1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3563 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Transpo 86 Corporation Act (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

Sections 13 to 18 inclusive approved –– 3563

Third reading –– 3563

Mr. Nicolson

Division on third reading –– 3563

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

section 7 –– 3564

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Fraser

section 10 –– 3565

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

section 15 –– 3565

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Rogers

section 20 –– 3565

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Smith

section 22 –– 3567

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Smith

section 23 –– 3567

Mr. Howard

Mr. King

Hon. Mr. Williams

section 24 –– 3568

Mr. Levi

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to

section 24 –– 3571

Hon. Mr. Williams

Division on the amendment –– 3571

section 25 –– 3571

Mr. Barber

Division on the amendment to

section 25 –– 3571

section 27 –– 3572

Mr. King

Report and third reading –– 3572

Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980 (Bill 33). Committee Stage (Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 5 –– 3572

Mrs. Wallace

On the title –– 3573

Hon. Mr. Williams

Report and third reading –– 3573

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, this is one of these days of celebration in this

Legislature. I gather that the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) is a

proud father. I would like to extend the very best wishes and heartiest

congratulations of the whole assembly to his wife Debra, to the baby

daughter and certainly to him. We look forward to a bountiful supply of

cigars.

Secondly, I'm very pleased to introduce and welcome

to the assembly and beautiful British Columbia two friends of Rev.

Gilbert Smith, who graced us with prayers and a very lovely message

this morning: Mr. and Mrs. William Saunders from kiwi land — Tauranga,

New Zealand. We like to have you here.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to extend congratulations to the member

for Atlin and especially to his wife. But I would publicly appeal to

both the Passarells to stop this cliff-hanging business. It took us 11

days to find out whether or not he won by one vote, and the baby was

over 11 days overdue. Mr. Member, that does not give you any excuse to

be late for this assembly. Congratulations to your wife, your daughter

and yourself.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today —

and I don't think he's here too often — is the father-in-law of the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the hon. member for Oak Bay. I

refer to Mr. Wallace Courtney, who is known to many members. He counts

many individuals among this assembly as good friends. Would the House

please welcome him.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to recognize

two visitors who were here yesterday, Jon and Audrey Waldorf from

Spokane, Washington. These two people were high school sweethearts in

1948 and are still together after 32 years. Jon was one of the

quarterbacks on the 1948 Jefferson High School city championship

football team in Portland, Oregon, a team with which we both played. He

and Audrey were doing a group tour yesterday in the legislative

precincts with the tour guides when they recognized this hon. member

returning in the evening from one of his jogs. Not having seen Jon or

Audrey since high school graduation in 1949 I was naturally quite

elated to see them after some 30-odd years. Jon's father, Eric, who

passed away some three years ago, was a mighty influential man in my

life, and it was not without substance that sports writers and athletes

alike used to refer to him as the "Grey Fox" — affectionately, I might

add. Unfortunately, Jon and Audrey had to leave for home last night,

but I would like to have the record show that this House appreciates

having had them visit Victoria. I would like the House to join me in

making that a unanimous affirmative decision.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I have the pleasure of having breakfast with Mr. Courtney every morning

at the Union Club, but visiting the assembly with Mr. Courtney this

morning is Mr. Godfrey Perkin. I would ask the House to also welcome

Mr. Godfrey Perkin.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19.

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 13 to 18 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 19, Transpo 86 Corporation Act, reported complete without amendment.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON:

I would urge that the minister not have the bill read a third time now,

but that for two reasons he consider a delay. The first reason is that

there is no knowledge of the agreement between the CPR and the Crown as

to the site upon which this exposition is to take place; the second is

that the minister stubbornly put through a piece of legislation which

makes the use of the words "Transpo '86" an offence with a fine of up

to $2,000. I would hope that if we were to delay this reading for some

time, some sanity would prevail.

I have done some checking

over the evening and I find that I'm not alone in my opinion that some

of the wording of the act was indeed — I suppose in the interest of

trying to keep things simple — made so simple as to make the very

utterance of the words "Transpo '86" after this act is proclaimed an

offence. Mr. Speaker, I wish to serve notice to this House that if

there is not a delay in the passage of this bill, I will write to the

Bar Association complaining and hoping that they can bring some

pressure to bear in terms of the sloppy drafting of this particular

section, which I find very offensive. I hope that some corrective

measure will be taken before this House adjourns.

Bill 19, Transpo 86 Corporation Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

[ Page 3564 ]

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Hon. Mr. Gardom requested that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1980

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 7.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, the last time we were debating this section, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), in consultation with the House

Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I gather, decided to pull this

section until

they had an opportunity to study a proposal we had made in order to get

around the obvious problem with giving powers far greater than they

deserve or need, according to the minister's own statements, in regard

to the designation of arterial highways and the paying for and paving

of them. I wonder if the minister responsible could now advise what

advice he in turn received from legal counsel in regard to our proposal

to amend another

section of the Highway Act and drop this unnecessary

section altogether.

HON. MR. FRASER: First of all,

there was a lot of confusion in the last debate, and I take

responsibility for that: in other words, the effect this amendment has

on the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall).

The first point I want to make clear is

that it only affects cities over 30,000. It doesn't affect district

municipalities at all, where their concerns were. In other words, it

has no bearing on Burnaby, Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Mission, Langley,

Saanich, Abbotsford, Chilliwack, etc. It only has application to cities

over 30,000 in population, and they are as follows: Vancouver,

Victoria, North Vancouver, Nanaimo, Prince George, Kamloops and

Kelowna. The last four have recently been enlarged in their boundaries

and so in turn have enlarged their populations.

