on the report have been answered in this House on many

occasions in the past, and I would only have to report that this report

is no longer in my hands.

MR. HALL: Perhaps the minister could tell us where the report is, because it doesn't appear to have got as far as this side of the House.

I take silence as meaning the minister doesn't know where the report is.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs where the Schroeder report is. Is there any delay in that

report? It hasn't got to this House yet.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I missed the second part of that question. The Schroeder

report was prepared and offered to the Ministry of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, and it remains within the ministry. There is no

intent to release that report immediately.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has in his charge a report on the investment

evaluation of BCRIC. I wonder if he could tell us if the opposition may

expect release of that report. It's an investment evaluation report

which you referred to in your questions on the British Columbia

Resources Investment Corporation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite clear on the question the member is asking, but I'll take the question as notice.

FUNCTIONS OF JOHN ELLIOTT

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'd like to respond to a question asked me last week by the member for

Nanaimo. He enquired about the gentleman who worked for the Systems

Corporation who allegedly had been employed working in Forests on a

project, and had been removed and transferred to another department,

namely the Mines ministry. I would just like to respond to that

question.

The gentleman referred to — a matter I brought up

in public accounts committee, I believe — is Mr. John Elliott, who

joined the B.C. Systems Corporation in September 1977 and was assigned

to the mineral land tax systems of the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum

Resources. On December 23, 1977, Mr. Elliott was given an additional

assignment by the B.C. Systems Corporation to review the status of the

Forest Service systems group personnel in the Ministry of Forests, and

to arrange for their move to B.C. Systems Corporation. During this

period Mr. Elliott chaired a couple of meetings, pending assignment of

permanent senior analysts by the B.C. Systems Corporation in March

1978. In

summary, Mr. Elliott was assigned by the corporation from his

primary duties in Mines and Petroleum Resources to help in the transfer

of personnel of the then Forest Service systems group. His involvement

in the Forest Service was on a fill-in basis, when time was available

from his normal duties in the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

His

total involvement on this project is estimated to be a maximum of three

man-weeks. Mr. Elliott was never permanently assigned to work on a

particular billing system question. Therefore his removal from the

project could not have been a cause for any delay in the system

regarding billings.

[ Page

1095 ]

RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT REPORTS

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Finance was getting up to

respond to an earlier question. I didn't want to yield the floor. I

wonder if I might enquire from the House Leader, who is the acting

Attorney General.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I cannot entertain an answer until the member takes his seat.

MR. HALL:

Well, in that case I wonder if the acting Attorney-General would take

this question for the Attorney General. During debate on estimates

earlier, we had been promised by the Attorney-General two pieces of

information. The questions were not taken as notice, Mr. Speaker, but

he promised to bring the information back. One is a report from the

Associate Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Dick Bird, on the investigation

into the beating and death of an infant in Surrey. This report has been

promised following receipt by the Attorney-General of one earlier

report which was not released because it was not considered to be in

the public interest. A second follow-up report was mentioned by the

Attorney-General in debate; we're waiting for that. Second, could the

acting Attorney-General now respond to the results of the inquiry into

the conduct of peace officers regarding the picketers who were arrested

and charged with contempt of court, following that conviction of

contempt of court? That report has also been promised to us, Mr.

Speaker.

I should add that this makes more than 12 reports we have had no response to.

REPORT ON PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. BARBER: There's a thirteenth report — lucky for the minister.

My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Has he now

received the report from the board of directors of the B.C. Steamship

Company regarding the future of the vessel Princess Marguerite ?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In response to the member's question, I

haven't seen the report specifically; but in view of the fact that the

House may rise someday, I have set up a meeting with the board of

directors, at which time I will be discussing a whole number of things

to do with the Princess Marguerite , which, I might add, Mr. Speaker, is carrying a growing number of tourists to British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: You voted against it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

After we got it all straightened out, it's now doing a good job. We've

got it running on a good basis. It's got a little bit of sound

management; it's doing a good job and making a profit.

want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'd hate to see the future of that

ship had we not taken hold of the wheel of that great ship and put it

on a good, sound basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the scope of the answers should

not go beyond the scope of the question.

MR. BARBER: Have you decided whether or not to release the report, which you have not read, about the vessel, against which you voted?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my aim is not to play politics with the Princess Marguerite , but to look after her. As I said during the estimates, the ship is in good hands.

FOREIGN PURCHASE OF

PEACE RIVER FARMLAND

MS. SANFORD: In the absence of

the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is responsible for the Land

Registry Act, I would like to pose my question to the Minister of

Agriculture. In January the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, Peace River

branch, wrote to all cabinet ministers expressing concern about the

amount of farmland in the Peace River region being bought by foreign

investment firms. The agrologists state that a cursory survey covering

the years '76, '77 and '78 indicates that 124,000 acres in the Peace

River region have been acquired by foreign interests, and that

represents 10 percent of the land under cultivation.

question is: what action has the Minister of Agriculture taken to halt

the foreign purchase of large tracts of farmland in the Peace River?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In regard to the member's concern, we in the Ministry of Agriculture

have certainly attempted to encourage our own people to develop the

land in the northern part of British Columbia, and I can assure you

that we will continue to do that.

My concern and, I am sure, the concern of the members is that we would like to see that developed by British Columbians.

am not aware of the amount of land that is being purchased. I have

heard some comments made periodically about the concern expressed by

individuals in the area. They are putting up their land for sale on the

open market, and they are obtaining a price for it. Some was sold to

British Columbians, and some was sold to foreign people.

MS. SANFORD:

I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. He did not answer my question,

though. He said that he is encouraging B.C. residents, but I want to

know what action is being taken to prevent the sale of farmland to

foreign interests.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I

would just like to comment about Crown land outside of that which is

owned privately. No Crown land would be sold to foreign investors. It

is available under agricultural lease and agricultural development and

sale to British Columbians.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker,

I am quite aware of that situation, but once the farmland has been

acquired by British Columbians — Crown land acquired by British

Columbians — it can then be sold to foreigners. That's what my concern

is, and that is why I am asking the Minister of Agriculture what action

the government is taking to prevent that sale.

[ Page 1096 ]

AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES REPORT

MRS. WALLACE: I was hoping the Minister of Agriculture would answer the last question: I was very interested in the answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ask me another one, or get on with it.

MRS. WALLACE:

Are you prepared to answer? Well, let me ask my question, because it is

also to the Minister of Agriculture. My question relates to the report

on the aid to developing countries. Has the minister yet received that

report for this current year?

HON. MR. HEWITT: During

my estimates I did file a report on the agricultural aid to developing

countries. I believe it was for the year 1978. If the member doesn't

have it, I can obtain a copy for her.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm wondering about the current year, Mr. Speaker. Is that the most current report that you have filed?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, I will ensure that the member gets the most current

report. I believe I have filed the most current report in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I had already previously recognized the second member for Victoria.

REPORT ON SALMON INDUSTRY

MR. HANSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of

Environment. The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture has made a

report on the salmon industry in the province.

In view of

all the empirical evidence that says it would be in the best interest

of British Columbia for jobs, for marketing and for expansion of

secondary industry if the province were to take sole responsibility for

the fishing industry from the processing level through to the consumer,

would you please advise the House whether you are in agreement with

that recommendation?

HON. MR. MAIR: As I understand

it, the report was filed on Friday. I have not had an opportunity to

read it yet. I haven't had an opportunity to consider it. Furthermore,

I certainly could not state future government policy at this time. I'll

undertake to read the report and consider it. Perhaps we can debate the

matter after that happens.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

REFUGEE SETTLEMENT PROGRAM

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is

with great pleasure that I rise to move second reading of Bill 32. As I

do so, may I say that this legislation is not to be seen as simply a

response to the situation concerning refugees from southeast Asia,

which is attracting so much attention in the press of this country and,

indeed, of the world today. But we do not in any way wish to diminish

the serious plight befalling those people from southeast Asia who,

through no fault of their own, find themselves forced onto the seas to

face unknown and terrifying conditions.

Refugee problems

have been with us throughout this world for decades. Various countries

throughout this world, including Canada, have responded in their

humanitarian traditions with programs for the relief of those

unfortunate persons. Canada has a proud record in this respect, one for

which each member of this assembly and each citizen of this country can

justly take pride. It is, however, a problem which is increasing in

dimensions due to circumstances, political and otherwise, which obtain

in some sectors of this world.

On each occasion when refugee

problems have achieved crisis importance, we in British Columbia have

responded to the initiatives taken by the national government and have

offered cooperation with the federal program. To the greatest extent,

however, the response has been from individuals and groups within

British Columbia who have shouldered large burdens by receiving and

settling refugees within our provincial borders. It is the recognition

of that contribution by individuals and groups in our society that has

encouraged the government of British Columbia to join with the national

government in designing a better-coordinated and more effective means

of overcoming the problems of refugees immediately following their

arrival in this country and in the months and years to follow.

