1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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, JUNE 15, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2615 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Access to Information Act (Bill 79) Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading –– 2615

Oral questions

Sale of Mount Stephen property. Mr. Barber –– 2615

Canadian submission to Habitat on unearned profits on land. Mr. Gibson ––

Seatbelt regulations. Mr. Wallace –– 2616

Fraud charges against BCR. Mr. Barrett –– 2617

Law programme at UBC for native Indians. Ms. Brown –– 2617

Government actions on unemployment. Mr. Lauk –– 2618

Reports

Reports 2, 3, and 4 of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills. Mr. Mussallem –– 2618

Statements

Law and order in Hedley. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2619

Mr. Macdonald –– 2619

Move of PWA head office to Alberta. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2619

Routine proceedings

Societies Act (Bill 47) Second reading.

Mr. Gardom –– 2620

Companies Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 76) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2620

Mr. Macdonald –– 2621

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2621

Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 69) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2622

Mr. Macdonald –– 2623

Mr. Lauk –– 2623

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2623

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 74) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2624

Judicial Review Procedure Act (Bill 44) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2624

Mr. Macdonald –– 2625

Mr. Wallace –– 2625

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2626

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 60) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2627

Mr. Barrett –– 2627

Mr. Gibson –– 2627

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2627

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 62) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2628

Mr. Macdonald –– 2628

Mr. Lauk –– 2628

Mr. Gibson –– 2629

Mr. Wallace –– 2629

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2630

Petroleum and Natural Gas

(1965) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 25) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2630

Mr. Barrett –– 2631

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2631

Municipal Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 53) Second reading.

Mr. Gibson –– 2632

Mr. Macdonald –– 2632

Mr. Wallace –– 2633

Mr. Bawlf –– 2633

Mr. Barber –– 2634

Mr. Lea –– 2637

Mr. Lockstead –– 2639

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2639

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 63) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2641

Mr. Barber –– 2641

Mr. Gibson — 2641

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2642

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 73) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2642

Mr. Wallace –– 2642

Mr. Nicolson –– 2644

Mr. Bawlf –– 2646

Ms. Brown –– 2646

Mr. Gibson I I –– 2647

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2648

Division on second reading –– 2649

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): It gives me both pride and pleasure

this afternoon to introduce my father, the Rev. D.D. Davidson, in the

gallery. I would ask the House to join with me in making him welcome

here this afternoon.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome Father Lancaster, who

led us in prayers today, an active and very highly regarded priest in

greater Victoria. I understand that he's going to be on a sabbatical,

and there are at least one or two of us around here who wish that we

also could take a sabbatical from time to time. But we wish him well

and it's very good to see him here.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I'm very

pleased that I was able to arrange seats for two members in the

gallery, two gentlemen who are not strangers to this House, Mr. Gordon

Dowding and Mr. Jim Gorst.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this

afternoon are two people who have meant a great deal to me in my

lifetime — I refer to my wife and my mother. I would ask the House not

only to welcome them, but also to be on their best behaviour while my

mother is in the House. (Laughter.)

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I have in the gallery

today Mrs. Don Douglas and her daughter Melanie. I might mention that

Mrs. Douglas is "the office manager for the city of Cranbrook, and has

been for many years. Would the House please welcome them here today?

Introduction of bills.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 79, Access to Information Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

SALE OF MOUNT STEPHEN PROPERTY

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My questions are to the Minister of Housing,

and they concern the Mount Stephen properties in Victoria. Can the minister

confirm that the advertisement, which appeared in the June 7 edition of the

Vancouver Journal of Commerce announcing that the Mount Stephen public housing

lands in Victoria are to be sold to private developers, appeared by mistake

more than two or three weeks before it was intended to appear?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's

interest in this particular project. I've indicated on two occasions

now that I will be making a statement. That statement is in

preparation; I have prepared a draft and I hope to have a full

statement for the House on the Mount Stephen matter within the next

sitting or two. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Answer it now.

MR. BARBER: In advance of that statement, I wonder if you

would be so good as to include in it answers to these questions as well

— and I'll be very brief: could you inform the House who authorized the

sale of the property and who ordered the accidental advertisement to

appear in the Journal of Commerce? Will you take that as notice as

well, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The phraseology puzzles me, Mr. Speaker. I

don't know that people order accidental advertisements, but I do take

the question as notice and will have a statement.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): You admit it was accidental, then.

MR. BARBER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I may continue on a

supplemental; the advertisement did appear and I am informed that it

should not have appeared. Someone must have ordered it, and presumably

the bill will be paid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You are becoming argumentative in presenting what should be a question.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is another matter

which I hope the minister might also take as notice and refer to in his

statement. It's very recent.

The council of the city of Victoria met in committee just this

morning and has demanded a full explanation of the Mount Stephen

matter. In committee they learned that the proposal call asked that

one-half acre of the lands be set aside for park or play space

development.

They further learned that the Department of Housing advised the developers....

[ Page 2616 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please state his question?

MR. BARBER: If I may, in order that the question be sensible, I'd preface it with a couple of remarks.

They learned that the department advised that the developers were

informed by the department that that property could, in fact, be turned

over to the city. The developers wouldn't be responsible for the park

but the city would. Needless to say the city has been further insulted

by this matter. The question is this: will you, if you intend to

proceed with the sale, rewrite the proposal call to compel the

developer to pay for the park himself and not place an additional

burden on the city of Victoria?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice and will be making a statement on this matter at the earliest possible time.

MR. LEA: Cover-up.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert has just used the word "cover-up," which is totally incorrect.

MR. LEA: If it isn't a cover-up, make it public.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've indicated, Mr. Speaker, that a

statement is in preparation. I could have rushed in here today with a

statement to satisfy the points made earlier, but on the basis of

questions from the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that....

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would ask the member to withdraw the word "cover-up."

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, the word "cover-up" in

itself is not an unparliamentary word, but if the member for Prince

Rupert was imputing a motive to the Minister of Housing when using that

word, then I would ask him to withdraw it.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, of course I wasn't. I was just trying

to find out why he was going to buy time and why he wouldn't make a

statement in this House now when he has the information. What is he

trying to cover up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

CANADIAN SUBMISSION TO HABITAT

ON UNEARNED PROFITS ON LAND

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, my question

is also for the Minister of Housing. The minister, I believe, was British Columbia's

representative on the Canadian delegation to Habitat. The Canadian delegation

approved the insertion of a statement which read, with respect to land sales:

"The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting

from changing use of land from public investment or decision, or due to the

general growth of the economy, must be subject to appropriate recapture."

Could I ask the minister if he supported this stand of the Canadian delegation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the

committee assigned to that particular aspect of the several principles

that were dealt with at Habitat. I was on Committee 1 and this was in

Committee 30.

I will be reporting to cabinet. I think that as far as the statement

is concerned, the hon. member would know that a statement of that sort

would provoke considerable disagreement and difference of opinion as

far as a number of members of the delegation are concerned.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the minister may

not have been a member of that particular committee but this was a

statement of the entire delegation, if I understand correctly. My

question was whether he supported that statement or not. It's very

simple one way or the other.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As a member of the delegation assigned by

cabinet, Mr. Speaker, I see it as my first duty to report to cabinet on

matters which were dealt with at Habitat, particularly declarations.

SEATBELT REGULATIONS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Could the minister tell the House if a

final decision has been taken as to the penalties which will be imposed

on drivers or passengers who do not wear seatbelts?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, this will be discussed when the legislation is being

introduced. A final decision has not been made at this moment.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, Mr.

Speaker, it's another of the situations where this kind of thing can be

discussed in the press but not in this House.

In view of the opinion expressed by the B.C. Automobile Association

that demerit points should not be imposed on drivers not wearing

seatbelts, has the minister taken any initiative to meet with the

[ Page 2617 ]

officials of BCAA to discuss this important aspect of the pending legislation?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, but I would be glad to meet with them if they so wish.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary then, Mr. Speaker. Since opinions

have also been expressed that imposing fines on passengers who do not

wear seatbelts would further clutter up the demand on already

overcrowded courts, has the minister had any discussions or will he be

having discussions with the courts or their representatives to

determine how valid a criticism that would be?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the

Attorney-General's office and the representatives of the police forces

in that connection.

FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST BCR

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to

direct a question to the hon. Attorney-General. I would like to know

from the hon. Attorney-General some specific information about the

court case between a Crown agency and M.E.L. Paving that your

department is partly involved with. The BCR is the Crown corporation,

Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General about the court case

between M.E.L. Paving and the B.C. Railway relating to charges of fraud

and conspiracy against the Crown corporation of the B.C. Railway

arising out of contracts signed in the spring of 1972. The trial was

set for May. The court registry now informs us that the case has been

postponed until October 4.

Can the Attorney-General tell the House why it was necessary to

delay this case of fraud and conspiracy which has been under

consideration since 1974?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): No, Mr. Member, I'll have to take the question as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Would you also take the following supplementary

questions? Was the case postponed at the request of the railway or was

the case postponed at the request of M.E.L. Paving? Can the minister

assure this House that this important case relating to fraud and

conspiracy charges will be heard fully in public court?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the last mentioned statement,

I'd certainly like to assure the hon. member that it has been the

practice of courts not only in this province but in this country to

hold their hearings in public, save and except in matters where it is

considered by the court on motion to be in the public interest that

they so not proceed.

I'm taking your question as notice, Mr. Member. I'm unaware of the

allegations which you are raising today, and I'll look into them.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not raising an allegation — as a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker — I'm just asking for information and your

opinion on a question on a serious charge of fraud and conspiracy

against a Crown agency.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's sub judice.

MR. BARRETT: It's not sub judice. Would you allow this to be settled out of court?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: It's not sub judice. I'll get your old definition of sub judice out from when you used to sit there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. minister has taken the question as notice. I would hope that he will bring the answer in as soon as possible.

LAW PROGRAMME AT

UBC FOR NATIVE INDIANS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is

also addressed to the Attorney-General. All of the native Indian

students, Mr. Attorney-General, who entered the University of B.C.

faculty of law in the programme of legal studies for native people were

failed at the end of this year's programme. Will the Attorney-General

be intervening as a result of the failure of this very important

programme?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't quite determine the full impact of

the hon. member's question. I don't think it is the responsibility of

this department to intervene in the method of examinations in this

province.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the

Attorney-General, that programme was set up in consultation or with the

support of the Department of the Attorney-General to right a historical

wrong in this province. All I am asking, Mr. Attorney-General, is

whether you will be intervening, now that the programme has failed, to

try and recapture it — the same way that you recaptured the aid for

developing countries fund?