The Highway

Act states that when the population of a city or city municipality is

over 30,000, then arterial highway classification or secondary highway

classification will not apply to that city; that is, the province will

not maintain any of the roads. It also states that when a city or city

municipality has a population in excess of that stated, then grants may

be made to the city by the province to offset the costs of maintaining

the provincial highway system through that city.

However,

continuing from the time that Kamloops, Prince George, Nanaimo and

Kelowna enlarged their boundaries to increase their populations to over

30,000, the province continued to maintain the provincial highway

numbered route system through these cities. The reason Kamloops,

Kelowna, Prince George and Nanaimo were not immediately burdened with

the construction and maintenance responsibilities for all arterial

highways in their cities and were not immediately denied assistance to

maintain and construct all secondary highways within their new

boundaries was that they were not capable of undertaking this burden.

They are not even capable of assuming the burden of the lesser roads

and streets within their new boundaries for several years after

enlargement.

The amendment is therefore aimed at maintaining

the status quo in Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo and Prince George in

respect to arterial and secondary highways.

The only cities

where the status quo may be changed by the amendment are Vancouver,

Victoria, North Vancouver and New Westminster. For many years New

Westminster has been pressing the province to take over the maintenance

of certain provincial highway routes in their city. They have

complained of their inequity of treatment compared to Burnaby. They

would also not object to the province taking over responsibility for

the Queensborough Bridge.

North Vancouver has never had to

maintain the Trans-Canada Highway and interchanges inside its

boundaries. Vancouver has indicated the province has a responsibility

in respect to the Cassiar Street situation. The province has agreed to

help if it can. This amendment makes that possible.

Victoria

has long asserted that its problems in moving traffic to the Western

Community in Esquimalt merit provincial assistance. This amendment

would make this possible.

The other comment I have is that

both Victoria and Vancouver are basically terminal or end-of-the-road

cities. Therefore the problems of moving provincial highway traffic

through to them are not major. The examples above more or less contain

it. There is little interest for widespread provincial input of highway

construction within these two cities, but this does not apply to

Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Nanaimo or New Westminster, although

the last two are not quite so vital, as winter conditions do not

dominate. What we are saying here is that we're trying to legalize. As

a matter of fact, what we're trying to do is help, not hinder, and

certainly help in the financial aspect. I think what I would say with

the Hastings-Cassiar connector, as an example of one estimate I saw, is

$20 million to $25 million. The city of Vancouver wants it fixed. There

is certainly discussion going on about the impact and so on,

engineering-wise, but they don't want to have anything to do with the

financial aspect. These amendments will allow it. I can't see it having

really any effect on the capital city at all.

The other

concern that the committee has had before, affecting zoning and so on,

does not apply to the arterial highways. That only applies to limited

access highways. I recommend the amendment continue.

MR. BARBER:

I would like to conclude debate on this

section by thanking the

minister for his lengthy reply and by saying again that we agree with

the object. Most certainly the longtime member for New Westminster, Mr.

Cocke, has

[ Page

3565 ]

been among those in the forefront of pressing for provincial support of that particular highway problem.

agree with the object, but the mechanism you have proposed and the

powers you have given yourself through this

section are far too great

for the much smaller job that both you and we agree should be done. We

support the object, but we simply cannot support the instrument of

policy you've chosen in order to obtain it.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MRS. DAILLY:

I think any amendments to the Library Act, which have been wanted and

awaited for many years, are welcome. But I want to make a point to the

minister in charge of this particular section, which is that the

concern expressed to me by some people in the Library Federation and

the Library Association is that they'd been hoping for a far more

comprehensive change to the act.

I don't really know who I'm talking to on this particular bill, Mr. Chairman. Can you help me?

AN HON. MEMBER: So what else is new?

MRS. DAILLY: You're right; it happens all the time. Does it really matter? I don't know who's going to reply.

MR. BARBER: The Provincial Secretary.

MRS. DAILLY:

Well, I know it should be, but he's not here, Oh, I see, he came back.

I know he's in charge, but I couldn't see him over there.

Anyway,

what I want to ask — and I hope he will reply — is that this amendment

certainly allows for and opens the door for more cooperation between

different types of libraries throughout the province, and I think that

is welcomed. I'm sure the taxpayer welcomes the fact that cooperation

is being made easy for the libraries in the province. In the long run,

it not only facilitates better service, but from a financial point of

view it's good also. I think the thing that's missing here — and I

wonder if the minister could tell us if he intends to bring it in in

the future, and why it isn't in now....

Why is there nothing

here that helps facilitate cooperation between the public libraries and

different kinds of libraries? I'm thinking here of university and

community college libraries. It seems a bit ridiculous to have all

these institutions having their own libraries without cooperation. I

can understand their wanting their own, but there should be far more

cooperation between public libraries and libraries of a different kind.

I wonder if the minister could tell us if he agrees with that and if

he's planning to facilitate it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In response to the member's question, this amendment,

as I think she is aware, really gives legal status to a federation that was

organized in greater Vancouver in 1975. This Library Federation encompasses

libraries in eight communities of the lower mainland, Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby,

New Westminster, North Vancouver city and North Vancouver district. The federation

has facilitated equal access to library resources for a population of close

to one million people. This proposed amendment will give precise legal status

to the Greater Vancouver Library Federation in exercising the powers and duties

it has undertaken as a society and — this perhaps will answer her question

— permit the formation of similar federations should public libraries elsewhere

in the province wish to so organize themselves. It should be noted that in a

federation the member library boards retain their autonomy by agreement. So

they have, to the extent that is feasible, the best of both worlds: control

of their local affairs and participation in a system which gives them access

to greater resources and provides them with centralized services and economies

in the processing of materials.

