1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6315 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Financial Administration Act (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 6315

The Windy Bay Watershed Ecological Reserve Act (Bill M207). Mr. Lea.

Introduction and first reading –– 6315

Southern Moresby Wilderness Park Act (Bill M208). Mr. Lea.

Introduction and first reading –– 6315

Oral Questions

Promotional film-making. Mr. Hall –– 6315

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Use of American personnel in government projects. Mr. Hall –– 6316

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Barrett

Bus passes for the blind. Ms. Brown –– 6317

Mr. Barrett

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 23). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 6317

Mr. Levi –– 6319

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981 (Bill 26). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6319

Mr. Stupich –– 6319

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6319

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1981 (Bill 24). Committee stage.

section 81 –– 6319

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Ms. Sanford

Third reading –– 6321

Building Safety Standards Act (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

section 3 –– 6321

Mr. Barber

section 13 –– 6322

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to

section 37 –– 6322

Mr. Barber

Report –– 6322

Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

section 10 –– 6323

Ms. Sanford

section 13 –– 6324

Ms. Sanford

section 14 –– 6325

Ms. Sanford

section 17 –– 6325

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lea

Report –– 6330

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6330

Hon. Mr. Williams

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Howard

Mr. Lauk

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Railway's financial statements for the year ended January 2, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6338

Appendix –– 6339

MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF:

In the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Roy Collier from the little

community of Topley in my constituency of Omineca. I ask the House to

make him welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to welcome to this hallowed precinct 25 extremely well-behaved grade 8 students from St. Jude's School.

MR. RITCHIE:

I would like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Kehler from Matsqui and Mr. and

Mrs. Fred Gietema from Sumas. Would the House please welcome these

folks from Central Fraser Valley.

MR. KING: Mr

Speaker, the Pacific Northwest Labor History Association held their

1981 conference at the University of Victoria over the weekend. On that

occasion they selected a labour history person of the year. That

individual is in the gallery today. I would like to introduce Mr. Tom

McGuire, who is a long-time staff representative of the International

Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and an organizer in the mines

of the United States as well as Canada. I would ask the House to join

me in welcoming him today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Speaker, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and I would ask you to

join us in welcoming May Taylor and Linda Peters, the leaders of the

Pathfinders, and seven girls from the Third Surrey Pathfinders group

visiting us today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the gallery today is a real long-time resident of the village of Princeton. I ask the House to please welcome Tom Coyne.

Mr.

Speaker, one of the younger members of the Social Credit caucus is

celebrating his — I believe — thirty-ninth birthday. I would ask the

House to join me in wishing a very happy birthday to the member for

Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

Introduction of Bills

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

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

a bill intituled Financial Administration Act.

Bill

27 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.

THE WINDY BAY WATERSHED

ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ACT

a motion by Mr. Lea, Bill M207, The Windy Bay Watershed Ecological

Reserve 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.

SOUTHERN MORESBY

WILDERNESS PARK ACT

a motion by Mr Lea. Bill M208, Southern Moresby Wilderness Park 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.

MR. MUSSALLEM: May I have leave of the House to inform you what the flowers are on your desk today?

MR. SPEAKER: Please do, hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I make this announcement on behalf of the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mrs. Jordan). It has come to my attention that on your desk today you

will have received flowers from one of British Columbia's premier

tourist attractions, the Minter Gardens. The flowers are with the

compliments of the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia, as

a gesture of welcome to summer. I would like you to join me in thanking

those people for their kindness, and to welcome what we all hope will

be a successful tourist summer.

Oral Questi ons

PROMOTIONAL FILM-MAKING

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. In his

fascination for Hollywood and its promotional techniques — and the

latest fascination concerns actress Cheryl Ladd.... Could the minister tell

me why the government is going to pay the cost of travel and hotel

accommodation for an American camera crew to come to British Columbia

to film this actress as part of a promotion?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be directed to the Minister of Tourism.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister. Can the minister

tell us whether his ministry, with the communications branch that he

heads, will be responsible for the distribution when the film is

complete?

HON. MR WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think it

might be more helpful to the member if we took that question as notice

on behalf of the Minister of Tourism.

MR. BARRETT:

No, Mr. Speaker, not as notice to the Minister of Tourism but to the

minister responsible for the department of communications and Mr. Heal,

who is allegedly coordinating all government communications and

distribution. I ask the minister directly: to his knowledge has he

instructed Mr. Heal to be responsible for the distribution of this film?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, not to my knowledge.

But Mr. Heal's office, as I've explained before, is there for the

service of all ministries, on their request, to assist them in what

they may need in terms of those activities.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's responsibility for coordination of communications and the use

[ Page 6316 ]

film in this province, is the minister aware that the B.C. film

industry is shocked and dismayed by the actions of the government and

intends to demonstrate against the activities of this imported crew?

MR. KING:

I have a supplementary for the Provincial Secretary. I understand a

memo has gone out from the minister's office to all cabinet ministers,

indicating that Mr. Heal must be contacted and must coordinate all the

advertising and filming activities of each department. Are we to

understand that, in addition to Mr. Heal's budget for filming special

occasions and propagandizing on behalf of the government, each ministry

also has an additional budget from which it may hire Hollywood

actresses to tout its ministry and its political image?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I think the member is well aware of the fact that each ministry has a

budget for advertising and sales promotion. That certainly applies to

the Ministry of Tourism.

USE OF AMERICAN PERSONNEL

IN GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

MR. HALL: I appreciate the minister's dilemma. The Minister of Tourism isn't here, and perhaps she's the minister responsible.

I'm

going to ask the minister if he's aware that the government has

announced that they're going to spend $45,000 to pay for the

accommodation of some American cameramen and sound technicians coming

up here, when we have British Columbian technicians out of work.

They're going to spend $45,000 to make this film when we've got people

who can do it up here.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a

question for the Minister of Labour. Has it come to the attention of

the Minister of Labour that 12 to 14 American technicans and, as I

understand it, only one Canadian will be used in this film project?

Many of our technicians are unemployed in this province, and there's

certainly not adequate work.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I

recall reading something in the press last week and that's about all.

It seems to me that a question very similar to this arose last year

from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), involving work which was done

at one of the ski mountains. I made an inquiry at that time. If the

member wishes, I'll take his inquiry as notice and attempt to find an

answer for him.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another

question to the minister. Doesn't the minister ever make

representations to the federal Department of Employment and Immigration

to prevent our own people from being put out of work by this kind of

activity in the province?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well,

Mr. Speaker, I was always under the impression that there was a fair

amount of free access across the border. If there is some concern, then

perhaps we'll look into it. It seems to me that the last time this

problem came up there was an explanation for it, and I requested

somebody in the ministry to make contact with the federal Department of

Employment and Immigration.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, is

the Minister of Labour not aware that regulations prevent Canadian film

technicians from working in the United States of America?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. After last

year's experience — not only the one up north but also that of the

jetfoil being manned by an American crew and the concern of British

Columbians about Americans working in British Columbian jobs that

British Columbians could be taking — has the minister issued a memo to

other ministers pointing out that if they intend to hire American

citizens for specific jobs he would like to vet those jobs first to

ensure that no Canadians were available? Can the minister tell us

whether he sent such a memo out?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I did not send such a memo out, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT:

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that there is

no screening process in his ministry to protect jobs, paid for by the

taxpayers of British Columbia, for British Columbians? Is the minister

saying that they've learned absolutely nothing from the jetfoil

experience, and that they're willing to take taxpayers' money and spend

it on American workers while Canadians are unemployed? Is the minister

admitting that there is no government policy, through his ministry,

that automatically screens all applications for employment in

government projects to see first whether Canadians or British

Columbians are available? Is that what the minister is admitting?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Within the ministry there is a department which concerns itself with

immigration. The member well knows that the provincial government does

not have any control over the matter of immigration.

MR. KING: That's nonsense! You're hiring them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

From time to time concern is expressed with respect to people

emigrating to Canada, particularly in the areas of technology and

trade, when in fact certain communities in our province and country

have not taken it upon themselves to do the training. Then we suddenly

find significant applications by a number of people or companies in the

community. At times we in government can send the expression that we

are not pleased with this, or that in fact we would like certain

companies to do more work with respect to training in our own community.

I repeat that we have no control, to my knowledge, over matters of immigration.

MR. BARRETT:

The Minister of Labour is aware that this is a B.C. government job — not

a private industry and not the federal government. Therefore the

control is in the hands of this government.

It is public

knowledge that Canadians are available for this job. With the knowledge

that it is a government job that is completely controlled by this

government and that Canadians

[ Page 6317 ]

are

available for this job, what has this minister done to ensure that

unemployed British Columbians can have this taxpayer-financed job

available to them?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: When the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) raised the matter, I

anticipated what he was driving at. I said that I would take the

question as notice and would inquire into it. I find it somewhat

difficult to believe that the member should think that the Ministry of

Labour is fully informed about every conceivable item raised or policy

practised in government ministries or in the private sector. I think

that the least I can do is to make the appropriate inquiry. I said I

would, and I'll take it as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Will

the minister advise this House whether his ministry has a policy that

requires, on government projects, a clearance through his department of

immigration, for his information, whether or not there are British

Columbians or Canadians available for that job? Is there a screening

process that you've initiated purely for B.C. government jobs or

government-financed jobs?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot

answer that question one way or the other. I will find out whether

there is a policy in government that we are to treat people differently

than anybody else in the province.

BUS PASSES FOR THE BLIND

MS. BROWN:

My question is to the Minister of Finance. There are 4,892 blind

persons in the lower mainland and Victoria who have been asking the

government for $25,000 to ensure that their bus passes can be used both

in Vancouver and Victoria. Can the Minister of Finance tell me whether

the government has decided it is more important to spend $45,000 on

Cheryl Ladd's hotel bills than $25,000 for the bus passes for the 4,892 blind persons?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This

administration need not apologize for the humanitarian activities it

has undertaken. I think the response which colleagues such as the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) have made to a variety of problems is a

record to be envied across this country. The question is argumentative,

in my view, in that it attempts to suggest that a decision was made in

favour of one program over another. That conclusion is clearly

incorrect.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary

to the Minister of Finance. If the question from the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds is argumentative and suggests that a choice was made of

one project over another, could the minister inform the House of the

specific reason the government used to reject the grant to the blind

people?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we deal with

these matters as they are presented to Treasury Board — when I say "we"

I mean members of Treasury Board — and I think that inquires into

government policy.

MR. BARRETT: What's government policy — to cut off the blind?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're pathetic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the minister please come to order.