[ Page 2618 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, I gathered

from her first question that it was the students who failed. Is that

correct — the students had failed?

MS. BROWN: When all the students fail, the programme has failed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, I see. We'll look into the programme.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

GOVERNMENT ACTIONS ON UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A question to the hon.

Minister of Economic Development. At a time when the lumber market is

improving, Mr. Herb Doman of Doman Industries is curtailing operations

at his Nanoose and Ladysmith mills, adding to an already massive

unemployment rate in the province of British Columbia. In view of the

fact that he is also a director of the British Columbia Development

Corp., can we interpret his moves as the government's policy to get the

provincial economy moving again?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I am quite sure that he

will interpret the move any way he feels fit, based on his past

experience as Minister of Economic Development.

MR. LAUK: Would the minister indicate what current programmes

are being implemented, at a time when everywhere else unemployment is

decreasing and it is increasing in this province? What kind of

programme is his department, and he, the Cardinal Richelieu of the

government, implementing today to help the unemployment rate go down?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, what the member is asking me

for is really a statement of the programmes and all the great things

this government is doing. If you would like me to start right now, I'm

quite prepared to stand on my feet for the next couple of hours and

tell him the positive initiatives which this great government is

taking. Every day new proposals are flowing into this government, new

proposals for new industries and new companies....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disrespectful again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Big fat zero — zero!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: In case the hon. members of the House are not

aware, during the exchange which just took place the bell rang ending

the question period.

The hon. member for Prince Rupert on a point of order, I believe.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House

for the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to

make a statement on what the government has done so far to stimulate

the economy in terms of the forest industry. I ask leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. It's not in line with the business of the House at the moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order, Hon. Members.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Presenting reports .

Mr. Mussallem from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills presented the committee's reports 2, 3, and 4, which

were read as follows and received:

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private

Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Report No. 2:

That the

preamble to Bill 50 intituled The Ukrainian Catholic

Eparchy of New Westminster Incorporation Act has been proved and the

bill ordered to be reported with amendments.

[ Page 2619 ]

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Report No. 3:

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private

Bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the

preamble to Bill 51 intituled British Columbia Association

of Colleagues Incorporation Act has been proved and the bill ordered to

be reported without amendments.

Your committee further recommends that the additional sum of $300

paid by the petitioners pursuant to standing order 98(3) be refunded.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Report No. 4:

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private

Bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the

preamble to Bill 52 intituled Vancouver Stock Exchange Act

Amendment Act, 1976 has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported

without amendments.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

George Mussallem,

Chairman.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I move the rules be suspended and the reports adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the 64th annual report of the superintendent of insurance.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave of the House, I would like to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

LAW AND ORDER IN HEDLEY

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. Members, this deals with the problem at

Hedley which was referred to in the House in earlier stages when

questions were raised. The problem there is not a new one. It is one

that has been occasioning over the past, short while; as a matter of

fact, the file indicates some correspondence to my predecessor.

Since the statement in the House, the member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) attended the area of May 30 and met

with a number of people and received some first-hand reports. On June

14, Inspector Fullerton of the B.C. Police Commission went to Hedley to

discuss problems with citizens, individually and in small groups. I am

pleased to announce that on June 1, the Princeton detachment has been

increased by one additional constable on a temporary basis which is

going to result in increased coverage for both Hedley and within the

total detachment area; the patrols have been increased, including

random night patrols. A staff sergeant has been sent to do an in-depth

study of the policing needs of Hedley and, on the basis of his study of

the policing needs of Hedley and, on the basis of his study and the

B.C. Police Commission's findings, consideration is going to be given

to increasing the Princeton detachment on a permanent basis by one or

two constables.

On Friday, June 25, a public meeting has been called at which time

Dr. Hogarth, the chairman of the B.C. Police Commission, will himself

attend to hear the views of the citizens. I think, as all the members

know, that these kinds of problems do not clear themselves up

overnight, but the actions that I have announced can be considered as

steps toward a long-term solution, and I think we all know that these

kinds of solutions are really best found in the community itself.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, we welcome

the initiative shown by the police commission, which I think is the way

to go in these things. I would like to add, however, that since my

Mazda blew up outside of Hedley and I had to push it into town, I

wonder if they could have a look at that at the same time. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to have leave to make a second statement, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

PACIFIC WESTERN AIRLINES MOVE

HON. MR. GARDOM: This deals with the situation of Pacific

Western Airlines. I'd like to draw to the attention of the hon. members

that on Monday of this week a statement of claim and a notice of motion

and affidavit were filed in the federal court seeking an order to

restrain the movement of Pacific Western Airlines operations from B.C.

to Alberta, pending the determination by the CTC of the outstanding

issues relating to the acquisition of the majority of shares of PWA by

the government. Since the proceedings were filed a wire has been

received from the secretary of the Canadian Transport Commission, and

I'd like to read it to the members:

RE APPLICATION BY THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA TO ENJOIN

OR RESTRAIN THE MOVE OF OFFICES BY PACIFIC WESTERN AIRLINES LTD. FURTHER TO

OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION I AM ADVISED THAT THIS APPLICATION IS BEING PLACED

ON AIR TRANSPORT COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION THURSDAY, JUNE 24.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): By leave, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 47.

[ Page 2620 ]

Leave granted.

SOCIETIES ACT

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, British

Columbia adopted its first Societies Act in 1920, and a number of

amendments were made from then until 1947 when rather an encompassing

revision was enacted. Major changes in the company law in the province

resulted from the 1973 Companies Act, and this bill is subsidiary to

and a satellite of those changes.

An in-depth study resulting in the proposed legislation was

undertaken under the chairmanship of Mr. Gerald H. Cross, QC, of this

department with Mr. Richard Berg and Mr. H. Craven, CA as independent

consultants. Legislation in other provinces, some of the United States

and England were considered in the formulation of the present bill

along the following fines: that the legislation be stated in simple,

modern language; that small societies with uncomplicated corporate

structures and activities of little economic significance be

incorporated and maintained with relative ease;' that large societies,

complex ones and those of, shall we say, considerable economic

significance receive a more sophisticated legislative provision for

incorporation and more stringent regulation of their affairs. For

consistency, Mr. Speaker, the general style of draftsmanship and

terminology of the Societies Act has followed that of our present

Companies Act.

Certain of the major changes, as I've indicated, will be these:

simplified procedures, uncomplicated forms of incorporation and routine

reports, plus a comprehensive set of bylaws as provided in the statute.

Responsibility of directors and officers is more clearly articulated;

relevant sections set forth duties of honesty, good faith and degree of

care to be taken. Directors may be required to furnish security for the

faithful discharge of their duties, and may be indemnified for any

liability incurred as a result of honest mistakes.

There is a means for removal of a director during his term of

office. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed; otherwise any gained

profits will belong to the society. Procedures are also available for

persons to apply to the court to upset unresolved conflict situations.

There are more stringent requirements for reporting societies, and

again this is a parallel proviso to the 1973 Companies Act which itself

made provision for a very special and higher level of financial

disclosure.

Reporting societies will be those which themselves decide so to be;

there will be those requiring licences or consents from the

superintendent of insurance or other officers or ministers of the Crown

to incorporate, and those which are subsidiaries, and those which the

registrar of companies orders to be reporting because of their large

membership or other special circumstances.

They will be required to prepare and issue comprehensive financial

statements, have professionally qualified auditors and report to the

registrar upon acquisitions or dispositions of subsidiaries. There is

also a reinforced right for members: 10 per cent of the members of the

society will have the right to require directors to call a meeting for

any special purpose, and in the event the directors do not do so, then

the members may take that course themselves and at no cost to the

directors,

I think the members will be interested in these statistics.

According to current record from the office of the registrar of

companies, there are about 8,700 societies in B.C. with upwards of

85,000 members. In order that they, the general public, the legal

profession, the members of this House and others concerned and

interested in the conduct and in the business of the societies will

have an opportunity to consider this bill, it is proposed that it will

not go beyond adjourned second reading at this session. A very similar

measure was followed when the new Companies Act was first introduced in

1973, and it was found to be most helpful.

So it is my proposal this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to adjourn this

debate myself upon sitting down. If any of the members have comments —

and I would certainly welcome the general public to carefully take a

look at the bill — would they direct them to the attention of Mr.

Gerald H. Cross, who is the chairman of the corporation legislation

committee of this department in Victoria. As I say, this is a similar

procedure to that adopted before with the Companies Act, Mr. Speaker; I

think it's appropriate in the circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 76.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1976.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in second reading I am not

going to belabour the various items contained in these amendments. They

are considerably technical. I think the House would perhaps be best

served by addressing itself to the points during the committee stage.

I would just like to have a couple of introductory remarks and

inform the members of what has occasioned here. The present Companies

Act was passed, as we will all recall, in 1973. Since that time a

member of the staff, Mr. Sheppard, has been working

[ Page 2621 ]

in cooperation with a committee of the bar of B.C.

comprising Mr. Lundell, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Huberman.

They have been reviewing the Act essentially on a continuing basis and

have considered a variety of comments from the bar, from the judiciary,

from the accounting profession and from businessmen in the province.

As the result of those recommendations and as a result of the

committee considering the same, we are now making amendments to the Act

to bring the statute into line with common business practice. I think

it will be the intention of this government, as it has been of all

governments in the past, to keep its Companies Act current and up to

date.

There are a couple of items that are new and are different. I would

like to refer them to the hon. members. The bill contains a provision

which allows companies to transfer in and out of the province.

Previously if a company was operating in Ontario and it wished to move

to B.C. and discontinue its operations in Ontario, the only way it

could do that would be to register extraprovincially in this province.

It could never be treated as a B.C. company. By virtue of the

amendment, if a company wishes to move from Ontario to B.C. It can take

advantage of this provision and transfer the registration of the

company to British Columbia so it will become a British Columbia

company with all the rights and the privileges that are allowed a B.C.

company under the Act.

The bill has expanded the number of people who can apply to the

court for relief from oppression under

section 221 to include

individuals who are beneficial owners of shares. This

section deals

with applications to the court pertaining to injustices allegedly

experienced by members of the company — directors or what-have-you. It

provides the mechanism for the appointment of an inspector that the

affairs be properly conducted.