The

member asked whether the same status could be provided to libraries

other than public libraries. I'm not sure that they are really covered

under this act. I would have to explore that matter further, but I'll

certainly give it a lot of consideration.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would just like to ask the minister responsible for this act what the

thinking behind this change is. Why is the appointment of a director

being put directly in the hands of the minister rather than being left

in hands of the rather non-partisan Pollution Control Board? It seems

to me that this is opening the door to allow political influence in the

appointment of directors under this act.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I think the notes on the side of the bill explain it pretty carefully.

It's a matter of semantics more than anything else. It's not a question

of appointments.

MRS. WALLACE: That may be true in

the second part of the amendment, but certainly not in the first part.

In the first

part it is simply changing the definition of "director"

from someone appointed by the Pollution Control Board to someone

appointed by the minister. There's nothing that relates to semantics in

that: that's a definite change in the method of appointing those

directors. It's a change that allows political influence into the

appointment, much more so than having those people appointed by the

Pollution Control Board, under whom they're going to work.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 15 pass?

MRS. WALLACE: I would like an answer from the minister. He talks about semantics and semantics is not an answer to that. He has no answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know.

MR. HOWARD: And he doesn't care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Obviously the minister doesn't know or else he doesn't care — perhaps both.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not here, because this

[ Page 3566 ]

section

deals with scholarships. It's a revision of the Scholarship Act. The

dispensation of scholarships to the students of the province is a very

vital function of the ministry. So I have a question to ask. The

minister is not here, Mr. Chairman, but I'd like to get it on record

and I hope perhaps the minister, if he's in his office, will be aware

of the question and perhaps will bring back an answer. I'm really

surprised that the minister whose.... You know, they can see ahead as

we can that these sections are coming up.

I think the

Minister of Education has had a number of appeals made to him on this

matter of scholarships, so it's a fairly controversial matter right

now. The concern I have, and this is a major concern, is the question

of the revision of the scholarship regulations and how a student can

apply for a scholarship. The regulations have been drastically changed

under this minister. I'm very anxious to know if he has taken a second

look at the delegations and the letters he has received, which have

asked him to change the new regulations for scholarships which he has

brought forward. Mr. Chairman, for those of you who may not be aware

what the basic concern is in the change of the scholarship award

regulations, it's that under this minister it has become and taken on

the tone of a very elitist scholarship system with the whole emphasis

being on those who are academics. I think it's important to get this

out now, Mr. Chairman, as briefly as I can.

Under the new

regulations — unless the minister has changed them, and I haven't heard

he has — it means that students must qualify in at least five courses

in their chosen specialty. This will become a very difficult criterion

to meet for many schools in B.C. as some, Mr. Chairman, are unable to

offer that many courses in certain specialties. So really what we're

seeing here is perhaps discrimination against the smaller secondary

schools, which means that the rural members of this Legislature should

really be up on their feet asking the minister to make changes, surely,

in anything that's going to discriminate against the students who

reside in rural areas. Unless the minister can tell me otherwise, this

is the way we see it.

Also, to get a scholarship, it has now been changed to this: that the recipient of an award....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could impose upon the

hon. member for Burnaby North. We've asked the Minister of Education if

he could be here to deal with this subject, because it's one which I

know is important to you and to the legislation. If the rules of the

committee would permit, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we

would move to a subsequent section, so that the minister could be here

in order to respond to the member.

MRS. DAILLY: Fine. Thank you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: So may we defer, Mr. Chairman, the consideration of

section 20 and move on to other sections until the minister is present?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree?

MRS. DAILLY: Agreed.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think we can do it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, apparently the rules of the committee do not permit the

granting of leave of this kind. I suppose I could stand here and talk

for a while until the minister arrives, if I was sure he was coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a 15-minute recess?

MRS. DAILLY: We'll both talk.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I could go through a list of scholarships that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has won.

MR. KING: It says leave can't be granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Oh, he says leave can't be granted. Perhaps the committee could just

relax for a minute, Mr. Chairman, until we find out where the minister

is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the committee is

empowered to deal with the bill

section by section. That is what the

committee is called for, and I unfortunately have to tell you that

that's all we can do.

MRS. DAILLY: Do you want me to continue and put this on the record, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, all is saved, hon. member. Please continue.

MRS. DAILLY:

The point I am making to the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications, whom I am glad to see is here, is on scholarships. As I

said earlier, I think the minister is well aware of the concern that

people have expressed to him as well as to myself and other members in

the House. Generally we feel that the emphasis on your change on

scholarship awarding is on the academic. We must remember that whether

a student is academic or vocational, the student should be treated the

same in our society. I am really concerned that there is an elitist

turn to this change in scholarships. I think a concern has been

expressed that students in the past have used the scholarship money to

buy a kit of tools that would give them a good start in their

vocational trade or their apprenticeship or even a new wardrobe.

Students are now going to find it very difficult to do these things

which they could in the past.

They must also pass the

new regulation also tips the advantage again to the academically

oriented student. Basically, without becoming too repetitious, I am

asking the minister to reconsider these regulations so that all

students in this province, whether they are vocational or academic,

will have an opportunity to receive scholastic moneys.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I heard what the hon. member said on my squawk-box, so I appreciate her

remarks. This amendment, though, hon. member, is not in any way

inconsistent with what she said. It simply allows some leeway to fix

larger scholarships regardless of whether they are given for academic

or vocational purposes, in keeping with the present level of inflation.