Thursday last in question period a point of order was raised by the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I have reflected, not only in the

ensuing days but over the weekend, regarding his point of order.

would like the House to be aware of the procedure which the Chair uses

in trying to maintain order. The point of order that was raised simply

suggested that the Chair should be very careful in applying very evenly

to both sides of the House the same criteria for proclaiming members

out of order. Just so that the House will not be confused, whenever an

interjection takes place there is a certain leniency which the Chair

allows, as all members know. Indeed, over the course of a day perhaps

three or four interjections may go by completely unnoticed. However,

when interjections clearly become interruptions, the Chair must then

interrupt, and when a member has interrupted or interjected three or

four times in a row, that member himself may be drawn to order, not

just in general terms but by designation of his constituency. If

following the Chair's standing there is still continued disruption,

those members then at fault are subject to being named in person.

That's the procedure that we try to follow. It is applied equally to

both sides. I hope that is acceptable.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

In rising to move second reading of Bill 23, which I now do, may I make

a few comments about the concept and object of the amendments contained

in the bill. Basically, the amendments may be summarized into four

compartments or divisions. They are time-sharing, prospectus

requirements, a series of miscellaneous administrative or housekeeping

amendments, and finally a very major amendment to

section 28 of the

act. I propose to briefly comment on the items in that order.

Dealing

first with time-sharing, these amendments seek to clarify and expand

the provisions in the Real Estate Act with respect to time-share

offerings. The purpose of the amendments is to make absolutely clear

that all forms of time-share offerings made in the province of British

Columbia fall within the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Act. The two

major consequences of that umbrella of the Real Estate Act being

clearly made to cover all forms of time-share offering in the province

would be, first, that the standard type of prospectus requirements will

follow, and accordingly that all time-share offerings in the province

must be accompanied by the appropriate, duly approved form of

prospectus.

The further proviso relative to all forms of

time-sharing which will flow from the amendment is that rescission

rights will accrue with respect to the proposed purchaser. First of

all, in a manner parallel to traditional prospectus offerings under

this real estate statute, if material provisions of the prospectus have

not been met within the prescribed period following receipt of the

prospectus, the purchaser then has the right to rescind the time-share

agreement. Additionally,

[ Page 6318 ]

the case of these time-share offerings, we provide a seven day

cooling-off period — what we call a seven-day, no-cause cooling-off

period. This further provision is that in the case of time-share

offerings in this province, within seven days of the later of the

signing of the time-share contract and the receipt of the prospectus

the purchaser may choose to cancel the contract with no reason

necessary.

With respect to prospectuses, the amendments

represent the necessary key step towards simplification of the real

estate prospectus filing and approval process in British Columbia. In

turn, it is hoped that that simplification will lead to a significant

shortening of the time-frame for the processing of real estate

prospectuses. In our view, both of those features will have a major

impact on holding the line on and, we hope, minimizing overhead costs

associated with bringing home-building lots, condominiums and homes into

production in British Columbia.

If we are to simplify the

prospectus procedure in this province, the superintendent of brokers

must have the capacity to flexibly amend and simplify prospectus

requirements. This is presently not possible, because prospectus

requirements are built into the legislation as schedules to the Real

Estate Act, and hence any attempts at streamlining involve necessary

amendments to the legislation. Accordingly these amendments provide

that henceforth the prospectus requirements under the Real Estate Act

will not be filed in the schedules. Those schedules are hereby excised

from the act, to be replaced by requirements and provisions relative to

real estate prospectuses as prescribed by regulation by the

superintendent of brokers.

It is the intention of the

superintendent and this ministry to take steps as quickly as possible

to simplify the form and processing of real-estate prospectuses. A

substantial amount of work with respect to so-called bare-land

prospectuses, dealing with production of individual building lots for

homeowners in British Columbia, has already been done in anticipation

of this legislation being passed. We hope within a fairly short period

after proclamation of the appropriate sections that there will be in

place in British Columbia a new and much simplified form of prospectus

and prospectus-approval process for bare land subdivisions.

hope that this will particularly assist the small subdivision house

builder in two ways to produce house-building lots and bare land for

home construction at more restrained costs. This will be the function

of two factors. First of all, to the degree prospectus requirements are

less onerous, there will be much lower overhead cost, particularly to

the small builder and developer, in paying accountants, engineers and

lawyers to produce the necessary prospectus. Secondly, if the

time-frame is shortened, the savings are very substantial. For example,

if a saving of 30 days for the processing of a real estate prospectus

can be achieved, given today's interest rates and the average cost or

value of a home-building lot in British Columbia at say $50,000 or

$60,000, a one-month saving in the prospectus-approval period would

likely save about $ 1,000 on that lot in interest-carrying costs alone.

Notwithstanding

these desires to simplify and streamline, we are of course mindful of

the need, through the regulatory process, to protect the consumer and

the public interest. Obviously these goals will be met as part of the

streamlining process.

May I just highlight the key features of the miscellaneous administrative or housekeeping provisions of the bill.

The

maximum fine for offences under the Real Estate Act is now doubled from

$5,000 to $10,000. Appeals from decisions made pursuant to the

provisions of the Real Estate Act — and these are normally of a

disciplinary nature, relative to real estate licences — are now to be

heard by the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, as opposed to

the county court of British Columbia. This should provide streamlining,

simplification and lower costs to those pursuing the appeals route.

There are further provisions with respect to a more clearly stated

power to make regulations relative to prospectus and licence-fee

requirements. There are provisions to maintain in good standing

real-estate licences in this province if because of computer or

administrative problems there is some short delay in the annual

renewal-of-licence processing. Finally, the internal hearing procedures

under the Real Estate Act are streamlined.

In my view the

most important of these amendments concerns

section 28 of the Real

Estate Act. The present

section 28 is deleted and a new

section 28,

much expanded, is its replacement. The new

section 28 deals with the

basic subject matter of the former

section 28, which is the required

disclosure duty of a licensed realtor where approaching a

property-owner in British Columbia with the intention of purchasing

that property essentially for the direct account or benefit of the

licensed realtor.

The new

section adds and strengthens the

approach of the old section. First, it makes it clear that the

section

28 requirements apply even in cases where the licensed realtor is

approaching the property-owner by way of being part of a partnership or

a corporation. Henceforth it will no longer be possible for a licensed

realtor to avoid the requirements of

section 28 by becoming part of a

partnership or corporation doing the offering. Further, under the

details required to be disclosed pursuant to

section 28 there is the

addition of full particulars with respect to any commission or

commission sharing arrangement by which the realtor may benefit

directly or indirectly. Thirdly, the form of disclosure will now be

such as is prescribed by the superintendent of brokers in form and

manner. That's important because it will mean, for the first time in

British Columbia, that disclosures pursuant to

section 28 will be

uniform, province-wide and pursuant to a fair and effective standard

laid down by the superintendent of brokers. They will provide a

uniform, province-wide, fair and effective standard for advance notice

and disclosure to all property-owners in British Columbia, when

approached by a licensed realtor who wishes to acquire their property

directly or indirectly.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the

prescribed form is going to be of a colour which might descriptively be

called blaze or loud red, so it's going to serve as a red flag to

property owners. The wording will be prepared by the superintendent.

Prominently and boldly on the face of the form will be the strong

advice to property-owners being approached directly or indirectly by

licensed realtors that they get independent advice as to the current

fair market value of the subject property and as to the current market

trends in that area for that kind of property.

We hope that

this kind of suggestion, coupled with the necessary particulars now

provided, will mean the virtual elimination of the kinds of problems

that arise when the public deal with a licensed realtor directly for

the sale of their own property and then feel that they've been taken

advantage of through misunderstanding or lack of complete information.

We feel that if members of the public, having had a

[ Page 6319 ]

proper

and advanced chance to think about it and, hopefully, having obtained

independent valuation on property and the trend of the market, coupled

with full and complete disclosure of all the particulars and all of the

interests of the licensed realtor dealing directly or indirectly with

that property, still wish to complete such a transaction, it certainly

should be their right to do so.

These steps, Mr. Speaker,

are of benefit and interest not only to the consumers and

property-owners of British Columbia but also to the very high

percentage of licensed realtors who are the first to observe that in a

very few cases a very small handful of licensed realtors can do great

damage to the entire real estate vocation by unfairly taking advantage

of property-owners. To the degree we have seen a very small handful of

licensed realtors engaged in the so-called practice of "flipping"

residential properties in the province, that is almost entirely because

one of two things has happened: the property-owner has been incorrectly

or not advised about the current fair market value of his property, or

incorrectly or not properly advised about the trend of the market. Only

if one of those two things happens can a person having acquired

somebody's residential premises today quickly turn it over tomorrow for

a very substantial gain.

So that is the thrust and the intention of the new

section 28. We hope to have the new system in place by September 1.

Mr.

Speaker, in closing my remarks I want to acknowledge the strong support

for this kind of

section 28 provision that has been voiced by the

organized real estate industry and vocation. I want to salute the

significant number of real estate companies who, as a matter of company

policy, have a rule that licensed realtors should not be engaged in the

practice of acquiring residential property for the purposes of

speculation. These provisions under

section 28 apply with respect to

all types of real estate, but may I say that in putting them into

practice we shall be specifically concerned to make clear that the

flipping of residential properties is not to be encouraged and is to be

made virtually impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I will listen with interest to the comments of members. With those remarks, may I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would like to remind the hon. minister that it is rather unusual to

debate a certain

section in second reading. Perhaps he would remember

that.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1981

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Social Service Tax Act in British

Columbia by providing the authority in the act to tax a variety of

transactions which can be grouped under the word "lease." The Social

Service Tax Act and regulations up to this time have always contained a

number of provisions enabling taxation of leases; some of the

requirements are provided in the act while others are contained in the

regulations and, indeed, in branch instructions to taxpayers and to the

business community.

In the past several months it has become

apparent that the current legislation lacks clarity and precision with

respect to the taxation of leases and the whole area of such tax.

Accordingly these amendments consolidate the legislative requirements

in the act concerning the taxation of leases, in order that all

taxpayers involved in lease transactions, whether they are lessors or

lessees, can clearly understand the requirements for payment of tax

under the legislation.

In addition to establishing the rates

of tax on the lease price of leases of tangible personal property,

including the variable rates on motor vehicles designed to encourage

the use of fuel-efficient vehicles, the amendments also provide that —

and I think this is an important point to make — rentals of tangible

personal property for periods of less than one month are not taxed. The

lessors pay the tax when they purchase the property. This arrangement

covers the daily or hourly rentals of items such as tools, equipment,

lawnmowers, fishing tackle, boats, etc. This does not apply, however,

to vehicle rentals where the tax is paid on all rentals regardless of

term.