An interesting provision is that if a director of a company has a

registration under the Securities Act and he loses that registration by

virtue of action taken by the superintendent of securities or the

Securities Commission by virtue of improper activities, then he loses

his right to continue on as a director of the company.

The bill amends the Act to allow a director or an auditor of a small

company to be a liquidator of that company. It will allow the registrar

of companies to make orders amending mortgages or other documents filed

with his office rather than having to have people go to the expense and

time and inconvenience of a court order.

A few other points here: it tightens up the requirements for a

company of keeping a complete records office in the province. There are

different provisions concerning the filings of notices of directors,

for example; there are different provisions concerning the time for an

annual general meeting. Amendments will permit the appointment of

additional directors between meetings of members and there are improved

mechanisms for service of legal documents.

The amendments now require that an individual cannot serve a legal

document on the company by simply serving a receiver. It is also

necessary to serve the registered office or a director. Requirements

are improved dealing with extraprovincial companies' maintaining

records offices. Dealing with those companies which have to file

financial statements with the registrar of companies, provision is now

within the amendment to make it abundantly clear that such statements

must cover the full previous fiscal year and that they be placed before

the shareholders.

So as I say, it is technical, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps it could

be handled a little better in committee stage. If between now and

committee any of the members of the House have any specific questions

concerning any of the individual items, we will do our level best to

answer them.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I agree

that the best place for questions would be in committee, because all

the sections cover different matters. I'm pleased, however, that the

cumbersome procedure for extra-provincial incorporation of companies is

being done away with and there are some other pluses in the bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I know that the front benches are a little bit nervous today,

but they should move an order of this House referring to the last

debated bill to a committee; otherwise, it would be a good idea, I

believe, if the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) were to move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day and be referred to a committee

at the next sitting. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank my learned friend for his

advice and counsel. Thank you very much. (Laughter.) I'm glad he wasn't

retained. I could never afford that, though.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 2622 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 69.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(COURT RULES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I have to readily admit that

there's an awful load within this particular bill. It contains

reference to 49 statutes and indeed a larger number of amendments. The

reason for it is this, hon. members. The new rules of court for both

the supreme and the county court have been approved by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with their effective date being January

3, 1977, next year.

They were recommended by a committee of draftsmen who worked in very

close liaison with a committee of judges and bar review committee of

practising lawyers. I may say that this has been a seven-year exercise

and a great deal of study and hard work has been put into the project

by almost innumerable people, and I would very much like to both thank

and congratulate them upon their efforts.

I would refer to some of the highlights here, Mr. Speaker, and they

are rather lengthy but I'll endeavour to be as short as I can.

The drafting committee recommended the use of more up-to-date

language and terminology in the rules and the simplification of many of

the existing procedures. In addition to the actual revision of these

rules of court the drafting committee identified a large number of

statutory provisions which would have to be amended so that the new

terminology and simplified procedures of the new rules could work.

What we're doing today, Mr. Speaker, is ensuring that the language

of the statutes and the language of the rules court will be able to

effectively mesh.

The amendment proposed in the bill fall into several general

categories. The first is language. We tried to avoid archaic legal

jargon wherever possible, and phrases, for example, such as "suits,

cases and matters" have been eliminated in favour of the general word

"proceeding." A writ of fieri facias has been renamed "a writ of

seizure and sale." Another example of change is that the statutory

provision of describing a procedure to get before the court merely

states now that there's a right to make "an application" to the court

as opposed to having a multitude of procedures.

As the result of a variety of statutory formulae, confusion arose in

the past as to the power of a local judge of the court to hear certain

matters, especially in chambers, so rather than now referring to an

application to the court, or to a judge of the court, or to a judge,

the recommendation is that the statute simply state a right to apply to

the court.

A number of obsolete provisions have been repealed. I'd like to

refer to some of the procedural changes. The procedure for commencing a

matter in the court has been simplified so a person now attempting to

get in front of the court need only choose between a writ of summons

and an originating application.

There have have been important amendments to the Evidence Act which

I know the solicitors in the House will be interested in. In short, the

amendments modify the present law with respect to the way in which a

medical doctor gives evidence and applies that law to the evidence of

all experts. A statement in writing setting out the opinion of the

expert is required to be given to the other side at least 14 days

before he testifies; then the court may accept the statement in writing

without requiring the expert to appear, although any other parties of

the lawsuit may require the expert to be called so that he may be

cross-examined. What has happened with this amendment, hon. members, is

we now have a similar practice for all expert witnesses, as was

heretofore restricted only to those In the medical field.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rights of doctors are the same, though.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, they're within...they're maintained as

before, hon. member, in a similar situation as the practice you were

accustomed to over your many tortuous and hard years at the bar.

Section 22 of the Infants Act is of interest. It's been recast to

clarify the procedure for service of documents on people who have not

attained their majority. I'd like to refer to the county court rules,

which, for practical purposes, have been greatly diminished — almost

eliminated — because now we have only one set of rules for both the

county court and the supreme court.

A few of the existing county court rules, which are not applicable

to the supreme court, have been recommended to be placed in the County

Court Act, and you'll see this within the bill, so there will not be a

necessity any longer for a separate set of county court rules.

As example of one item where the relief is maintained and put into

the statute, as opposed to being in the rules, is that which would

allow a plaintiff to abandon a portion of his claim which is in excess

of the monetary jurisdiction of the county court.

The next item I was going to refer to is one of some interest. For

years now, B.C. has had a provision both in the Supreme Court Act and

in the rules of court to the appointment of a master, and because of a

variety of difficulties, this concept has never been brought to light.

And B.C. has never had a master, although most of the other provinces of

[ Page 2623 ]

Canada have a judicial officer performing this very

role. We think this concept is indeed worth trying, and we also feel

that by restricting the activities of this master, essentially a master

in chambers, to interlocutory matters, the constitutional difficulties

can be overcome.

Dealing with court administration, the Supreme Court Act is being

amended to provide for both a registrar and a chief court

administrator, and it's hoped by divorcing the responsibility for

administrative services to the courts from the responsibility of

carrying out the quasi-judicial duties, the quality of both

administration and quasi-judicial will be improved.

There are certain subsequent matters which require the approval of

the Legislature, and I would say that this problem was solved in 1943

by having the Legislature approve and validate the rules of court in

section 4 of the Court Rules of Practice Act, so the present bill uses

the same solution as occasioned then by amendment to

section 4 of the

Court Rules of Practice Act, referring to the new rules of court.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speech!

HON. MR. GARDOM: A few more puffs here, Mr. Member.

There is now a discretionary jurisdiction to the court to direct the

sale of property of proceedings under an agreement for sale of

mortgage, and that has been by virtue of an amendment to the Laws

Declaratory Act, which clearly states that both the county and the

supreme court will have jurisdiction there. And I would again say, as I

said at the outset in talking about that other bill, this is a mighty

complicated bill — 49 statutes. The intent is to dovetail the statutes

with the supreme court rules which will be coming into effect in

January, 1977.

I would like to say one thing about that again. We've deliberately

picked that day in order to give the bar and the bench adequate time to

consider that which will be occasioning in this session, and the

results of the order-in-council. If they have any suggestions or

comments, indeed, they would be welcome.

I move second reading on it.

MR. MACDONALD: Once again, I think this bill could be

considered in detail in committee when the hon. members of the House

will have as good a chance to understand it as they had before the

Attorney-General spoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ohhh! Shame! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I, too, would like to congratulate those

individuals who worked tirelessly over the many years to bring about

these changes in procedure and so on — the court rules of practice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Going back to school?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I'm going to have to to learn those changes.

A lot of people out there, Mr. Speaker — and this may come as a

surprise to you — don't appreciate the full effect on the, practice of

law with respect to those clients that these rules will have benefit

toward.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

MR. LAUK: It will cut down costs in time and fees, and so on...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: ...and, as you well know, there's no lawyer in this chamber that wishes to supply his pension out of antiquated court rules.

Mr. Speaker, I have another point to raise in the debate in

principle on this omnibus bill, and that's that the recent bar meeting

in Victoria alarmed a few local trial lawyers with respect to the Law

Reform Commission of Canada's report and the new proposed national

evidence Act.

We were considering changes in rules of evidence. Some people were

critical that members of the bar made personal statements about those

who drafted this new codified evidence Act, when in fact it was by

reason of the fact alone that these people were academics, and

unpractised lawyers, that they would recommend a system of evidentiary

rules in criminal courts that would bring about an American system of

evidence. If there's anything that we Canadians think is better than in

the United States — and there may be other things — it is that our

court system brings justice without the kinds of delays we see in the

courts in the south, that we have better evidentiary rules overall, and

that we don't need a group of academics back east telling us it's not

the case.

We don't need those new changes, and I think that I, for one, would

like to publicly associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of

the criminal justice subsection committee of the Canadian bar here in

British Columbia, Mr. H.A.D. Oliver, and say that no self-respecting

defence lawyer Father Lancaster knows of whom I speak in this

jurisdiction would have any truck or trade with the new proposed

evidence Act. I am sure this relates to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I haven't seen such a marvellous exercise of seagulling since the former

[ Page 2624 ]

Speaker was here, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 69, Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules) Amendment Act, 1976,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. GARDOM: Bill 74, Mr. Speaker, is the omnibus bill

from the Department of the Attorney-General. It covers amendments to

some 25 statutes. The explanatory notes, I think, are full and

complete. I would ask all hon. members to address themselves to the

matter and I think that, again, this could be far better considered in

committee stage. I accordingly move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 74, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this Act emanates from a very

comprehensive report by the B.C. Law Reform Commission. It is highly

important legislation and most complimentary to the civil rights of an

individual because it's designed to ensure that a citizen may not be

unlawfully or mistakenly dealt with by an administrative board or

tribunal exercising statutory powers without that citizen having

recourse to the curative powers of the supreme court.

The proposed legislation will cover the spectrum of pretty well all

of these statutorily established boards and tribunals in the province,

save and except those that are specifically excepted from judicial

review as provided within their own statutory authority.

The existing law is highly complicated and in many cases antiquated.

Today there are many differing forms of procedure for administrative

review by the court. It has not been uncommon for an applicant having

been subject to an administrative abuse to have proceeded to the court

for relief only to have found, not that he should have not been

entitled to the relief, but that he happened to ask for it in the

improper form and, for that reason, the court was unable to assist. I'd

say, Mr. Speaker, that it used to be pretty much of a pigeon-hole

exercise, and technical postures were the order of the day. Now it's

the intention of this bill to remove such procedural impediments to the

due course of justice.