All her remarks on the criteria for awarding

[ Page

3567 ]

district scholarships are pertinent ones. I am

reviewing those criteria and have said that I would review them. I am

sure she would not want to stand in the way of scholarship recipients

receiving additional moneys in a time of inflation. That really is all

this amendment is aimed at.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate

the minister's clarification. As he knows, I was aware that it was

dealing with moneys. As long as the Chairman allows me that freedom to

go into the reasons for the money being given, which I think was a fair

understanding.... Your ruling was to let me proceed, Mr. Chairman. I

took that opportunity, because I didn't know when else I could do it.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

section 22.

MRS. WALLACE:

I find myself in the same position the former speaker did, in that the

minister responsible for this particular

section is not in the House. I

have some concerns on which I would like to see some guidelines set to

ensure that this money that we are putting into research is being spent

in directions which are the most needed directions in the province of

British Columbia.

I had a grave concern when that minister

stood in the House not too long ago and told me that none of that

research money is going into the agricultural industry, I have some

hesitancy in just letting this amendment go through without at least

drawing that point to the attention of the minister, if he were here,

because I would like to know whether or not there are any guidelines as

to how the money is going to be allocated, if there are guidelines

showing where the most desperate needs are in research and which areas

of research would best benefit the economy and needs of the province.

Some research can perhaps be very interesting and very valuable but it

has no immediate effect. Certainly we are spending far less of our

gross provincial product on research than a great many other

jurisdictions, which have in fact proven themselves much more

successful in competing in the economic markets around the world. If we

could ensure that the research money we are spending was directed into

those areas of research that would have the most beneficial results for

our economy here in British Columbia, I think this would be a good

direction to go to that council.

I am sorry the minister is

not here to give some comments on this particular matter. I had hoped

when the member for Burnaby North raised this earlier — we have similar

concerns about this — that the minister might have been in the House.

Unfortunately he has not arrived. I can do no more than record in Hansard

my concerns about this and my strongly expressed wish that some

direction go to ensure that the moneys we are spending in research here

in the province be directed into the kind of areas that will have a

much needed beneficial effect, to ensure that we have programs in place

— I am thinking of environmental concerns. We should be directing a lot

of our money that way to ensure that if we come to a point where

certain chemicals or items are no longer allowable — 2,4-D in

agriculture and pentachlorophenol in the lumber industry, for example —

we have alternatives and we don't find our agriculture and forest

industries going into the doldrums because we haven't done our homework

in the research field.

HON. MR. SMITH: As an

alternate for that other minister I would point out to the member that

what this amendment really does is to now allow the funding of those

parts of the act that deal with the awarding of scholarships and

encouraging development of improved technology and skilled research. Of

course that embraces agriculture as well as other....

MRS. WALLACE: There's no money for agriculture.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Section 23 of the act makes it clear that the funding is available

broadly for technological training and skilled research. I would think

that that certainly embraces agriculture, hon. member. So you should

welcome the amendment but persuade the minister to encourage the

council to fund in the direction in which you are interested.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, on first blush you might say that this is a properly

worded amendment or change, saying that directors of the council or

secretariats shall not be personally liable for anything done or not

done as long as it is done or not done in good faith. But on thinking

about it further it does raise in my mind something that probably

shouldn't be there. Directors of the council and secretariat would

obviously operate under policy decisions of the council itself. If the

policy decision, for argument's sake, was to make a decision to engage

itself in nuclear research and the secretariat and directors then

proceed to do things in good faith — meaning within the bounds of

whatever the policy decision is — and as a result of that some terrible

damage may occur to persons or property, the individuals would feel

completely protected and in a cocoon insofar as their operations are

concerned.

I just think it gives too broad a blanket of

protection to do anything whatsoever as long as the individual director

or secretariat feels that it is "in good faith." Good faith becomes a

judgmental thing, really, because it is within the bounds of policy and

the conscience of the individual who may be conducting experiments with

chemicals, poisons, explosives or whatever that may have an injurious

effect upon people's lives and/or their property. I think it is far too

broad a definition and protective mechanism to put in there, and that

it should be worded in some other way to ensure that the policy

decisions themselves are the ones that should be examined.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I think that there should be someone in the cabinet

prepared to answer the very serious points which my colleague from

Skeena has raised. I can understand why personal liability is something

that the government may want to modify, but to immunize the whole

apparatus from any civil action certainly seems to me to be taking a

very long step. This would mean, as I understand it, that any citizen

whose health was jeopardized or property was damaged in any way would

not have the right of a civil action against the agency which the

government is setting up. If the directors, secretariat and council are

immune from any civil action, does this mean that there is no area of

redress for the average citizen of the province who is done damage

either to his personal being or to his property?

[ Page 3568 ]

Does

this mean that there is no avenue of civil redress? I think the

Attorney-General could tell us what is meant. What avenue does the

average citizen have? It's pretty hard to look down the road and

forecast all of the vagaries that surround the activities of the

council and predict any damage or controversy that may arise which

should, in fact, be litigated before the courts in terms of damages. I

just wonder how broad this is. What's intended? I'd appreciate the

Attorney- General commenting on it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I think the position taken by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke is an extension of the comments made by the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which indicate that he has not carefully

considered the words of the proposed amendment. The amendment is only

intended to and does only provide immunity with respect to personal

liability of the individuals who may serve as directors or employees of

the council or the secretariat. However, it does not extend immunity

from civil action at the behest of any person who may be wronged to

either the council or the secretariat.