Where persons use equipment within the province that

is leased from out-of-province lessors, they shall report the

circumstances and pay tax on the portion of the lease price that is

attributable to the use of the equipment within British Columbia. The

amendments set out the bases for calculating the proportion of such

lease amounts on which tax is payable.

Several consequential

amendments are made so that lessors have the same duties and

obligations with respect to the collection and remittance of tax as

vendors have under the act as it now exists.

Essentially,

these amendments seek to clarify the law in this important area of

taxation, in order that tax revenue from these types of transactions is

not jeopardized and also that taxpayers have a clearer understanding of

the law. The amendments are designed to take effect on proclamation so

that regulations may be brought in at about the same time.

MR. STUPICH:

May I say on behalf of the opposition that we accept the minister's

explanation that it's simply clarification and it's not imposing any

new levies. We support the legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo for his brief remarks, and move second reading of Bill 26.

Motion approved.

Bill

26, Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1981

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 81.

[ Page 6320 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

This bill was called last Friday. I was excused from the House to

attend another function, and I apologize for that. In reviewing Hansard , I see that a number of questions were raised by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

First,

I would like to thank my colleague the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) for going as far as he did. With

respect to some of the questions — I now have a copy of Hansard — I

thought that perhaps I could go over them for the benefit of the

member. After answering the questions I will flesh out my remarks with

some of the other reasons for it.

One of the questions asked

by the member was: what other fringe benefits will those people now

have eliminated as a result of this particular amendment? All the

information I have is that none will be eliminated. For example, right

now they do have medical coverage — extended medical benefits,

superannuation, life insurance, dental insurance. These have all been

rolled over within the last 12 to 14 months. By the way, those were all

done by order-in-council. Right now the only one left over involves

short-term and long-term disability.

I quote the member's

second question: "I'm wondering if the minister could then explain what

benefits are improved under this long- and short-term disability

section for these particular people; that is, the staff and members of

the boards of review?" Really, they are almost identical. But with

respect to the specific question on long- and short-term disability, I

have a couple of notes here which might be of some assistance to the

member. If you took at them, the rollover is nothing more than the

provisions under the Public Service Act for employees who receive those

benefits. I think it must be understood that all of this is being done

after dialogue among the Ministry of Labour, Treasury Board, Workers'

Compensation Board and the staff and members of the boards of review.

I'll comment on that a little later on.

The member has some

concern as to the differential in benefits between the present Workers'

Compensation Board plan for short-term illness and the comparable

section in the provincial government short-term illness plan. Under the

board's policy, employees are entitled to 1.5 days per month, which

are cumulative, so an employee can take up to 18 days per annum for

short-term illness. After six months the employee can take an

additional 15 days which can be borrowed against entitlement for future

years. Upon termination or retirement the employee, under the Workers'

Compensation Board plan, can be paid out at 50 percent of banked

short-term illness. Employees are also paid 100 percent of their normal

salary. The provincial government plan for short-term illness pays at

100 percent for the first six days. Thereafter it is 75 percent of

salary for a total of six months. Both of these plans, by the way, have

a phased approach to full entitlement.

There is another item

with respect to any differential. We're talking about long-term

disability now. Under the Workers' Compensation Board plan there is a

15-day waiting period before entitlement for long-term illness, at

which time 75 percent of the salary for the last day worked is paid for

employees with total disability. This will continue until either

retirement or return to work. Under the provincial government plan the

provincial government covers to a maximum of $1,500 at two-thirds of

salary; presuming that somebody was earning $1,500, he would receive

two-thirds of that. He would receive 50 percent of salary over and

above $1,500 per month. That plan also continues until either

retirement or return to work.

I think it fair to raise the

comment about whether or not there are many changes. I think that when

there is consent and agreement to do this — and this is what I was

advised as early as this morning.... These employees have not been

removed from their existing plan. The agreement is to have no loss in

coverage until the legislation is amended, so they are covered all the

time. I am reading from a note from the director of personnel: "Please

note the plans have been discussed with both the chairmen and members

and staffs of the boards of review, and they are in agreement. Of

course, many of them find this change to be desirable in that their

commencement on the provincial government plan will result in an early

payout of the 50 percent of the banked sick leave for all employees."

So there is a benefit in the changeover.

I don't think there

is any need to make reference to

section 86 of the Workers Compensation

Act. Subsections (3) and (5) obviously make reference to the

superannuation fund, and also to any agreement with the Pension (Public

Service) Act, both of which require the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Perhaps we should go back to

find out the reason for the deletion as a matter of policy. You'll

recall that last year, 1980, the boards of review were removed from the

direct financial responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board to

the Ministry of Labour. To accommodate this transfer, steps were taken

to ensure that the transfer was complete — to include not only the

direct salary but also the benefit plans. Those benefit plans have now

been transferred, except the two to which I earlier referred — that is,

short- and long-term disability. At present the boards of review are

covered under this package. The amendment before the House will bring

the boards of review under the short- and long-term illness plan of the

provincial government and will remove — I repeat "remove" — the direct

financial responsibility of the WCB for the boards of review. We all

know that the ultimate cost is borne by the accident fund of the

Workers' Compensation Board. The reason for the amendment is to change

the carriers. That's clear.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As a matter of fact, this was brought to my attention Friday night. When I arrived here last night to have a look at Hansard ,

I read what was said and thought perhaps I should be prepared today,

unlike the way the member found me a little while ago. If that's all,

I'll sit down.

MS. SANFORD: I just want to comment

that I'm really pleased to see the minister so well prepared today. I

don't have any further questions. He gave me more information than I

wanted.

Sections 81 and 82 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 6321 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

BUILDING SAFETY STANDARDS ACT

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. BARBER:

As far as I can tell from reading

section 3, we find in it no provision

whatever which would determine whether or not appeals heard under this

act shall be heard publicly or in camera. Can the minister tell us if

this is a mistake of omission or if this is the policy of the

government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The approach

presently used is a decision for the board. It has worked well for a

large number of years. That's the similar approach proposed here.

MR. BARBER:

As far as I can tell, that's no approach. There's nothing set out here

to instruct the board one way or the other as to the policy of the

government or of this Legislature. I don't think that's really very

satisfactory. It may have worked well for years, but of course the

basic system has not worked well for years, which is why we have the

bill in front of us — a bill which the official opposition supports.

support it though, in part, on the condition that the business of these

appeals shall be done in public. I wonder if the minister could

indicate what good reason there might be that an application by way of

appeal under

section 3 of this act could be found to be legitimately

held in private, in camera and away from public scrutiny and the public

interest? What good reason could there be for denying public access to

the appeal process under

section 3 of this act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The information from the board is always public. Certainly the minutes

of their meetings or proceedings are available. I imagine they can deal

with a fairly large number of appeals at any one time in various areas

of the province.

To make a blanket provision that all such

meetings shall be public, I suppose, would require advertising. It's

certainly a bit of a farce to have public meetings unless you make it

known that the meetings are public — not only make it known that

they're public but invite people to participate in a particular appeal

before the board. The procedure that has been followed for a number of

years has been found to be very satisfactory. They're not closed in the

sense that people cannot come and attend, but they're not advertised as

other public hearings or meetings might be, because of the number and

the difficulty in doing that which would cause further delay.

MR. BARBER:

No one in the official opposition is arguing in favour of delay or

further expenditure. We're arguing in favour of open government and an

open-door policy. The minister says that's the policy. Fortunately, the

law doesn't say any such thing.

Section 3 is simply silent on it. It

may or may not be a good thing that the minister is personally prepared

to allow the meetings of the appeal board to be held with the benefit

of an open door. However, that's not what the law says.

always run into this sort of thing with Social Credit. They ask us to

take their word for it, but they don't give us these provisions,

guarantees or promises in law. They simply ask us to believe that it

was the policy, is the policy and will be the policy, regardless of the

fact that you can't find a word of that policy actually written down in

the statute.

We are not calling on the government to take out full-page ads in the Vancouver Sun

to advertise meetings of the appeal board. We'll leave that to their

solicitors and friends who do that for them at election time. Instead

we're asking what reasonable objection there can be to inserting a

simple commitment within

section 3: "Meetings of the appeal board shall

be public." That's all it needs to say. It doesn't need to say any more

than that at all. It would give legislative form to what I understand

is the minister's political promise. If it has been the practice, let

the practice continue. We only ask that the practice be enshrined in

law. It's not good enough to have the word of a minister of the day on

behalf of a government of the day. It doesn't work like that in the

British parliamentary system. It works in written and codified law.

What

objection would the government have to putting forward an amendment on

its own — we know that if the NDP does it, it will surely fail — that

simply says: "Every meeting of the appeal board shall be open to the

public"? That's all there is to it. There are no ads and no advocacy,

but a simple guarantee in writing of openness, that not only may both

parties be present — because the minister tells us that's how it's

always been done — but the public may be present as well. The minister

tells us that that too is how it's always been done.

I'd

like him to tell us these things with a little more conviction and with

the weight of law. I'd like to read it in the law, and then I'd be

prepared to believe the government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Again it should be pointed out to the hon. member as well that these

appeal boards are dealing with

interpretation of the act and adherence

to the act or the application of the act or the Buildings Code in

particular circumstances. It's not a matter of rezoning or such; it's

simply that which has been dealt with very effectively by similar

appeal boards for a number of years. It is public information, but it

is certainly also a matter of procedure and process. As I've said, we

have such an appeal board right now.

MR. BARBER: The

official opposition supports this act but cannot support in any way

this minister's completely unsatisfactory reply to a modest and simple

request we make. I'll make it for a third time. If it is your policy

that these meetings be open, why can't we find that guarantee in the

law itself? You say you've always done it that way. You tell us you

have no objection to doing it that way in the future. If you want us to

believe you, which we're prepared to do, give us not only your word but

the power of enforcement by including it in the statute. It's a simple,

straightforward and legitimate request. We do it in the name of

openness, open government and all of the things that this place is

supposed to stand

[ Page 6322 ]

for.

It's a one-line amendment. There's nothing to it. It won't cost you any

votes, any money or any sleep either. It's a simple commitment to

openness, guaranteed in the law itself, as we have the opportunity to

change it before us today.

Again, I do not move such an

amendment myself. Invariably, amendments moved by New Democrats are

doomed to fail. Therefore we ask the government to sponsor its own

amendment — a simple, unobjectionable request. Open it up, and don't

ask us simply to believe your verbal promise. You might not be here

tomorrow. You may be appointed to the Canadian Senate. We wouldn't have

anyone else's word to take for it, and simply the dull record of

Hansard to point at to tell some other ministers: "See, that's what

Bill said. Why don't you do it?" He would reply: "I'm not Bill.