The legislation will mean that, per se, this procedure will replace

the four prerogative writs, certiorari, where an administrative

tribunal acted in excess or abuse of its jurisdiction, or contrary to

the rules of natural justice, or where there was an error of law on the

face of the record. It was open to a person to initiate a writ of

certiorari and come to the court through that particular approach.

It will also eliminate the writ of prohibition, which prevented

tribunals from acting or continuing to act in excess or abuse of

jurisdiction or contrary to the rules of natural justice. It will

eliminate mandamus, which would compel the performance of a public duty

owed to a person who has so entitled. It would further do away with quo

warranto, where a person could be removed from an improper use of a

position or of an office.

I'd like to stipulate, Mr. Speaker, that, in effect and in spirit,

these traditional remedies will certainly continue but that now there's

going to be one uniform and readily defined procedure. This will be by

a petition to the court under an application for judicial review.

There are also some substantive changes, and I'd like to refer to

those. Under the former procedure where, say for an example, an

arbitrator had made a recommendation that it was beyond his

jurisdiction, the court didn't have any choice but to quash his

decision, resulting in the need for a complete rehearing. Now this bill

will rectify that kind of an inadequacy, and the court will now be

permitted to remit the matter back to the arbitrator for

reconsideration and permit him to make a fresh decision within the

bounds of his corrected jurisdiction.

Also, as another example, under the earlier law where a tribunal

failed to comply exactly with the details in a statute, it was possible

to challenge how that power was exercised, but once again with the

court not having any option but to quash the findings of that tribunal.

This bill is curating, and the court will be allowed to validate the

exercise of the power, providing it was not any substantial wrong, nor

any miscarriage of justice occurred since he can validate and return

back, notwithstanding there might have been a technical defect in the

lower stage through the administrative tribunal.

Now the machinery necessary for bringing this uniform application for judicial review is already in

[ Page 2625 ]

place, once again by the passage of the supreme

court rules. So it's contemplated, Mr. Speaker, that this bill itself

will not be proclaimed until such time as necessary when the supreme

court rules come into effect on January 3 of next year.

The reform, so far, has only been located in two other jurisdictions

— in Ontario in 1971 and in New Zealand in 1972. I'm informed that

they've had very good success with the procedure.

In closing I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this will very

greatly enhance the ability of an individual to be dealt with quickly

and fairly in today's-society which, as we all know, is becoming

increasingly regulated. I think it's a first-class measure, if I may

say so.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, clearly the bill should be

supported, although it abolishes some of the old Latin on which I used

to make a pretty good living — certiorari, quo warranto, mandamus

prohibition — and those technical procedures will now be simplified.

I'm a little concerned that what's called the private clause is

going to continue to have a life. I know it's a technical subject to

discuss, but in many of the statutes it said "no court shall overrule

or look at us or our procedures no matter what," and I think that all

of them should be subject to this kind of judicial review.

The other question I don't know the answer to — and perhaps the

Attorney-General in committee could give me the answer — is: should not

the Arbitration Act be looked at in this relation to this Act, because

there you have a procedure for the review of arbitration proceedings,

and I just wonder whether this covers the same ground. Perhaps he could

let us know in committee.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm the last person

to even claim to understand some of the technical language that the

Attorney-General referred to and which is being removed from this bill.

But one thing I do know is that the man in the street is becoming more

and more concerned that his rights to question various arms of

government in the form of these tribunals, commissions, boards — you

name it, they're all over the place — and his or her right to challenge

these decisions has been becoming more difficult.

Perhaps related to the point I made at the start of my comments,

that the individual has sometimes difficulty even understanding what

his rights really are, then to embark upon the jungle of legal jargon

and rules and regulations is formidable and enough to dissuade even the

stoutest heart. So it seems to me very clear from the minister's

introduction of second reading that this bill is a sincere attempt by

the government to make not only easier but more straightforward and

more readily comprehensible the avenues of approach which the

individual can have in relation to various arms of government.

I realize that the Attorney-General explained that this does not

apply to certain authorities which are set up by virtue of their own

statute — and in particular he mentioned the Workers Compensation

Board. While this is not the place to debate that particular statute, I

would pass the comment that I hope the Attorney-General in the months

and maybe years ahead will review the question of the need, perhaps,

for even workers' compensation legislation to be reviewed in the same

light as he has obviously reviewed these boards and tribunals to which

this bill does apply, because when a person lodges a claim with the

Workers Compensation Board he or she is automatically giving up any

right of access to the courts at a later date, no matter how many

mistakes might be made in the meantime by various levels of

administration in the Workers Compensation Board.

While this bill very clearly relates only to these various boards

and tribunals that are not set up by a specific statutory authority,

and while it is a step in the right direction, I hope that the caucus

meeting going on at the moment in the front benches is not distracting

the Attorney-General from my very earnest plea....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes — all is not well with the WCB is the motto.

I'm saying that while I understand in your introduction, Mr.

Attorney-General, that this bill does not apply to such authorities as

the Workers Compensation Board, I'm hoping that in the future you will

review the need for the citizen to perhaps have the same kind of access

and review of Workers Compensation Board decisions as will apply to

some of these other boards and tribunals being covered by this bill,

because when a person in good faith presents a complaint to the Workers

Compensation Board, he or she is automatically giving up the right of

any further access to appeal mechanisms other than the appeal

mechanisms included within the Workers Compensation Act itself.

I know from direct experience how human and fallible are many

individuals involved in doing what they believe to be in the best

interest of an individual. Those individuals make mistakes just the

same way as individuals on arbitration boards or various quasi-judicial

bodies. When the appeal mechanisms provided under the Workers'

Compensation Act are exhausted, the individual has nowhere else to go.

He certainly cannot go to the courts. I am not satisfied that all the

procedures of review within the Act are adequate.

But more specifically relating to the positive aspects of this bill, I am delighted that the minister

[ Page 2626 ]

obviously realizes that legislation is intended not

only to serve people but to be understood by people and to be readily

accessible to by people. The symbolic abolition of many of these Latin

terms, I think, is to be applauded. I think that the general spirit and

intent which the minister outlined in introduction of second reading of

this bill is the kind of progressive — one might even say liberal...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. WALLACE: ...thinking that we would support and encourage

in the sessions ahead, assuming that the Attorney-General realizes this

is just a start in a reforming process in regard to legislation

affecting the rights and civil rights in particular of individuals.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if some of the more specific points might be

better debated in committee, but I do feel that in general terms this

is an excellent bill. If the minister could give some kind of response

in winding up debate regarding my comments on future policy in regard

to such pieces of legislation as the Workers' Compensation Act, I would

be most grateful.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to

respond to the question from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), who queried as to whether or not this would have any effect

on the Arbitration Act. This, of course, refers to the prerogative

writs, Mr. Member, which were in use against statutory bodies and will

continue to be restricted to that. But of course the common law motion

to quash the decision of private arbitration boards will still remain

within the common law. The common law has not been altered to that

extent. The only thing that has been removed has been the prerogative

writ; in their place we have established this judicial review procedure.

I'd like to also thank the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for their comments

in support, because it is innovative legislation. I very much agree

with the statement so well articulated by the member for Oak Bay

vis-à-vis having legislation that will not only do the job but which

the general public can understand.

I would like to refer to the privative clause that he referred to,

which is

section 4 of the Act, without getting into the matter in

detail. I think the hon. member was being a little prophetic; I don't

recall that I talked about the Workers' Compensation Act. He is

perfectly correct that that is one statute that would be excluded from

this particular bill, as would be the Labour Code. There is a statement

in the Workers' Compensation Act that the finding is final and

conclusive and is not open to question or review in any court. In the

Labour Code it says: "The Labour Relations Board in respect of some

matters has and shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction to determine the

extent of its jurisdiction on those matters or determine any fact or

question of law that is necessary to establish its jurisdiction." I

think the hon. member has made a good point. It's a very difficult

area. It might be able to be cured in a manner different, than

including it in a statute such as this.

I think, hon. members, that this is a matter that we intend to give

consideration to over the months ahead — that is, perhaps, the

establishment of a rule of procedure in administrative tribunals, which

is really not as new as sliced bread nor as old as the wheel, because

we find such procedures in other common law countries. It is certainly

something that we could give a great deal of thought to in this

province. If there were established rules of administrative procedure,

it could well cure some of the difficulties which the hon. member has

referred to.

But then again on the other side of the coin, we know that there has

been in the past the greatest of complaint by society that one should

not be getting into a pigeonhole exercise, which this bill is improving

upon and doing away with. It found, for example, in the proceedings

before the Labour Relations Board that they are handled, I think,

perhaps far more effectively on an informal basis subject to what rules

they intend to impose themselves as opposed to a rigid code. I think if

we moved into the area of a rigid code that would be retrogressive.

I thank the member very much for his comments. I shall certainly consider them.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the bill be

referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next

sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we had better have second reading first.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought I moved that when I stood up the first time. That was so long ago....

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, Mr. Attorney-General, we have to

have the motion. The question is second reading of Bill 44, Judicial

Review Procedure Act.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for

keeping me on track. I'm just trying to get through the business of the

people as quickly as I

[ Page 2627 ]

possibly can.

Bill 44, Judicial Review Procedure Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 60.

CREDIT UNIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter

which perhaps could be best considered in committee. Again it is

technical, but I would like to make a few opening remarks.

In the spring session of last year a new Credit Unions Act was

passed by the Legislature, and I'd say a good job was done by the

former administration in this regard. During the past year the new Act

has been reviewed in the light of day of practical experiences, and

that review has been conducted by the B.C. Central Credit Union, the

superintendent of credit unions, and Mr. Sheppard, associate deputy

minister of this department. That group also had discussions with the

credit union reserve board, and all of the amendments have been agreed

to by the individuals and groups that I've referred to.

The amendments are of a housekeeping nature, to correct problems of

interpretation and other practical problems which have arisen since the

proclamation of the Act. Some of the examples are these, Mr. Speaker:

There is an amendment to clarify prohibitions against overdrafts,

which I'm sure that none of the members in this House would ever run

into.

There is an amendment to allow a credit union to rebate excess

profits to the purchasers of homes which were built under a credit

union project, without the credit union having to face federal tax

complications.

There is an amendment to clarify that only 10 per cent of the assets of a credit union can be invested in a subsidiary.

Another clarifies that reserves of the credit union cannot be held in the form of mortgages purchased in the market.