I would simply refer

members to the Science Council Act, which in

section 13 makes it clear

that the council and secretariat are, for all purposes, agents of the

Crown in right of the province, and the council and secretariat are as

agents of the Crown, legal entities. Therefore if the secretariat or

the council were to engage in activities resulting in damage to any

person, then the council, the secretariat and through them the Crown in

right of the province would be proper parties to be included in any

process which might be necessary and would be liable for damage in the

event that wrongful acts had taken place.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General missed the point of where I was

going. I read the amendment and saw the question about "personally

liable" and so on — and that's fine — and I knew that the council

itself, as an entity, was liable. What we're talking about here is that

we either have given or are now giving the Science Council all of the

attributes of an individual person, except a conscience or a soul. The

Science Council can go ahead and do whatever it so desires to do. The

individual director or the people in the management and administration

of it, because they don't feel the sense of personal responsibility —

only perhaps to the extent that their consciences permit them to feel

that — can go ahead with complete abandon to do whatever it is the

council in policy decides to do, and the individual feels no part of

that. That's what I'm getting at. It is in fact removing or seeking to

remove what spiritual guidance the individual working within this

organization may have. That's all we're getting at — not the question

of liability of the council. We know that that exists. I'm just saying

that that was not a very satisfactory answer that I got from the

Attorney-General about the matter.

I just feel that the more

we go in this direction.... I'm saying that the individual working

within the structure doesn't feel, and by law doesn't have, any

personal liability. Therefore that seems to lessen his personal

responsibility and commitment to the matter, and his conscience then

tends, as we have discovered the situation to be in many, many

institutions in North America, to be suppressed by the policy weight of

the council or the organization itself. All I was seeking to advance

was the idea that we should structure the wording in some other way, to

ensure that that individual soul and conscience of the person working

in there should have some force in what takes place.

Section 23 approved.

section 24.

MR. LEVI:

I just want to ask the minister.... I don't think that the change

that's envisioned here is going to help this House or the minister in

any way in understanding what's going on financially in the Systems

Corporation. We've been very unfortunate in this House that we've had

two ministers — the present minister and his predecessor — who simply

are not aware of what's going on in that Systems Corporation. Neither

of them were able to answer any of the financial questions that were

raised in this House. The fact that you move it is rather swift

retribution. The comptroller-general only left yesterday and here we

are changing him for the auditor-general.

But there is a

very serious problem with respect to this corporation. It has been

operating fully for two years and its budget has doubled in two years.

It has gone from $22 million to $40 million. We did not have a chance

to examine the finances in terms of this any more than we're going to

get much of a chance to examine them, other than if the auditor-general

reports on it and we get in front of the public accounts committee....

I asked the minister's predecessor — and I would ask the present

minister — to consider putting this new Crown corporation on the

schedule of the Crown corporations reporting committee. It's not just

sufficient to change the auditor. It is a new Crown corporation.

Decisions are being made which have very serious financial

implications. One was made the other day by the minister's president

that they're going to go into one particular main-frame manufacturer;

that is, they're going to lock themselves in completely with IBM. There

should have been some consideration of what the financial implications

of that are in terms of this corporation.

The fact that we

moved just from the auditor-general to the comptroller-general, or the

other way around, is not going to add anything in terms of the ability

of this House to understand what is going on in that corporation. There

should have been in here or should have been an amendment....

The

minister should look to putting this Crown corporation on the

schedule

of the Crown corporations reporting committee. It would have made

eminent sense to have done that right in the beginning, because then

that committee would have had an opportunity to look at the Crown

corporation as it is being developed and understand some of the

policies that were being made by the board of directors in terms of

development. For some reason the government prefers to avoid this. This

is not going to meet the problems that exist in that corporation. We've

not had a minister yet who can understand what's going on or who has

been able to express any specific opinions about it. If that is going

to be the case then this isn't going to help at all.

I ask

the minister to give consideration, which his predecessor did not, to

moving this onto the

schedule of the Crown corporations reporting

committee. Then we can understand what's going on in the corporation.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The point — while it may be beyond the limits in the strict

interpretation of this

section which is being dealt with by the

committee — is well taken, I

[ Page 3569 ]

feel.

I will give it very serious consideration. I wasn't paying close

attention last year when the former Minister of Finance, now the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe), answered questions posed to him in committee during debate on

his estimates regarding the Systems Corporation. I don't pretend to

understand all the language that is used by the computer specialists in

this system or any other organization, but I do suggest, with respect,

that we've not yet dealt with my estimates. You will judge for yourself

how I handle the questions that are posed at that time. I think that I

have certainly made myself felt in the Systems Corporation and intend

to continue to do so. That debate, perhaps, is more appropriate at the

debate on estimates stage. I think the specific suggestion of which the

member spoke a few moments ago is one that merits very serious

consideration, and it will be given.

MR. BARBER:

According to the explanatory notes,

section 24 would have the effect of

substituting the auditor-general for the comptroller-general as auditor

of the Systems Corporation. However, the actual language of 24 — and

25, for that matter — does no such thing. It does not name the

auditor-general in either section.

But debating — for the

moment —

section 24, I wonder if the government would be prepared to

accept an amendment which I have prepared which would simply substitute

the words "auditor-general" for "a person appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." If it is the government's intention to

name the auditor-general, I think that should appear in the act. I

would observe that in a

section we have earlier passed,

section 21, the

specific term "auditor-general" now appears in the amended

section of

the School District Capital Finance Act. It does so because wisely, in

that section, the auditor-general was highlighted by name as the office

responsible for this term.