Besides, there's nothing in the law that requires me to do so." What we

want is something in the law that requires governments to do so. We

think that's what the people want too.

Will you reconsider

and move a simple amendment in the name of open government and

democratic procedure? Open it up. If you've got nothing to hide you've

got nothing to fear.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well,

again, I'm just wondering whether the hon. member understands the

process, because certainly now appeals are available, although they

certainly don't carry the weight we provided for here to a building

inspector. The building inspector can consider such an appeal in his

office and make the information available to the applicant. If such

information were provided in writing in each and every instance now,

perhaps there wouldn't be the need for this particular process. They

could simply go to court with that information, although again that

would be a rather lengthy period. The inspector certainly could be

required to make that information public. In this particular instance

we have an appeal board dealing with administrative matters. They could

make those minutes available to the applicant or anyone else that

requested them.

Sections 3 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

MR. BARBER:

I wonder if the minister could tell us precisely what constitutes an

offence under

section 13, what the penalties for failure to comply are,

and what the enforcement procedure is.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The offences are spelled out in the bill, but with respect to what

constitutes an offence the board has the same power as a commission

under the Inquiry Act, and if someone were called in to give evidence

and failed to attend, that would be an offence.

MR, BARBER:

I understand the notion of "offence" designated in this bill; however,

"offence" has a more general meaning under the

Interpretation Act. It's

that particular and more general meaning I'm looking for, because I was

unable to find a helpful reference to it when I examined the

Interpretation Act.

I'm also inquiring about the competence

of the board to obtain enforcement of an order under

section 13. Where

would the board go in order to obtain satisfaction should they not be

able to obtain it in the more ordinary course, as provided under the

Building Safety Standards Act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This would be under the offence

section of the Inquiry Act.

Sections 13 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

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

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER:

My only question is to ask you to hold on for a moment while I look at

it. I stupidly left my notes in my office. I'll have to go from memory.

Could

the minister tell us what was wrong with the previous section? Why did

you introduce a first amendment, and why are we now debating a second

amendment? What is the material difference between the very first and

the third version we have on the desks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The first amendment was very specific. "For the purposes of subsection

(1), each of the following is a 'person responsible...'" and it listed

the persons responsible. In the second amendment it's more for the

interpretation of the courts as to who was the guilty party or for what

reason. It was felt that perhaps this would give the court a greater

degree of discretion, particularly where you're dealing with, say, the

construction of a home or some commercial building for an individual

who's not familiar with all the laws and could be caught with someone

having been involved in the building of it and not following all the

rules as required but not advising the owner of this.

MR. BARBER: I thank the minister for his answer.

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

Sections 38 to 45 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

20, Building Safety Standards Act, reported complete with amendment to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

(continued)

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

[ Page 6323 ]

section 10.

MS. SANFORD:

This is where we left this bill the other day. A few minutes ago I

complimented the minister on being well prepared for

section 81 of Bill

24. I have never seen a minister so ill-prepared to handle a bill as we

saw in the case of Bill 19 the other day. I'm certainly optimistic that

the minister has now had a chance to understand the bill and will be

able to provide the same kind of answers he provided under the statutes

amendment act which we dealt with earlier.

Section 10 is a

section in which it appears to me that the authority of the local

inspectors — those who are in gas safety inspection — has been eroded.

I don't know if the minister has had a chance to look at that. I raised

that question the other day. I'm wondering if the minister is now

prepared to explain to me why that authority has been eroded, if in

fact it has.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think if the member

were to have a closer look at sections 8 and 9.... Under

section 10,

first of all, I don't think that (

a) is in question — as to whether he

will be appointed by the mayor or by the municipal council. I don't

think there's any question about this under

section 10. In subsection

(2) there is a reference to the deletion of sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and

11. There is a reason for it under

section 7. We find that that

particular

section now deals with contractors, and there is no

reference to local inspectors.

If you were to go to

section 5, under "authorization" — it's

referred to as

section 8 in the bill — it says: "After the installation

or alteration...to person shall use or permit the use of the house piping,

appliance or vent unless an inspector or local inspector has been given written

notification...." And under subsection (ii) it says: "...has

authorized the use of the house piping...." I want to make one other point here.

One

concern was raised with respect to the jurisdiction of a local

inspector. So it's clear and so there is consistency through the act,

the distinction between a local inspector and an inspector is simply

that the former is appointed by a municipal council and the latter

comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial government gas

inspection branch. They have exactly the same authority, but there is

some delineation between areas, depending on the gas pressures. For

example, a gas pressure which does not exceed half a pound per square

inch can still fall within the jurisdiction of a local inspector we

often refer to him as a municipal inspector. But anything in excess of

half a pound per square inch — referring to mains, meters and services

from the main arteries to the residential or commercial connection —

falls under the jurisdiction of an inspector. That inspector operates,

I repeat, under provincial jurisdiction. A number of municipalities do

not really wish to employ their own inspector. They can, by agreement,

come under the jurisdiction of an inspector — not a municipal employee.

you look at

section 9 in the bill — that's

section 5.... The

specific

section in the legislation which is in the process of being

amended is referred to as

section 9. It specifically states under the

amendment: "An inspector may inspect house piping...." If you go

down those particular sections, you'll see that the responsibilities of

a local inspector have been enumerated.

might raise one

other item. I appreciate that when I was up on this before it wasn't

too clear. I think you'll find a theme expressed in a number of the

sections; it runs through the bill. I point this out, although it was

referred to in an earlier reading. What's important in the thrust of

this legislation — and also found in both the Electrical Energy

Inspection Amendment Act, 1981, and the Power Engineers and Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Safety Act — is everyone's shared responsibility.

Government is not going to be there to provide not only all safety

measures.... It just cannot do so.

Interestingly enough,

after making further inquiries into the reasoning behind this, I found

out that there is a concept originating in the Geneva Convention, to

which Canada is a party, the thrust of which is that government alone

cannot protect everyone. Therefore additional responsibility ought to

be placed upon all people involved. When we look at anything with

respect to gas or a boiler, we look at which engineers designed it;

certain responsibilities must stay with them. We also look at the

equipment itself and whether it has Canadian Gas Association

certification. Next we look into the contractor; who is being issued

the permit? The next question is whether he is bonded.

think I made reference to bonding, hon. member. In fact we've taken

your point and will be reviewing the extent of bonding. It was low in

some cases. I asked the officials in my ministry to take note of your

comment, and we're proceeding in that regard.

Following the

contractor, work is done by a licensed gas fitter — and we've been

through the exemption of the homeowner. On top of that there are the

government branch inspections, and then there are the annual

inspections. So when we take all of these components going into one

particular enterprise, one particular boiler or whatever it may be,

we're finding that that responsibility is shared by a number of people.

With

respect to the

section which we referred to earlier, you'll also find

that the idea is that people who can take out a permit proceed to do so

— or at least they file an application with the appropriate authority —

but always through the legislation.... It was found that the tap

was not to be turned on, the connection was not to be fired — whatever

the case was — until the installation had, in fact, been appropriately

inspected. The reason behind this is that surely government can rely

upon whoever is doing this in the private sector to share some of the

responsibility, take responsibility and accept the onus; after all,

they're being paid for it. We come in the back door at the end and let

go a final inspection before the key is turned on. That way we're not

frustrating or holding up anybody who wants to proceed.

don't know if I can really say much more about

section 10. I'll sit

down, and maybe the member will have another comment or two.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's explanation. It certainly

clarifies it more than we were able to obtain the other day, but I

still have some questions on this section. For instance, one of the

sections gets removed.

Section 10(

b) states: "...subsection (2) by

striking out 'sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11'" The minister just spoke

about having responsibility given to the people who are making the

installation — the people who manufacture the product and all that sort

of thing — but if you look at

section 9, which is being removed from

this bill — and I'll refer the minister to

section 9 in the original

bill that's being repealed — it states as follows: "The gas fitter,

before he installs an appliance, shall ascertain that the appliance can

be used safely, and shall apply any test that an inspector directs."

Now that has been

[ Page 6324 ]

eliminated.

Here you have the responsibility being placed on the gas fitter to

ascertain that the appliance can be used safely before he installs it.

But that's being eliminated; that

section is being removed, and it's

not being replaced by anything that I can see that again gives that

guarantee of safety.

The minister is getting a bit of

assistance here. Perhaps the legislative counsel will be able to direct

me to the

section that assures that the gas fitter shall ascertain that

this appliance is safe, because it's being removed by this section.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, I though that perhaps

section 10 was deleted for the

reasons which I gave when I was last on my feet. But by doing that we

end up sharing that responsibility. You will find, however, with

respect to the deletion of

section 10.... Would the member have a

look at subsection 5(8) of the amending bill, "authorization before

use": "After the installation or alteration of house piping, an

appliance or a vent, no person shall use...the house piping,

appliance or vent unless...a local inspector has been given written

notification...." Subsection 5(8 (i), the next one, says: "... has

authorized the use of the house piping, appliance or vent" unless

there has been some exemption by regulation. We're talking about a

home, and I thought perhaps we'd gone through it earlier.

Under

section 5 of the amending bill, have a took at subsection 6(6) ;

subsection 6(7) is of some help too with respect to authority. I think

the important thing is where it makes reference to the gas fitter;

before he installs an appliance he shall ascertain that the appliance

can be used safely. Well, the fact is that it's not to be turned on

until such time as it has been finally inspected. I think that we can

rely upon all those involved in the installation to share some of that

responsibility.

MS. SANFORD: Of course, the only

problem here is that we don't know what's going to be in those

regulations and who, other than the homeowner, is going to be exempted.

There's always a problem with that. We won't know until those

regulations come out. I appreciate that the minister feels that he has

to bring in regulations to cover some of these situations, because it's

impossible to inspect every installation. There's always some concern

there with respect to what is going to be included in the regulations.

There

is one further thing under this section. I'm going to refer the

minister to the original bill. If he looks at the original bill, we are

section 6, and then we're removing sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Am I

correct? Does the minister agree with that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I think....

MS. SANFORD:

I haven't asked my question yet. We're removing sections 7, 8, 9, 10

and 11 from the original bill.

Section 10 does that in the amending

bill, right?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes.

MS. SANFORD:

If you look at the amending bill, you will find on page 2 that

section

7 is replaced.

Section 8 is being replaced — "Authorization before use"

— the one that the minister was just discussing.

Section 9 deals with

inspectors and what they may inspect. Then the next

section that I find

in the bill is

section 11. I want to know where

section 10 is. Surely

we can't put a bill through this House with a

section that's missing. I

cannot find the new

section 10 anywhere. I hope I've made my

explanation clear enough.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's under

section 16.

MS. SANFORD: I think you're wrong, Mr. House Leader.

Would the minister please tell me where

section 10 is in the new bill?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, the inspection of premises is now not a function, in that sense.

MS. SANFORD: I just want to know where

section 10 is.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Section 10 is no longer in existence. Could I refer the member to

section 9: "An inspector or local inspector may inspect house

piping...but only an inspector may inspect a gas installation

exit." We're talking about the inspection of the installation, not the

inspection of the premises.

MS. SANFORD: That's not my question. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the minister understands my question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The other thing is that I'm advised by legislative counsel that when

you repeal a section, there's no need to make reference to it in the

new bill.

MS. SANFORD: I'm rather confused by this.

In the old bill we repealed sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. In this

amending bill we put in new sections 7, 8, 9 and 11, but for some

reason we don't have a

section 10. I wonder if the minister could

explain why there's no

section 10. Usually when you're reading a bill

you go right through

section 1, 2, 3, etc. In this old bill they

replaced the sections that they were repealing, except for

section 10.

I can't find any

section 10.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I

think if the member were to look at a number of statutes on the books,

she would find that when, in fact, a

section has been repealed, it is

often then left blank. If you have to change all of the numbers within

the bill, it involves a total rewriting. This is an amending bill. It

was deleted and that was it. That was the method of draftsmanship which

was recommended by the legislative counsel, and it has been followed

through.

MS. SANFORD: I'll have to accept the

minister's explanation. I just find it rather strange that when they're

replacing all these sections, for some reason they forgot to replace

one. The House Leader seems to think it's somewhere else in the bill,

but I think he's wrong even though he says he's right. Obviously

they've decided not to have a

section 10 in this new bill. That's fine;

if that's their decision I shall have to accept it.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

MS. SANFORD:

We're changing the word "board" to "advisory committee" and so on. One

of the appeal procedures will be to this new advisory committee or

appeal board. As I understand it they're going to be one and the same.

Am I correct?

[ Page 6325 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Under the existing Gas Act reference is made to a "gas appeal board."

There is now going to be an advisory committee. Following through on

the bill you will find that where "advisory committee" is used there's

a purpose for the advisory committee, with respect to making

recommendations, etc. If you're not satisfied with the local

inspector's decision at the municipal level or the inspector's decision

at the provincial level you then go to the chief, and if you're not

happy with the chief then you can go to a gas safety appeal board. The

legislation is parallel both in structure and purpose to the electrical

inspection appeals and the boiler and pressure vessel appeals. I think

you'll find a great deal of similarity between these.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

MS. SANFORD:

Section 22 is repealed by this, and

section 22 says that a "chief

inspector shall...issue a licence to any person recommended by the

board...." The chief inspector seems to have lost his authority

to issue a licence. Can the minister explain why

section 22 has been

repealed? Is the minister prepared to answer that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Yes,

section 22 is repealed, but I think if the member refers to

section 17 in the amending bill, she'll see a couple of

preambles to

that with respect to striking out "repair" and substituting "design,"

followed by "and licensing" after "registration." If one goes down and

looks under (g), "permitting the chief inspector to designate a person

or class of persons to issue a document referred to in paragraph (g)"

which is "for the issuance, renewal, endorsement, revocation and

suspension of any class of certificate," it's to be found in the

regulations. That's really what it is. I think there's probably a

better reason for putting in regulations: you're setting out the

criteria for examinations, qualifications, work experience — and I

suspect that old word "technology" comes up again. With the changes

which occur in this area it may very well be important that they can be

subject to change and adaptation quickly. I might also add that what is

important about these is that the advisory committee — which is going

to be composed of people who work day to day with gas — is really in a

position to know what is going on in the field, and I'm sure it will be

making recommendations from time to time on any changes in regulation.

think I can repeat that it's been absolutely years since this has

really been attached. I can understand their reluctance to some degree

to incorporate everything within a bill.

MS. SANFORD:

He refers to another

section here, but since he's referred to it under

this particular repealing section, I will too. I would like to know

what the qualifications are required for this person whom the chief

inspector is going to designate. It doesn't give any information

anywhere in the bill about what qualifications this class of persons

which is going to be designated....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I could deal with it under

section 17, but since the minister has raised it now....

Let

me ask another question. I asked this the other day. Who appointed that

chief inspector? We learned that his name was Montgomery. He said that

it was provided for under the legislation. I can't find where it's

provided for that he becomes appointed. I would also like to know who

appointed him. Were you the minister who appointed him as the chief

inspector, or was it some other minister at some other point? Under

what authority in the legislation did that happen?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

First of all, I have some difficulty in trying to answer that. I'm

going to have to get back to the member on it. The gentleman to whom

she referred was, to the best of mv knowledge, the chief gas inspector

when I was appointed to this portfolio. How long he's been there I

don't know. I gather he has been with the ministry for a number of

years. As to the appointment of a chief inspector, wasn't the answer

given last week — by "way of regulation"?

MS. SANFORD: Where does it say that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I cannot answer that specific question. I'll have to get back to the

member on that, if she could continue. There's somebody in my office

right now who is monitoring the House. I think when they hear my

request for information assistance, it could be coming down here

forthwith.

MS. SANFORD: I'll accept the minister's

explanation of that, although I still don't think that this person has

ever been appointed chief inspector. That may be the case, but he's

going to find out for me.

I should point out that there's no

section 22 in the new bill either. That's another

section that's missing.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MS. SANFORD:

I would like to know what qualifications are required for the person

who's going to be designated by the chief inspector. There's some

requirement in the legislation about people who are appointed, but

there is nothing in the bill that I can determine that says what

qualifications a person must have if he is designated by an inspector.

It seems to me that this person can have unlimited authority. At least,

the chief inspector, if he is going to halt a project, can halt it for

only 30 days under the legislation. But this new person who becomes

designated has nothing in the bill that will limit him to a 30-day

designation. He can do whatever he pleases. Secondly, he doesn't need

to have any qualifications according to the bill.

question to the minister is: where in this legislation does it state

that a person who is designated by the chief inspector has to have any

qualifications, and what sort of restrictions are placed on that person

who has been designated by the chief inspector? According to my reading

of this, this person who is designated has more authority than the

chief inspector himself. I'm wondering how we can improve safety if in

fact we have people designated who are unqualified and who have

authorities greater than the chief inspector under the bill.

[ Page 6326 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

With respect to the earlier question, I'm advised that the chief

inspector receives that designation pursuant to

section 14 of the

Public Service Act. I've just pulled out the bill here. The marginal

notation heading is: "Use of classification title." I appreciate the

concerns the member raises, but if we look under (g.1) it says: "...

permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or class of

persons to issue a document referred to in paragraph (g)." Surely if

he's going to appoint someone it's going to be someone who in fact will

be capable of discharging the duties.

A note was just passed

to me on this item. This particular

section will permit government

agents, for example, to issue permits. We're talking about rural

portions of the province. What happens if we don't have a gas inspector

— or any other inspector, in some areas of the province — and it's

difficult to service them? It seems to me that it would be appropriate,

for example in the town of McBride or Valemount — if I can use the

Chair's riding — where there are people who don't have those services

available to them. It may very well be designated to a government agent.

MS. SANFORD: Designation by him or of him?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Designation by him, I would expect.

set of the regulations are passed over. The regulations are going to

set out what the qualifications would be if somebody is going to be

designated to carry out the duty. If we look under (g.1) it says:

"designate a person or class of persons." That's obviously pretty wide.

But I think that as a result of that designation there are going to be

certain limitations imposed upon the recipient of that designation, and

those restrictions will be found in the regulations. For example, here

is one set entitled: "Regulations respecting gas fitters, contractors

and dealers." It seems to be clear. There is reference to experience in

insulation, etc. So I think that's probably going to be canvassed.

MS. SANFORD:

So now we learn that they're going to be done by regulation. The

minister initially said that obviously they're not going to designate

anybody who is not properly qualified, but anybody who is appointed....

It specifies in the legislation what qualifications anybody appointed

must have, but anybody who is designated apparently is going to be

covered by regulation somehow, although the minister wasn't very clear

on that.

The other thing he said was: "Surely they wouldn't

appoint anybody who wasn't properly qualified." But if we're going to

be dealing with legislation as important as this, regarding gas safety

in the province, we can't assume that these people are going to be

designated or that they're going to be properly qualified or whatever

else. My question to the minister is: how are these people who are

going to be designated different from those who are appointed? In other

words, what difference in qualification is there going to be according

to these regulations you're going to be bringing in? Is there any

difference? Are they of a lower standard? Are they not as qualified?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Someone has to have some authority to designate.

Somebody has to do it — to take someone's place. We agree with that. However,

if someone is going to be designated to do a job, whether it's for a short

period of time or whether it's going to be for a longer period, depending

upon the circumstances, surely the qualifications of whoever is designated —

the administrative act being the designation.... Whoever's going to make

the appointment is obviously going to have to look at the job experience. The

question then comes in: should that be incorporated within regulation? I suggest

it should.

reply to an earlier question you raised with respect to the chief

inspector, there are a couple of points I wanted to raise. In 1970 Bill

Montgomery was successful in a competition for the position of chief

inspector (engineer 6) — I suppose that's part of the public service. I

might have misled the House with respect to an earlier question. I

referred to the Public Service Act, the

section under the act and the

marginal note with respect to classification. You can also find the

reciprocal

section in

section 14 of the existing Gas Act, which is

entitled "Appointment of staff." "A chief inspector, who shall be a

professional engineer, and inspectors, clerks and employees as are

required for this act may be appointed under the Public Service Act."

These are complementary sections.

MS. SANFORD: Could

the minister please advise where in the legislation the authority of

these persons who are designated by the chief inspector is outlined?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

At this time I cannot give any more thorough an answer than I have, and

I refer to the provision in the amending bill where permission to

designate is given to the chief inspector — "permission is given."

think we have to rely upon the calibre of the people who are in place,

the nature of their responsibilities and the regulations under which

they work. If we have to spell out all the qualifications of an

administrator or chief inspector I think we would end up having a

fairly husky statute in a number of areas. I apologize to the member. I

know she doesn't find that answer satisfactory, but I'm afraid I just

don't have any more to say on it.

MS. SANFORD: You

don't excuse poor legislation by saying we have to rely on the people

who are in charge of the legislation — we have to rely on the chief

inspector. That's not what the job of this assembly is all about. We

probably have a very good chief inspector at the moment, but who knows

what the next chief inspector might be like or how he might interpret

sections of the act when they are so fuzzy that we don't know what

authority these people who are designated have, where the limitation on

their authority is or what kind of qualifications they have to have.

The minister talked about the government agent appointing gas

inspectors without any sort of qualifications, authority or limitation

on their authority. According to this legislation right now, the people

who are designated have more authority than the chief inspector. At

least there is a

section in the old bill that limits the authority of

the chief inspector. There is absolutely nothing in either the old bill

or this new amending legislation that limits the authority of the

people who are designated by the chief inspector. We don't know what

their qualifications are going to be. We don't know if we're going to

have government agents appointing them or police chiefs. Are they going

to be appointing gas inspectors? Are we going to have regional board

directors appointing...?

Interjection.

[ Page 6327 ]

MS. SANFORD:

Oh, well, really! No, Mr. Chairman, it does not there limit the

authority of anybody who is designated. I'm waiting for the minister to

give me an explanation of that.

He's getting more notes from upstairs; that will help.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, this is my last run at this item. Subsection (g.1)

specifically states the following: "...permitting the chief

inspector to designate a person or class of persons to issue" —

underline the words "to issue" — "a document referred to in paragraph

(g)." We go back to paragraph (

g) and read: "...providing for the

issuance, renewal, endorsement, revocation and suspension of any class

of certificate...." The chief inspector issues a certificate — I repeat,

issues a certificate — as to what the qualifications will be for any

recipient of that certificate, and we go to the regulations. I'm

advised that it's common practice now not to recite in legislation all

of the qualifications, for the same reasons that we don't recite in

detail some of the items under the boiler and pressure vessels act.

One

of the things is that there are constant changes. There are changes in

technology and qualifications; they are constantly upgrading courses.

It seems to me it would be much easier for those responsible for the

administration of the legislation and for working under the legislation

to have some regulation which could be put in place very simply by an

order-in-council, instead of having to carry on their day-to-day

business activities, which some do right now, having no jurisdiction or

authority to do what they are doing because the legislation has got

them by the throat. It's much better to find out and set out the ground

rules and then use regulations from time to time to accommodate those

people whom we were sent here to serve.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, the minister still hasn't answered the question

specifically. A chief inspector has some limitations placed on him in

the old legislation — and I certainly can read that for him if he

wishes. For instance, he cannot hold up a project for any more than a

month's period of time. It's

section 23 in the legislation. Yet we have

this person who has been designated without that kind of restriction

having been placed on him. For instance, if this new person who is

designated lifts a licence, he is not limited to the suspension that

the chief inspector is limited to; nowhere in this legislation does it

say that he is limited to a period of one month. So I must assume that

when this person is designated, he can lift a licence, if he so wishes,

forever. Where in this legislation does the limitation which applies to

chief inspectors apply to those who are designated by the chief

inspector?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's permissive power.

MS. SANFORD:

Well, it's permissive power, but if he's been given permission to use

that power, in my view, there should also be some limitation on that

power, as there is on the power of the chief inspector. For heaven's

sake, we've got somebody here who has more authority than the chief

inspector himself. All I want the minister to do is to tell me where in

this legislation it limits the authority of the person who has been

designated by the chief inspector. At least in the present legislation

there is a limitation — and it's very clearly written out in

section 23

of the act: "The chief inspector shall not revoke a licence until he

has given notice to the holder of it in accordance with the regulations

that he will hold a hearing and has held the hearing, nor shall he

suspend any licence for a period of more than one month." That's clear;

it's in the legislation. We understand that the chief inspector can

lift or suspend a licence for a period of 30 days. Now we have this new

person. We don't know what his qualifications are going to be, but

we're told: "Well, in regulations surely they'll do something."

"Surely," because the minister doesn't know. But where in the bill

does it limit the authority of this person who is designated? I can't

find it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm wondering if the

member would have another look at

section 23. It has not been repealed

and stays in.

Section 23(1) gives the power to the chief inspector. That's not repealed.

MS. SANFORD: I cannot get the minister to understand the problem here.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can't, but nobody else does either.

MS. SANFORD: Look at it.

Section 23 outlines the authority of the chief inspector.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: He must listen if he's going to understand this.

Section

23 of the old act outlines the authority of the chief inspector. It

also specifically limits his authority. All right, that's

section 23.

But in the amending bill we are giving the chief inspector authority to

designate, and nowhere do we outline what qualifications these people

who will be designated must have, nor do we provide authority to limit

their authority as provided for the chief inspector in the old

legislation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again I make

reference to

section 23. Next to that

section are the regulations. The

regulations have received their authority for preparation under the

statutes. Nothing which is going to be contrary to the law on the

statute books in the regulations can be put. Any regulations with

respect to designation or issuance of a document, whatever it may be,

are still going to have the restrictions, or fall within the perimeter

of the.... It's been there all along, Madam Member.

MS. SANFORD:

The regulations which have been issued do not contravene

section 23 in

terms of the chief inspector, because it's the chief inspector who is

outlined here. Any regulations that contravene this would not be

permitted. But that applies only to the chief inspector. I'm referring

to this other category provided for in the new legislation: those

people who are designated have no limitation. The regulations

there.... Is he telling me that they're going to be covered?

Oh, he's getting another message. It's a good thing he has somebody upstairs who's listening...

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You bet I do.

MS. SANFORD: ... and sending down messages to....

[ Page 6328 ]

MR. BARBER: This one says that his tea is ready.

MS. SANFORD: His tea is ready, is it? Well, maybe we should move the committee rise then. Is that what you want?

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, you don't want that. All right.

Let

us see now if the minister has the answer about how the authority of

those who are designated under the new statute is limited. I'm giving

him a chance to read it. He's reading it out loud so he can understand

it. Are you ready, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I'm not.

MS. SANFORD:

You're not. Well, I'm just wondering: are we going to have this person

limited in his authority through regulation, or what? I can't find it

in the bill. It's nowhere there. The minister can't find it either. Can

you help him, Mr. House Leader? You're a lawyer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Take another look at (g.1).

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I've looked at (g.1), but nowhere in there does it limit their authority.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Under the act.

MS. SANFORD: Under which part of the act? Tell the minister so he can tell me.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find another way to say what I have now

said six times. If you would just be patient, maybe we'll come up with

something here.

I'll try again. I'll go to

section 1(

g) or

wherever it is, and I'll make reference to the following: all he can do

is issue a document. That's number one. That's all he can do. He cannot

revoke or suspend a licence in the same manner as a chief inspector

under

section 23 of the existing Gas Act. With respect to the question

which the member has raised again, I'll repeat: the statute is now

drafted. It gives authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

prepare regulations. If those regulations do not fall within the

provisions of the statute as passed, they would be ultra vires.

Certainly any regulations containing the qualifications of anyone so

designated to whom a certificate is issued must be found within the

authority of the statute, and as incorporated in the regulations. If

there are limitations placed upon a chief inspector, whatever the

guidelines or the qualifications are, those are subject to the

regulations and passing on would be exactly the same. I just can't do

any more than that, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SANFORD: I want

to make sure that I have this perfectly clear.

Section (g.1) says:

"...permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or class

of persons to issue a document referred to in paragraph (g)." Paragraph

(

g) says: "...providing for the issuance, renewal, endorsement,

revocation" — that's the one that I was referring to earlier — "and

suspension of any class of certificate, licence, registration, permit

or approval." According to my reading of this — I'm not one of those

smart lawyers — this person who is designated can do all of the things

that are outlined in paragraph (g). He's trying to get some more

information, I know, but it says very clearly in (

g) that this is what

people who are designated can do: "...providing for the issuance,

renewal, endorsement, revocation and suspension of any class of

certificate, licence, registration, permit or approval." So if he lifts

a permit, where is the limitation, as has been provided for in

section

23 of the old bill to the chief inspector, on this person who is

designated? It's not there. It says he can issue a document. Surely the

document referred to is a revocation of a permit. I think you follow

me, Mr. Chairman. Can you help the minister? Maybe the minister will

get it figured out this time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

We're going to take another run now. You're very persistent, Madam

Member. What happens if the chief inspector is in Prince Rupert, God

forbid? Let's say that the chief inspector makes a decision. What he

can do is designate someone to execute that decision for him in some

area. Okay? Maybe that was a genuine misunderstanding, and finally I

think this is what we've triggered on over here as to what you may have

been getting at. Is that right? So we've asked somebody.... If I

see any more yellow sheets of paper come in here from the engineers

upstairs with their damn slide-rules....

What happens is

that the direction is given, the decision is made, and he's asking

somebody to carry it out. All he does is issue the document referred to

in (g), but I presume that "...providing for the issuance,

renewal..." under (

g) is an administrative function of the chief

inspector.

MS. SANFORD: Suddenly we have a whole new

interpretation of this section. Now we have an

interpretation which

says these people who are designated can't do anything but carry out

the orders the chief inspector has already given. If the chief

inspector has already given the order, why does he need to designate

anybody else to give the order that he's already given? This is a whole

new

interpretation the minister is bringing to the section. First of

all he said he couldn't do any of these things it says in here; now he

says they can, but only when the chief inspector has said they can;

only when he's carrying out the orders of the chief inspector that have

already been issued. Does this person have any authority other than to

carry out the orders that have already been given by the chief

inspector?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I've gone over this so many times that I...

MS. SANFORD: I've got a new question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Have you?

MS. SANFORD: I asked you a new question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I cannot read any more into this matter. It seems to me that if the

member is about to take issue with what I see.... It seems to me,

and I've said it six different times, that he has the authority to

issue a document. We go back to the issuing and all he's done is

delegated that authority down to someone in the province. That's all I

can see, and I don't know what more the member is reading into it. I'm

attempting to accommodate you, but.... I think

[ Page 6329 ]

it's

pretty clear. If the chief gas inspector for the province is located in

Vancouver and if some authority is going to be issued it makes it clear

in here — "permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or

class of persons to issue a document" — that somebody is going to issue

it in Prince George, Prince Rupert, Terrace or Nelson. I think that's

all that's happening. As a matter of fact he is not passing off a

decision to revoke or suspend a licence; that decision is coming from

the chief inspector.

I think we can then go back into here

and look at

section 23(2): "The chief inspector shall not...."

In other words, the authority is there. With all due respect, I think

perhaps the member was looking for more in that

section than was really

there. Perhaps I haven't assisted and didn't jump to that point earlier.

MS. SANFORD:

The only thing I'm reading is what is written here. That's all I'm

reading. Is the minister stating that those people who are designated

can do nothing but carry out the orders already given by the chief

inspector? Can these people who are designated do anything other than

carry out the orders already issued by the chief inspector?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would imagine they could have a number of other functions. I can think of people....