A further one allows a subsidiary of a credit union to qualify as a member.

One more permits two amalgamating credit unions to use one common insurance carrier on amalgamation.

Another limits the circumstances under which credit unions can invest trust funds in their own securities.

Another one deals with the transmission of deposits and death under the provisions of our Succession Duty Act.

In B.C. we have today about 178 credit unions, Mr. Speaker, with a

membership of nearly 600,000. I'm sure that the bill will be looked

upon with a great deal of interest by them.

Accordingly I move second reading.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

before passing this bill I wonder if the Attorney-General could give us

the report prepared by the credit unions on a possible cooperation of a

financial institution with the provincial government so that we could

discuss that report.

We'd need to know what the government's policy is on that report. As

you know, the report has been kept secret, perhaps even from you, and

it may even alter your approach to this legislation.

I would ask the Attorney-General if he would let us know that that

hidden report will be available to the House so that we can read it and

more intelligently relate it to this particular legislation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano) ; Mr. Speaker, I would agree

with the Attorney-General that this is a bill that should best be discussed

in committee. I just wonder if the Attorney-General could give the House the

assurance before he moves second reading that the provisions of this bill in

substance have been discussed with the credit union movement and have generally

been found to be acceptable.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response, first of all, to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), I would suggest he direct his

question to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe.) In response to

the hon. Liberal leader, this bill has been vetted through the B.C.

Central Credit Union, through the superintendent of credit unions,

through the associate deputy minister of this department, Mr. Dennis R.

Sheppard and we've also had discussions with the Credit Union Reserve

Board. My information is that all of the amendments have been agreed to

by all of the groups concerned.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 60, Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2628 ]

LEGAL PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this bill again is one that I think perhaps can be best considered by the members during the committee stage.

Essentially, it deals with a change of certain dates for elections,

and also with a very interesting provision which will empower the

benchers — and perhaps more specifically the discipline committee of

the benchers — to inquire, if necessary, into the competence of a

member of the bar and suspend him, if necessary, or require him to take

additional training to improve his competency. I suggest that from now

on, Mr. Speaker, the phrase "learned friend" will have to mean what it

says.

I think perhaps notwithstanding the very personal trepidations of

myself and my four legal colleagues in, the House, this measure does

have the support of the bar; it's comparable to standards requirements

in other professional statutes — the Medical Act, the accountancy Act,

even the Hairdressers Act — so I think the lawyers are really just

coming into step. I think the measure will receive the acclaim of the

general public.

There have been considerable discussions by the bar in hearings over

the past few years on the question of competence and specialization,

and it is their decision to move ahead with this procedure, and the

government is supporting it. I would address myself to moving second

reading after I have heard from my colleagues.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, some of the legal members of this

House might be a little bit concerned about that provision that a

lawyer henceforth has to be competent — not necessarily mentis, but

competent — and that's really a break for the public if it's carried

out. (Laughter.)

But when Adrian and I were looking at this kind of legislation in

the spring of 1976, Adrian was suggesting that perhaps there should be

a lay member put on the benchers, one or two, to protect the public

interest in the legal profession. I thought that was a very good

suggestion. I suppose I'm not really puzzled as to why it hasn't

appeared in this bill at the present time, but maybe that sheet was

lost.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker, it would be a fine thing

indeed if, by passing a law that says that all lawyers will be

competent, that in fact tomorrow morning, after the law was made law,

they would be. It says in the amendments to the Legal Professions Act

that the benchers are going to decide as to who is competent. Well,

there are some uncharitable members of the bar who would ask: "Who is

going to judge the competence of the benchers?"

MR. BARRETT: Shame! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I think that'a a legitimate question to ask, because they're elected, most often than not, by popularity....

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they switch parties, too?

MR. LAUK: There's only one party with the lawyers, except for a handful of us brave types.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the coalition party. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: That's the Liberal Party. There's only one access to the bench, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, there's two accesses to the cabin.

But seriously, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General said he has some

trepidation in bringing this forward. Can it be misused? I say, after

reading this statute, it can be misused if you have a bencher group....

Benchers, for those of you who don't know what that is, is the ruling

body of the bar association of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that like a cabinet?

MR. LAUK: They're made up of lawyers and lawyers only, and

they're elected to those positions. There is no reason to believe that

any bencher is competent or incompetent. They don't go through any

tests of competence. They're elected as the ruling body of the bar

association.

Now what if, heaven forbid, all the members of the benchers were of one political party and one political faith?

MR. WALLACE: Impossible.

MR. LAUK: What if they wanted to use this

section to find a

lawyer who was practising law, but who was of an opposing political

party and political faith, incompetent? I wonder what would happen, Mr.

Speaker, if this was improperly used, and I'm not for any minute

suggesting that the present benchers of the law society would do that.

But we don't know what's going to happen in the future. Events change,

social circumstances change, and can the public rely on the political,

philosophical and moral integrity of a bar of the lawyers in that

community if they are subject to this kind of big club over their heads?

We know what goes on in the Soviet Union, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You know better than

[ Page 2629 ]

most.

MR. LAUK: I don't know as well as you do. You have the....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. You know more about totalitarian

government, Mr. Attorney-General, than this side of the House, and that

seatmate of yours, with her new Genghis Khan bill taking away powers

from the Legislature...you ask her about totalitarian government.

But getting back to my uninterrupted discussion of this bill, it's

important to note that in the Soviet Union they have similar boards of.

competence, and they have similar boards that decide whether a person

is insane. Their definition of whether a person is insane or not is

whether he believes in communism. If he believes in communism, he's

sane; if he doesn't, he's insane.

Now what if someday some group of benchers, personnel who make up

the bench, change in the many, many years to come and they use this

tremendously powerful instrument for other than reasons of having

competent and high standards within the bar — very dangerous. There is

no provision for the protection of individual lawyers and therefore for

the protection of the public. Who is to judge the benchers, Mr.

Speaker? What appeal is there? What protections are there for this kind

of political misuse of these vast powers? I am not stating arguments

that have occurred to me on the moment. These arguments have been used

to delay, at least, the passage of these provisions for many years.

Those questions should be answered.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. first member for Vancouver

Centre has raised some very serious questions, but I would have

thought, in observing the legal profession, that by the time any bar in

British Columbia, as a whole, has become so corrupt and venal and

unconstitutional as the hon. member suggested, our liberties would long

since have vanished in other ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: They're about to. Have you seen Grace McCarthy's new Act?

MR. GIBSON: It seems to me, on the other hand, that there is

a great deal of merit in the case for some maintenance of professional

standards and the ability to enforce that maintenance. I believe that

other bodies, such as the medical profession, have such powers and they

haven't been abused. But as a backstop to ensure the wise and judicious

use of these powers, I would like to suggest to the hon. member and to

the Attorney-General that perhaps the time has come to consider in a

very serious way a greater public input and public representation in

the governing body of the legal profession. Taking up the cry again of

the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)....

MR. MACDONALD: That's what Adrian was saying.

MR. GIBSON: He raised it earlier in this debate and

reiterated what Adrian Wong used to argue so eloquently outside of this

chamber. It is important, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that the sunshine of public opinion be let into the governing

body of the legal profession. I hope that by this time next year we'll

see another Legal Professions Amendment Act which will provide for

members of the public to sit with the benchers in their important

duties, to bring before that august body and into that august body the

sense of public interest, which is, of course, already there, and

public representation, which presently is not.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to associate my remarks

with those of the Liberal leader, in much the same terms. The public is

concerned about the various boards and tribunals we discussed in

another bill, the rights and the protection of their rights in that

regard, but at the same time the public is showing a much closer

interest, and rightly so. The so-called self-governing bodies such as

the doctors, lawyers and others, who have a great deal of authority

under the statutes of this province to discipline themselves.... I know

that many professional people in the respective professions — and I am

certainly speaking for the medical profession — are not disposed to

having a member of the public as part of the council of the College of

Physicians and Surgeons in British Columbia. I feel in the strongest

possible way that if professionals, such as doctors, believe in the

wisdom of self-governing professions, they should have no fear of

having the public gain access to the manner in which that internal

governing is carried through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Now I realize that in the actual hearing of such

cases where a doctor appears before the council.... But I am not

suggesting for a minute that this should be a public hearing where the

privacy and personal affairs of many other individuals besides the

doctor are brought before the hearing. All I am saying is that it seems

to me very reasonable that at least a member of the public should be a

participating member of the group of professionals who hold the

[ Page 2630 ]

hearing dealing with the professional conduct of a

member of the profession. So often the impression is created that by

giving professionals this kind of authority to discipline themselves it

is abused and that, in the simplest of terms, professionals look after

themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I don't personally believe that is the case at all. But

I happen to have had access or contact with some of the cases which

have been dealt with in the case of the medical profession. I think it

would build public confidence in the performance of these professions

and in the fact that these professional bodies take the most strenuous

measures to ensure that justice and fair play are carried out in cases

where a professional person might suffer the very serious penalty of

losing his licence to practice his profession.

I happen to have the same kind of confidence in the legal profession

that their primary goal in disciplining themselves is to see not only

that the public is given the protection that it deserves, but that the

individual lawyer who may be, for whatever reason, called before a

disciplining body also not only receives justice and fair play but is

seen to receive just and fair treatment.

I understand that in Ontario the equivalent body in the medical

profession has already appointed a lay person to its tribunal. I think

it is a trend which, instead of appearing to question the efficiency

and proper conduct of such hearings, adds something by way of public

confidence by having the public know that at least one lay person is

closely involved with the carrying out of the admittedly very extensive

degree of authority which is afforded by statute to these professional

bodies.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to say in closing, Mr. Speaker,

that this is a measure in the right direction and not in the wrong

direction as perhaps one could construe from the remarks from the

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). Professional people have to

know their trade and they have to know it well, and they have to

maintain proper standards. What is proposed here is hardly dramatic

legislation but it is, I think, comparable legislation.

I refer at the outset to the Medical Act. There's a provision in

there that the college can investigate as to whether or not a member of

the college is bringing to his practice of medicine or surgery adequate

skill and knowledge. They can inquire into the conduct condition,

capability or fitness to practise of any member of the college. Under

the dental Act there's a somewhat similar provision. If the college

reaches the opinion that a member of the college is performing

substandard dental services, then that individual will have to present

himself for re-examination and could face suspension. Under the

Architects Act, it's open to the institute to cause an inquiry on a

complaint made against a member or into his conduct, capability or

fitness to practise. Under the Chiropractic Act, the words "ignorance

or competence as to render it desirable in the public interest that his

registration should be cancelled or suspended" are found. Under the

Hairdressers Act, the board can revoke any certificate issued on

grounds of gross incompetency. Under the Notaries Act the board has

power and authority to inquire into the professional conduct or any

alleged incompetence or negligence or fraud of a notary public.