I would observe as well that in

section 26, which we have yet to debate, the auditor-general by name,

rather than simply as we have it in 24 — "a person appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — will shortly be named, I expect, if

it passes, the auditing authority for the Capital Commission Act, the

Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act, Creston Valley Wildlife

Act, Harbour Board Act, Institute of Technology Act, Pension (College)

Act, Pension (Municipal) Act, Pension (Teachers') Act and Workers

Compensation Act. In all those other sections — almost a dozen statutes

which will be amended when this entire bill passes — we see the actual

name, auditor-general, wisely and appropriately appear. But for some

inexplicable reason it does not actually appear in 24 or in 25 and

simply substitutes instead "a person appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

I have an amendment in hand

which I believe is technically in order and which would serve, I think,

the mutual interests of both sides of the House. The question separate

is, of course, whether the comptroller- general, the gentleman or the

office, should have these duties. That's a different issue, and I don't

propose to raise that now. We do not object to the auditor-general

being made responsible for examining the books of the System Act or the

Transit Services Act: that's just fine with us. But the explanatory

notes offer an explanation that is not justified by the actual language

of the amendment. I don't know why that's omitted or why, instead of

simply saying "auditor-general," the language is "a person appointed by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." That could, of course, Mr.

Chairman, be any person. It could be you or me for that matter.

Hopefully they wouldn't make that kind of appointment, but worse

mistakes have been made by governments in the past — well, at least in

the case of myself, I don't know about you. It would certainly be a

mistake to appoint me or any other person who has no technical

background in auditing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There is a

difference in this

section and in one following

section which has been

identified by the member who has just taken his seat, I think that the

committee would understand that I believe that we may indeed want more

than one audit. I agree that in previous sections that have been dealt

with it says "auditor-general." But there may well be, in this

instance, an external audit. I think the member knows that it can't be

just "you or me," as he said: it would have to be someone who is fully

qualified to conduct such an audit. That is known by all members of the

committee. It may well be, therefore, an external audit by a firm

recognized for that purpose or an individual recognized for that

purpose, and then by the auditor-general. "Person" in this context —

and I wouldn't seek a legal opinion, but we've had it previously —

would be in the singular or the plural. I trust that assists the

member. It is not the intention here to exclude the auditor-general but

rather to have the opportunity of both an external audit and the

auditor-general. I trust that assists the member.

MR. BARBER:

The minister's explanation is not consistent with the explanatory note

in the bill. The explanatory note simply reads: "This amendment

substitutes the auditor-general for the comptroller-general as

auditor." Either the explanatory note is simply not correct or the

government's intentions are somewhat distinct. I take the minister at

his word, that in fact they propose to do that.

Nonetheless,

we're not entirely satisfied with what the government apparently

proposes to do here. If there's a need for an external audit,the board

of directors, I would presume, has the authority on its own accord to

order an external audit. I don't believe there's anything whatever that

prohibits the board from taking that step. There's no language that I'm

aware of, in this or any other comparable act, that would actually say

they may not order an external audit. What we're concerned about,

however, as legislators is not whether or not the board may of its own

accord require an external audit or the government may require it on

its behalf; that's not the issue. Our concern as members of the

Legislature is whether or not the auditor-general will perform the

basic functions required here, formerly performed by the

comptroller-general. The specific language of the act does not in fact

name the auditor-general, and the explanatory note in the bill is

just.... Well, I don't want to say false, but it is clearly inaccurate;

it's just not correct at all. The minister's own explanation verifies

that.

Once again, if there is no prohibiting authority which

would deny the right of the corporation in question or the government

to order an external audit at any time for any purpose at any point in

the year, if anything happened to funds and they wanted a quick

examination, then I wonder why they could not simply accept an

amendment which would name the auditor-general and seal it in the

language of the law to the satisfaction of both sides of the House — in

[ Page 3570 ]

particular

because this side of the House wants the auditor-general named here and

not simply "a person" substituted and not named.

MR. LEVI:

Perhaps the minister could tell us that at the present time the Systems

Corporation does have an auditor — it's Clarkson, Gordon. The proposal

now is that the auditor-general do an audit. What other audit is

necessary?

I'd also like to ask the minister, in relation to

the whole business of financial accountability.... In the recent report

issued by the Systems Corporation I don't see any reference at all to

an audit committee, which is a very strong recommendation that was made

by the former federal auditor-general, Mr. Macdonell — that there be a

function for an audit committee within the board of directors of a

Crown corporation. If we have Clarkson, Gordon doing the audit, and we

will have the auditor-general, what's the purpose of the third one? Is

it that the government wants to move more into the private sector? I

don't understand the reason for the third audit; that's what I don't

understand. You've got one by the corporation, which has its own

auditors, and you will have the auditor-general. What's the third one?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, in response to both members, yes, there is the internal

audit, if you will. It's the audit which is ordered by the board. There

may well be an opportunity or a requirement or a desire on the part of

the government of the day to have an audit done externally by some firm

other than the corporation's audit in addition to the audit which the

auditor-general would undertake. That one could be on a specific aspect

of the Systems Corporation's financial function or on a much broader

basis. As we know, the auditor-general reviews and carefully studies

those sections of a corporation which she and her staff desire so to

do. It may be narrow; it may be complete. I've heard what the members

opposite have said. The intention here is to have the auditor-general

under the general heading of "person," and certainly the

auditor-general will be involved to the extent that she or her

successor would wish. In addition, there may well be the need for yet

another audit externally, quite apart from that which the board has on

a continuing basis.