MS. SANFORD: Uh-huh....

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

It's not "uh-huh" or anything at all. Is somebody going to hang around

here and wait to be designated so they can be issued a document by the

chief inspector? Is that all they're going to do — just wait out in

rural parts of the province with no other job? I don't know who's in

here or what else he can do.

MS. SANFORD: The

minister is completely contradicting himself. He just finished saying

these people who are designated can only carry out what the chief

inspector has already authorized. Therefore, he said, they don't need

to have any particular restrictions. For instance, if they lift a

licence or a permit, then they obviously must have some restrictions

such as the chief inspector has — 30 days only. But if these people can

act on their own and do things other than what the chief inspector has

outlined and already ordered, then they must have some restrictions on

their activities.

The minister cannot see that. He keeps

contradicting himself on this section. One time they can do this and

that, and they're going to be covered by regulation. The next time they

can do only what the chief inspector has already ordered. Now he's

telling me that they can do more than what the chief inspector has

already ordered. Which are the things they can do that the chief

inspector has already ordered, and which are the things they can do on

their own? I don't know.

I'm completely confused by the

answers the minister is giving on this

section this afternoon. I do not

understand whether this new bill places any kind of limitation on those

people who are designated — I think that if you're going to have people

like government agents designating gas inspectors, surely some kind of

limitation must be placed on their authority. Even the chief inspector

for the province has some limitation placed on his authority.

next question to the minister is: what activities can these designated

people carry out above and beyond those which the chief inspector has

already ordered? That's a very simple question, Mr. Chairman. The

minister has explained to us that, oh, yes, there are some things they

can do. Oh, he's going to turn his back on us, is he?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD:

The minister has just told us that there are some things these

designated people can do above and beyond what the chief inspector has

already ordered. What are those activities? Where are they in the bill?

What activities can they carry out above and beyond what has been

directly ordered by the chief inspector?

I don't understand

this, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to get information about a very

important bill that relates to gas safety inspection in the province.

If we're going to have people like government agents — as the minister

outlined earlier — designating a person within some rural area, surely

there must be some kind of limitation placed on that person's

authority. Does he have the same authority as the chief inspector, and

if so, why is that not included in the new legislation? Does he have

authority beyond the chief inspector's? We must assume that from the

wording of this legislation, because there is no limitation placed on

his authority.

We finally got out of the minister that the

qualifications for these people who are going to be designated are

going to be included in regulations. At least, that's what the minister

guesses; he doesn't really know. What kind of activities can these

designated people carry out above and beyond what the chief inspector

has already directly ordered? Initially, he told us that the only thing

they could do was what the chief inspector had already ordered. So what

activities can these designated people carry out above and beyond what

the chief inspector has ordered? That's a simple question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

You know, I really don't know what the member is up to, Mr. Chairman.

For the fortieth time, if we turn around and read

section (g), where it

says: "...providing for the issuance, renewal, etc." of

documents.... If we go down to (g.1).... Sometimes it's

required for the administration of the regulations, as called for under

the act that carries that out.... Your boss tells you: "I'd like

you to do something for me." You say: "Right."Well, that's what's here:

"...permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or class

of persons" to issue a document. I don't know what could be clearer

than that; the case has got to rest. To issue a document; the authority

to delegate — that's all it says. It doesn't say that whoever does that

has more authority than the chief inspector, or that he's carrying out

the chief inspector's functions. I've said it 16 times: to issue that

document.... This is like Chinese torture. That's all I can say.

MS. SANFORD: My next question then: could that document be a revocation of a permit or a licence?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would have to say, Madam Member, that I think my understanding is that it would not include the revocation.

MS. SANFORD: But it says that; (

g) says "revocation...."

[ Page 6330 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

No. I don't see how you can read into this that somebody who is issuing

a document can in fact be carrying out that revocation. It's issuing.

MS. SANFORD: It can be a document of revocation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Yes, I know, but you've got to separate the acts. There's obviously one

act which is an administrative decision made by someone, and further

down, it seems to me, we've got somebody executing.... I feel fairly

safe in answering that question. No, it is not a revocation; it could

not be.

MS. SANFORD:

The only thing I can do on this

particular section, then, is to encourage the minister to reword the

section, because it's very clear: it says that a person can issue a

document referred to in paragraph (g). In paragraph (

g) it says:

"...providing for the issuance, renewal, endorsement, revocation and

suspension of any class of certificate, licence, registration, permit

or approval." That says revocation; it's right there in (g). If that's

not what the minister intends, could he please bring in an amendment

that would ensure that that is not what he intends? What the minister

guesses is not what is in the legislation. What the minister supposes

is going to happen should be included in here in black and white. The

only thing I can do at this stage, because the minister does not read

what it says, is to encourage him to get another message from upstairs

that would in fact amend that section.

MR. LEA: I

think we have to put this into some political perspective. What the

minister is saying is that he understands what he would like to do if

he were administering the act, but, as is wont to happen in political

circles, the minister may not be the one administering the act. It

could be anybody, and it could be tomorrow. His understanding of what

it is doesn't really matter; it's what it says in the legislation. As

long as the minister doesn't completely understand what's in the act —

or chooses not to — that is neither here nor there. The fact of the

matter is that the legislation says one thing but the minister says he

understands that it can be another way, or something else. It just

isn't good enough for legislation to go through this House in that

haphazard manner.

I suggest that if the minister had taken

the time to understand this bill before he brought it into the House,

we wouldn't be in the problem we're in today, with the minister not

understanding his own legislation. It takes a member of the opposition,

the member for Comox, who doesn't have the staff to begin with, to take

the time on her own to understand this legislation and to speak about

it in an intelligent way. It seems to me that we have seen something in

this House that we haven't seen before in my nine years here: a

minister bringing into the House a bill that he does not understand at

all, and then asking us to trust him and accept that he has a special

meaning for the bill that's not written in the bill...

AN HON. MEMBER: He's working on it now.

MR. LEA: ...but he's working on it now. It looks like they're redrafting the

legislation. It seems to me that the only fair thing — not just for the

opposition or the government — is to take the bill out and to bring it

back in when it's written properly and the minister understands it.

Sections 17 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

19, Gas Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete with amendments to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 22: minister's office, $150,500.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, before the members pose questions that they may have with

respect to my responsibilities in this ministry, I would like to make a

few opening remarks. In introducing the estimates for this fiscal year

I would like to offer some observations which will assist the members

in dealing with the estimates of this ministry. I'm pleased that in a

period when fiscal restraint must be shown, a considerable increase in

resources has been made available to the Ministry of Attorney-General

to fulfil its program responsibilities. Total funding available after

efficiencies achieved to control government growth totalled $267.2

million, an increase of $27.5 million or 11.5 percent over the

previous year. In addition to a financial increase there has been an

increase of 50 positions permitted to the establishment of the

ministry, both through additions to establishment and through transfers

from other government ministries.

On reviewing these

estimates members will appreciate the wide range of responsibilities

which fall to the ministry. Central to those responsibilities are the

administration of the justice system in British Columbia, including the

provision of resources to the provincial, county and superior courts;

the management of the criminal justice system, incorporating

prosecuting services throughout the province; the provision of legal

aid through the Legal Services Society to individuals requiring

assistance; and the responsibility for a full and effective range of

correctional initiatives from juvenile to secure institutional programs.

The

superintendency of policing services in the province is another major

responsibility which falls to the ministry, and the importance of that

role is ever increasing, from both an effectiveness and a fiscal

perspective. Other major responsibilities are imposed by such widely

varying enactments as the Land Title Act, the Fire Services Act and the

Coroners Act. Members will also appreciate that many of the ministry's

programs are demand-sensitive; that is, they are reactive to a demand

from our citizens which statutorily the ministry must provide.

Additionally, demand for service has greatly increased as a result of

growth in the nongovernmental

section of the justice system, including

police forces, which have increased almost 50 percent in numbers in

[ Page 6331 ]

the last decade, and a more than doubling of the number of lawyers practising in the province over the same period.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

The

ministry's estimates are dominated by expenditures in three primary

areas: salaries, policing services through the RCMP contract, and the

rental of facilities. Expenditures in these areas represent in excess

of 85 percent of total ministry spending. The area of discretional

spending, Mr. Chairman, is exceedingly limited. In developing estimates

for presentation to the House, the ministry considered a number of

critical needs which must be addressed during the fiscal year. These

needs incorporate both internal administrative and management

improvements and the need to significantly increase funding in a number

of critical program areas.

The ministry is concentrating on

improving performance in the areas of policy analysis and planning and

internal management. These processes have resulted in a number of

senior appointments over the past year, including senior staff

responsible for policy planning and research, management and support

services and policing services.

A major objective of the

ministry during fiscal 1981-82 will be to encourage an increased

community awareness of ministry programs and the involvement of the

community in those programs. Major restructuring has taken place to

achieve this objective in the previous fiscal year, notably the

development of a single special projects branch, which incorporated

four existing programs, and the restructuring of public information

programs. Resources are allocated to continuing important initiatives

in Counterattack, including the educational program, and to supporting

crime-prevention initiatives — in particular, the community's

involvement in that important activity.

The ministry also

states as a priority the need to continue to develop effective

correctional programs in British Columbia. Improvements and progress in

such programs in recent years have been significant. Development of

initiatives such as alternatives to incarceration, the juvenile

programs and the community-based initiatives have been particularly

successful and are continued in this fiscal year. Additionally, the

ministry intends to assess and begin to deal with the urgent need of

providing facilities for improved correctional programming in British

Columbia. Through this fiscal year the ministry will review, assess and

evaluate existing correctional facilities and produce a plan through

the year for the redevelopment or replacement of many institutions.

Members must appreciate that the majority of the facilities for adults

operated by the corrections branch are out of date and do not meet the

minimum correctional standards which have been adopted by the United

Nations. Such facilities have done little, if anything, for either

inmates or staff, or to advance programming developed by the

corrections branch.

In the area of court administration the

ministry provides those services which are necessary to support the

effective functioning of the courts at all levels. British Columbia has

been an innovator in the development and implementation of policies and

programs providing for an integrated support system to all levels of

the courts. It is a relatively new system, and progress has been made

over the past two years in extracting major improvements in the

process. However, the pressures of a growing population, the steady

rise in the incidence of crime, the growth of the legal profession in

the province, the number of courtrooms and sitting judges and other

factors necessitate the addition of fiscal and other resources to

sustain that service. That increase has been provided in the estimates

which are before the committee for consideration.

Members

will also note major increases in funding provided to the criminal

justice division and the legal services to government division of the

ministry. These areas — traditionally underfunded and often sustained

in previous years by special warrant — are now provided with resources

necessary to effective programming for both public- and

government-oriented services.

With the assistance of

officials of the ministry I would be pleased to respond to any

questions which members may have with respect to these estimates.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is fortunate in his staff in the

public service of the province of British Columbia that serve in his

ministry. He's unfortunate in the kind of society in which we live. I

can remember the time, which doesn't seem too long ago, when Gordon

Scott and Oscar Orr used to manage the Vancouver provincial court. It

was called the police court in those days. They did it almost

single-handedly. Now, as the Attorney-General says, we have all these

new lawyers in the province. The number has doubled in the past decade.

Surely that's not responsible for the crime wave, is it? There does

seem to be some kind of Parkinson's Law at work there: the more lawyers

you have, the more cases you have and the more convictions you have.

Then you need to build jail space, and so we go.

We'll be

asking detailed questions on the administration of justice. I hope it

will be more of a question-and-answer thing, but I want to be critical

of the department too. I think that it's far too secretive, as

represented by the present Attorney-General. It's draw-the-shades,

button-the-lips and watch-out-for-leaks that we see in the

administration of the Attorney-General's department. I think it's the

least open ministry of all the ministers we see over there. I think

that's a great tragedy. If people are to respect the law, they should

be able to see the processes, even if looking at them is uncomfortable

for the Attorney-General or his colleagues. What we have seen are

clam-ups and secret inquiries.

I want to direct the

Attorney-General's attention to one matter at the present time and

initiate it with a few questions to him. This government very proudly

brought in the office of the ombudsman with strong independent powers

of investigation and provisions that anyone obstructing his work would

be liable to fine under the

summary convictions act. I would have hoped

that this ministry above all would be the one that would make sure that

the spirit as well as the letter of the Ombudsman Act would be lived up

to to the full, and that where there was a request for information this

ministry would be behind the ombudsman saying: "Let's make sure that

you get the information you want."

I must admit I'm not too

happy with the answers the Attorney-General has given in respect to the

very important matter as to whether at long last some independent

person will have a look at the evidence the Attorney-General's been

sitting on in respect to what is known as Gracie's Finger, after the

Eckardt commission. The ombudsman has authority under his act which I

think is very plain.

Section 10 of the act provides: "The ombudsman,

with respect to a matter of administration, on a complaint or on his

own initiative, may investigate...." He's had a complaint — and

he's had that complaint since about last fall, although I don't know the

[ Page 6332 ]

precise

date of it — from the Downtown Eastside Residents Association asking

him to review whether or not there's been abuse of process in respect

to the Eckardt commission. He may investigate a decision or

recommendation made,

an act done or omitted, or a procedure used —

three very broad matters with respect to whether there was fair play or

something else with respect to the Eckardt commission. His authority

extends to investigating whether a procedure used by an

authority.... Under the definition in the act that clearly includes

a commissioner appointed under legislation or under order-in-council.

That includes Larry Eckardt.

On April 1, in answering

questions in oral question period, the Attorney-General was asked

whether he'd been approached by Mr. Friedmann, the ombudsman, for his

position with respect to the inquiry the ombudsman felt he had to go

ahead with. Presumably the ombudsman approached the Attorney-General

because he wanted the Attorney-General to say, "Yes, go ahead with your

investigation," or, "I will assist you in that investigation." The

Attorney-General replied: "I had a discussion with the ombudsman with

respect to that matter, but it is not within my area of responsibility

or jurisdiction to dictate to the ombudsman whether he should or should

not proceed with any investigation. He does so in accordance with the

provisions of his statute."

He had approached the

Attorney-General asking for the position of government. He came with an

opinion — I don't know who it was from, but I understand it was a

learned opinion — that it was his duty and that he had no choice but to

proceed with the investigation, look at the documents, hear evidence

and do whatever was necessary to get to the bottom of it. What did the

Attorney-General tell him? He simply gave that answer.

Then

he was asked: "Did the Attorney-General offer any opinion whatsoever to

the ombudsman as to whether he should proceed with this particular

investigation?" The Attorney-General said: "Mr. Speaker, the answer is

no." Yet immediately after that, without answering the question the

ombudsman came to see him about — whether he had the government's

approval to go ahead with this, as if he needed it — and without saying

what legal position the government was prepared to take, the

Attorney-General proceeded to ask for a legal opinion from his own

ministry.

If the Attorney-General meant the first answer —

that it's your responsibility, you get your legal opinion and you

proceed or not as you see fit — why does he begin to act as if he were

a criminal defence lawyer and look for a legal opinion as to whether or

not he should cooperate with the ombudsman? He didn't tell Mr.

Friedmann that; he just went back into his ministry and set the wheels

in motion to get that legal opinion. Why wasn't he frank with the

ombudsman? Why didn't he say: "I'm going to seek an opinion as to what

the position of the government will be?" He didn't say that. On May 1

he said he was getting that opinion.

The first question I

put to the Attorney-General is simply this: have you had that opinion,

and what is the opinion you've received?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I continue to be amazed at the inability of the hon. member to

recognize the sensitivity that is associated with the office of the

ombudsman when he comes into relationship with government. It certainly

is a matter of which I am acutely aware.

With regard to this particular matter, the ombudsman's complaint with respect to the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform,

I was unaware that there had been any complaint resting in the office

of the ombudsman for all this period of time, but he did come to me to

indicate that he had an opinion that he should proceed, and I was

immediately concerned as to the implication there would be for the

position of the ombudsman if it were to be perceived by anyone that he

was indeed seeking the opinion of the Attorney-General as to whether he

should or should not act upon such a complaint, particularly because I

had been made aware by the ombudsman that he had received an opinion

from counsel in Ontario with respect to that particular matter.

However,

the ombudsman, notwithstanding that he was in possession of that

opinion, indicated to me that if I disagreed and wished to challenge

his jurisdiction to deal with such a matter, then he would be prepared

to accommodate me and place the matter before the courts. Nonetheless,

not long after the ombudsman met with me the matter became the subject

of public comment, and my responses to the hon. member in question

period were accurate. I did not offer advice to the ombudsman. I did

not do so because I was very conscious of what the effect would be upon

the ombudsman — and I suppose upon the Attorney-General — if it were

perceived by anyone that he was seeking advice from government with

regard to his responsibilities.

Yes, it is true that I

sought an opinion. I was advised that this was a matter of a first

instance. It had never occurred to me that the ombudsman's jurisdiction

— since it is clear from the statute that it deals with bodies which

are established by order-in-council — would not extend to a royal

commission. Nonetheless, because it was a matter of first instance, I

asked for an opinion as to what the ombudsman might do, based upon the

opinion which he had received from Ontario, and what the status of a

royal commissioner or a royal commission would be once it had

discharged its responsibilities. That opinion was obtained.

subsequently indicated to the ombudsman that there was no intention on

the part of the Attorney-General or the government to challenge the

decision which he had made, based upon an opinion to proceed with that

particular complaint. Indeed, the only communication has been with

respect to information the ombudsman sought from those government

ministries associated with the royal commission. Through the officials

of the Attorney-General those ministries were advised to respond to the

ombudsman indicating their willingness to make available to him such

information as he could properly request for the purposes of his

complaint and the inquiry.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the

Attorney-General then whether he will assure the House that he will

make available to the ombudsman the transcripts of evidence from some

40 witnesses, I think, that was taken in the Prelypchan-Vogel internal

inquiry into this matter. Will those be made available to the ombudsman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, they will not be made available.

MR. MACDONALD: That's obstruction.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In dealing with the complaint which he has under examination, the

ombudsman has available to him the same information that was available

to the persons in my ministry who undertook a review at my re-

[ Page 6333 ]

quest.

It would be inappropriate for the ombudsman to utilize the information

which we have obtained, when in the course of his own inquiry he would

have the opportunity of speaking with exactly the same people and

eliciting the available information.

MR. BARRETT: Straight coverup.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not straight coverup at all.

MR. BARRETT: It is so a coverup.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

There's no coverup whatsoever. He can talk to exactly the same people

we talked to. He can make his own assessments of their evidence.

MR. BARRETT: Straight coverup.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We will have order in the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The complaint that the ombudsman has under consideration is one which

is significantly different than the matter which was under review by my

ministry.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the

Attorney-General of British Columbia held a secret inquiry into a

matter of public importance, paid for by public funds. The ombudsman

was asked to investigate the same subject matter on which the

Attorney-General held a secret inquiry. The Attorney-General has

consistently refused to make available to this House the affidavits

that were said to be backdated, and the transcripts of the evidence.

The ombudsman has a right to look at public documents, including

investigations that the government has made at public expense into the

subject matter of the complaint. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the refusal of

the government to make available to this House, the people of the

province, or even to the ombudsman, public documents relating to the

subject matter of the complaint in his own department is obstruction

within the meaning of the act.

MR. LEA: Note the Premier and Grace.

MR. MACDONALD:

You've got the colleague of the Attorney-General, the Minister of Human

Resources, stating to the press that she sees red behind this

investigation: "Mrs. McCarthy emphasized again Monday that to continue

the investigation is an affront to both her and Eckardt." Why have an

ombudsman and then stop him in his tracks from looking at public

documents that are paid for by the taxpayers? Why have an ombudsman

who might run the risk of showing that that investigation of the

Attorney-General was a sham and full of inconsistencies? He refused to

put Dan Campbell and Larry Eckardt under oath. What kind of secret

investigation are we going through in this province? Then when you pass

legislation under which it is mandatory for the ombudsman to

investigate and under which it is obstruction of justice when the

investigation is blocked by the government, the Attorney-General comes

before this House and says: "That evidence is sealed. I won't let those

records be shown to the ombudsman or anybody else."

We're

demanding that the Attorney-General fulfil the letter and spirit of the

act under which the ombudsman has to make this investigation, and open

his files as he's required to do by law. The answer that he has given,

that the transcripts and affidavits are going to be secret.... Why

shouldn't the ombudsman of British Columbia, as part of this matter,

have a right to look into whether oaths of secrecy were administered by

the commission and then backdated, so that, in effect, perjury was

committed? Is that not something he has a right to look at? I ask the

Attorney-General, not referring to the transcripts on this occasion,

but to the affidavits of the Eckardt commission relating to secrecy:

will those affidavits be made available to Mr. Friedmann in the course

of his investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member

speaks of affidavits. I'm not aware of any. With respect to anything

dealing with the royal commission, its administration, its staff, the

work they did or the instructions they received, all matters associated

with that affair and all documents produced b