The difficulty became particularly obvious after probably the first

of the boat-people incidents arose some months ago. I speak of the Hai Hong

incident, at which time Canada responded by inviting passengers on that

boat to come to Canada for settlement purposes. At the same time, the

United Nations commissioner for refugees pointed out to the government

of Canada that it could anticipate that the program would increase in

dimension. Last year the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration

addressed to each of the provincial governments a proposal whereby

there would be a clear definition of the obligations to be assumed by

various levels of government in assisting refugees. Discussions have

Columbia with other provinces in the development of respective

responsibilities in this regard.

The national government, obviously, was best equipped to become

involved in the initial selection process overseas, and to provide for

the orderly intake of refugees into Canada, to receive them here in

Canada, to carry out the preliminary processing required in advance of

them deciding upon their ultimate destination, to assist sponsoring

agencies, groups and individuals in fulfilling the commitments of

sponsorship, and to arrange for those difficulties which can arise

during the first year or so of their stay in Canada.

With

the recently increased problem of refugees into China, the federal

government and Hon. Ron Atkey perceived that there were shortcomings in

the programs of the national government and in the matching of those

programs with those at the provincial level. On June 26, I met with the

Hon. Mr. Atkey to discuss with him how Canada and British Columbia and

the rest of the provinces could better achieve the humanitarian goals

associated with

[ Page

1097 ]

programs of this nature and thereby ease not only

the physical but also the cultural shock which is associated with

persons who are forcibly uprooted from their own countries and cast

adrift, literally and figuratively.

Since the meeting on

June 26, there have been continuing discussions between the federal

government and all of the provinces, and the bill which is before you

today is a statement of the direction which the government of British

Columbia believes should be taken, and a commitment to participate

fully in this program.

After the initial problems have been

identified and, hopefully, resolved, the manner in which the government

services available to all our citizens in the province of British

Columbia can be extended to refugees is a part of this total program.

But it must also be recognized by the members of this assembly that the

fact that the refugee has arrived at his or her or their destination in

British Columbia, the fact that they have received language training,

the fact that their immediate physical needs have been attended to,

does not mean that the problem has ended. Those refugees, like other

immigrants who come to Canada, still face for a considerable number of

years potential problems, which those of us who have the good fortune

to be natural-born Canadians, cannot comprehend. The settlement

agencies which exist in our communities probably discharge their most

valuable role in the continuing assistance that they offer to these

people in the resolution of problems as they arise.

Examinations which have been made by officials of the Ministry of

Labour involved directly in problems of immigration disclose that in

many cases the most serious problems emerge after five years of

residence in Canada — when those people who have been enthusiastically

involved in the original problems of settlement have concluded that

their work is done. It is to those settlement agencies in particular

that the thrust of this legislation is directed. With increasing

numbers of immigrants and refugees coming to Canada, the burdens on

these settlement agencies have grown. They need additional resources,

both of people and finances, to enable them to discharge this

continuing responsility.

know that there are people in our communities who are concerned about

the impact of immigrants and refugees upon our society. I wish to

assure you, Mr. Speaker, and them, that neither the government of the

upon a program which will encourage people to choose Canada beyond the

limit of our capacity to settle them. But until we have a comprehensive

program whereby individuals throughout this province extend themselves

in this. humanitarian enterprise, we will not truly know what our

capacity is. Already, with the announcement of this program and that of

the federal government, individuals and groups throughout the length

and breadth of British Columbia are coming forward with wholehearted

offers of assistance and support. Through this program we wish to

develop, even more, these responses, so that the people of British

Columbia can take in full measure their share of this responsibility.

The

members, Mr. Speaker, might be interested to know that so far as

immigration into Canada is concerned, British Columbia receives on an

annual basis between 14 and 16 percent of all immigration movement to

this country. It is therefore somewhat surprising that when you look at

refugees, the percentage of the Canadian total which come to British

Columbia is very much below that of immigration, of which I have just

spoken. If one goes back to the year 1972, when 5,000 refugees came to

Canada, British Columbia received 29 percent. By 1975, when 6,000

refugees came to Canada, only 5 percent chose British Columbia as their

destination, In the following year when there were 11,500 refugees to

Canada, British Columbia's share was only 2 percent — 238. In the last

two years, when the refugee level to Canada was at the rate of 7,000

and 4,000 respectively, the numbers who came to British Columbia were

very small indeed — 185 in 1977 and 177 in 1978.

Those,

therefore, among our communities who may be concerned about what can

happen to British Columbia should, I think, recognize that British

Columbians so far have not made the contribution in this respect that

has been shown by some of our sister provinces.

Regarding

the program to be initiated under this legislation, I assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that significant organizational work has been underway for

many weeks. The program upon which we are embarking is being predicated

upon 10 percent of the refugees who come to Canada choosing British

Columbia as their destination. Whether this will be achieved or not

depends upon the way British Columbians respond.

Through the

federal program by which refugees will be admitted, it is a basic

principle that for every refugee sponsored by an individual or group in

Therefore, while Canada has indicated its goals in this respect, those

goals will depend upon the wholehearted way in which the people of

Canada participate.

Mr. Speaker, in closing these remarks,

it can be clearly stated that the opportunities in Canada are great.

Other nations of the world have responded in measure far greater than

that of Canada. Yet other nations have, in comparison with Canada, made

virtually no response at all. I don't think we can be guided in our

affairs by measuring our performance against those who do nothing. Far

better that we measure our performance against those other nations

which are doing so much.

Canada is a vast land. There is

room, and I think the first room we must establish is that small place

in our hearts for these people who need so much from us, who can give

so much.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR, MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition supports this measure. I think we

are acting in the best traditions requested of us by the United

Nations. I think we're doing our part along with our sister nations of

the democratic world and perhaps, as the minister said, not as much as

some of the other nations are doing.

We're not in this bill

to decide immigration policy. We're deciding upon the help of those

who, by the federal government, will be lawfully admitted to Canada as

refugees.

But I would like to say I do not think the

Canadian people, with the generous instincts they have, would ever

allow themselves, as the priest and the Levite, to pass by on the other

side. Where human beings are outcasts from their own country through no

fault of their own and are on the high seas, it is not in our nature

that we should do nothing to

[ Page 1098 ]

help, or to see a drowning man sink in the sea when we have the ability to help.

There

are those, as the minister has referred to, who talk about the

Canadians who have come to this country of Canada since 1939. I

remember Canada in 1939; it was just a little provincial and stuffy.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD:

Oh, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is in a bad mood today, you

can see. He's got all these bills. He doesn't quite understand what's

in them, and he keeps thrusting them out and waiting for this one to

get through, and he's not listening to the debate.

But I

want to add something about the nature of Canada. Immigration must be

limited, clearly, but is not Canada a richer country in material ways,

and certainly richer in its cultural diversity, as a result of the new

Canadians who have joined us since 1939? I want to see the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) pound his desk when I say

that. We're richer for the new Canadians who have made Canada a more

exciting place in which to live.

The new Canadians have

accepted our democratic traditions. They've accepted the traditions of

parliamentary government and the human rights that we hold valuable.

They're making an excellent contribution to this country, and we're

richer for it. So I say, particularly in the case of refugees who

through no fault of their own are in trouble, that it's our duty to do

our share. We should support this bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In closing this debate may I just say to the members, and to the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), that except for a relatively

few individuals in this province, we are indeed all immigrants or the

descendants of immigrants. Therefore, to the extent that there has been

any enrichment of this province, it is certainly due to contributions

of those who come from many nations.

Let me say one thing about the experience we have had with refugees

who have recently come to this country. The federal government has what

may seem like a strange part of its program. Every refugee who comes to

Canada is sent a bill for his fare — $800 from southeast Asia by air. I

was advised by the federal minister the other day that virtually every

one of the refugees from the Hai Hong

who came to Canada just a few months ago has paid back that initial

obligation. That's their response, and I think that we must certainly

match that level of commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister moves second reading of Bill 32.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask leave to refer Bill 32 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 32, Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

REFUGEE SETTLEMENT PROGRAM

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

MR. BARBER:

This authorizes the minister to provide assistance for what in the

definition

section is termed the "settlement agency." In Victoria we

have a group called the Inter-Cultural Association, which has taken

upon itself the duty of coordinating in as able a fashion as it can all

of the arrangements that may be made or could be made for persons who

wish to sponsor persons individually, or corporately, with friends or

through their church or whomever, refugee families coming to town. Is

it the minister's expectation that a group like the Inter-Cultural

Association ofGreater Victoria might be eligible for support under

section 2 of this bill for the provision of those services?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm glad the first member for Victoria asked

that question. I want to make clear that coordination is a major problem that

can exist, particularly in our large urban centres. We find that there are groups,

other than the ones mentioned by the member, who have also come forward offering

their support for coordination. We are concerned that we might end up with all

coordinators and no workers. We don't wish this to occur.