MR. BARBER: What in current law prohibits the government from doing that without this amendment?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's mandatory.

MR. BARBER:

You have used other auditors for other purposes at other times. One

well remembers the famous Clarkson, Gordon report of 1976. You've done

it before. Did you do it without lawful authority then? Well, hardly.

It's simply the prerogative and the right of government to audit any of

its own functions; no one objects to that. We're not aware of a single

legal hurdle that would disenable you from doing what you say you want

to do.

The corporation currently has an auditor, Clarkson, Gordon. We currently have

an auditor-general who is not named in this section, although we are asked to

rely on the good intentions of the government. Now we're told there may

be a third audit. Assuming three audits are necessary in any case, why do you

need, through this section, such broad and general language? What argument would

you have against our proposal to specify it and name in particular the auditor-general?

We have confidence in that office and I'm sure you do too. We have such

confidence that we would prefer to see it named in the bill, and not simply

to be relied upon the good intentions of the government for its execution.

MR. LEVI:

We might get from the minister, presumably from what he said, that

there could be some concern about the financial operation of the

corporation leading to the possibility of doing a third audit. Nobody

is mucking with the books; it's just.... But I raised earlier that you

can obviate that by simply putting it on the

schedule of the Crown

corporations committee, where it would get a rather minute

scrutinization, because there is very adequate staff there. In my

opinion, the minister has a much better option than the one he's

suggesting here. I don't know of an example, frankly — maybe the

minister can tell us — of where a Crown corporation has an auditor, an

audit done by the auditor-general and where there has been a third one

brought in, unless we refer to what my colleague referred to, which was

in 1976 — and I don't know how you did that. But I don't quite see what

we're doing here in respect to making it possible for a third auditor —

I just don't see that.

The government operates by

order-in-council. The important thing is that it goes a little contrary

to what the Premier said about the function of Crown corporations, that

you have arm-length decisions and you build in sufficient kinds of

checks and balances to make sure that the public know what's going on.

You have built-in....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what is here.

MR. LEVI:

Yes, but you've already got

an act which covers the Crown corporations

reporting committee. Why do you want to disregard that and go into

something which is generally not the practice?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not disregarding it; I said it's a good idea. We'll took at it. But it's not in this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all members please address the Chair?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Through you, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this

section which would

permit us to deal with the Crown corporations reporting committee. I

give the undertaking that I shall certainly examine that. That

statement is given honourably.

MR. BARBER: In order

to enter into the record the opposition's commitment to the use and the

person of the auditor-general, rather than to the general language here

in this section, I would move an amendment to this bill at

section 24,

line 3, to read "and substituting the auditor-general" in place of the

former language: "and substituting a person appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." I so move. If the amendment is in

order, I would like to speak to it briefly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member can continue, before the ruling.

MR. BARBER:

The government has yet to present any case as to why they are denied by

statute the right to do an external audit. Apparently the government

feels they have to have that language in this section, because by

result of some other prohibition they can't do it.

[ Page

3571 ]

They've yet to make a case for that; I don't think they can make a

case for that, because by their own precedent — again one thinks of

Clarkson, Gordon in 1976 — they did it anyway, without the benefit of

law or reason.

Because they can do it in any case, we reject

the general language here and the lack of specificity and would much

prefer, and thus by amendment move, that the auditor-general be named

specifically as the replacement for the comptroller-general. I would

observe that that is precisely what the government itself did in

section 21 of this same bill and what the government proposes to do in

section 26 of this same bill. For the same reasons we support the

government's initiative in sections 21 and 26, we ask the government to

accept our amendment in

section 24.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the member for his comments. I just wish to advise him that the government does not accept the amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

MR. BARBER: In this amendment once again the explanatory note does not

in fact indicate the precise case. The explanatory note purports that this amendment

substitutes the auditor-general for the comptroller-general as auditor. In fact,

the language of this

section says: "and substituting 'a person appointed

by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.' " It is not necessary to restate

the same argument, but I will once again move an amendment, in this case to

section 25, line 2, which if approved would read "and substituting 'the

Auditor General' " in place of "and substituting 'a person

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.' " It is identical

to the language of the previous section, assuming it is in order.

want to make the case again that we are not content to rely in law on

the announced good intentions of any government. Certainly the Social

Credit Party would never rely on the supposed good intentions of the

New Democratic Party, nor do I think it is reasonable to expect this

opposition to rely on the government's good intentions. Both parties

should rely instead on common sense and good language in law. The

current language in this law is not adequate. It does not in fact name

the auditor-general and should. We have confidence that the

auditor-general can and should do the job under the Transit Services

Act. Presumably the government does but for some reason they have

failed to actually name the auditor-general and instead simply removed

the comptroller-general altogether and substituted the term "a person"

which could be any person, including Bernie Smith or Yvonne Cocke, eh?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

That is right. You don't like the second any better than we like the

first. The language is too broad. This

section is too general. It

should be made more specific and the language of the law should more

clearly spell out the intentions of the Legislature. The intentions are

apparently, on the government side, that the auditor-general be

responsible. Well, those are our specific intentions and thus we move

the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. Shall the amendment pass?

The nays have it.

MR. BARBER: Division.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals

of the House.