What has happened here, Mr. Speaker, as I've indicated, is a step in

a positive and correct direction and one that has been thoroughly

considered, debated by the bar and approved by them.

Dealing with safeguards which would seem to be he concern of the

member for Vancouver Centre Mr. Lauk), first of all, the benchers are

elected. If they happen to exercise with a degree of impropriety, that

would certainly be readily determined and they would not be re-elected

a second time around. We further have the safeguard of the very statute

that we agreed to this afternoon in second reading in principle, and

that's the Judicial Review Procedure Act. It would assist under these

circumstances. Furthermore, of course, as my colleague, the learned

friend from Vancouver Centre is aware, there is an appeal to the court

of appeal from the decision of the benchers.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 62, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

(1965) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act are

designed to streamline some of the red tape and paperwork involved in

administering this Act and to provide access to the board of mediation,

where it is required and which is not provided in the present Act.

For example, access over lands on which permit, licence, lease or drilling reservation is not held is

[ Page 2631 ]

provided in this Act. Oil companies or exploration

people at times have to pass over land on which they do not hold the

licence, lease or drilling reservation in order to get to lands where

they do hold such licence, lease or reservation. It provides access to

a mediation board for a determination of compensation when such access

is provided.

These amendments eliminate the need to submit to the board copies of

leases which do not contain rental provisions. The mediation board has

no use for these or copies of leases. They serve no useful purpose, so

the necessity of submitting them is eliminated.

When lump sum payments are made, these amendments eliminate the need

for renegotiation of lease terms. When annual payments are made on

lease terms then it is necessary at times that they be renegotiated.

However, when an agreement is in effect and a lump sum payment has been

made, there's no necessity for renegotiation, so this requirement is

eliminated.

Other minor amendments brought forward in this amendment Act clarify

that the money payable, as ordered by the mediation and arbitration

board, must be related to rent or damages of the lands over which the

mediation board is ruling. The loss of farm income, for example, is a

direct cost to the owner of agricultural land, and this type of

compensation is allowed. However, costs other than real damages are not

provided for. This clarifies the role of the mediation board.

These amendments also provide for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act

to make regulations regarding the disposition for exploration of and

production of oil from oil sands and oil shales which are not presently

covered in this Act. At the present time there's no such production or

exploration carried out in British Columbia. However, there is

potential for this in certain areas in the future, and we wish to make

the Act such that it covers this type of work.

Also the Act makes provision for the mine regulation Act applying to

exploration and development work for oil sands and oil shales because,

in fact, this type of work is really a mining operation.

These amendments to the Act are strictly housekeeping revisions. I

cannot see where they are controversial in any way. I therefore move

second reading.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the question of oil sands and

oil shale and other related oil products, there was some controversy

earlier about access to oil shales in the Queen Charlottes. We'd like

to know if you're proposing this bill to resolve that particular matter

and, if so, exactly how you intend to resolve it since you're only

saying here that regulations will be promulgated. We have no idea what

those regulations are. That Queen Charlottes matter is a long-standing

case.

In terms of the rest of the amendments, we find that there's really

not too much to criticize here except that we find it ironic that this

government that allegedly is supposed to protect the freedom of the

individual is now saying that the state will give authority to any oil

company to go right over somebody's property and then they'll mediate

compensation after. I find that somewhat surprising in light of the

commitments by this government that private property is sacred. This is

really a right given to the oil companies which will go to mediation

afterwards. Some members of this House, if they were in opposition on

this kind of bill, would have a holy fit over it. They would throw

themselves onto the ground and curl up into some kind of anti-socialist

position that would be antediluvian, but then when they find that they

have to take this authority they don't even consult the

Attorney-General, who used to write those free-wheeling bills

protecting the rights of the individual. There's no

section about

schizophrenia in here. I'd like to know what protection the individual

and those great freedom fighters are going to give to the individual

who owns this property. They're worried about the heavy hand of

statism, iron-heel legislation, sweeping powers and all those things.

We want to know what protections there are, and we want to know if

there's an appeal system before the crossing of private land takes

place. What kind of notice is given? What kind of opportunity is there

for people to prepare for this?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the

litigation that was underway in the Queen Charlotte Islands, I

understand now that this litigation has now been withdrawn. This

government, shortly after taking office, placed a reserve on this land

to protect the interests of that particular party so that when this

case was resolved they could be in a similar position or at least not

have lost any rights which they thought they had. That particular

dispute was relative to whether or not the rights for these oil shales

were granted under the Mineral Act or under the Petroleum and Natural

Gas Act. My understanding at this time is that this case has been

withdrawn. When these regulations are made for the disposition of these

oil shale rights, then those people will have to apply for such rights

on the same basis as anyone else.

As far as taking the rights of individuals away from them as far as

their private ownership of their land is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am

sure that the member opposite realizes that he's being a little bit

facetious here, because the right to extract and develop the people's

oil for the benefit of the people of British Columbia is essential, and

the right to enter upon

[ Page 2632 ]

land on which oil rights have been disposed of has always been in effect.

This Act just clarifies the fact that at times you must pass over land on which you do not have rights...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...in order to reach that in which you do have rights.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There has always been provision for

compensation for people whose land is crossed over. This compensation

must be set and established before such entry is made. This Act is

always read that way, Mr. Speaker; I'm sure that member opposite is

fully aware of that.

MR. BARRETT: No!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're great freedom fighters.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 25, Petroleum and Natural Gas

(1965) Amendment Act, 1976, read

a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 53.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, previously I asked for the

adjournment of the debate for the simple reason that the minister was

not in the House. I know why he wasn't in the House; he was at Habitat

and was unable to be here.

This bill is not one that in my view needs to be discussed a great

deal at second reading; we should go into it in depth at committee

stage. But the question I did want to raise with him on second reading

was the absence, as far as I can see, of any amendments to the

replotting

section of the Municipal Act, some of which are quite

controversial and are of great concern to some of my constituents. I

would be very grateful if, in speaking to second reading of this

debate, the minister could advise us if he is willing to delve back

into all of the representations that he has had and his department has

received on replotting over the years and consider this in a very

active way for amendment t the next session of the Legislature, or as

soon as may be possible.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of sections, of

course, to be discussed in committee, but this is the bill that allows

a company to cast two votes in a municipal election...

MR. LAUK: Shocking!

MR. MACDONALD: ...or three votes in a municipal election.

MR. LAUK: Shameful!

MR. MACDONALD: I think the minister is nodding his head or moving his lips but, as I understand it, the company can cast a vote now...

MR. LAUK: Outrageous!

MR.MACDONALD: ...but only one vote in each municipality. A

company with offices in, say, five municipalities could cast five

votes, but in different municipalities. Am I not right about that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think that's what this bill does. You

know, I am surprised that the tide of democracy which was surging

forward under the NDP administration is now beating into retreat and

ebbing. We're moving back to the time when we allow such things as

corporate votes in municipal elections — not just the people voting,

but companies voting, and companies voting two, three or four times.

Now is that democracy, Mr. Speaker, or is that plutocracy? That's the

question we have to ask ourselves. This is a retreat back to the old

days of the Tory squire dominating civic politics and the multiple

voting in cities like the city of Vancouver. We all remember it so well.

Mr. Speaker, the minister may not have retreated fully to the old

days — not yet — but you have moved in that direction. You have moved

away from the democratic franchise principle of one person, one vote

and gone back to the principle of one person, one vote and if that

person has a company, let that company vote too. That is one person,

two votes; that is one person, three votes, Mr. Speaker. It is

repugnant to everything we understand by the word "democracy." We on

this side of the House do not stand for that kind of democracy. We

should oppose that bill; we should debate it in detail in this House

before this attack upon the simple democratic principle goes any

further under this coalition

[ Page 2633 ]

government.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments of

the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). While I have no

wish to speak in relation to the powers of corporations in voting, I am

sure the minister in winding up second reading will clarify or confirm

the understanding that the first member for Vancouver East obviously

has about one

section of this bill.

As far as I am concerned, one point that was lost sight of when the

former NDP government removed the right of individuals to vote in a

municipality outside the municipality in which they resided was the one

big factor that is the most essential element in municipal franchise:

it is that you as an individual are paying property tax in that

municipality.

Since in recent days it has been suggested by some of the members of

the Fourth Estate that we should all make sure there's never any

information that's not made available to the public when an MLA speaks,

I happen to own a medical office in the city of Victoria. Under the

present legislation, all I have the privilege of doing right now is

getting a tax notice last week saying my taxes are up by several

hundred dollars. I, as the owner of that medical clinic in Victoria,

have no say whatsoever in electing or not electing the municipal

politicians in the city of Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: There's an interjection that I'm a miserable

corporation; I'm often miserable but I'm not a corporation. (Laughter.)

I'm just Scott Wallace, the owner of 1494 Fairfield Road. Oh, my

goodness, I'm in trouble for advertising, Mr. Speaker! Oh, but then I'm

not practising medicine, so it's all right. (Laughter.) This is

becoming very complicated. I just....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is business bad, Scott?

MR. WALLACE: I've disillusioned a lot of people, Mr. Speaker; I've revealed the fact that I'm a businessman.

At any rate, I am serious and I am not sufficiently versed in the

rights or privileges of incorporation, because I just make it very

plain that there must be other people like myself who live in one

municipality and as individuals pay taxes on property which they own in

another municipality.

This isn't like a one man, one vote situation at the federal or

provincial election where you're electing people at these two levels

with a wide diversity of authority to deal with just about any subject

under the sun. The essential element in municipal authority is that

individual property owners pay taxes, and it is these taxes which pay a

very large

part in financing all that goes on in the municipality.

To suggest that because I happen to live in Oak Bay and own a small

building in Victoria I should have no say in electing the municipal

officials in Victoria, I think, is undemocratic.

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who just spoke,

thinks it is undemocratic to have more than one vote. I agree that at

provincial and federal levels it would be wrong to base some additional

voting advantage on the ownership of property.

MR. GIBSON: In any given area you only have one vote anyway, under this legislation.

MR. WALLACE: My understanding is, as the Liberal member has

just interjected, that under this bill you only have one vote in one

municipality. On that point, Mr. Speaker, I would also agree that

that's the way it should be. I don't feel that depending on the number

of pieces of property I might own.... And hastily I say that that is

the only property I happen to own in Victoria, but even if I did own 10

or 12 others, I'm not for a moment suggesting that I would want 10 or

12 votes. But I do want at least one vote where the whole thrust of

municipal affairs is based on the spending of taxpayers' money based on

property ownership by these taxpayers.

I spoke strongly against the NDP legislation which took away my vote

in the other municipality, and I'm just as willing and eager today to

speak in favour of this bill — or at least this

section of the bill —

provided it is clearly understood that I'm only asking one vote in the

municipality where I happen to own a piece of property.

I think that if the minister can give that assurance, in winding up

second reading, it will probably clarify the comments made by the first

member for Vancouver East and also re-establish what I think is a more

democratic piece of legislation with particular, specific reference to

the municipal field.

At no time am I suggesting that I should have several votes in a

municipality, nor am I suggesting that at the provincial and federal

levels such things as property ownership should give you any advantage

over citizens who do not own property. In the municipal field the very

essence of taxation decisions is so intimately bound up with property

ownership that I think it is most undemocratic that an individual who

does not happen to live in a municipality, but owns property, should

have no say whatever in voting for or against the contending

politicians seeking municipal office. On this particular

section of the

bill I support the government.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly associate myself with the remarks of the

[ Page 2634 ]

hon. leader of the Conservative Party. I think that

the aspect of this bill which provides for a vote for a property owner,

although they may not live in a municipality, is a most reasonable one.

The first member for Vancouver East has indicated that he thinks

that by allowing a property owner, albeit a corporation in some

instances, to vote in another municipality, he implies that that

particular corporation is going to seize power over the municipality.

Well, the fact is that you're Gulf Oil and you own 47 gas stations

in some municipalities; you still only get one vote. And the fact is

that you only get one vote for one government to whom you're paying

taxes — in this case through the medium of property taxes.

I hold no particular brief in my own regard. I would just, like the

preceding speaker, like to make my interests clear. I own only my own

home at this time, and I am most happy to be able to rise and speak

from a point of view of impartiality. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I must say it's a bit of a surprise to be debating this bill today, as we were given no forewarning.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not part of the principle of the bill, Hon. Member.

MR. BARBER: However, I rise as the designated speaker for our

caucus, Mr. Speaker, but in giving that as warning, I don't intend to

be too long.

There are a number of aspects to the Municipal Amendment Act which

we will support. The raising from 8 per cent to 12 per cent on the

level of interest that may be charged by municipalities for overdue

taxes is itself long overdue, and we're very happy the minister's

bringing it in.

Various of the improvements that he's making to audit procedures on

the parts of municipalities are also an improvement, and we will

support those

section by

section as they arise. But the major problem

we have with this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it is, of course, a kind

of omnibus bill. There is no single or consistent principle throughout,

but rather it speaks to a number of them, and that's fair and

reasonable enough.

So what I would do today if you're willing, Mr. Speaker, is refer

briefly to a couple of the sections that do concern us, and I realize

this may ordinarily be a matter for committee to discuss; but because

of the nature of this, and our brief discussion on second reading, I

would simply like to put the minister on notice that we will be asking

questions, and that perhaps prior to committee he might be able to

obtain some answers for us.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

It may be noted that in

section 1 of this bill, which later refers

section 4 and allows a partial return to the previous system whereby

property has votes, that the definition of owners of property has been

expanded, that not only have we come back to a system where property

has, under certain circumstances, a vote, but indeed we have changed

the definition of owners of property, and it only now means the

purchaser or the tenant, providing the tenant holds, under a registered

lease, the property in question.

This does expand, quite substantially, the number of persons who may

care to exercise this particular kind of franchise. As I'll later

mention when we get to debate on

section 4, it is of some concern to

us. As you well know, and the member for Vancouver East has already

pointed out, we do object in principle to the idea that in any

democracy at any level a person should hold more than one vote. We

object even more when it's not a person so much as a property who holds

the vote. We'll get into that a bit later.

Discussing

section 3 again briefly, what the minister has proposed

is to give rather substantial powers to the inspector of

municipalities. This inspector now has the right to deny municipalities

and regional districts the independence of action which they formerly

had to establish companies. They were given that right under the

previous administration. They were given the opportunity to establish

various business enterprises which, in the view of the municipality or

the regional district, were to substantiate the economic base of that

enterprise, or of that region or municipality, or would in some way

further the efforts of a municipality to take care of its own citizens.

One of them is, of course, of concern to my own riding in Victoria,

where two years ago the mayor of Victoria and other members of council

quite seriously proposed that the several municipalities in greater

Victoria consider getting together for the purpose of forming an

asphalt and paving company, because they had discovered a striking

consistency in the tender proposals made by various of the paving

companies for municipal jobs. Indeed, they were identical to the penny.

No legal charges have resulted so far, but it certainly was of grave

concern, and therefore our government, responding to that interest, did

amend the Municipal Act at that time to permit municipalities to engage

in business enterprises of this sort — of a public works sort, of a

kind that was clearly to the advantage of the municipalities or of the

regional districts.

What's happened here in

section 3, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister

has chosen to reduce that autonomy of action, to reduce that

independence of authority, to

[ Page 2635 ]

diminish the flexibility and the power of

municipalities to move on their own, and has now in fact given that

power to the inspector of municipalities.

It might well serve this House, Mr. Speaker, to be reminded that the

minister, when in opposition — and other members of his coalition when

in opposition — I frequently decried the broad and sweeping powers that

were given to civil servants and governments and so on. We now see that

the inspector of municipalities is in possession of such powers, and we

will in committee — but in fairness to the minister I wish to put him

on notice that we will be doing so — be raising questions about the

criteria to be employed by the inspector of municipalities.

On what basis shall he make these judgments? When he turns down a

municipality and its proposal to engage in a business enterprise, what

judgments will he employ? What appeal procedures will exist once that

decision has been made by the inspector, and indeed, if there is any

political intervention of any kind on the part of the inspector of

municipalities, to what extent will that inspector be accountable to

this House?

It's fairly clear, Mr. Speaker, that many people feel that a

municipality, as is proposed in this amendment, now restricted in the

variety and the strength and the enterprise of businesses in which it

can engage by a civil servant, might well wonder why those objections

take place.

We would certainly wonder whether or not the municipalities should

be granted an appeal. Indeed we may well be proposing, in the form of

an amendment, procedure whereby there should be some public and formal

appeal. We want to know what the standards will be, what criteria will

be employed, who he will be accountable to and whether or not there

will be an appeal from his decision.

Now I wish to speak to No. 4, if I may, again briefly. There is a

bit of a contradiction and more than a bit of a paradox in the

proposal, Mr. Speaker. The previous Social Credit government allowed

property to vote any number of times. This coalition government has to

some extent restrained that right; they have extended that right to one

person who owns one piece of property in one municipality. But as my

colleague from Victoria did point out, if a corporation, say Esso,

owned 47 gas stations in Victoria, they would only have one vote in

Victoria, but if they owned 47 gas stations in 47 municipalities they

would have 47 votes.

MR. BAWLF: There'd be 47 governments, too.

MR. BARBER: Well, 47 votes is how we look at it, and it seems

to us questionable that any corporation should be able to exercise 47

or 147 votes at any level in any government in the province of British

Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: We think this is a major concern, Mr. Speaker, and we wonder why this particular proposal was necessary at all.

I d like to point out that a couple of years ago, I'm informed, in

Gibsons Landing a recreation referendum went forward. I don't live

there and I don't have all of the personal details, but from what I've

read it was proposed that the electors of Gibsons proceed to construct

a recreation complex. This vote was put to the electors, and was turned

down. The vote was turned down because, as it later turned out, number

of absentee landlords, who then under the Social Credit government had

the power of a vote, got together — indeed, they may well have

chartered bus for the purpose — and came up to defeat the vote. They

only live there in the summer; they don't care what happens to the

people in the winter or any other time of the year. They only care that

their personal taxes be kept as low as possible, and, sure enough, they

conspired to come up and defeat the vote.

It seems to us that that was an abuse under the previous Social

Credit government, when they had those voting rights, of the democratic

right of the year-round, full-time residents of Gibsons to make their

own decision about whether or not they wanted a recreation complex.

So what's happened, Mr. Speaker, is that in the transition from

Social Credit to coalition we see a kind of compromise. We've seen a

lot of compromises, and here's one more. Now one only has one vote in

one municipality,

whereas previously one could have had, say, 47 votes

in that municipality. If you're lucky enough to do business in 47

different municipalities, you get 47 different votes.

There is another kind of compromise, though, and it's something that

we'll be asking the minister about. What we see in this

section is that

reporting corporations no longer have a vote. It's made very clear in

subsection (9) of

section 4 that reporting corporations as defined by

the Companies Act no longer have a vote. Well, that presumably would,

at this moment, exclude Esso, exclude Exxon, Hudsons' Bay Company and

the rest of them. What's the point? What kind of a compromise has been

reached here?

On the one hand you choose not, for whatever reason, to go back to

the ancient Socred system of giving everyone who owns property a vote

whoever may happen to own it, and on the other you've come back and

said: "Well, you can own one piece of property in the municipality for

which you shall be entitled to one vote," and then further compromise

the matter by messing it up to say that reporting corporations don't

have a vote. But what is the

[ Page 2636 ]

essence of this

compromise, Mr. Speaker, and why have they made it? What conflicts of

interest do they see and why do they see them? Is it possible they see

the same conflicts that we see and this has been their attempt to avoid

the political heat and criticism that will inevitably result when it

becomes clear that once again we're returned to a system of property

having a vote?

There is another problem with

section 4, Mr. Speaker, and it's a

problem that should be faced by any progressive government. Any

progressive government in Canada is looking towards a unified voters

list. Clearly it's of considerable advantage to every Canadian wherever

he happens to live.

section 4 most clearly works against a unified

voters list because we have again gone back to the system of property

having votes. This is somewhat unusual in Canada, and it's hardly a

forward step, in our opinion.

It certainly does make unlikely, once again, the unification in any

systematic way of a standard voters list throughout British Columbia

for all Canadians, regardless of their place of residence, regardless

of their age and so on, who are basically entitled to vote.

It's the hope of many Canadians that we will eventually get the

system where every person, say, over the age of 18 with citizenship

shall be able to vote. The unified voters list is obviously a

substantial economy as well as an extension of democracy.

section 4 if

enacted will make the unified voters list out of the question.

Sections 5, 6 and 7 are technical and not of any terrible concern to

us. We wish, though, to discuss briefly — and again perhaps the

minister, during committee, might be forearmed. and forewarned and

bring for us answers — questions that are raised by

section

Section 10 basically grants the municipalities, and later on in the

bill regional districts, the power to contract debts, the power to

enter into debts of various duration. The limit in the previous Act

used to be 20 years on the power that municipalities might exercise to

enter into debt. Now there is no limit; there's none at all. Here again

is perhaps one of the compromises and one of the contradictions we see.

On the one hand this government as was our government is well aware of

the criticism that provincial governments tend to act in a fairly

paternal way to every municipality, and tend perhaps to assume too much

power and too much responsibility. On the other hand, we have to watch

out that smaller communities in British Columbia, say, don't get out of

hand. There was an incident in Parksville a little while ago and

presumably the auditing improvements here in this Act reflect the

problems that occurred in Parksville.

So on the other hand you do have to find some kind of balance with

the proper need of the province to be responsible for the actions of

municipalities and, on the other, allow them some autonomy and

flexibility of action.

We've seen in an earlier

section that the autonomy and flexibility

of action earlier granted to municipalities to engage in businesses

have been restricted. On the other hand, we see in

section 10 that

their ability to contract debt has been now made unlimited. Is it

really so wise that every municipality, especially the smaller ones in

British Columbia, should have unlimited opportunity to go into debt?

I'm informed, Mr. Speaker, that during the great Depression, three

municipalities and two school districts in British Columbia went

bankrupt. Prince Rupert was one of them, I'm informed. I wonder whether

it's such a wise and advisable thing that the ceiling on indebtedness

should be removed, as is proposed by

section 10. It does concern us,

and we hope very much that the minister might give us some answers.

Section 10, also again, we see, gives quite remarkable powers to the

inspector of municipalities. In previous debates in this House, the

present minister is recorded in Hansard as criticizing the wide,

awesome and sweeping powers granted to the inspector of municipalities,

and later on when we get into committee we'll be reading some of his

remarks back to him. Here, though, in

section 10 we see that the

inspector of municipalities has substantial power given to him on three

occasions — three subsections within this section. We see that the

inspector has authority that he did not previously have. We wonder

whether or not this is wise and advisable. If it is, in the view of the

minister, wise and advisable, can he tell us how come and why his

earlier remarks, when in opposition, have now been contradicted by his

actions as a minister? It does concern us and we do look for some

consistency.

The rest of the bill is of no real objection to us, Mr. Speaker. We

would, though, remark that we do support the improvements in the

auditing requirements. We do support the improvement in allowing the

municipality to increase from 8 per cent to 12 per cent their ability

to charge interest on overdue taxes. We would ask the minister, though,

if it is necessary to delay that authority until January 1, 1977, or if

it might be possible to introduce it somewhat earlier as local

aldermen, in my riding anyway, have raised that question to me —

whether or not there might be some opportunity to extract this money.

In Victoria city, at least, that's a substantial amount of money, and

the additional 4 per cent....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: In many communities that's a substantial amount of money, and if it is possible to

[ Page 2637 ]

bring it in prior to January 1, 1977, we would certainly support that. If it's not, we should look for a reason.

Section 23, again, gives remarkably broad, awesome and sweeping

powers to the inspector of municipalities — another contradiction,

another conflict and inconsistency, and it's one to which we hope the

minister will address himself.

I'd like to conclude, though, by returning to our earlier concern —

and this is perhaps politically and publicly the most significant —

about the return of the coalition itself to the principle that somehow

property should have a vote. There aren't very many jurisdictions in

the world, Mr. Speaker, where property any longer has a vote. Most

progressive and most democratic jurisdictions throughout the world have

recognized that individual human beings are the components and the

elements of a democracy. That pieces of property have a vote is an idea

whose time has long passed, an idea which might have had currency and

support in the 15th and 16th centuries in Norman England but which in

North America in the 20th, proceeding into the 21st, century surely

can't be much supported at all.

MR. S. BAWLF: Are you not calling Scott Wallace a piece of property?

MR. BARBER: Scott Wallace is a most decent human being and no piece of property at all.

But a number of people, quite aside from their connections to any

present political party, would raise the theoretical question which is

that in a democracy, should any citizen have the right to vote more

than once? You know, when it's done in provincial or federal elections

it's considered ballot-stuffing, and it's a criminal offence. People

don't like it. Somehow this coalition has determined that when it

should be done at municipal elections it's not ballot-stuffing, it

shouldn't be a criminal offence and, indeed, it's encouraged by this

legislation. Well, it may not be a criminal offence, but to a number of

us it's a kind of moral offence.

Why, in a democracy like ours, does any Canadian need more than one

vote? We all have the right of free speech; we all have the right of

free assembly; we all have every opportunity to express ourselves. Why

should property have a vote? Why should a person who owns 47 pieces of

property in 47 municipalities have 47 votes in the province of British

Columbia? That seems to us unfair and unreasonable. We don't support

it. Later on in second reading, in order not to contradict the rules of

the House, we will be speaking at greater length upon this.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to touch

briefly on one aspect of the principle of this bill, and that's the

aspect of once again allowing property to have a vote in municipal

elections within the province. You know, not too long ago I was talking

with a reporter — that was before this bill was introduced into this

House — and the reporter asked me whether I thought the coalition

government would actually bring this property vote back to the

province. I said: "No. I think they're stupid, but I don't think

they're that stupid."

You know, I didn't really believe, when there wasn't a clamour out

there for property to get the vote, that this government would come in

and say they should get the vote. It's really ironic when you consider

it's the same group of people who were against year-long citizens

within municipalities — in other words, tenants — not getting the right

to vote when it comes to a money referendum. The same group of people

are against year-long residents of a community having the right to vote

within their community on a money referendum, but they do believe that

property should have the right to vote. It's just beyond me...well, no,

I guess it's completely understandable. I guess it's completely

understandable, because they honestly do believe that there is Jimmy

Chevron, a Charlie IBM, a Frank Hardware Store. They honestly believe

that property should have more rights in our society than individuals.

If you really check back on the source of this kind of belief,

you'll find that in the days that the hon. second member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber) was describing in England when there was a privileged

class, the privileged class were the people of the court, the lords and

their ladies — hence the word "landlord." It's not "landperson." It's

not "landwoman." It's "landlord," with all that it implies.

These days the role of the landlord has been taken over by money. In

other words, people who have money are the privileged class within our

society, and once again we are seeing the Legislature hand out

privilege to that class of people.

We should also be reminded of a statement by the hon. Premier when

he was Leader of the Opposition. When speaking against tenants getting

the right to vote on money referendums, he said: "Tenants wouldn't

fight for their country. Why should they have the right to vote?"

That's what he said. If he can show me where property is going to fight

for the country and go out in those front lines when war is called,

then he may have a point. I have seen property fought over but I have

never seen property fight for anything or against anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that said, Graham?

MR. LEA: I'll find it. I'm awfully sure he said it. He made the statement that tenants wouldn't fight for their country.

[ Page 2638 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you address the Chair, please, Hon. Member?

MR. LEA: He said it last year or the year before. I heard it. It's

a little hard to believe, isn't it, Mr. Member?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member...

MR. LEA: I am addressing you. Because my back is to you

doesn't mean I am not addressing you. I am, Mr. Speaker. I am just

talking to this end of the room but addressing you.

It wouldn't surprise me, Mr. Speaker, if there aren't a number of

members in this House who aren't just a little bit surprised, if they

haven't heard it before, that the Premier when he was Leader of the

Opposition would make a statement like that — that tenants should not

have the right to vote on money matters in their municipalities because

tenants are really cowards and will not fight for their country.

I cannot understand why any government would come in and say that

property has the right to vote in an election. Does property have a

conscience? What really happens when property has the right to vote? We

know it doesn't happen that often, but we do know that there are

instances, or could be instances, of those property votes deciding the

election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Those property votes could decide who is going to be

mayor, who is going to be alderman, what referendum passes — those

could be the votes which do it. It could be a close vote.

MR. BAWLF: Shame!

MR. LEA: You're darned right. Shame! Because you represent

the upper class represented by money is no reason that we should sell

out. You've sold out. The reason you are bringing this in is because

it's a little sycophantic manoeuvre to try and win the people who are

going to have the power to exercise those votes to throw a little more

money into the next campaign. That's all it is. It's a sycophantic

policy and a piece of legislation designed to do nothing else but curry

favour with those people who you see as your betters — because you

don't really see yourself as the moneyed class. The only reason this

bill has been brought in is because of an ideological belief on your

part that property is of more worth in our society than an individual.

I'll bet you had a beautiful fight, because I don't believe every

member of that cabinet and every member of that caucus believes that

this is the way it should be, but the hawks won out. The hawks in that

cabinet won out and got their way.

I'll tell you something. After getting to know a little bit, I

think, the minister who brought this bill into the House, I find it

hard to believe that he would author this bill unless ordered to do so

by the hawks that are his colleagues. I spent hours over the last three

and a half years in conversation with that minister, and I don't

believe that he could possibly believe in this principle. I didn't talk

about this principle specifically, but I talked about a host of other

principles that the minister says he believes in. It is inconsistent to

have the principles that he says he has in those other matters and then

come in and bring this bill into the House. I say if there's one time

when the back bench should be allowed a free vote, it's over this,

because this goes to the very roots of democracy — giving property a

vote. It's almost just too much for words!

How can anybody in 1976 turn around and give the landlords an extra

vote over and above the individual in society? It just doesn't hold

together within any way you describe democracy within a democratic

system, especially in a system that is governed by the British

parliamentary system. It smacks against everything that every

free-thinking democratic person should stand for.

I think you protest too much. I don't think that you could vote for

this in good conscience; I think you'll vote for it with lack of

conscience. That's the only way you can vote for it — having no

conscience whatsoever. You have to be an intellectual psychopath to

vote for this kind of legislation, an intellectual psychopath with no

conscience whatsoever in terms of democracy — none whatsoever.

You can all sit there and smile, but down deep where you live you

know you are making a political gift hoping for political gains for

yourself. Because there is no basis in democracy for this kind of a

piece of legislation — none whatsoever, none whatsoever. I d