The

program director will have the essential responsibility for

coordination of all of the activities of groups throughout this

province. We anticipate that in the greater Victoria and greater

Vancouver areas it would be desirable if the agencies needing

assistance were themselves coordinated, and therefore the program

director could refer problems from those two areas to that coordinating

centre.

Having giving that explanation of the direction in

which we intend to go, may I say that we will be looking forward to

discussing with the Inter-Cultural Association their ability to

discharge that coordinating function. We'll be happy to have them, or

some other group they might join with, carry out this responsibility in

the greater Victoria area.

MR. BARBER: I thank the

minister for his comments. I think that's very good advice. I would

like to advise as well that Victoria, by consent at Saanich and city

council and — if not already, certainly by the end of this week — the

Capital Regional District, has acknowledged that at least in our own

happy case we have a group, respected and able, theInter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria

, with enormously good connections among 36 ethnic groups in Victoria.

They've made it their particular case and cause to get involved in this

very worthwhile program. I'm sure they

[ Page 1099 ]

will be given consideration when their proposal comes forward to the government.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved,

Title approved.

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

Moion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 32, Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 32, Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to move second reading of the Automobile

Insurance Non-Discrimination Act. I'm very pleased to tell you that

this Act will formally end discrimination in the setting of automobile

insurance rates in the province of British Columbia. It eliminates age,

sex, marital status and geographic location as factors used in the

setting of those rates.

This Act provides for the phasing in

of new criteria for the rate-setting process for automobile insurance

companies, and it will give flexibility of time to all automobile

insurance companies in this province. This Act changes for the first

time in British Columbia a system which has seen discrimination

allowed, particularly against the young people of our province, in

determining the rates for automobile insurance. Our government feels

very strongly that the people of this province should not be penalized

when buying automobile insurance because of factors over which they

have no control whatsoever. Bill 33 enshrines in law that there should

be only two basic classifications of people: safe drivers, which the

vast majority of British Columbians are, and unsafe drivers.

The

bill challenges the entire automobile insurance industry in this

province to respond in a manner that will eliminate discrimination and

judge people as innocent until they are proven guilty. Some months ago

the government challenged the largest insurance corporation in our

province, ICBC, to produce a plan which would take discrimination out

of the rating for automobile insurance. At that time, it was not known

if it was even a possibility to do so, because traditionally this has

not happened. It hasn't happened in the world. It hasn't happened in

North America. The corporation did some studies. some research, some

planning, and they have assured us that the challenge which the

government gave to them is not only workable but is indeed fair.

Although

this bill does not in effect set rates, it does change the method by

which rates will be set. I want to give you just a couple of examples

of an average car and driver in the city of Vancouver. These examples

show how the young people have been discriminated against through the

conventional methods of rating. I'm told that this is an average car, a

1976 Ford Granada, and they use the city of Vancouver rating system.

For the following coverage — liability $500,000, collision $300

deductible, comprehensive $100 deductible — a 23-year-old female who is

accident-free would pay a premium of $308. Her 23-year-old twin

brother, accident-free, would pay a premium of $717. All things being

equal, the same automobile, the same coverage, the same accident-free

record, the same age, but different sexes, means that male would pay a

premium which is over $400 more.

Take another example using

the to-and-from-work category. A 30-year-old male with an accident

record pays a premium of $379;

whereas the 23-year-old male, again with

the same to-and-from-work category but with an accident-free record,

pays $717. In other words, the 23-year-old safe driver pays almost $400

more — a $380-odd difference — than his 30-year-old counterpart who has

an accident record.

If it had not been for the good

management of ICBC under this administration in these past three years,

that same driver, without the safe-driver discount, would have had to

pay — even with an accident-free record — over $1,000 under the

conventional program.

These few examples, Mr. Speaker, show

that no matter how good the driver is, no matter how hard that driver

strives to be safe on the road and free of accidents, he is not

rewarded for that adherence to safety. He is indeed penalized because

he happened to have been born at a certain time, or happened to be born

male instead of female. This creates cynicism within the young people

of our province who are responsible. They look at their own peers and

those who are older and disdainfully see that their insurance is not

affected by virtue of their driving habits but by the age group in

which they find themselves. This legislation also eliminates, besides

age and sex qualifications of rating, marital status and regional

location qualifications.

This government believes in the

young people of our province. We do not believe young people should be

judged guilty by association in a time when human rights are given more

than lip service in North America and in British Columbia. We wish to

give more than lip service to human rights in this House and in this

province.

This non-discriminatory legislation will give

leadership to many who have not been able to understand the rating

system historically produced by insurance companies. The Premier has

said, and rightly so, that we ask the young people of our province to

set goals for themselves. We ask them to try to live up to them. In the

educational system we say we wish them to go further in education,

strive for a higher education, and strive for higher technical skills.

We ask them to strive for citizenship goals which will help to

[ Page 1100 ]

make

our communities better places, and we ask them to volunteer for

community work. As parents, we call on them to strive to create good

homes and to be good examples. Yet in this one area in society, in

automobile insurance, we say: "No matter how well you drive, now matter

what safety measures you take on the highway, no matter what your

driving record is, you will pay because you happen to have been born

male in an era which puts you under the 25-year age bracket, and

because you didn't happen to get married early in life."

also say to a vast majority of people that because they live in a

certain place they do not have a postage stamp rate such as we have in

the paying of electrical energy. But in automobile insurance they must

be discriminated against in favour of a few areas in the province.

There

has been much discussion, Mr. Speaker, on whether or not this will

change the premiums for most drivers. I say to you that present ICBC

findings tell us 81 percent of our drivers are safe drivers. It should

be noted that in these past years, given that they are driving the same

automobile or in the same category of automobile, drivers in that 81

percent safe-driving bracket have not had an increase in their

automobile insurance in these past 36 months, assuming they drive the

same make and category of automobile.

This, Mr. Speaker, is

pathfinding legislation which will blaze the trail for upholding human

rights and fairness for all in the rating of automobile insurance in

this province. It is the most remarkable and most enlightened concept

for automobile insurance to be presented in this nation and, in fact,

in the world. It eliminates the presumption of guilt.

The

most important aspect of this legislation, however, is not that it is

first, but that it is fair. I am pleased to move second reading of Bill

MR. HALL: In rising to support this bill, Mr.

Speaker, I want to welcome the return of the government, and of the

corporation essentially, although I know the minister is keen and

correct and anxious to tell how she is going to be successful in the

fact that this bill will apply to all sectors of the insurance

business.... I want to welcome the return to the policies that really

were in place between '73 and '75.

I find it interesting

that the minister would almost get into hyperbole in describing the

bill, when she's really describing what was going on between '73 and

'75, giving us both a little debating latitude. She must know now, as

she's been a director of ICBC, that the discrimination because of age

and sex was a very minor portion of the rates and that the continuation

— and the fulfilment — of our plan to remove territorial differences is

now, thank goodness, a reality.

During the time I was on the

board, we reduced the number of territories, I think, to four or five

from a very high number in 1973. I do want to welcome that in

supporting the bill. But I do want to say to her that we should also,

in passing, remember who it was who put those rates up, and who it was

who introduced almost a vicious discrimination against young people.

Let's not kid ourselves. Mr. Attorney-General, you would not have had

the kind of protests there were in my riding and other ridings in '76

unless that word was current — unless that word was negotiable. Let's

not kid ourselves.

The fact of the matter is that there was

a differentiation among young people when the member for Point Grey,

who was the fellow in charge of the board, introduced his rates. We all

remember. In fact, if you go around, you can still see some of the

burnper stickers that were the order of the day about those rates.

I do want to mention to you, Mr. Speaker, that while we welcome the

introduction of the bill, we should remember where this government has

been in its rate structure and where it's been in terms of its

discrimination that it was prepared to live with for the last three,

four or five years.

What it really means, and this perhaps

is the most important point, is that while money is important and while

that differentiation is important, the government is now saying it

agrees with the New Democratic Party and its speeches, lo these last 20

years, about the fact that the provision of automobile insurance is no

longer just a private business of the marketplace. It is indeed part of

a social policy for this province. If you are going to make something

compulsory, then first of all you have to make sure that it is provided

at the best possible cost, and, secondly, you've got to get into place

the right kind of rates and the right kind of rules.

For the

minister now to stand up in her place supported by her cabinet

colleagues, all of whom have had the odd time on the board — and say

that this is pioneer legislation, that it's the best, that it's the

first, and so on, only goes to show that there is now a political

determination of what is happening in the automobile industry as far as

the provision of coverage is concerned. There is something they were

not prepared to admit, something they were not prepared to say,

something that they wanted to be a thousand miles away from. But we all

know they were in it every day up to their necks. The rates and

everything else are set by the political, the elected official process,

and not simply by osmosis through a bunch of people sitting around a

table deciding what would be the best rates. We are facing up to the

fact that automobile coverage is an important part of social policy in

this province. I welcome the minister for late conversion to that fact.

That

is by way of welcoming the introduction of the bill and supporting its

principle. The bill, however, has got off to rather a bad start. It has

been accompanied by a barrage of media comment which has little to do,

perhaps, with the principles that the minister wants to espouse. There

was the interview with the Minister of Human Resources, who is

responsible for the bill but wouldn't answer the questions. Then there

was the interview with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm), who is not responsible for the bill but wouldn't stop

answering questions — even those that were not put to him. I think that

is interesting. It is something that has happened before, and it will

happen again, I'm sure. I think it is unfortunate, because that must

mean that the directors of ICBC and Mr. Sherrell must really wonder who

is in charge on this side of the water. I don't think they have any

doubts as to who is in charge on the other side of the water; but they

must wonder what happens to the conduit cable across the gulf.

There

was the interesting picture — if one can make these pictures in one's

mind, on reading the accounts of the introduction and first reading in

the notes accompanying the bill — of the Premier who dashed upstairs to

rewrite the press conference. Following that we had the Minister of

Municipal Affairs — my partner, Mr. Speaker, who unfortunately sits on

the other side of the House — who

[ Page 1101 ]

wanted

to rewrite the press conference altogether. He wanted to dump the

six-point program which he announced. "Minister of Municipal Affairs

Softens His Stand" was one headline. He announced the six-point program

on a weekend, and denounced it the next day. Then he had the

discourtesy, certainly not the gallantry, to make some qualitative

analysis of the intelligence of the Minister of Human Resources. That

was unfortunate, and it doesn't speak well. Finally, we had the Premier

again joining the debate in the media, and in public, of this most

important bill — one that has been put to us today as significant,

important, challenging, first, pioneer, and all the other superlatives

that the minister used. We had the Premier agreeing to an exclusive

interview, provided that the interviewer would promise not to have an

interview with the Minister of Municipal Affairs for a year. I think

that makes for a lot of fun in politics, and I think we have all had

our fun with it.

In supporting the bill I want to wish the

bill and the corporation well. I want to wish, indeed, this legislation

well, as it tackles the private sector. As one who has spent a great

deal of time — and a great deal of my period as minister — over ICBC, I

want to congratulate the minister for bringing it in, even though it is

a late conversion to this principle, and to wish the bill well and to

promise the minister all the support we can give her in ending the kind

of discrimination she has denounced. In supporting second reading of

the bill I want to say what a splendid day it was in 1973 when we

started a corporation which is essentially for the people of British

Columbia and owned by the people of British Columbia — and let's hope

it stays that way forever.

MR. BRUMMET: I would just

like to comment briefly on this bill. First of all, I would say that it

goes without saying that the people in the north will be delighted to

know that their one other penalty for living in the north is being

removed — that hits close to home.

The other portion of the

bill which eliminates discrimination against young people also hits

close to home. For many years my experience with young people had been

fairly close. I'd always found that the majority of them are

responsible people, and that too often the group is judged by the

irresponsible actions of a small minority. As a driving instructor as

well I have found in the past that young people do have the potential

to be very skilful drivers, very good drivers. They have probably the

best reaction time of any age group, and the physical abilities; they

simply lack a bit of the experience.

I'm glad that has

happened, and I would like to suggest to the minister that whatever

promotion is done to promote the advantages of this elimination of

discrimination be done in as positive a manner as possible. For

instance, in the drinking-driver promotions the scare tactics were, I

think, very effective. I would like to see the opposite — a very

positive approach taken towards the young people, perhaps not of the

type that says the rates will get you if you drive foolishly. I would

not like to take that approach, but to take the approach that it will

really pay you to drive as well as you are potentially capable of

doing. I would like to see as positive an approach as possible.

I've

found in my experience with young people that is the most effective

approach; I think that will get the best response. I'm fully convinced

that will cut claim costs. When these young people can take pride in

driving well, in getting the same low rates as other people, it will

cut claim costs and it may even, with proper policies this time around,

make the philosophy that we seem to agree on with the opposition....

Maybe the proper policies will make it work financially as well as

socially.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In reference to the

hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who has tried in his remarks in this

House in regard to this bill to get on the side of a Social Credit

policy, I'm just a little surprised, because this is the first time

we've ever heard on the floor of this House that they had ever planned

to eliminate discrimination. In fact, he tells us that all of the

adjectives and the superlatives used by myself in my opening address on

this bill are incorrect. In effect, Mr. Speaker, I have not elaborated

sufficiently on the fact that this is a first and that it is pathfinder

legislation that was not only not suggested by that party on the other

side of the House, but was never a concern of theirs when they

introduced the plan. In fact, had they planned to bring in such a

policy, it would have been so much easier to bring it in, in the

introduction of Autoplan or the introduction of ICBC, in the very

beginning. To bring it in now, four years after the fact, is more

difficult for this administration. Had it really been the idea of the

socialists on the other side of the House to bring it in, they would

certainly have done it at that time, when it would have been so much

easier to do.

I don't mind remembering, as the member for

Surrey has encouraged us to do. I don't mind at all remembering another

burnper sticker, and I don't mind referring to it, because he talks

about the burnper stickers that prevailed after our administration took

over the defunct ICBC administration, which was then $212 million in

debt. You will recall that whenever they introduced automobile

insurance in their platform as a political party, there was a burnper

sticker that asked all of us in British Columbia whether we wanted

automobile insurance for $25. Promises like that, memories which we all

can look back on in terms of the socialist treatment of automobile

insurance in this province, are embarrassing in the extreme to that

side of the House.

The $212 million which was lost was

money that.... They tinkered with the ICBC program in a political

manner which will go down in the annals of history in this province as

a shame to that political party, because what it resulted in was a

burden of $212 million that the people of this province had to carry.

If that wasn't political tinkering, I don't know what was.

This

bill does not tinker politically with the dollars. It gives direction

to all insurance companies that they shall end discrimination in this

province. It clearly sets out that all insurance corporations in this

province will start with the same ground rules as of the time of the

passage of this bill.

The member says that it's a splendid

day. It is a splendid day. It's a splendid day for the young people in

this province, for the automobile drivers in this province. It's a

great day for the passage of Bill 33,

an Act to end discrimination in

automobile insurance in this province. I am pleased to move second

reading of Bill 33.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

[ Page 1102 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 33 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

33, Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

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

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 33, Automobile Insurance Non-Discrimination Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE:

It is with mixed feelings that I introduce for second reading Bill 20,

which is exactly what it says: Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act. It's an

honour to stand here and move for the removal of some laws rather than

adding on some new ones.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This

bill represents an accumulation of considerable work by Dr. Gilbert

Kennedy, who investigated some 62 outdated, redundant and spent

statutes. Some of these date back to the days of Queen Victoria. These

are to be repealed by an omnibus statute.

I'd like to make

it clear that, by identifying these statutes which are no longer

necessary, we hope this will be an ongoing process. Through the

deregulatory process we would like to bring on further lists for

removal of statutes, perhaps at the next session.

Only a few

of these statutes contained in the present repeal Act are really

causing any trouble. There is nothing worse than uncertainty or

confusion in the state of the law. However, it is the feeling of the

government that if a law is not used or ought not to be used, it should

be repealed. This is the first step in that process.

The 62

statutes fall into three categories: those that were passed as one-shot

Acts — for instance, authorization of spending for a specific purpose

or to deal with a particular problem; those statutes which are now

redundant and are no longer in use; and those that are obsolete.

Examples of this last group are the Goat-breeders Protection Act, the

Threshers' Lien Act, and the Sales on Consignment Act.

The

list of bills to be removed are in the Act before us. It includes such

items as the Canada-British Columbia Potato-warehouse Construction

Assistance Act; I thought I should point that out.

I have pleasure in moving second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 20 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

20, Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1.

MR. HALL:

I thought it would be better if we dealt with this bill in committee

rather than in second reading. I have two comments to make. First of

all, I want to say that we've heard something earlier in debate today

about postage stamp rates for insurance. The passage of this bill,

specifically the Cyril Morley Shelford Reimbursement Act, will leave

the statutes of this province without any reference at all to any

commitment this government may have had to postage stamp rates on

gasoline.

Members from the north might be interested to know

that this is really the "deep six" you might have in terms of plans to

get anything decent in terms of gasoline prices for your constituents.

This particular member, Mr. Shelford, worked long and hard and toured

this province. It was in recognition of his work on postage stamp

prices for gasoline, which appears to be abandoned by this government,

which occasioned the passage of this statute. It gave him some money to

reimburse him for the expenses that were paid by himself in fighting

the fight for the members of the north, fighting the fight for those

people in the north who have to pay exorbitant prices for gasoline over

and above those paid by the members down on the coast.

I think it's sad to see this statute go without some mention that the north appears to have been abandoned.

second point, Mr. Chairman, is that there is one statute perhaps above

all that might be looked at. I would like to move an amendment to

section 1. I would like to see an amendment that would include another

statute entitled the Ministry of Deregulation Act.

It seems

to me, Mr. Chairman, in speaking to that amendment, that it's really

beyond reason to think that this bill has anything at all to do with

the Ministry of Deregulation. This bill has been prepared by an

employee of another ministry who is not even in the Ministry of

Deregulation. It was someone from the Attorney-General's staff.

[ Page 1103 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I think prior to moving the amendment we should

determine whether the amendment is in order. It does go beyond the

scope of the bill, which is the first reason that it's difficult to

find this amendment in order. On that basis, I suggest that the

amendment is out of order.

MR. HALL: Do you mean that

we can't add to a list of statutes that we consider to be obsolete, Mr.

Chairman? I thought nothing was more crystal clear than that this

ministry was actually obsolete. However, I will defer to your ruling,

obviously. I regret it because I think that this bill would take on a

whole new meaning if we could include those three or four short words.

speaking to the section, we see no reason to clutter up the statute

books with these obsolete statutes, and we'll be supporting them.

However, I did want to make sure that the members for the north knew of

the history of one of these bills, and hopeed that I could persuade

both you, Mr. Chairman, sir, and the others that there was really one

very obsolete Act missing from that list.

MR. HANSON:

The extensive list of Acts includes the name of the Margaret Frances

Hobbs Act, and her name is about to be struck from the statutes of

British Columbia. I just want to advise the House that Mrs. Hobbs is

alive and well and working for social and economic justice for British

Columbians, and we wish her well. She's looking forward to us forming

the next government.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,

Bill 20, Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M 209.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA

FOUNDATION ACT, 1979

MR. SMITH: It's an honour to move second reading of this

bill, which is really a bill that is trying to facilitate a foundation

that began in 1954 when this institution was known as Victoria College,

and which gave it some rather limited garments to carry out the

business of raising modest sums of money for scholarships and bursaries.

Now

the University of Victoria is a major institution, and the University

of Victoria Foundation has had a rather large increase in its funds in

the last few years, with the addition of $4.5 million accruing from the

sale of the Lansdowne campus. It has become imperative that the

University of Victoria Foundation now have available to it the modern

facilities of investment counsel, and that its powers be spelled out a

little more broadly. This bill does provide for modern management tools

for the University of Victoria Foundation and it also gives the new

foundation a general-purposes mandate which will encourage it to go out

and seek financial support to put the University of Victoria

scholarship and bursary program on a very active and progressive basis.

the bringing of this Act here today I acknowledge the assistance,

cooperation and support of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber),

and the members of his party as well. The bill has been presented by me

as a private member because the University of Victoria is in my

constituency. The bill has been carefully drafted by the university's

solicitors, and redrafted by legislative counsel. I am delighted to

move second reading, if there is no debate.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. BARBER: I'll be

very brief, Mr. Speaker. I wish to second the remarks of my colleague

for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and to tell him that on behalf of myself and my

colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), we have been

very pleased at the courtesy extended, the information provided, and

the advance notice made available in order that we, too, could study

the bill and come to a determination on behalf of the official

opposition as to whether or not it should be supported. I thank him for

the courtesy, the information and the advance notice, and I am happy,

on behalf of the opposition, to support this private member's bill.

Motion approved.

MR. SMITH: I ask leave to refer Bill M209 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

M209, University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA

FOUNDATION ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill M209; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. BARBER: I have a brief question, which I hope the member for Oak Bay may....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I think that is how it should work, Mr. Chairman. I am equally unfamiliar with the procedure, but....

Can

the member inform the House whether or not the property know as

Maltwood is governed or would be governed by the provisions of

section

9 as we read them here? The member will be aware, as other members

might who follow affairs at the university, that the problem of the

[ Page

1104 ]

disposition

of the Maltwood property has been a considerable one. I wonder whether

the member anticipates or has information he could bring to us that

indicates whether or not that problem would be resolved by the

application of the provisions of

section 9.

MR. SMITH:

I thank the first member for Victoria. Unfortunately the mandate of the

University of Victoria Foundation does not extend to the Maltwood

museum and the Maltwood property. That question of Maltwood is for the

consideration of the board of governors at the university and not for

the foundation, so it will not be covered by

section 9.

Sections 9 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Bill M209, University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, this Act will amalgamate the resources of the Legal

Services Commission and the Legal Aid Society into the new Legal

Services Society and unify and coordinate legal-service delivery

throughout the province.

The Legal Aid Society has existed

for about 30 years in B.C., providing legal service and advice to

people, who, through lack of resources, could not retain legal counsel.

This was accomplished by a combination of paid and volunteer work by

lawyers in private practice, with their services focusing primarily on

criminal and family law matters.

The Legal Services

Commission was created, in 1975 with the coming into force of the Legal

Services Commission Act, and this statute gave the commission

responsibility for planning the delivery of legal services to people

who required them, but had to go without because of their financial

circumstances. It also gave the commission responsibility for the

distribution to organizations of money provided by the Legislature for

legal services and legal education programs.

To rationalize

the overlap of responsibilities, the proposal to amalgamate the Legal

Aid Society and the Legal Services Commission resulted from very

fulsome and extensive consultation among each of the chairmen and the

ministry which I represent. This new Legal Services Society Act, Mr.

Speaker, is the result of that proposal. With the staffs of the two

organizations being brought together and with one board of directors to

make funding and policy decisions for the whole of the province, it is

expected that better and more efficient services will be provided, with

policy decisions being made on a more coordinated basis.

present, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of community law offices

throughout B.C. funded by the Legal Services Commission, as well as

legal aid offices — they're also funded by the commission, but they're

run by the Legal Aid Society. Under the proposed legislation it is

expected that, in communities where there are both community law

offices and legal aid offices, they will eventually be brought together

under the one roof. The amalgamation has been the product of a

tremendous amount of organization and goodwill on the part of all of

the people who were concerned and involved with the delivery of legal

services to those in our society who would not otherwise be able to

afford them. I think these people are indeed to be congratulated for

their efforts. This includes the directors of the Legal Aid Society,

the commissioners of the Legal Services Commission, the staffs of both

organizations, the directors and staff of the community law offices,

the benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia, the executive of

the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association and a lot of other

groups and individuals. They've all worked together to bring about one

solid, central organization to provide the most efficient manner in

which legal services may be delivered throughout the province. It's a

good step forward, it's a positive step forward, and it is supported

and backed by all of the sectors involved. I'm most pleased to receive

encouragement from this side of the House, and I hope to move second

reading now.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have no

objection to having legal aid services and the services of the

community law clinics under the Legal Services Commission. We don't

object to a change in structure, but there are some caveats that should

be mentioned in this House before second reading is given to this bill.

don't want a change of direction away from paralegal help out in the

communities. We don't want a change of direction which would curtail

the very good work that is now being done by the community legal aid

offices, staffed by lay people, but people experienced in helping other

people with their problems. We don't want the process of lay

representation, which is present in the statute under the Legal

Services Commission, to be diminished. I'm glad that the

Attorney-General, in that section, has said that at least 4 of the 14

directors on the new body will be lay people — at least four. I think

it should be more than four, because I think there are other qualified

people, in addition to the lawyers, who know something about the law

and the settlement of community disputes.

You know,

sometimes lawyers do have a vested interest in seeing a simple case

made into a federal case. I hate to say that — I'm a lawyer myself —

but I think I could get some support from various sections in the House

in saying that. I really think that in the field of criminal procedure,

for example, we have lengthy, complex, technical trials that may serve

the interests of the lawyers involved more than they serve the

interests of the community or the accused. So the process of

demystifying the law and making it simpler, and the process of greater

participation by the community in the settlement of disputes between

individuals, should carry on.

[ Page 1105 ]

Under

the old setup you could abolish the community law offices simply by

starving them of funds, and under the new society they could be

abolished. The one in Skidegate is doing good work and is run largely

by the native Indian representatives in that society. There are other

ones doing good work in other parts of the province; I think there are

16 in all at the present time.

We will be watching the bill

carefully to see that the work of these bodies is not curtailed. We

will be carefully watching the budgets that are presented to this

Legislature, because the fact of the matter is that there are not

sufficient resources being placed behind the provision of legal

services to the community at the present time. I don't know what the

budget is; it's about $10 million. It's not enough. Whatever was in the

books, it is not enough, and the fact that it is not enough shows up in

this legislation, where in one

section the kind of people who can apply

for legal help because they can't afford to present their case in a

court, or before a tribunal, is restricted to those cases which are

either criminal in nature, involving possible loss of liberty, or to

those cases which affect the person's actual livelihood. As the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) pointed out, there's no provision in

that charter for granting aid to groups — only to individuals. But

sometimes you might have a group or a partnership that also need legal

aid assistance, or a group seeking to form a society or something of

that kind to do useful community work.

There are defects in

the bill, and I'm disturbed about

section 9, but I won't go into it in

any detail. I wish the Attorney-General would take another look at

that. It seems to be saying that somebody without the approval of a

judge or the head of a tribunal can't even go before the unemployment

insurance commissioners. I will look at the amendment carefully, and

perhaps speak to that in committee.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to say this to the House: law is far too

important a matter to be left up to the lawyers.

MR. HALL: I just want to buttress the remarks about

section 9. Perhaps we should do it in committee, Mr. Speaker, but....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's amended, Ernie.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You should look at the amendment before you talk about it.

MR. HALL:

If you'll allow me, I was going to say the Attorney-General has a habit

of whispering to those people who talk to him, through you, Mr.

Speaker, and the rest of us don't get to know. Is the Attorney-General

saying that he's producing an amendment?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's been on the order paper for two days.

MR. HALL:

Fine. Thank you very much. That's all I wanted to know, and I want to

tell him this: if it is on the order paper, that's the first thing

you've produced that we've asked for on this side, considering you were

absent from question period and you've still got two reports you

promised me personally.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, Ernie!

MR. HALL: The big smile doesn't affect me one little bit, Mr. Attorney-General. Information does, not the smile.

want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I've had more calls on

section 9

than almost anything else during this session. We only try to reflect

this to this minister who, I presume, has some desire to see good

legislation, well-drafted legislation, legislation that will work and

won't have to come back again time and time again. You've got the

message. Therefore, in rising to complain about

section 9.... I hope

we'll see that the amendment is going to work, and I'd like the

minister to stand up and tell us about it, as well as just put it on

the order paper.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm happy to close

the debate, Mr. Speaker, and to respond to the two speakers, and

certainly to inform them that the position of the paralegal is

adequately protected within the statute. I'm delighted to reiterate the

fact that this measure that we're proposing today is totally supported

by all of the people who are involved in this process on all sides; I'm

very happy about that. I gather also that it's being supported by the

official opposition, as I've anticipated it would be.

Dealing

with the amendments, they are on the order paper, and I'll be happy to

speak to them when we get the bill into committee, which I hope will be

very soon. Accordingly, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 27 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

27, Legal Services Society Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate some of the comments that

were made in the Attorney-General's estimates by me and the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). In

section 3 it states: "The

objects of the society are to ensure that (

a) services ordinarily

provided by a lawyer are afforded to individuals who would not

otherwise receive them because of financial or other reasons, and (

b) education, advice and information about law are provided for the people

of British Columbia." My point is, again, that $10 million out of $186

million in the Attorney-General's estimates was allocated for legal

services to the ordinary people of the province. That is insufficient,

that is grossly imbalanced, and I would think that, in the

establishment of your estimates for the coming

[ Page 1106 ]

year, you should look to greatly expanding the money for the 14 community legal aid offices in the province.

Having

represented the employees of the Legal Aid Society, I am well aware of

what they do, the kind of tasks they perform, and the amount of

involvement and dedication that is involved. If you have ever visited

Alexander Street in Vancouver you would have seen a room packed full of

people seeking help. They have too few lawyers, too few paralegals, too

few clerical people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are not debating estimates at this point.

MR. HANSON: That is just the

preamble to my comment.

Section

3 refers to the particular service to be provided, and it is to be

provided to individuals. What about groups of people who would like to

form a housing cooperative, a food cooperative, a recycling depot, or

would like to take a class action on an environmental issue? There are

all sorts of areas where the Legal Services Commission should be making

legal help available to groups, and this is not provided for. Where do

they go, Mr. Chairman? If it is omitted in the people's legal

assistance Act, where is it? Where is the assistance for this kind of

thing? Surely the Legal Services Commission, or whatever the new

society is called.... The fact that it is established in 14 areas of

the province, and that is the appropriate structure for it.... Surely

you could just change that to persons, or to individuals, or groups —

you are nodding; but nothing is going to happen.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: No, the second is native people.

Because

the native people of the province get most of the legal assistance from

this Act, and there is so little money for it — it is

disproportionately low to what is required — I am asking you to beef it

up in your next estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. member, we are not discussing estimates. Speak to

section 3.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

In response to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, I draw to his attention

that under the

Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural, so

"individual" refers to individuals, which could conceivably deal with

groups of people, or class actions, and so forth.

MR. HANSON:

That's all very well and good, Mr. Chairman. However, they don't have

the staffing to do it, and I think you should advise the people at the

Legal Aid Society that they can, in fact, act on behalf of groups,

because they are not aware of it.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment to

section 5 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

For

the hon. members who have not yet checked the order paper, the

substance of the amendment is to ensure that at least four of the

directors chosen from the two groups shall not be lawyers.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment to

section 9 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

This

is really dealing with the point that was raised by the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). The word "tribunal" is deleted, so

leave is not required for paralegals to appear in front of tribunals.

On the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, that improves the situation in regard to tribunals. I

would have thought, though, that heretofore a law student or a

paralegal could appear in the small claims court. Now you have it

subject here to the restriction that the judge must approve. All I'd

like to say about that is....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

I suppose that's probably the practice now, but I think it's a practice

to be watched, because in a proper case — say, to go in for an

adjournment or something of that kind — there is no reason why a

paralegal can't do that. There may be cases in the small claims court,

or in the provincial court, where a paralegal can and should act and

represent a client.

I think we should watch this with care,

and make sure that these people are not being unduly hindered in

developing a necessary auxiliary service to the lawyers.

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There is also an amendment to

section 11 on the order paper, and I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

section 14, Mr. Chairman, I have handed to the desk, and also a copy

to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), an amendment to

section

14,

[ Page

1107 ]

substituting the word "auditor general" for the word "comptroller-general."

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

section 15.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment to

section 15 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27, Legal Services Society Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 27, Legal Services Society Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Bill 23 has two major areas: one deals with surplus energy producers

and the other with pipelines, basically common carrier pipelines.

First

of all, to the surplus energy producers, the purpose of the amendment

is to encourage industrial incorporations to generate electricity

surplus to their requirements, thereby simultaneously improving their

economics and at the same time benefiting the people of the province by

encouraging the utilization of waste products by developing them into

increasingly valuable energy, diversifying the production of energy,

and encouraging the development of the lowest-cost source of supply for

the benefit of the consumer.

The current legislation, the Energy Act, defeats the above purpose inasmuch

that as soon as a corporation sells in excess of 15 percent of its electricity

to someone other than B.C. Hydro, the entire corporation can become an energy

utility, and hence be subject to regulation by the Energy Commission.

The

new legislation, although it removes the surplus energy producers from

the jurisdiction of the commission, does not remove the surplus energy

producer from regulation. It merely transfers that regulation from the

commission to the competitive marketplace.

However, it can

be seen from the legislation that protection is afforded the public

inasmuch as approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is required

before a surplus energy producer can exist; and conditions are, of

course, established for that surplus energy producer via the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The intention of the

legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to encourage a number of producers to

compete for the opportunity to sell the surplus to utilities or other

customers; public protection will be achieved through appropriate

condtions of sale. The public interest on government policy on energy

will have been met for a designation to be given, and reflected in

conditions which are acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, this falls well within our guidelines for an energy policy for

the province of British Columbia. I also look to the future, because once the

technology improves, we will be dealing with surplus energy producers using

municipal waste to produce energy, thereby taking, you might say, a waste product

and making it into a by-product. There is a major step forward.

The

other thrust of the amendments of this bill is in regard to the

definition of "common carrier." In this province, with the activity in

the natural gas, oil exploration and, possibly, other sources of energy

— but basically natural gas — we can have a number of producers who

have drilled wells, who have found gas reserves, but due to the fact

that they haven't got a pipeline to the main transmission line, they

find that some of their reserves can be drawn down, because an adjacent

well is drawing gas from the same common pool.

Before this

amendment, there used to be some negotiations between various producers

and pipeline companies to get a common pipeline so all producers could

share in getting their gas to the main transmission line. Because of

the activity, we feel that it would be better to have it in legislation

and on application to the Energy Commission. After hearings a decision

will be made to designate a pipeline to be a common carrier in order

that all producers would be treated equally if they are drawing from

the same common pool. Following on that has to be the designation of

the common purchaser, in regard to the gas in that pipeline, and a

common processor. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

move second reading, and would be quite prepared to answer any

questions that may be raised.

MR. D'ARCY: I would like to indicate to the House that the opposition

will be supporting this bill. I do have some concerns, though, that I think

we will discuss now, rather than leave them for the committee stage.

major concern is that the interests of the consumers in B.C. be

protected. As I said before, the principle of the bill is a good one.

It allows for co-generation of power and for individual companies which

are in the business of producing power for their own purposes to market

it whenever and wherever they see fit to retail power distributors. My

concern, Mr. Speaker, is that no corporation in its right mind is going

to sell power on the open market for less than the going rate to them.

[ Page 1108 ]

is possible that in the future a private producer of power could find

that he could get a better price for that power on the international

market — regulated, of course, by the National Energy Board — or on the

interprovincial market. We have had the experience in British Columbia

of private power producers wheeling power internationally and

interprovincially through their own lines and through B.C. Hydro lines.

My concern is that it could be in the financial interests of a private

company — and I certainly don't knock them for this; this is the way

the game is played — to sell surplus power, which they can produce at a

considerably lower price than B.C. Hydro, nationally or

interprovincially. This would force consumers in B.C., who are serviced

either by Hydro or by private power companies, to buy more expensive

power generated by B.C. Hydro. As the minister knows, for a number of

reasons, power generated privately in B.C., where it is available and

whenever it is available, is often cheaper than that power generated by

B.C. Hydro.

I would like to have the minister assure the

House, when he closes the debate, that the interests of B.C. consumers

will be protected, and that surplus power produced in British Columbia

will be made available to British Columbia consumers first. That is,

British Columbia commercial, residential and industrial consumers will

always have first refusal on co-generated industrial power through

whatever retail distribution system it is marketed.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I appreciate the comments that were made by the member for

Rossland-Trail. The protection that we'll see is in the conditions that

would be set in designating that industry as a surplus energy producer.

I would not be too receptive to designating an industry as a surplus

energy producer for the export market. I think their prime function is

to supply power — under conditions that would be set, and on a basis of

competitive price in the marketplace — and we would be looking at the

surplus energy producers mainly serving domestic consumers. We are

looking at something about which we want to have assurance that we

don't jeopardize our domestic consumer, and the designation with

conditions would ensure that would not happen. With those comments, Mr.

Speaker, I would move second reading of Bill 23.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 23 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

23, Energy Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. D'ARCY: I have another question for the minister regarding the

designation. As I read the bill, it does not indicate that a surplus energy

producer can be designated retroactively. In other words, if cabinet, in its

wisdom, decides not to designate an energy producer as someone who must go before

the Energy Commission for purposes of considering the export of surplus energy

provincially or internationally, and that producer should decide at some future

date to enter into an agreement — perhaps even the next day — can the minister

assure the House that government is likely to change the rules regarding that

particular producer? That concerns me, and quite frankly, I think it would concern

most producers.

Most

people in business like to know whether the conditions under which they

are going to operate are going to have some degree of consistency, and

that the government is not going to turn around a few weeks or a few

months later and say: "Hey, what you did a while ago was okay; what

you're doing right now isn't, and we're changing the rules." I don't

think that any producer is going to want to get locked into a situation

where its powers to fulfil contracts it may have negotiated either with

utilities in British Columbia or internationally or interprovincially

may be restricted by government after they have made those arrangements

and during the terms of those arrangements.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In the conditions, there has to be permanency so that surplus energy

producer can enter into those long-term contracts they may wish to

have. That would be part of the conditions. I entirely agree that you

can't set him up as a surplus-energy producer, only to change it a few

weeks, months or years down the road. Those all have to be taken into

consideration when he applies for designation as a surplus energy

producer. He would have to show, to the satisfaction of government,

that he can meet those future requirements for contract.

MR. D'ARCY:

I agree that the conditions regarding the production, export and

marketing.... Once again, though, I must ask if the minister can assure

us that under those situations where he says, "No, we're not going to

change it once the conditions are set, " the interests of the consumers

in British Columbia, and the utilities supplying consumers, are always

going to be protected. It seems to me that it's rather difficult to

have it both ways.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're talking

about a surplus energy producer. Identified in that being a surplus

energy producer, we're not disrupting the main energy production, say,

by B.C. Hydro or West Kootenay Power in this province. If there's a

surplus energy producer, first of all, his main thrust will be the

domestic market and probably to either another industry adjacent to

him, as a separate buy-sell contract, or to a domestic utility. The Act

itself gives that protection. Again, it's surplus over and above our

domestic needs. But, in most cases, what it will do, because most of

these sales will be to a local utility, is offset some of the demands

for new capital expenditure, say, by B.C. Hydro or West Kootenay Power.

I'm

not sure of the concern the member has. I'm just saying that we're

dealing with surplus energy producers, and we're dealing with

conditions that there be no exposure or risk for domestic consumers.

These have to be set down on application and have to be justified by

the applicant to the government.

[ Page 1109 ]

MR. DARCY: Maybe I could ask a specific hypothetical question of

the minister. We have a very good case of a good corporate citizen in my riding.

Cominco is a very large producer of power. They use some of that power themselves,

industrially, in Trail and Kimberley. A great deal of that power, though, they

market to a wholly owned subsidiary, West Kootenay Power and Light, for a nominal

sum. On an interruptible basis, on occasion they have also exported power to

Calgary Power and to Bonneville. With this amendment — and I certainly have

no knowledge that either of these companies would act in this way — what is

to prevent that firm, or any firm not in the retail market for power, such as

Cominco, from selling that power interprovincially or internationally and forcing

its wholly owned subsidiary, or some other company in the retail sector, from

buying much more expensive power from British Columbia Hydro? Is there anything

to prevent that after you have set your conditions and regulations?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

You set the conditions at the time of application. The Cominco-West

Kootenay relationship is a prime example of the type of condition that

has to be set in the beginning. I would suggest to you that one of

those conditions has to be an ample supply of power to West Kootenay

from Cominco. Any sales for export would be interruptible, because the

domestic consumer has to come first.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 3 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, you don't have it in front of you, but there is an

amendment standing in my name on the order paper adding

section 6. [See

appendix.] I would so move.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Energy Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted,

Bill 23, Energy Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBSIDIARY AGREEMENT LOAN

REPAYMENT REVOLVING FUND ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm

happy to move second reading. Basically, what we're doing is we're

taking all that money, and we're going to put it into a fund, and we're

going to recycle it. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 28 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

28, Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement Loan Repayment

Revolving Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 16. Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Bill 16, Land Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

METRO TRANSIT OPERATING COMPANY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

[ Page 1110 ]

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

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

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, we passed by it so quickly.... There's a small

amendment to

section 2(1). [See appendix.] Could we go back to that?

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, the Chair, perhaps quite correctly, has followed

rules. When a member from this side has missed a

section by even one,

quite a point is made of it. So I would ask you to ask leave that we

return to

section 2.

Leave granted.

section 2.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 17 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Did you go by

schedule 2, Mr. Chairman? There's an amendment on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can the committee have leave to go back to

schedule 2?

Leave granted.

On

schedule 2.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I move the amendment as on the order paper, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have no amendment on the order paper.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's on the order paper at page 4, at the bottom of the page, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. 26, an amendment to

schedule 2.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

section 1, line 2.

Amendment approved.

Schedule 2 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lauk

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

Mr. Nicolson requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Metro Transit Operating Company Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 26, Metro Transit Operating Company Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

[ Page

1111 ]

section 6.

MR. STUPICH:

I wonder if the Minister of Finance could explain

section 6 to us. Is

it just another way of getting more money into consolidated revenue?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

No, Mr. Chairman. This is a companion amendment to

section 226 of the

Public Schools Act, which was introduced just the other day and passed

in the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1970. It is a necessary

companion amendment to that other amendment, and has to do with sinking

funds.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to

section 10 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

First of all, I move the amendment in line 7 of proposed

section 23(1).

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Secondly, I move the amendment in line 3 of proposed

section 23(3).

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr, Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 28 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

section 29.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 29 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 35 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 31, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 30, Mr.Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

section 19.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I think it should be noted that the government is seeking

to create an open-ended number of directors that can be on the board of

ICBC, and I think that this is absolutely reprehensible. The

Legislature in its wisdom, when it passed and brought in this

amendment, I think with some urging from some of the members who are in

that cabinet, called for some upper limit to be placed on the number of

people that could be on the fCBC board of directors. If there is some

reason that it has to be increased from 8 to 10 or to 12 or to 20, I

think that this should be done. But I just cannot see this thing being

opened up to a point where every member of the Social Credit League of

British Columbia could be appointed to the board of directors, as is

well underway with the Human Rights Commission and well underway with

the B.C. Development Corporation.

So, Mr. Chairman, I move

that Bill 30 be amended in

section 19 by deleting "or more than 8" and

replacing it with "8" and replacing it with "12." The effect would be

to place some reasonable limit, and I move the amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: It is a complicated wording, of course, because of the way the original amendment was

[ Page 1112 ]

proposed.

But I have checked the statute, and what it really does is to change

the maximum from 8 to 12. If the minister feels that is too

restrictive, I would certainly entertain a subamendment. I think that

some kind of upper limit should be placed on these things.

This

has to govern the government of the day and future governments, and it

is a very serious precedent which is being found here. If the board

feels that they want to enrich the resources of the board by bringing

in people from a few more disciplines, and if they feel restricted, an

increase from 8 to 12 would allow 4 vacancies and a 50 percent increase

in the number of people on the board — and that should be a very

reasonable figure. However, if a case were made that it should be

doubled to 16.... I would think that a board could get unwieldy if it

were to go much beyond that.

So I think that this is a

reasonable amendment, and I would hope that we would have some

indication of the government accepting this.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Well, Mr. Chairman, in his explanation of his own amendment, the member

has cited several figures. He doesn't seem to be clear whether it

should be 16, 12, 10 or 8. As a matter of fact, in the practical sense,

in the actual operation of the board, it has been found in the past

that when someone is needed for a particular expertise.... I would

mention a particular member who has served on that board because he had

a particular expertise required when there were a very great many

problems, when this government first took office, in terms of

computerization, and that member served for a short time on the board

in order to address himself to that particular area of concern on

behalf of the board.

The member who has placed the amendment

before you has written into this amendment some sinister motives on the

part of the government. Please let me assure the House that the wording

of it is simply to expand the board when necessary to take care of the

situation, as I have just explained.... At least two new members are

needed now to expand the board for the particularly onerous tasks which

are before many of the board members. In the financial investment

portfolio alone, where the dollars invested make a very great return to

the motoring public of this province, we need to strengthen the board

and put more people on the board. But I can assure this House that

there is no desire to broaden it to an unmanagable or an impractical

number, but simply to give us the flexibility to add more than the

small number now enshrined in the legislation.

I would

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we will take the member's comments with all

the goodwill with which they were given, and assure him that it will

not be a cumbersome board, but that certainly within the next short

while I would hope that we would be able to add a couple of new

members. I would suggest that the wording is fine as it is in the

statute and we would like to stay with the original wording. So we will

not accept the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think

that the minister has certainly indicated that I have probably struck

upon the correct number. She says that they do require about two more

people, and that would still leave two vacancies. You know, we do have

to be prudent in these things, and the Legislature is constantly being

asked to create a.... This is an absolute and open blank cheque, just

left to government discretion. You know, I think this just opens the

door to.... You might as well change the name of the corporation to

Patronage Unlimited, if this amendment is not allowed to stand. If this

is not the right figure, the minister has an obligation to prepare

correct legislation and bring in responsible legislation and set her

figure. There should be an upper limit on this, and let there be no

mistake about that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, in agreeing with the hon. member who moved the amendment, I

want to add a simple question to the minister: is there any intention

on the part of the government to appoint an MLA to the board of

directors of ICBC?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to

the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is no. Also, in

response to the member who has put forward the amendment, let me say

that any suggestion that the motivation behind the change in the

numbers is for a patronage list is just nonsense. The member is trying

to raise a red herring in a very simple situation where, as I have

explained to you, from time to time when there has been need to bring

expertise on to the board, we would like to have that flexibility to do

so. This will give us that flexibility. It's as simple as that. Don't

try to read some socialist motive into every single thing that comes

before the House, because that's what you're doing.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, if ever there were a legislative device to create a

Socred Senate, this is it. The refusal of this government to name a

prudent, cautious upper limit demonstrates the utterly reckless manner

in which they treat the public purse.

I have a question for

the minister. Can she inform us, this being the same minister who

discovered the secret police, you may remember, as to the per diem that

she intends to pay to those newly appointed members of the board of

directors of ICBC? What's the per diem going to be?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not in order.

MR. BARBER: Why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're discussing an amendment. We had better dispose of the amendment first.

MR. BARBER:

Ours is an excellent amendment, and in order to further illustrate the

value of the amendment I propose to find out how much it would cost to

go the government route as opposed to our own. We propose an amendment

which would restrict the ceiling in a cautious and prudent way to 12

persons. The government's original intention is to create a Socred

Senate where there is no upper limit and where the sky is the limit as

far as money goes. In order, therefore, to further debate the

appropriate amendment from my colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson), I ask the minister what the per diem is for members of the

board of ICBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your question is not relevant to the amendment, hon. member.

[ Page

1113 ]

MR. BARBER: Oh, it is, with respect, Mr. Chairman. We want to

know how much it's going to cost the public. I'm sure the minister

would be glad to tell us.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lauk

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummett

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Nicolson requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 19.

MR. BARBER:

The problem we have with this

section is that, open-endedly and

dangerously, it allows the cabinet to waste money on the salaries of

ICBC directors, who presently are in receipt of payments of $200 per

board meeting and $250 per day for services rendered other than

attendance at board meetings.

Let me draw to the attention

of the committee the cost of this wasteful, extravagant,

money-spending, money-losing amendment. In the period 1976-1977 one

N.H. Manning received $6,189 in expenses and $24,610 in fees; a Mr.

Tennant received $43,578 in fees; Mr. D.N. Watson received $10,875 in

fees; Byron Straight, $8,430 in fees; Ralph Gillen, $17,923 in fees.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

No, that was when there was a limit; that's when there was a ceiling;

that's when they couldn't spend everything they wanted to spend, as

much as they'd like to spend it. Now they propose to remove the ceiling

altogether.

In the period 1978-1979 fees received by Mr.

Manning totalled $16,775; the per diem of Mr. Tennant was $27,045; Mr.

Watson, $9,175; Mr. Gillen, $34,351. In 1978-1979 how much did this

wasteful government spend? Well, on Mr. Manning they spent $10,505 in

per diems: on Mr. Tennant, $9,485; on Mr. Watson, $2,075; on Mr.

Sutherland, $3,225; on Mr. Gillen, $29,100 was spent on ICBC director's

fees.

This is an incredible fortune that they have been

spending on the directors' salaries for the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia. All of this they found able to spend, all of this

money they were committed to spend when there was a ceiling. Now that

there's no ceiling at all, how many more hundreds of thousands are

going to be spent on the per diems of the directors of ICBC? Far too

much.

The amendment proposed by my colleague should have

passed. The reasons for it are now plainly evident. This is how much it

cost the taxpayers, the insurers of British Columbia, the people of

this province: hundreds of thousands of dollars in per diem rates. No

wonder the Minister of Human Resources didn't want to answer the

question earlier.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman,

there was, as I understand it, no opportunity for me to answer the

question, because you ruled his question out of order. However, I'd

like to say to you that those answers which were placed on the order

paper and which the member has just read out were placed there by me as

minister responsible for ICBC.

I suggest to you that those

amounts that were read out by the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) are infinitesimal in comparison with (

a) the job that has been

done with an incredibly good board of directors, and (

b) their

responsibility for handling almost $500 million worth of business in

the province of British Columbia. In those answers on the order paper,

you will note in the expenses of the members of the cabinet who served

that they are not given the per diem as are the other directors. Again,

some of the expenses and per diems of those who were mentioned as

having received expenses and per diems are in line with per diems on

other boards. May I say to you that the responsibility which those

members carry, in terms of the many millions of dollars which are

invested in both short- and long-term investments, to the benefit of

the premium-holders of ICBC, is a very great responsibility. In terms

of that board of directors, I can tell you that the dollars expended

have been very well spent.

Again, may I assure this House

that it isn't going to be a very much enlarged board at all; but it

will give an ability for the corporation to add membership to the board

as a particular need arises for a particular expertise. I'm pleased to

support

section 19 as it is. I would suggest that all members of the

House will vote for it.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd like to speak briefly to this amendment. I think that the debate on the other side of the House....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The division was on the amendment, and the amendment was defeated. We are now on the section.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we had in a way a review of that by the member for Victoria, who took pains to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

[ Page 1114 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask that the members of the opposition please try to cease assisting the Chair in calling for order.

There

was an amendment, and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) spoke

on the amendment. I ruled his debate at that time on that particular

section of the amendment out of order. However, once the amendment had

been defeated we proceeded back to

section 19. We are now back on

section 19, without amendment, and that is what's open for debate.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I quite appreciate that, and I'm responding to the arguments that were

raised by the member for Victoria, because I think they illustrate

extremely clearly.... Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the comments that

were made by the member for Victoria subsequent to the debate. I

appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition is very unwilling to

listen to some of the remarks that would be made with respect to Crown

corporations that were under his direction at the time the NDP were

government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Victoria read with some considerable heat

and bitterness, and the Leader of the Opposition is now heckling with

some heat and bitterness, the fact that competent people were recruited

to try and bail British Columbia out of the worst corporate mess that

ever has existed in this province. It's all very well for the member

for Victoria to quote figures with some bitterness regarding whether or

not the people of British Columbia obtained value for the money that

was spent on those outstanding individuals who came in at a time of

severe financial and corporate distress to put that corporation on the

rails again. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that corporation los