[ Page 3572 ]

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

section 27.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I think this should be entitled: "A

section to Remedy the

Premier's Faux Pas." This provides for the retroactive payment of a

member of cabinet to whom the Premier had no authority to pay a salary.

While I have the greatest admiration for my neighbour from Okanagan

North, who was the latest member of the cabinet and who has been

functioning without cabinet salary since the first of the year, I must

express my concern about retroactive legislation which now serves to

remedy an error which the Premier made in forming his cabinet.

should remind the Premier that a famous Prime Minister of Canada once

listed his occupation as cabinet-maker; that was Sir John A., I

believe. Even back in those days of the history of Canada the Prime

Ministers of the nation could count, and they provided well for their

colleagues. If one is to construct a cabinet, one should be able to

count and one should be able to guarantee one's colleagues payment for

their services. On the other hand, with the greatest affection to the

member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who has been performing

her duties as the Minister of Tourism....

I think the slogan

of the Minister of Tourism this year is: "Good show." A "Good show"

award and a button accompanying it should be extended to all people

involved in the hospitality and tourist industry in British Columbia

who have done something beyond the pale of their normal obligation to

promote the province and the economy. I would think that it might be

appropriate under these circumstances if we voted a "Good show" button

to the Minister of Tourism herself for performing the duties that she

has undertaken without pay. I am wondering if, in lieu of passing this

retroactive legislation to pay her her ministerial salary from last

January up to the present, it wouldn't be sufficient to just extend her

a "Good show" button, and let the people of the province place into

general revenue that ministerial salary which she was prepared to forgo

during these many months of her activities.

The Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has announced "a crude instrument of

restraint," as he termed it. We're going to freeze all of the hirings

in the public service. We're going to cut back on health care and all

those other crucial social programs. Just think, if we withdraw this

section giving retroactive salary to the Minister of Tourism we may be

able to hire a couple more people to dispense social services to the

people of the province of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Good show.

MR. KING:

I think that would be a really good show. So I'd like the Minister of

Tourism to stand up this morning and tell us whether she would be

prepared to accept the "Good show" button in lieu of the retroactive

salary.

Section 27 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 34, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

REVISED STATUTES

CORRECTION ACT, 1980

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

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have some problems with this amendment and I think for the

information of the committee I would like to read this amendment to

section 28. The first part,

section 5(a), amends section (1) by

striking out "not later than 90 days after the end of its fiscal year."

Therefore subsection (1) would read: "The commission shall submit

annually to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council (

a) a report of its

operations for the preceding fiscal year; (

b) a financial statement

showing its business for that fiscal year, in the form required by the

comptroller-general. "

Then it goes on in 5(b) "in

subsection (2)" of

section 28, to add to the end of that subsection

"but the commission need not submit its report sooner than 90 days

after the end of its fiscal year." I would like to read to you

section

28, subsection (2) as it would now read with that amendment. I would

ask that the minister, if he can, explain to me what it means, because

I certainly don't know. Subsection (2) of

section 28 would read: "The

report shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 15 sitting

days, following submission, of the session next following the end of

the fiscal year, but the commission need not submit its report sooner

than 90 days after the end of its fiscal year." Can anybody in this

committee tell me what that means?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, the first amendment to take out the words which would

oblige the commission to submit its report and statement within 90 days

has been introduced because of the time it has been found to take to

prepare such reports. It is increasingly the practice in dealing with

statements, particularly when audits are involved and financial

statements are required both in government and in the private sector,

to provide for time additional to 90 days.

The second

amendment was put in to ensure that while we would have an obligation

to file a report within 15 days following its submission, we also

accommodated the earlier amendment so that that couldn't be earlier

than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year.

The second amendment follows from the first. The second amendment does not affect the responsibility on the

[ Page 3573 ]

part of the minister to table that report with the House within 15 days following its submission to him.

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm quite aware of what the minister is trying to do with this

amendment, but I suggest to the minister that the wording is extremely

unwieldy and very difficult to interpret. I would urge that this

section be withdrawn and brought back in some kind of understandable

language, because as it reads now it is so unwieldy that it would be

extremely difficult to interpret. Certainly I recognize the intent of

what the minister's trying to do. He's trying to allow a little more

lead time — at least I think that's what he's trying to do — but he

doesn't do it with these words; they don't accomplish it. It leaves the

thing completely open to almost any kind of

interpretation. It's so

unwieldy that no one could know what it is really supposed to mean,

particularly when that first part of

section 1 is deleted, which takes

away any guidelines that you might have had. I think it's completely

open to misinterpretation, and I would urge that the minister withdraw

it so that it can be brought back in some kind of a revised form that

makes a little more sense.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: All I

can say is that I understand what it means and I'm advised that the

commission understands what it means. It's simply this: in each fiscal

year there will be a report and statement prepared by the commission,

and the ministry that has charge of this legislation has an obligation,

upon receipt of that report, to table it with this House within 15 days.

Sections 5 to 16 inclusive approved.

On the title.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In dealing with the title of this legislation I would like to advise

the committee that a concordance with respect to all of the revised

statutes has now been prepared with the active assistance of the Law

Society of British Columbia and the Canadian Bar Association, and has

been distributed to all subscribers to these statutes by the Continuing

Legal Education Committee. In addition there is under preparation a new

and extensive form of index which is being prepared by the Canadian Law

Information Council. The index will be analytical by concept, word and

subject matter. It is expected to be in print and distributed by

October of this year. British Columbia is the first province to move

into this new field of indexing, and I was advised yesterday that the

provinces of Ontario and Alberta will shortly be following the same

style.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 33, Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada