1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4631 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Passenger vehicle licences. Ms. Sanford –– 4631

Wage reimbursement program. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4631

Closing of WCB hearing section. Mrs. Dailly –– 4632

Late payments from Ministry of Human Resources. Mr. Blencoe –– 4633

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No 2), 1984 (Bill 24). Committee stage

section 10 –– 4633

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Ree

Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act (Bill 12). Committee stage

section 4 –– 4634

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Nicolson

section 6 –– 4635

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Rose

Third reading –– 4637

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No 1), 1984 (Bill 21). Committee stage

section 35 –– 4637

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

Division

section 40 –– 4643

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Sanford

section 45 –– 4644

Mr. Rose

section 63 –– 4645

Mr. Nicolson

section 66 –– 4646

Mrs. Wallace

section 67 –– 4646

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lank

Division

section 69 –– 4649

Ms. Brown

section 70 –– 4649

Mr. Rose

Mr. Nicolson

Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act (Bill 22). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4650

Ms. Brown –– 4652

Appendix –– 4654

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

M. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, visiting this Legislature from Ottawa, from Carleton

University, I'd like the House to welcome Peter Bleyer, Bill Clay and Stephen

Wright. They are just checking us out, and I wonder whether they're going

to be interested in what they see. Anyway, I hope we welcome them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a new

member of my staff, Mr. Bruce Volder, who has started with my office as

executive assistant. I'd ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure my colleagues the first and

second members for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr. Reid) join me in

asking the House to greet my long-time friend, the Squire of Surrey,

Mr. Tom Anderson.

MRS. WALLACE: Just arrived in the precincts are a group of

grade 9 and 10 students from G. E. Bonner school. They are accompanied

by 40 or 50 exchange students from Quebec. They will be in the gallery

at 3 o'clock. I hope the House will not only welcome them now but give

them a good example of British Columbia parliament when they are in the

gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I wish to apologize for any

inconvenience that may have been occasioned to members yesterday

because of the lack of publication of a bill that was introduced. There

was a work stoppage at the Queen's Printer. I'm sure it was not

intentionally done to coincide with that release, but I apologize for

any inconvenience.

Oral Questions

PASSENGER VEHICLE LICENCES

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Cabinet documents show that members of

cabinet and the full cabinet intervened to overturn a decision of the

Motor Carrier Commission which refused an operating licence to Conmac

Stages Ltd. The cabinet passed such orders overturning the decision of

the Motor Carrier Commission on August 7, 1980, and again on December

15, 1980. In view of the evidence heard by the inquest into the tragic

accident involving a Conmac bus on the Mt. Washington highway, has the

government decided to cease the practice of political intervention by

cabinet in the granting of passenger vehicle licences?

HON. A. FRASER: All cabinet are doing is carrying out the

act. The act says that appeals can be made to a committee of cabinet,

and they're sitting on those appeals steadily. As far as appeals from

the Motor Carrier Commission, I might comment that I don't sit on any

of them.

MS. SANFORD: I'm addressing the question to the minister because

he is the person responsible for the Motor Carrier Commission, whether or not

he sits on the particular cabinet committees. B.C. Is one of the few jurisdictions

which allows politicians — through the act, as the Provincial Secretary points

out — to interfere with regulatory functions involving public safety. In view

of the tragic result in this case, will the minister advise what consideration

the government is giving to this matter, including the possibility of changing

the act?

HON. A. FRASER: Our government is always reviewing all the acts.

MS. SANFORD: That's a non-answer to a very serious question

on a very serious matter. In view of the fact that the cabinet twice

interfered — intervened — to secure a passenger vehicle licence for the

operators of Conmac Stages, what consideration is the government now

giving to make all cabinet records, notes, tape recordings and

documents available to the authorities currently investigating the

tragic accident on Mount Washington?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I'm

the minister who should answer that, but I will. Our ministry has legal

counsel attending the inquest at all times.

MS. SANFORD: I have seen the legal counsel at work at the

particular hearings, but that legal counsellor has not made available

to the inquest any of the documents relating to the particular decision

taken by cabinet on this issue. Will the government authorize the

release of those documents, whether it's done through their counsel

present at the hearings or by whatever other route they may choose?

Will they release all of the information — all the tapes, documentation

and records — relating to the decision taken by cabinet to overturn the

decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission?

HON. A. FRASER: I'm afraid that I can't answer that question. You should probably direct that to the Attorney-General.

MS. SANFORD: The acting Attorney-General is not here, Mr.

Speaker. The third acting Attorney-General is the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) ; he's not here either. Would you please advise

what members on this side can do when all of the three people

responsible are not here?

WAGE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question to the Minister of Labour,

The 1984 students' wage reimbursement program is so badly underfunded

that thousands of employers and employees have been unable to take

advantage of it. What consideration is the government giving to

additional funding to the wage reimbursement program to fulfill the

promise of the calling cards issued by government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The program has not been fully committed

yet. It has $10 million. We have two aspects to the program. One is

that students who present calling cards can get funded, and the other

is that employers who apply can get funded. I expect the program will

be fully committed, but at the moment we have put a temporary halt on

the employers' applications to wait for the students' applications to

catch up. There will be further adjustments as we go along. But, Mr.

[ Page 4632 ]

Speaker, I said when I introduced the program that we expected it would be fully committed, and it will be.

MR. GABELMANN: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that it was

fully committed some time ago, but be that as it may. By contrast,

fewer than 200 students have applied to, borrow the up to $2,000 from

the Royal Bank of Canada under the student venture capital program. In

view of the poor response to this program, is the minister prepared to

consider changing priorities in order to create more student jobs which

offer a paycheque for work performed?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no, and I don't consider

that to be a poor response; I think that's an excellent response, and

it will continue. As the summer goes on, we'll be getting further

student applications under that student venture capital program. We're

fully committed to helping students who want to help themselves. Mr.

Speaker, that's why we're so happy to develop the student venture

capital program.

By contrast, in Ontario, where a similar program has been in place

for, I think, ten years, they have only now reached the point where

they're getting 1,000 students applying to that program. So I think for

us to have 200 now and still moving in the first year of the program is

an excellent response.

MR. GABELMANN: Can I take it, Mr. Speaker, when the minister

says the government is fully committed to funding employment programs

for students, that when, if it hasn't already happened, the $10 million

limit on the first of those two programs is reached, that fund will be

expanded to meet that need?

MR. SPEAKER: Future policy, hon. member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is $10 million

in the budget. We expect to have something in the neighbourhood at the

end of the program of 9,000 students employed under that particular

program. Mr. Speaker, I think that's an excellent commitment to the

students of this province, and we'll do whatever else we have to do.

But we budgeted $10 million, and that's what I had in the budget.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if more than 9,000 students and

young people want to take advantage of the program, has the government

decided that it at that time will expand the number of dollars

available?

[2:15]

CLOSING OF WCB HEARING

SECTION

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question to the Minister of Health. The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has recently fired 21 staff in

the course of closing the hearing

section of the Workers' Compensation

Board. Has the Minister of Health agreed to perform all WCB hearing

work through staff audiologists in the public health system?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get the

precise details. My understanding is that the component from the

Workers' Compensation Board.... The Ministry of Health will be taking

on some of the staff and will be providing the service to the Workers'

Compensation Board from the staff within the ministry. But I don't have

all the details as to numbers or what the dates may be or the precise

arrangements.

There is a shortage of people in that area throughout the province,

and it is believed that the Ministry of Health will be able to obtain

the services of a number of specialists in that area and perhaps make

better use of their abilities and skills. We will be hiring some of the

people from the Workers' Compensation Board, or employing them, and we

will be providing services to the Workers' Compensation Board under

some type of understanding or agreement. But I would have to get the

details.

MRS. DAILLY: A recent survey showed that there was no

audiologist in the Peace River and the Cariboo; the Prince George

audiologist has restricted services only to children and elderly

because of the workload; and West Kootenay, Trail, Clearbrook,

Chilliwack and Skeena have also suffered critical shortages of

audiologists. Does the minister think that he will be able to provide

for those services as well as take over from the WCB with that present

situation?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We think the situation will improve, yes,

because we believe that the number of audiologists and others available

through the WCB will permit us to deploy people in areas where they

have no audiologists of any kind. There is a very difficult recruiting

problem for audiologists throughout the province. There is also a

problem associated with the numbers who are being trained for that

purpose at our universities. We have been recruiting across Canada to

try to fill some of the positions, and we are actively recruiting to

fill. It is a problem we are attempting to resolve. We do believe that

the Workers' Compensation Board contingent of audiologists will assist

us in resolving some of the problems of the province.

MRS. DAILLY: As a final supplementary, I appreciate the

detailed answer from the minister and his obvious concern, but I wonder

if the minister would express this concern to the Minister of

Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who is denying funds to the

universities to such an extent, Mr. Speaker, that they have to cut back

on the production of audiologists. The question is: would he please see

if he can get some cooperation to present and give more money to the

universities so they can carry out these functions instead of having to

go to another part of Canada to bring in audiologists?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the matter

with the minister responsible for universities, and I do not agree with

the member for Burnaby North that it is a matter of providing more

money to the universities; perhaps for a change they might spend their

money in a more appropriate manner.

I believe that the training of audiologists should be a more

important element within the universities than the training of some of

the people who are going through the universities. But even if we do

train and produce more audiologists in our universities, it does not

guarantee that they will employ themselves in British Columbia, because

there is some very heavy recruiting from other jurisdictions as well. I

believe we should produce more audiologists from our education system,

at the university level or elsewhere, but I don't believe

[ Page 4633 ]

it's a matter of the universities not having the money. It's a matter of deploying it properly, in my opinion.

LATE PAYMENTS FROM

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), but she's not here, so I will

ask the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is the alternate.

On May 7, in the minister's absence, I asked the Provincial

Secretary about extra delays in payments by the Ministry of Human

Resources for child-care services in its contract with the various

day-care centres. That particular issue is now also affecting

alternative schools, community grants, foster parents and hundreds of

other community facilities. Will the minister advise why these cheques

are still not issued and why he has not acted on this particularly

important issue?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe that question was taken as notice by the minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in response to the second

member for Victoria, I wish to advise him that I did refer his question

to the Minister of Human Resources when she returned to Victoria

yesterday morning. She was in the chamber yesterday, but the member

didn't appear interested in pursuing the question then while the

minister was here. I believe the minister was prepared to answer the

member at that time. However, he is pursuing the question again in the

minister's absence, so all I can say is that as soon as the Minister of

Human Resources returns to the chamber, I am sure she will give the

member the full information that he is seeking.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with

respect to question period and the availability of ministers. There was

the desirability of posing a question to the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is not here. The acting Minister of Education,

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), is not here. The second acting

minister, in case those two are absent, is the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and he

isn't here. The same situation prevails with respect to the

Attorney-General, and that's a disgraceful set of circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this point has been canvassed many

times under many guises. Unfortunately, the matter is beyond the

Chair's ability to deal with it. It is the responsibility of members to

be in the House if they are not otherwise attending government

business. Whether or not they are is not for the Chair to determine,

and therefore it is not a point of order to be taken at this time.

MR. HOWARD: I'm pleased to hear you say it was canvassed many times.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's quite

obvious that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is not out

doing government business. I'd like to know whether, under standing

order 8 — which says that every member is bound to attend the service

of the House unless leave of absence has been given by the House — you

have given leave of absence to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the point reflects identically with the point just canvassed and covered by the Chair, and concludes the matter.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Mr. Speaker, with leave, public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 24,

HOME OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT (NO, 2), 1984

(continued)

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

On the amendment to

section 10.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I must advise the House that the answer

today is not really that different from the answer yesterday, when I

stated that this amendment had to do with regulations. I would gather

that possibly my answer was too simple to an amendment that reads as

follows; "Section 14(2)(

d) is amended by striking out 'and 3(3)(a.1)'

and substituting '3(3)(.1)'" and so on.

This amendment really corrects an oversight in that area of

regulation. For instance, we had not provided for eligibility for the

homeowner grant in the area of land cooperative residences. Also

included in that

Section is the power to make regulations for

handicapped persons. Of course 3(2) deals with the same thing for

multiple-leased parcel residences. The portion that gives us the

authority to regulate,

section 14(2), did not include those two

sections or the

section that allows for the inclusion of handicapped

persons. I would hope that this will answer the question of the

opposition concerning this amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm glad we've got this clarified. Yesterday it

was indeed somewhat embarrassing for the minister; clearly he did not

know what this amendment was all about, yet it was under his name,

The reason we have this amendment.... Again, it's poor, sloppy

legislation brought in by that minister. The amendment is required

consequent to the amendments already proposed in Bill 24. Because there

have been new classes of eligible residents added to the act, it is

necessary to extend the existing powers of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to cover these new classes. The minister

blew it the first time around. In Miscellaneous Statutes there were a

number of sections to cover up the minister's incompetence over Bill 9

last year, when he threw out settlement plans in his haste to get rid

of regional planning.

[ Page 4634 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are simply dealing with an

amendment to a section. Discussing previous legislation and other

matters of Municipal Affairs is not in order in this debate. To the

amendment, please.

MR. BLENCOE: The point I'm trying to make is that this

minister consistently brings in legislation into this House — and this

amendment proves it again — that is incomplete. It's poorly done, it's

sloppy work and he continues to show that he's not capable of handling

Municipal Affairs. That is the feeling of the UBCM over and over again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. BLENCOE: And it's time the minister, Mr. Chairman, got a handle on his portfolio and did his job properly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order.

To the amendment only, please. Debate on other principles or debate

that would be better done in estimates is not in order in this

committee, on this amendment, and on this

section of this bill.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's very important, when you're

dealing with local councils, homeowner grants and financial matters of

million-dollar operations that we have in terms of municipalities, that

you get legislation correct and do it right. We have had a number of

occasions now, and this is another one, Mr. Chairman, that continue to

show that this minister does not put his legislation together property.

This amendment would not have been necessary....

Once again we have seen sloppy legislation by this minister.

Obviously we support this amendment, but it should have been done

properly. Yesterday he didn't even know himself what the mess was all

about.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, that rampage is typical of

that member. I forgive him because of his total lack of not only the

process of developing legislation but also his lack of experience in

this House.

[2:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I'll advise the minister and the

second member for Victoria that both arguments have been totally out of

the scope of the amendment before us. Can we speak to the amendment?

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I sat here and listened [illegible] to

the comments from the second member for Victoria. I sort of got the

impression it was the pot calling the kettle black, because yesterday —

and I'm talking on the amendment, Mr. Chairman — the member, who is the

official critic of the minister, was not even aware of the amendment

when it was called in this House. He had to be directed to page 14 of

the Orders of the Day . The amendment was printed in the Orders of the Day

and was available to all members of this House. The member for Victoria

wasn't aware of it. He was not doing his job for the people of Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. REE: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

MR. REE: This is in rebuttal to the member's comments, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's comments were found to be out of

order, so any rebuttal would also be out of order. I have advised the

minister of that, and I'll advise you of that now.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, when he did read the amended section,

once it was brought to his attention and once he was told where the

amendment was, he still could not follow that amendment and required

assistance. He could not debate this amendment in this House yesterday,

because he was not aware of it, not familiar with it and did not

understand it. Certainly I support the amendment, because I support the

principle of the homeowners grant being extended to these additional

people and the opportunity of regulations being made to facilitate the

giving of that grant to handicapped people. Mr. Chairman, I could not

sit here quietly and listen to that pot calling the kettle black.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think we have fully dealt with

the process of amendments. We've dealt with the ministry. But the only

business of this committee at this time is to deal with the amendment

itself.

With that said, the Chair recognizes the second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to correct the

record on this issue. Let's get the truth in front of this chamber.

That amendment was slipped in here. Within an hour it was before this

chamber. There was no notification of when it was going to come

forward. It was an attempt to cover up the inadequacies of this

minister because he's again blown his legislation. That's the issue. If

he did his job properly, we wouldn't have to react.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: 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 24, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984, reported

complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 12.

SKAGIT ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

[ Page 4635 ]

MRS. WALLACE: This is an unusual section, in that we have

established under a previous

section a commission with all the rights

and powers of a corporation, and so on — which is in fact a Crown

corporation — and yet it is not an agent of the government. This is a

surprising

section to me, and I wonder if the minister would comment on

that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think you have to recognize that this

commission is not established as a Crown corporation. It is

specifically established under an agreement between the state of

Washington and the province of British Columbia. It is a commission in

its own right. Each governmental jurisdiction has provided it with

authority, and each one will nominate members to it, hopefully in the

next little while. The funding is provided for as part of the

agreement. So it operates, in effect, as a separate entity. Presumably

there would be recommendations to the government or to the parks branch

or to the Ministry of Environment from this commission, which may

involve the government. But any commission could do that. It is not

operating as a direct agent for the government.

MRS. WALLACE: To whom does the commission report?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't answer that specifically, but they

would be making recommendations to both governments and particularly,

as far as land matters are concerned, to the government of British

Columbia. In many respects they are funded, and can go ahead and carry

out their duties.... If, for instance, they wanted to purchase a piece

of land as part of filling out the Skagit agreement, they could go

ahead and do that as a commission. If they made a recommendation that

government needs to go further than that in providing land or dealing

somehow with Crown land or establishing a park, then they would, as a

commission, make recommendations.

MRS. WALLACE: Who decides on their rate of pay? Or are they paid?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to remember the particulars from

the agreement. As I understand it, they are not being paid. They would

be getting legitimate expenses, and that's about it.

MR. NICOLSON: If they're not an agent of the government, are

they empowered to make any recommendations to government concerning any

kinds of trade-offs? Would they have any rights to enter into any kind

of discussion concerning, for instance, the Kootenay diversion, or

raising the levels of the Pend-d'Oreille dam?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, the levels have been established in the

agreement, so they would not be making recommendations regarding that.

That's already been agreed upon.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MRS. WALLACE: This is more of the same, really. This is the appropriation

section, which talks about the $250,000 in U.S. currency that may be paid out

of the consolidated revenue fund before March of next year for expenditures

that may be required to meet the government's obligations under the agreement.

By this

section we're paying out $250,000 in American currency, presumably

to a commission over which we apparently have no control, and they are to carry

out the terms of the agreement, We don't know how much we're paying

them. We don't know whether or not they are getting any payment or any expenses,

or who they are reporting to. This is a pretty broad thing you're asking

us to do here when you're coming up with.... This is the Minister of

Environment's bill, and I would like some explanation of just how he intends

to handle it. Obviously he doesn't seem to know what the situation is or

how it's being handled, how much money is available to the commissioners

or who they're responsible to.

We're anxious to see this agreement go ahead and have some

settlement — a costly situation to rectify a bad job of bungling

originally, but let's not bungle it again. Let's see what we're doing

here. What are we getting for our money — $250,000 this year, with a

commitment for another $250,000 down the road for three more years.

Where's that money coming from? Are we going to have another bill next

year to come up with another $250,000?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Health not well, or is he just being insulting?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To whom?

MRS. WALLACE: To me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: How could I be insulting?

MRS. WALLACE: You know very well, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the minister prepared to answer my

questions? If not, I think we should consider what happened yesterday,

and perhaps ask that the committee rise and report progress if he's not

prepared to answer.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I'm quite prepared to answer. I guess

I was under the illusion that the member, having taken such an interest

in this, would perhaps have read the material that was distributed,

appendix D to the agreement, which spells out in complete detail — it

was public information — exactly where the money was coming from; all

the agreements and so on. I did not prepare myself to answer every one

of these details. I'm prepared. I've got appendix D here and I'm quite

willing to read the whole thing into the record if that would satisfy

the member.

If the member might be satisfied, I could make sure that she gets a

copy of the agreement, which spells out exactly how the funding is

done, the objectives of the committee, how it is to operate, etc. —

whatever the member likes. Or I could take the time to read this whole

agreement.

MRS. WALLACE: All I want to know is whether or not the

commissioners are to be paid. Does it say that in the agreement? If

they are to be paid, how much?

[ Page 4636 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let me read

article 4. It may answer the member:

"There is hereby established a commission which shall

consist of eight members, four of whom shall be appointed by the mayor

of Seattle and four by the Premier of British Columbia. Both the mayor

and the Premier shall endeavour to appoint one member from their

respective governments, one member with financial management

experience, one member with property management or property acquisition

experience, and one member representing the environmental or

conservation interests of the Skagit Valley. Alternates may be

appointed for each member of the commission in the same manner as the

members.

"Initially, terms of two of the four members appointed

by both the mayor and the Premier shall be for two years, and terms of

the remaining two members appointed by the mayor and the Premier shall

be for four years. Subsequently, all terms shall be for a period of

four years. Members are subject to removal at the discretion of the

authority who appointed them at any time. In the event a member does

not complete a term, an alternate may do so. The commission shall elect

co-chairpersons, one of whom shall have been appointed by the mayor and

one by the Premier, for a term of two years each.

"A quorum shall consist of at least six members of the

commission or their alternates, including always three appointed by the

Premier and three by the mayor. The affirmative vote of at least two

members appointed by the Premier and two by the mayor shall be required

for any decision to be taken by the commission.

"Minutes of all meetings shall be kept."

Shall I go on with

article 5?

MRS. WALLACE: You haven't answered my question yet.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

Article 6:

"It is the intent of the parties that expenditures

from the fund for administrative costs, consultants, travel and the

like be kept to an absolute minimum. It is not the intent of the

parties that expenditures from the fund replace or supplant operating

budgets or responsibilities of public agencies, nor is it the intent

that the commission enter into obligations for maintenance projects on

a continuing basis.

"It is agreed by the parties that Seattle and British

Columbia shall provide staff support to the commission on an as-needed

basis. The members shall receive no remuneration from the fund;

however, they may be paid reasonable per them and travel expenses as

authorized by the annual budget."

And I had answered that previously.

[2:45]

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for the answer at last.

They are to get reasonable travel expenses; they are also to be

provided staff by the province. This is not to come out of the $250,000

allocation. Is that correct? Is this money over and above the $250,000?

Is the $250,000 solely for the purpose of the settlement of the Skagit

agreement, or is some of that money going to be used to fund the

commission? That's the point I'm trying to get at here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the statement said that it is

agreed by the parties that Seattle and British Columbia shall provide

staff support. They are not going to be hiring staff and putting them

in, but our staffs will be providing support to them. I don't know if

that answers the question.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any precise questions on

this particular clause, but I would like to use this opportunity to

make a comment or two related to the general nature of the clause.

I believe I'm correct in assuming that the $250,000 is payable to

Seattle City Light, because the province of British Columbia over a

number of years, after the agreement was first signed, received money

from the city of Seattle. This may be part of the settlement or it may

not be, but I'm not particularly concerned about that. I'm quite sure

it is justified. It was probably fairly negotiated.

What I would like to use this time for is to say, as a person who

raised this issue in the House in the early 1970s before anybody was

even concerned about it, how pleased I am that this matter has now been

settled. It started out in a very small way, attracted a great number

of people, and proved that on environmental matters the public could be

aroused and did care. People such as Dave Brousson and John Fraser, the

member for Vancouver South, and others.... It became a non-partisan

issue. If there's anything that we can learn from the Skagit Valley —

the reversal and all the difficulties that we had to face.... It wasn't

easy to have this decision reversed. As a matter of fact, a lot of

people might say that we welshed on it. But the point is that we made a

bad move at a time when power was everything. We were power-mad and

people didn't care much about flooding valleys. But they began to

believe, and I hope they continue to believe, that Canadians are more

than hewers of wood and storers of water.

If there is anything that can be learned from this, it is that we

should take the warning and not embark upon environmentally sensitive

issues — and the minister is right in the middle of one up on the

Bonaparte reserve at the moment with this waste disposal stuff —

without first of all studying what might be the long-term implications.

While we tried to be good neighbours with the city of Seattle, and

while there were ample precedents for perhaps raising that dam as part

of an earlier agreement on the Pend d'Oreille dam serving the city of

Seattle, this issue was not acceptable to Canadians. I think that that

is something that we should remember before we start flooding any more

valleys that may be equally environmentally sensitive, and equally

expensive.

Without trying to making a pun out of this, this is a watershed.

Perhaps the Manitoba question — the Garrison diversion — is another.

But the Skagit preceded it, and Canadians are no longer willing to

provide this kind of storage for the benefit of another nation, no

matter how friendly. It is a watershed decision. I'm glad it's gone

through, and I congratulate the government for reversing its stand, one

it took, I believe, as early as 1947, but I'm not certain of the date.

Since I didn't know the bill was going to be called — I have another

list entirely — I couldn't go and get my notes on the subject. I'm glad

it's over, and I'm pleased that it was resolved so successfully.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4637 ]

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO, 1), 1984

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 35.

MR. PASSARELL: To the Attorney-General, through you, Mr.

Chairman, as a graduate of Notre Dame University I have a bit of

concern about the nature of the government's status in taking the act

away in 1977. But I have some specific concerns in regard to my own

transcripts, as a graduate of Notre Dame University in Nelson. I hope

the minister would have some type of information on this. If he

doesn't, would you please take it as notice and then get back to me?

Firstly, since you're taking away the act in regard to Notre Dame

University as well as its successor, David Thompson University Centre,

now nothing exists there. I'm wondering, concerning my transcripts: do

they fall into the hands of the community college in Castlegar? Where

do my transcripts go, as a graduate from Notre Dame — or those of the

other 250 graduates?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that the important thing is that the

transitional arrangements that will have to be made can't be made at

all until the obligation of the province under the agreement, which the

member for Nelson-Creston has spoken of so eloquently, is released. But

as I understand it, hon. member, the records of that university will be

continued in some other institution for those purposes. Whether it's in

the community college, the Ministry of Education or the University of

Victoria I can't tell you, but it's obvious that those records must be

retained and that citizens who earn credentials there must be able to

receive records of that and use them. That's a reasonable matter that

you've raised.

MR. PASSARELL: My concern to the Attorney-General is that if

you're going to store bachelor of education or bachelor of science

records in a community college.... If you're a graduate asking for a

transcript for a master's degree or a doctoral degree, it's going to

look very poor on that individual's record that he received his

bachelor of education degree from a community college. My suggestion

would be, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister — and hopefully

this is what government policy would involve — that those transcripts

would be left with, for instance, the Minister of Universities in his

ministry instead of having them go to a community college. A person

with a four-year degree receiving his transcripts through that

operation in Castlegar....

It just doesn't seem right that we would have to expect our

graduation and transcript records to come from a community college that

we never attended.

So my suggestion. through to the Attorney-General, would be that

hopefully they will be stored at a university or in the Minister of

Universities' ministry. We're talking maybe 200 or 300 graduates

maximum on this issue, and I would personally rather have my

transcripts in a university than a community college. So just as a

suggestion, I would hope that those 200 or 300 records could go to the

ministry instead of a community college.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, it simply isn't good enough to

say it may be here or it may be somewhere else. These rights should

have been protected and they should be protected in this legislation.

This is such a slapdash piece of legislation. Simply to say that the

act no longer exists....

To say that an agreement signed in seal and covenant binding the

government and the Notre Dame board to that agreement.... Simply to say

that it no longer exists doesn't answer that question which has just

been raised here by a graduate of Notre Dame University — one of the

members of this House. It would be absolutely unthinkable, I think,

that such records should be housed with the Ministry of Education or

with a community college. If those records are housed anywhere but

within one of the three universities of this province, it would be a

great disservice. It would cause great confusion, and it would be a

demunition of the quality of the degree that had been earned. Certainly

the test of time has proven that the graduates of Notre Dame University

have excelled themselves in graduate studies at universities all over

the world. The teachers have gone out and had very distinguished

careers. Mr. Chairman, indeed, studies would show that there was a very

high percentage of the graduates of Notre Dame, as opposed to the

graduates of the three universities in the province, that went on to

graduate studies.

Mr. Chairman, what we are proposing here is to kill a covenant and agreement

signed between the government and another party. I ask this to the Attorney-General:

people can sign an agreement with the provincial government, but what is the

meaning of an agreement with the provincial government? Is it really someone

selling himself into a binding or almost into a bondage of one direction where

one party is bound to the other and bound to the terms of the agreement, but

the government is free to set aside any agreement? Is it then possible. really,

to have any form of an agreement or any form of a covenant with the provincial

government? If the provincial government can set it aside simply by bringing

in

an act of the Legislature, does any agreement with this government have any

real legal meaning, or is it just

an act of good faith that one enters into

with the government?

For instance, if the government can set aside the agreement with the

Notre Dame University board signed in 1977, undertaking and promising

to do certain things, is the government now free to disobey and

disregard, for instance, an agreement with the medical profession here

in British Columbia? If you sign a

schedule of fees, for instance, with

the medical profession, is it something that is really of no use? If

government signs an agreement with some contractor for construction at

the Expo site, does that contractor really have

[ Page 4638 ]

a contract, or is government simply now signaling

that they're willing to set aside agreements when they find them no

longer of use to the government? Is an agreement or a covenant to be

two-way, or is it simply to be one-way and only binding on one party?

Why in the world would anyone ever want to sign an agreement or a

covenant with government now that this step has been taken? Can the

minister answer that question?

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: I understand, Mr. Chairman, the sincerity of

feeling which prompts this member to raise the issue of this agreement

and debate this matter in committee, but surely the government entering

into contracts to provide a fee level for physicians or contracts that

are entered into with Expo or other matters is hardly on the same

footing as a statutory agreement which was made here as part of the

Notre Dame University of Nelson Act in 1977, which revived, continued

and reconstituted the University of Notre Dame and which was done

during a climate, Mr. Chairman, where there was thought to be endless

amounts of money for social services, and also during a climate in

which, as I recall — because I had the responsibility in 1979 for this

institution, David Thompson University Centre — there was thought to be

considerable potential for an increase in the student body in that

institution. It was in the optimism of that period from 1977 through to

1979 and 1980 that various decisions were made. Regrettably, those

decisions are being altered today because of a change in the economic

climate and because of a realization that in the field of

post-secondary education everything can't be done at a number of

institutions; some things have to be done well, instead of a number of

other things badly. It is of great regret that this institution, which

is so important to the city of Nelson, is one of those that the

government can no longer support. I understand the member's

frustration. I don't know that I can say more. He's correct to raise

these matters, and I sympathize with him. I wish I could do more than

that; I can't.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll bet the Attorney-General a case of beer or

a bottle of Glenlivet that more of the graduates of David Thompson

University Centre last year have got jobs than graduates from the

faculty of engineering at the University of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you'd better get in tune with your

government's philosophy. We've heard about the change from education to

training. It's vocational training that this government has been

stressing. Certainly if you're going to do things on that yardstick, it

has been a very great success.

The minister says that times change. We are talking about

agreements. We are talking about the word of an hon. member, and when

two ministers of the Crown sign an agreement, and when seals are

affixed to the agreement and it is ratified in the Legislature.... I

would like to read to the Attorney-General from the Canadian Abridgement ,

second edition, on statutes: "Ratification of agreement by Legislature.

Effect. Per Moss, J. A.: 'The agreement between the parties, though

ratified by

an act of the Legislature, still remains a private

contract.'" There is still a private contract, regardless of whether

that agreement was ratified by

an act of this Legislature and whether

we attempt to unravel it by

an act of this Legislature. The government

has not heard the end of this legal matter.

You don't set aside such a unique piece of legislation, which

ratifies a 15-article agreement, an agreement that sets terms and

conditions for the continuance of access to a chapel which is

sanctified ground on the campus of that university. I would read to the

minister the

preamble of the Canadian Bill of Rights, assented to in

August 1960: "The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian

nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of

God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the

family in a society of free men and free institutions...." The Canadian

Bill of Rights has been used successfully in the courts to defend the

rights of people. It is not superseded by the constitution or the new

Canadian Charter of Rights. It is not to be set aside. There have been

decisions founded.... This government is exceeding its power when it

seeks, without negotiation with the local community, to deconsecrate

hallowed ground. You have no right to do that. You have no power to do

that, and you don't have the power to do that under the assumption of

the British parliamentary system. It doesn't matter whether we are

Christians, agnostics, atheists, or what any individual member of this

House is; these are the principles and this is the sovereign authority

which is recognized by all parliaments. Sovereigns recognize the

ultimate sovereignty of a deity. We in return recognize the sovereign.

It has been spelled out in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

I am saying that you are trying to do things here with a very

simple, clumsy, blunt approach to reforming a law, which is beyond the

competence.... There is only one competent way to do this, and that is

to sit down and have honest, frank negotiations with people who do hold

powers. How can people turn over to you properties and chattels in

response to an agreement? Now that the agreement is being repealed, to

whom do the chattels revert? I ask the minister, then: to whom do the

75,000 volumes in the library — now over 75,000, but the 75,000 volumes

agreed upon and catalogued at the time this agreement was made — revert

if we do away with this act? The minister responsible for this isn't

even in the House. Can the Attorney-General answer that question? Can

he answer the question which I've just quoted, in terms of defining

what an agreement means, from the Canadian Abridgement ?

HON. MR. SMITH: I have no doubt that the proposition that the member refers to in the Canadian Abridgement

is sound in law. But what the Legislature sanctifies the Legislature

can desanctify. The Legislature is supreme to alter contracts. That has

been done before in this Legislature. Vested contractual rights are

sometimes altered, and are sometimes altered retrospectively. Many are

uncomfortable when that occurs. But in the case of this matter, hon.

member, while you are of course free to pursue any remedies under the

Canadian Charter of Rights — anyone in this country....

If your argument were correct, it would mean that because of an

agreement which the government made with a university in 1977, ratified

by legislation, the government of the day was obliged in eternal

perpetuity to continue funding and making that university available in

that community, even if there were no one living in that community,

even if everyone left that community — perish the thought that they

would

[ Page 4639 ]

— even if the need for it had gone. Your argument

is that we would be obliged to continue it for eternity. I really don't

believe that's a sound proposition of law or government.

To try to answer your direct question about the library, I

understand that there are matters being addressed today at a meeting in

Vancouver between officials of the ministry, representatives of David

Thompson University Centre and representatives of your city council in

Nelson, hon. member, and that that is one of the issues being

addressed. The minister has in the past said that the library

collection will be retained for public use, that the library books and

equipment will be transferred to Selkirk College. I understand that

that matter. however, is under discussion at the meeting in Vancouver.

It is one of the matters that the minister and his staff wish to

resolve to the satisfaction of the community, if that is possible. They

are not just going ahead arbitrarily but are endeavouring to deal with

the community, the council and the representatives of the university

centre.

MR. NICOLSON: There may be some agreement reached there. It

is my contention that unless an agreement is agreed to by the Notre

Dame college board, which continues under the act of 1977 — I don't

have a copy at hand; there is a copy somewhere on my desk in my office,

I guess — I don't see how it can have force and effect. Also, the

government may or may not have the right, as it has the power, under

the British North America Act and the Canadian constitution, on

educational matters and post-secondary education — which the federal

government does not. Nevertheless, it does not have powers regarding

freedom of religion; that is not within your competence. What you are

doing is setting aside an

article of the agreement which guarantees

religious freedom in the chapel. You people put it into the act. You

are not competent and we in this Legislature are not competent to set

that aside. That is but a simple example of the lack of regard that has

gone into its preparation, sneaking this amendment into the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act as

section 35 and introducing the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act about five minutes before the

House adjourned for a two-week holiday.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: So was I, my hon. friend. It was one which I

declined to take, particularly as this government has bungled the whole

handling of this situation. Even if I agreed with the closure of David

Thompson University Centre, which I don't, I would never be able to

agree with the way in which this is being conducted. You've taken a

simple solution to a complex problem. As H.L. Mencken, that great

iconoclast, once said: "For every complex problem there is a solution

which is simple, neat, plausible and wrong." That's what we've got

here: simple, neat, plausible and wrong. This is not the way to solve

this problem. This is not the time to start negotiations.

We had a letter, signed by the two ministers, addressed to both the

president of the University of Victoria, Dr. Howard Petch, and Dr. Jack

Colbert, chairman of the Selkirk College board. It was dated September

21, 1983:

"After studying the report of the David Thompson

evaluation committee and following our meeting with you on September 13

concerning the future development of the centre, we would summarize our

views as follows.

"We are satisfied that the success achieved thus far

by the centre warrants its continuation" — and then there's a caveat.

"However, this must occur within the context of moneys which may be

available, and you should not anticipate in the foreseeable future any

increase in the funds presently allocated. We understand that this is

likely to require more selectivity in the programs which are offered."

That, of course, was the same advice that was being given to the

three major universities, so there was no great surprise in that, "We

are satisfied that the success achieved thus far by the centre warrants

its continuation." If graduates getting jobs is any indication, there

are probably a lot more graduates getting jobs there than there are in

some of the faculties at the major universities, and I don't fault the

major universities on that either. That is the fault of this government

and the kind of economy we’ve got.

[3:15]

Whether this is recognized or not, it is a landmark step being taken

by the provincial government — breaking faith with a signed and scaled

covenant. When I think of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the speeches that he made as a Liberal in this

House about the sanctity of contract, and we weren't dealing with

covenants.... Of course the covenant that was signed by this government

is that the university would continue.

Mr. Chairman, this is also a form of confiscation without

compensation. The government is ending up with all kinds of chattels,

buildings and properties.

MR. R. FRASER: And whose property was it?

MR. NICOLSON: It was privately held property. It's a lot more

private than the lands held by Marathon Realty and the CPR, I might

say. for which his government would go the final mile to defend

property rights and the sanctity of contracts. Believe me, if a

government was ever to try to right some of the wrongs of past

governments and contracts undertaken.... If I could see the same kind

of dogged determination to do away with contracts that have outlived

their usefulness — look at the way in which the CPR holds the Dominion

coal block and other properties — from the members opposite, one might

at least say they were being consistent, but I don't see any pursuit of

that. If we in this Legislature are willing to show such disregard for

the sanctity of contracts, then what does the government's word mean on

anything?

I must admit that people are saying: "We're becoming very blasé

about this. The government has done this, it's done that. So what?" I

always thought that those funny little raised things on a piece of

paper that gave it a texture and were kind of circular and had some red

wax spilled over them and looked very fancy had some kind of a special

meaning. There was some kind of a mystique wrapped up in something like

that, and when a government affixed such a seal to something it really

meant something. Most Central or Latin American countries would

probably honour contracts a great deal more than this government seems

willing to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

[ Page 4640 ]

MR. NICOLSON: This act is a very simple and inadequate

remedy, even to the purposes of this government. This act could very

well be found to err in law. This act deals not just with educational

matters; it deals with religious freedom, guaranteed under law to us as

Canadians — not as British Columbians but our rights as Canadians.

This little

section with two subsections comprises at the very most,

if you include the title, ten little lines, and that's counting every

partial line in it. By it the government is seeking to set aside 15

carefully drafted, carefully agreed to and negotiated compromises

between the Notre Dame University board and the government of British

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that something like this should ever be

allowed to pass into law. It shouldn't be allowed to pass into law

without proper negotiations taking place with the proper parties. The

legal party with which this was signed is the Notre Dame University

board. The city of Nelson can be of great assistance in helping to

reach some sort of resolution. The David Thompson University Centre

Action Committee can also be of great assistance in reaching some kind

of new settlement, a new compromise. But the Legislature cannot set

as an agreement on its own with or without the statutory stamp of

approval.

The Attorney-General should give some consideration to that. I note

that the minister responsible for this is absent, and I would urge the

Attorney-General to consider very carefully the points which I have

made. We are exceeding the jurisdiction of this Legislature. Before we

embark upon such a disastrous course, I would move that the committee

rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Macdonald

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann,

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Lockstead

Brown

D'Arcy

Wallace

Skelly

Barnes

NAYS — 26

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

McClelland

Schroeder

Brummet

Waterland

Ree

Veitch

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[3:30]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, also subject to the agreement

which the government is unilaterally setting aside, which means that

we're all serfs in this province — if we ever dared enter any kind of a

binding agreement with the province — because it's one-way, it's

entered into in bad faith.... I would ask how the government proposes

to proceed with the trust funds that were created over the years. I can

think of certain scholarship funds, like the Pisapio Foundation, where

again there was an undertaking to look after and control the management

"of all endowment and restricted funds held in trust to provide

scholarships and bursaries to support present and past Notre Dame

University students completing degree requirements for a degree from

Notre Dame University or other universities."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Can the minister tell me what happens to those funds? Do they become

the property of the public trustee, or does the government glom on to

those? Do they put them into northeast coal? What happens to those

special funds donated in trust for educational purposes for people

attending Notre Dame University? Does the Attorney-General have an

answer to that question?

HON. MR. SMITH: There is also a debt which this entity had as

well, and a number of those things have to be worked out. The closure

of the university is a reality. What has to occur is that a number of

the issues that the member has raised involving the library, the

chapel, assets and debts have to be worked out and are going to take

some time to work out. A meeting is on today dealing with those aspects.

One of the matters that the member for Nelson-Creston mentioned was

the chapel. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the chapel will

continue to be maintained for the benefit of the ministerial

association of Nelson by the Ministry of Transportation. Whether that

forever occurs, or whether that forever occurs at that particular

site.... I think that the government is sensitive to the fact that the

chapel is of local importance, and we'll make every effort to try to

keep that chapel present and accessible.

But I think what the member wants is for all these matters to be

done and tied up before there is a change in the statutory status. He

talks about the Notre Dame University of Nelson Act continuing, even

though the agreement goes. The legislation here repeals that act, and I

would remind the member that for some time David Thompson University

Centre has not been functioning under that act but has been functioning

under a separate arrangement that was made in 1980 between the

University of Victoria, Selkirk College and the provincial government,

whereby the University of Victoria would operate that facility. I

remember that arrangement, because at that time I was the Minister of

Education and went up to Nelson and commenced that arrangement. The

institution has not been operating under this act. The legal entity of

this act still technically exists, but it has been simply a legal

entity and not the real entity that has been running David Thompson

University Centre.

The member is lamenting history. He is not facing the present or the

reality of the future, which is that a post-secondary institution

cannot be supported in Nelson, apart from what is already there with

Selkirk College, and that that decision has been made. I agree that it

is a regrettable decision for the people of Nelson in the short run.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the minister

says, here's the graduating class of Notre Dame University from last

year. It was the final graduating class, but it certainly was

continuing. It did have a graduation, it did

[ Page 4641 ]

have a valedictorian, and several people graduated.

I could read you their names. I won't, but there was a graduation last

year. This instrument has been continuing, and there would have been

need for some amendments to the Notre Dame University act this year had

the institution continued. What I am saying, though, is that by simply

putting in a ten-line amendment in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, we are not wrapping anything up, and legally all kinds of things

continue.

The minister says there are certain liabilities. One of the

liabilities is probably a continuing mortgage held by the archdiocese

of Nelson, by the Very Reverend Bishop Doyle on behalf of the

archdiocese of Nelson; I believe they do or did hold the mortgage. Who

has to pay that mortgage now? Is the old Notre Dame board responsible

for it? I think the minister's argument was that not only were there

assets, but there were also liabilities. I don't know if the minister

is accepting my argument, but I am saying that's true. If you dissolve

the act, who has the liabilities? Are you placing those back in the

hands of the old Notre Dame board? Is the government still assuming

those liabilities?

This is a mess. I'll tell you, if you want to downsize government,

you can downsize it by first canning the person who drafted this poor,

lousy piece of legislation — whomever is responsible for it; maybe it's

the minister. It is a legal nightmare, and if anybody wants to donate

to a good cause, support some sort of legal action against the

provincial government. There are holes that you could drive a truck

through. I shouldn't be getting up and moving adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House; it should be the

Attorney-General looking at this thing. Special liabilities. The

university agrees to discharge all of its outstanding contractual

liabilities by December. Of course, they did that. They were given a

certain grant and they discharged liabilities in terms of solidifying

pensions and paying certain people off.

Transfer of real property. Under this agreement real property was

transferred to the government. But if this agreement no longer exists,

who has title to that property? Does the government have title to it,

or does the old Notre Dame University board have title to it?

As the Attorney-General points out,

section 2, the liabilities....

Who assumes the liabilities now? The provincial government was to

assume them; they did assume them; I guess they kept payments current,

or whatever. But this thing is not finalized, it's not solidified.

The student union building. What use is that to be put to? It's up there on the campus with no students.

Then there are the special liabilities. That was indebtedness

arising out of contracts. That's been looked after: the province agrees

to pay the university a certain amount; then the university agrees to

pay that amount out, being the amount to cover those contractual

liabilities.

Then there are the assets: the furnishings, the fixtures, the

equipment and, in general, a whole bunch of things, listed in

schedule

C, with a depreciated value of $425,000, according to a Thorne, Riddell

report. What happens to those chattels and the volumes of the library?

The minister says there are negotiations taking place right now.

Well, if negotiations are taking place right now, why don't we get an

agreement? Why don't we get some reasonable people — and people are

certainly willing to be reasonable.... People have certainly given up

on this government in terms of any kind of a return of this

government's involvement in post-secondary education and

degree-granting programs at the Nelson campus of David Thompson

University Centre — that is, beyond programs such as the distant

education program, the Knowledge Network and so on.

There were special assets, there were pension funds and there were

trust funds. How are they going to be managed? Who qualifies now for

the Pisapio Foundation scholarships? What's the disposition of that?

Has any agreement been arrived at by the trustees of those foundations?

The university agrees to issue degrees prior to May 31, 1983. That

was this last graduating class. They kept that part of the bargain. The

province agreed to employ Mr. Martin Brown at its pleasure for a

maximum term of five years, and that part of the contract has been

fulfilled; also a bookkeeper at the university, and that part of the

contract was fulfilled.

But the chapel.... To say that there's some kind of an understanding

right now — an understanding with whom? Mr. Attorney-General, it's my

understanding that court action is being initiated today by people who

do have legal claim to some of these things. I would say that

government could do a lot better than to try to bring through a clumsy

piece of legislation that.... If I want to do mischief with government,

I welcome the passage of this legislation. This is the kind of

legislation with which a protracted lawsuit can be pursued, and the

idea of post-secondary education beyond Hope can be kept alive for

those of us who live in the interior, so that not only can we have such

an institution in the Kootenays but we can have that level of

post-secondary education in other parts of the province as well. As

long as that idea is there in the Kootenays, it's something for the

people of the Okanagan, who support our area very well, I must say.

It's something for the people of Prince George and northern Vancouver

Island to look at as long as that idea is there.

The main undertaking has not been extinguished. It isn't

extinguished, because this agreement continues whether or not it is a

statute. An agreement is an agreement according to the Canadian

Abridgement. "The province agrees that courses should be offered at the

facility that will enable students to begin and complete university

degrees in arts and sciences. education and fine arts. The province

will cause the educational lessee of the facility, within the scope of

its limits and authority, to provide university-level courses and

programs." It sure was not either of the educational lessees that

backed out of this agreement. It was a decision of the provincial

government, which came as news to both the educational lessees. It was

an announcement with no prior warning or negotiation.

[3:45]

The government, in

article 10 of the agreement, said: "The province

undertakes to protect the educational investment of the students

presently enrolled at Notre Dame University." That has been kept. "The

province further agrees to the concept of third- and fourth-year

programs at Nelson and will make all reasonable efforts to implement

such programs at the earliest possible date." I wonder what a court of

law would decide as to whether or not the Crown has made all reasonable

efforts? And with the student society: "The province agrees to

encourage the maintenance of one student society to represent the

interests of all students enrolled at the facility." Student transfers?

Well, those have been pretty well looked after. What about audits?

[ Page 4642 ]

Then the province and the university agreed that a bill should be

presented to the Legislative Assembly amending the Notre Dame

University of Nelson Act of 1963. If this bill is repealed, what

happens? This bill repeals the 1963 bill, so is the old 1963 bill in

effect? There's probably some good authority to say no. I doubt very

much whether in drafting the bill that question was even given any

consideration.

But

Section 11 of the bill that we're repealing says that "the Notre

Dame University of Nelson Act, S.B.C. 1979, C.57, is repealed." What

happens there? Would students not be entitled to some form of

compensation? Have you not taken real property or real value...? Have

you not diminished the value of their degrees by having even the very

buildings almost cease to exist? There is no university presence

whatever at the David Thompson University campus.

Might a student have an action against government and demand

compensation if they can give evidence of any kind of difficulty that

they've encountered in getting recognition of their degrees, if they're

turned down, perhaps, in applying for a post-graduate program, turned

down in applying for a job, or if their credentials are held up to

ridicule or are suspect? Is the government not liable? These are the

things that we're going into here.

I don't make all of these cases simply because I happen to be the

member for Nelson-Creston. If I was the member for, say, Burnaby North,

which is represented very capably by my colleague (Mrs. Dailly) and is

a community where I grew up and with which I identify, I think I would

be just as concerned because of the principles being violated here.

Whether the government has the right to do this, we have to ask the

question: should government do this? The government has the right,

perhaps, to make some very bad law. I can question the decision. Sure,

I disagree with your decision to close down the university centre. I'm

not looking at the past, and I don't have any great expectations of

this government. I have high expectations that an NDP government,

whenever it eventually comes to power, sooner or later, will open up

that campus again, will open up other degree-granting institutions

throughout the interior and will decentralize in other areas of

government as well as post-secondary education.

It is part of our party policy. It's party policy that we will be

reaffirming, improving and strengthening at our upcoming convention.

Three separate resolutions on David Thompson University Centre were

submitted to our resolutions committee. They've been consolidated into

a fourth resolution, which lies in that booklet. Those resolutions came

not just from the Kootenays; in fact, those three came from other

parts. They came from the education policy subcommittee of our party.

One came from one of the Okanagan ridings. They realize that David

Thompson University Centre is the key to an equitable form of

educational opportunity throughout the province. Only 7 percent of the

students graduating from high school in the interior go to university,

whereas 17 percent of those graduating in metropolitan centres have the

opportunity to go to university. University is inaccessible to those

who live in rural areas, and the statistics prove it: 17 percent versus

7 percent. Read the report, A Widening Gap, published about three years

ago by the University of Victoria, which examined the reasons and

causes for that disparity. David Thompson University Centre was part of

that.

I'm accepting that it's closed down. My goodness, how many times can

you do something? If you were to say it's going to start up tomorrow,

how would you attract students back to the institution after what it's

been through? Who would go back after such a rapid and unilateral

change? I'm saying that even in closing this down we're further

compounding not the principle of whether there should be post-secondary

education and degree-granting in the interior, because under this

particular act we are doing this in a clumsy, ill-advised manner. I

would be furious, if I were the Attorney-General, at the lack of

craftsmanship in this

section of the bill, at the omissions and the

fact that there was no attempt to resolve some of these outstanding

items. We've had a great deal of time to do it since January 6, when

the announcement was made. Agreements could have been signed. It could

all be legal. It could also be sealed and covenanted. It's quite

possible that it still could, if the government had some sort of

willingness.

Mr. Chairman, don't think that the people in Nelson are stupid.

They're not holding on to unreal dreams. They've dealt with this

government before. They know what they can expect from them. But they

know they have rights. They know that they, not the government, own

those university library volumes. They know that other aspects —

donations, buildings........ Mary Hall was not built out of provincial

government money; it was built out of federal government money, which

is, after all, people's money. Somebody interjected: "Who paid for it?"

The people paid for it, largely through federal taxes. People paid for

it by private subscription and donations in those areas. People in that

area put money up front for post-secondary education, when people in

other parts of this province wanted a handout. That's got to be

remembered. You talk about initiative. People in that area have always

had initiative.

We had an electric railway and electric lights when the people in

Victoria and Vancouver were still using gas lamps. People in that area

have shown initiative, and this is the kind of treatment that they get

for it. I don't know if it's a judgment of some of the more radical

parts of the government on their choice of representative for four

times running, but I would say that for the last 32 years we've had a

couple of good representatives in both Wes Black, my predecessor, and

myself. Certainly I couldn't see something like this happening in the

old Social Credit government of which Wes Black was a part.

This is a lousy piece of legislation, and I hope it's opposed in

court. I hope that the government is embarrassed. I hope it doesn't

cost the people who will fight for their rights too much money in legal

costs to prove their case. It is my opinion that even the remedy which

this government has.... Even if we were all agreed that the university

should shut down, to which I certainly don't agree, this would not be

the way to do it. It isn't the way to treat people, whether we're

unanimous or divided in this House on the intent. It could be done much

better and more slickly through negotiation.

I'm sure that in his heart of hearts the Attorney-General feels that

there quite possibly are shortcomings in this bill. I doubt that he

would get up and say that he is sure that this legal manoeuvre which we

are going to pull here today is going to answer all the questions. I'm

sure that he is not sure in his heart of hearts that it is beyond

challenge in the courts. Certainly I hope so.

[ Page 4643 ]

If Canada is the country I believe it is, then this kind of law

simply can't pass. This kind of law means that if you sign an agreement

with government you are binding yourself to the pleasure of government.

It is all one way. That is not natural justice. There is just no way

that this can go. I would hope there would be some way we could pass

over this

section of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, There

are good sections in the act. There are others to which people would

take exception. It's too bad this isn't part of

an act in itself. It

probably could be argued that the act should have been divided into

parts. I have some very good arguments and citations that argue that.

How can we accept the principle of a bill, which of course we've

already done in second reading.... On the one hand it makes some nice

little amendments, it extends a few nice little features here and

there, and it clarifies a few other things. On the other hand, it

embodies the principle of disregarding the sanctity of a contract.

There is a moral question here. Can we break a contract by

an act of

the Legislature? Maybe the answer is yes. The moral question is: should

we break a contract when we haven't even tried to negotiate our way out

of what the government feels are untenable conditions? I would say no,

we should not. In the final analysis it might be decided in the courts

as to whether we can. It's my understanding that there is some interest

in doing that. Certainly the government of Quebec many, many years ago

found itself afoul of the courts in a case involving bylaws affecting

the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to pass out literature on street

corners. Maybe in this agreement we are setting aside things that are

not only educational matters but are matters that are not the sole

dominion of the province of British Columbia. Maybe in this act we are

creating something that is ultra vires.

I would urge that we set this thing aside so that we could.... After

all, the university centre isn't going to open on September 1 anyhow. I

think we could get over this thing. Some negotiations are taking place,

and I think that negotiation would be a much wiser way for the

government to proceed. This step we're taking today is a step that....

Voting for this will create a conflict within anyone, I would think,

who's been trained in the law — and I'm not, but it certainly would for

me. It just has to go against a lot of the teaching, training and

conditioning that a lot of us have had. I have never seen a situation

quite like this in the Legislature in British Columbia in the 12 short

years that I've been here. I've heard allegations of breaking contracts

and various other things.

[4:00]

I can recall government settling out of court in the case of a civil

fraud action involving B.C. Railway. Why didn't they just break the

contract by bringing in

an act in the Legislature? Those were also some

contractor friends of the government. Why didn't you take that solution

there if that is the way that legislators are supposed to conduct

themselves? I don't know if caveat emptor is the right warning to

people who would sign a contract with this government, but if this

section passes, it really is a kind of a contractor beware. Anyone who

would agree with this government, beware. Anyone who would covenant

with this government, beware.

Section 35 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

McClelland

Schroeder

Brummet

Waterland

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Gabelmann

Sanford

Nicolson

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Macdonald

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 36 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, just a short question to the

Provincial Secretary on the Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act with

regard to Pacific Coach Lines. Regarding the money that is transferred

to the public service, the past employees of Pacific Coach Lines have a

right to say yes or no on their money going through. As I look at

subsections (2) through (5), if the employees pull their money out, do

they receive the same type of interest that any employee does who has

money in the public service — 4 percent or 5 percent — or do they just

receive the money they've put into it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, first, the reason for the

inclusion of Pacific Coach Lines employees in the Pension (Public

Service) Act is to ensure that their contributions for pension purposes

are secure. It was due to a request made by that particular group of

employees to participate in the public service pension plan that we

have proposed this amendment.

I’m not sure whether the pension plan of Pacific Coach Lines makes

provision for interest on reimbursement. I know that the public service

pension act does make provisions for interest, and I presume that

Pacific Coach Lines does. There are very few pension plans in this

country that don't have provisions for interest on the reimbursement of

contributions. I happen to belong to one of those plans in which no

interest is accumulating, even though I paid for 41 years. Not 41

years; 35 is the maximum number of years you can pay, I might say. I

won't name the company, but if I were to withdraw from that particular

pension plan and attempt to get my contributions back, they would

charge me an administration fee. I believe it's small; it's one-eighth

of 1 percent. Unfortunately, I can't tell you whether there is interest

here. I would have to assume that there is. But if it were a

reimbursement of contributions under the public service pension act,

certainly there would be interest, because that's the law of the land.

[ Page 4644 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Can employees of the ex-Pacific Coach Lines

voluntarily pay in on their retirement plan, as the minister would to

the CPR or the CN?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I never suggested for a moment that I made

any contributions to CR I know I've made contributions; I've paid the

employer as well as the employee portion of the pension plan for 10

years because I was on leave of absence. The only stipulation under

those circumstances — that unidentified company — the only time there

is any concession for an employee being on leave of absence is if

you're involved in union activities and are absent from the position.

But I wasn't a union leader with that particular company and therefore

I had to pay the employer's as well as the employee's portion for 10

years.

So did I answer your question? No? What was your question?

MR. NICOLSON: A lot of people who had what looked to be a

pretty stable career had built up a certain amount of pension plan. If

one of those former employees goes into the private sector, can he

continue making payments — both the employer's and the employee's

contribution — to this plan to bring himself up to 30 or 35 years, or

whatever is required for maximum on retirement? Somebody who was in

there?

[4:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, that doesn't work. If the member knows

anything about pensions, he knows that it doesn't really work that way.

The employer, Pacific Coach Lines, is long gone. How can the employer

make a contribution on behalf of the employee? No, the employee cannot

make the employer's contribution as well as the employee's contribution

to a pension plan in order to get up to the maximum of 35 years of

contributions, which would give him the 70 percent averaged over five

years, giving him a full pension.

Any employee with Pacific Coach Lines essentially has been.... An

employee making a contribution for a minimum of 10 years has a vested

pension right with the Pension (Public Service) Act. But I would say

that if he wishes to make additional contributions over and above his

existing vesting, that would be tolerable. For instance, your pension

plan with the Legislative Assembly: once you qualify — and I would

think you qualify now — you can make contributions. I think you've been

here a minimum of three times and have attained a certain age, so you

would be eligible for a pension. You know the magic formula: if the two

added together equal 60, then you're eligible for a pension.

But you have the right to make a voluntary contribution to your

pension plan over and above the employer's as well as the employee's

contribution. That right would exist for voluntary contribution if

these people deem it's to their advantage to do so. Let's take, for

example, an individual who has spent 10 years working for Pacific Coach

Lines. He has a protected pension plan here equivalent to 10 years of

service, averaging his salary out over five years. He can readily

identify essentially what his pension benefits will be once he reaches

the eligible age. But you have to take into consideration the age

factor of that individual. That individual might be 30 years of age or

thereabouts and therefore have substantial work experience to come in

the years up to age 65, and therefore be able to participate in another

pension plan as well. So he would have this small pension plan sitting

on one side, which, through the Superannuation Commission, he can have

identified as to what kind of a pension it will generate for him down

the road — and, I might say, indexed as well. Then, depending upon the

company that he goes to work for, or if he goes to work for the public

service, he again has an opportunity of increasing his pension. I would

think — and I can't say categorically whether that's correct or not —

that he might have the opportunity of blending the two in, if he goes

to work for the public service, and the entire pension would more than

likely be indexed. If he goes to the public sector, there are pension

plans that have indexation, and he would have those benefits. So he

might have a portion of his future pension benefits already in place,

and during the rest of his working career he can build up another

pension which would, in many instances, give him the equivalent of a

full pension.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I'm not quite clear

on one aspect of this. If an employee has been working for Pacific

Coach Lines for a number of years and is now at the age of, say, 55,

and because there is no work available for him in the province, he is

no longer able to find work in any category or in any field, and is

required to go on UI and manage as best he can, is that person able to

continue contributing to the plan, paying both his own portion and what

was formerly paid for him by Pacific Coach Lines, in order to qualify

for a full pension at the age of 65?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'd be inclined to say no, that he wouldn't

be eligible to make contributions on behalf of the employer as well as

himself to a pension plan. There are very few circumstances in which an

individual can make those kinds of contributions. This is not one of

those circumstances in which that kind of financial arrangement could

be made.

Section 40 approved.

Sections 41 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 45.

MR. ROSE: We've changed a few words in the act, and that obviously has to....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'd like some explanation of sections 45, 46, 47

and 48. The minister is not here. There is an amendment to the School

Act that has to do with the prescription and specification by the

minister.... I'd like some explanation of why these are necessary.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Attorney-General, an explanation has been

requested — I think the hon. member said, of sections 45 to 48, but

perhaps we can just do 45 and take them in order.

HON. MR. SMITH: These amendments are simply to meld the

School Act with the Regulation Act that we passed, if you will recall,

in the last session. The key-word approach was altered in the

Regulation Act, if you'll remember, and as a result of that the

Ministry of Education now, in light of the

[ Page 4645 ]

Regulation Act, has to have the School Act amended

to have "key word" removed so they don't have to be deposited with the

registrar of regulations. Otherwise a whole host of things which are

not really regulations would have to be deposited with the registrar of

regulations. This is material that wasn't deposited in the past because

it was not of a legislative nature. So the amendments maintain the

status quo. They're bringing the School Act into line with the

Regulation Act.

The only exceptions are the amendments to

section 15(f), 16(

f) and

17(c). "Key word" has been removed from the introductory words to

sections 15, 16 and 17 so that all the paragraphs in those sections are

no longer automatically regulations that must be deposited. Certain

paragraphs in those sections do deal with material that should be

deposited with the registrar of regulations, however, so "key word" is

being placed in those specific paragraphs. So those specific paragraphs

indicate ones that should be deposited and have been deposited in the

past, and we're simply changing the language in conformity with the new

test in the Regulation Act. We're not suddenly producing a situation

where something will not be deposited that was deposited. We're

changing the language to meet the requirements of the Regulation Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, we're doing nothing but melding this

thing with the Regulation Act and the test under that. There is no

hidden agenda in that stuff at all; it simply melds it, that's all.

MR. ROSE: There may not be a hidden agenda, but if I

understand the minister, what he's saying is that if you have in this

act — as we do in, say,

section 15 — "by regulation, " and you're

omitting "by regulation, " that means that you no longer have to

publish a regulation, because your new Regulation Act indicates that

anywhere it exists in other acts, the phrase "by regulation " no longer

has to be published, which seems to me to permit the minister to move —

you said "no hidden agenda" — in such a way that he doesn't have to

move openly and have his regulations published. He can regulate without

publishing his regulations. That's what I'm asking about.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it isn't. It's simply changing the

language so that that which under the old act, before the Regulation

Act came in, published as regulations, does publish now.... The

paragraphs are all specified. Those are the ones in which he will

continue to deposit something. What it's doing is providing that they

will be deposited. It's doing exactly the reverse. It's safeguarding

the deposit. It's not taking anything out of the deposit situation that

was there before. It's status quo.

MR. ROSE: If the minister says that that's what it means,

I'll take him at his word. I'm sorry; it's my fault that I didn't

research this earlier personally and try to get some information on it.

But it seems to be hardening the lines all along. "Regulate" becomes

"govern," "prescribe" becomes "specify," regulations are deleted, and

things like that, which isn't really very comforting, knowing the

propensity to centralize that has followed the past three Education

ministers. It goes through this whole thing, so that's why we're

certainly on the lookout for anything and we're not really sanguine

about things like this that appear to toughen up the wording and

perhaps not require the same kind of exposure for the new clauses.

That's what concerns us.

HON. MR. SMITH: If it will reassure the member more, if it

does anything other than maintain the status quo, I will advise that

this

section not be proclaimed, so it could come back and be debated

again, because my briefing note on it makes it very clear that that's

all it does, and that's the way I'm presenting it.

MR. ROSE: I think that's a pretty fair offer, and I accept it

with alacrity. There is another possibility, though. In the event that

we didn't get through this today — and I'm not suggesting we won't —

you can always stand the clause until we can have a more thorough

explanation of it and have an opportunity to do a little more research

on it — because, after all, we didn't even know it was coming up today.

[4:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: No, that is the full briefing note on it —

that because of the change in test and the requirement to change the

language, because the old language that brings into force regulations

is no longer used, we have changed those sections so that, clearly,

regulations will have to be deposited in those instances, and that is

what we're doing. We are totally maintaining the status quo and nothing

else. I couldn't say any more to that tomorrow. If you get a legal

opinion that says otherwise and you want to show it to me, I'll

certainly advise that that

section not be proclaimed.

MR. ROSE: I'm prepared to leave it at the moment. But I would

like the minister perhaps to table the briefing notes he has on it. It

would be kind of helpful.

HON. MR. SMITH: I won't table them, but I'd be quite happy to let you see them. Come around and read them, sure.

Sections 45 to 62 inclusive approved.

On the amendment to

section 63. [See appendix.]

MR. NICOLSON: The amendment changes the word

"exclusive" to the words "increased by the amount." Right now it says:

"is exclusive of interest payable under an enactment or by agreement on

the amount claimed." It's being changed now to read "is increased by

the amount...." Out of curiosity I would ask the Attorney-General: does

language? Does it have any legal meaning? Is that why it's being

omitted? I certainly agree with the improvement.

HON. MR. SMITH: It all arises out of a decision of the county

court entitled Buckler v. Earthwood Manufacturing Ltd. Recently it held

that prejudgment interest must be taken into account when determining

if a claim is within the monetary jurisdiction of the court. As a

result of that case, the Law Reform Commission recommended that

interest should not be taken into account when determining if a claim

was within the jurisdiction of the court, The proposed amendment

provides that the monetary jurisdiction for personal actions for debt

or damages claimed is not to exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest.

We're making a parallel amendment, which you've already voted on and

passed as

section 29 of the

[ Page 4646 ]

County Courts Act. That's the reason for this strange use of language: to meet a demanding decision of the county court.

Amendment to

section 63 approved.

Section 63 as amended approved.

Sections 64 and 65 approved.

section 66.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question on this one. I'm wondering

about the reasoning behind this. Apparently it limits the amount of

personal or private interest any individual or corporation can hold in

a public utility. I'm wondering if the basis of this is something

that's happened in the past. Or is this something related to some

future proposal where public utilities will be privatized under the

line of thinking of this government on privatization of so many

government enterprises?

HON. MR. SMITH: This arises also as a result of a decision of

the Supreme Court of Canada known as Atco v. Calgary Power, which made

a distinction between ownership and control. That has opened a loophole

in the Utilities Commission Act. It is for that reason that this

legislation was proposed: to confirm the intent of the act that changes

in ownership or control of more than 20 percent of the shares in a

public utility must be approved by the commission. That's why it was

introduced; again, as a result of a court decision. It was thought that

that was clear from the intention earlier. But because of this decision

and the distinction between ownership and control, the legal advisers

to the government advised that we should make this change, and that's

why it's here.

Section 66 approved.

section 67.

MRS. WALLACE: Now we're hitting the meat of the thing.

Section 67 is certainly no housekeeping amendment at all.

Section 67

removes the right of the Public Utilities Commission to award any

payment to interveners in any public hearing. This is something that

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

has been touting for some time. I have asked him many questions on the

floor of this House relative to intervener funding. The Public

Utilities Commission is relatively new. The first major trial of that

commission in dealing with a matter of major public importance in this

province was the Site C Hearing. During that case the commission, in

its wisdom, did award intervener funding. Now let me be very clear, Mr.

Chairman, that that funding is not at the cost of the commission or

government. The person who is defending his request and is at the

hearing asking for something — the appellant — is assessed costs, and

those can and do include the cost of the commission, the hearing and

the cost of interveners, under

section 133 of the act, which is

presently being appealed by this section.

In the case of Site C that was done. It amounted to something like 3

percent of the total costs that were assessed to B.C. Hydro.

Interveners, who would not have been able to do so had not that funding

been available, were able to appear and participate. The commission

admitted freely — it's public knowledge — that as a result of those

interveners' costs being assessed, they were able to be there and make

the case. The commission came up with the decision that that

construction should be delayed. That decision has saved the taxpayers

of the province of British Columbia millions and millions of dollars,

because just on the heels of that decision we realized how tremendously

overbuilt Hydro was, and yet they were wanting to build more.

Those interventions were directly responsible.... A small cost of 3

percent was assessed to B.C. Hydro, the appellant. They had to pay 3

percent of the total cost for that public hearing. Granted, it was a

costly hearing. It was a first run. It was held partly in Fort St. John

and partly in Vancouver. I would imagine that it cost Hydro a fair

amount, although I haven't seen the actual figure. A very minute part

of that went to the interveners, who were very directly responsible for

the commission's decision to delay that construction.

What has happened? Well, just shortly after that, the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources wrote to the chairperson of the

Public Utilities Commission and said: "Look, we don't want any more of

this funding of interveners. Never mind what the act says; we're going

to change that. We don't want any more of that funding of interveners."

The letter, in fact, was dated August 10, 1983, and was sent to Mrs.

Marie Taylor, chairperson of the B.C. Utilities Commission:

"Dear Mrs. Taylor:

"Re Intervener Funding at BCUC Hearings:

"Further to our discussions at the time of the provincial

budget, I am writing to advise you that in line with government's overall

policies of economy and restraint, cabinet decided that it wished the commission

to discontinue cost awards to participants at its hearings."

What utter nonsense, Mr. Chairman. Not one red cent of that

comes out of the government. The commission assesses the costs to the appellant.

Yet the minister, before this legislation was even introduced, was

writing to the chairperson of the Public Utilities Commission and

telling her that they were not to assess any more intervener funding.

What the minister was saying in fact was: "Look, Hydro is upset that

they're not able to go ahead with Site C. The reason you had to make

that decision was because those interveners were there, so let's get

rid of them. Let's not give them any money." That is what he was

saying, in effect.

This is just one instance, Mr. Chairman. The Alkali Lake Indian band

case is another outstanding example of what's been going on there. Here

we had an Indian band that was making representations relative to the

gas pipeline. They were asked by the commission to provide certain maps

of some of the things they were talking about relative to historic

sites and hunting grounds — the historic patterns of their tribes. They

said: "Well, we need some money." The commission said: "No, sorry, we

can't give you any money." In spite of what the legislation says, we

can't give you any money." They went to the federal Department of

Indian Affairs and were told: "No, sorry, we can't give you any money."

So they went back and they appealed this decision that they couldn't

get any money. They were defending historic rights there.

The legislation — the law of this land — said that the Public Utilities Commission, which was hearing this case,

[ Page 4647 ]

had the right to allocate funds to them. Yet

because of this minister's intent to change this ahead of the law being

changed, the Public Utilities Commission was forced to kowtow to his

wishes, and refused to grant that funding. It has been appealed and

appealed. The phony excuse that he uses is that it's part of the

restraint program, when it doesn't mean one cent. He talks about the

budget; it doesn't affect the budget one cent, because it doesn't come

out of provincial coffers. Yet we now have hidden in the Miscellaneous

Statutes — hoping it would slip by and not be noticed — a

section that

will wipe out

section 133, which provided an opportunity for intervener

funding, which provided a fair approach towards public hearings. If you

were going to go to the expense — and granted, it is an expense — of

having public hearings, it must be just that, a public hearing. And it

must be fair; there must be an opportunity for both sides of the

question to be heard.

We all know that historically what happens is that a large corporate

entity is the appellant. They have banks of lawyers and access to a

fair amount of money. They are appearing at the hearing and in most

instances their purpose is one that will be monetarily beneficial to

them so they can afford to spend large amounts of money.

[4:45]

Who are the people who want to tell the other side of the story?

They're native Indian bands, citizens groups that don't have access to

those kinds of funds. That's why this clause 133 was written into the

act: to ensure that those groups would have an opportunity to be heard.

They say "Nonsense" over there. I suppose they think this money is

going to go to irresponsible groups, to people who don't really deserve

that kind of support. Remember that this is at the discretion of the

commission. They can make that decision as to whether or not a group is

responsible, whether or not they are representative of one side or one

portion of the argument that the Public Utilities Commission has the

right to hear if they're going to make an unbiased and fair decision.

If those groups do not have the kind of funding that allows them to

present their case, then the Public Utilities Commission will not have

access to all the information that they should have. That's exactly

what this

section does: it removes that right. It means that those

groups will not have the funding, they will not present their case, and

Public Utilities Commission hearings will become kangaroo courts —

charades — where one side is heard, and the other side, if it's there

at all, will be ineffectual. It will be hampered by the lack of funds,

legal counsel, advice and research. Research is important. There have

been reams of suggestions as to how this whole process could be made

less costly and more responsive to the public need. Some of the groups

that we're talking about: I've mentioned native Indian groups; others

are the Consumers' Association, the Federation of Anti-Poverty Groups,

the old age pensioners' organization, for goodness sake; groups that

have been really active, like the Sierra Club; groups that have been

very active in presenting the other side. Every question has two sides,

and if a public utilities commission is going to sit in judgment on a

specific issue, then it is extremely important that both those sides be

heard.

One of the most important ways that that will happen is if

intervener funding is continued. It doesn't need to be as expensive as

the Site C hearing. I'm sure that is one of the things that has

prompted the minister to take this action. It doesn't need to be as

expensive as the Site C hearing. That was a first trial run. But some

things are important: that is, early involvement of all groups. It

certainly is public cooperation and coordination, and those things

should be encouraged. There are many ways that the total costs could be

reduced. But the way not to reduce them and the way not to get sound

and fair and unbiased decisions is to cut out intervener funding.

In the Site C case, as I pointed out, intervener funding was only 3

percent of the total cost to B.C. Hydro. So it's peanuts. Yet it can be

responsible for terrific savings, as were evidenced in that case. It

may well be the case if in fact the Alkali Lake Indian band have an

opportunity to present their story. It may result in a better

understanding, some common ground being found. Cooperation, not

confrontation, is the way to go. The sledgehammer is not the way to

deal with groups who are committed, sincere, honest, dedicated and

concerned about an issue that affects their very lives and livelihood.

This is an unjust, unfair amendment.

Again I don't know who I am talking to. I see a former Minister of

Energy over there. If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) would like to give me some reasons why the current

Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is gutting his legislation.... I

think that's the minister that brought this act in in the first place.

No, he says not. But certainly he had enough sense to leave those

intervener funding provisions in place. If he would like to get up and

tell me why this is happening, if there is any reason why.... I think I

know the answer. I think it is exactly what I've said: that the

government doesn't want to bother to listen to those concerned

citizens, to the Alkali Lake Indian band, to the old age-pensioners, to

the Consumers' Association, to the Peace Valley Environmental

Association. They don't really want them to have an opportunity to

present their side, because under this government public hearings will

become and are becoming simply kangaroo courts. The government makes a

decision, along with its power corporation or whatever it may be, on

what it's going to do, and then it tries to have some kind of

justification for that position through a public hearing. When the

truth starts to come out it hurts. They don't want those people there.

They don't want to fund them, because they don't want to hear what they

have to say. This whole

Section is just a travesty, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member is quite correct that this is a

policy change which will have the result of not requiring or empowering

the commission to make cost orders. That's only so far as the

commission is concerned. It does not mean that the minister can't in a

case, if it's appropriate.... If he wishes to fund or provide some

funding for intervention, he can do so, but it means that the

commission will not have the power or discretion to make sure that

there is funding for interveners. Clearly that was done because of

restraint and because of the desire not to fund what can be — and often

isn't, it's true — a cottage industry of professional interveners.

The case that the member referred to, the Alkali Indian band

case........ This legislation does not affect the ruling made in that

case. It does not seek to reach back retrospectively to affect that. In

that case, as I recall, the issue before the court was that the

commission had to make the decision. It had to exercise its judicial

discretion as to whether to award costs. It had to do that under the

existing legislation, despite the fact that there was before the

Legislature a bill which would relieve them of that responsibility.

Since that wasn't

[ Page 4648 ]

law at the time that the matter was before the

Utilities Commission, they had to deal with costs, and they couldn't

deal with it on the basis that there were going to be legislative

changes in the future. Because they had not done that but had taken

into account the legislation and the minister's direction, the matter

was referred back to them to deal with.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Do you have a microphone? I must say it's

very nice, Mr. Chairman, to have the second erudite member for

Vancouver here. I welcome him here from his bludge — his burgeoning law

practice in Vancouver. It's great to have him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know. Read last night's legislation.

Anyway, the policy change is clear in the section. The amendment is

upfront. You disagree with it, and I understand that. I hear you. It

won't affect the Alkali Indian band decision. The discretion is still

with the commission in that case.

MRS. WALLACE: I can't believe what the Attorney-General just said.

"It won't affect the decision of...." Of course it won't

affect it, because the commission has decided on two different occasions that

they won't provide funding. Why have they decided that? It was not because

this legislation was already filed. That decision was April 27. This legislation

wasn't down then. They decided it because the minister told them: "Don't

obey the law, Don't give them funding, because we don't want them funded.

We're going to change all that. We're not going to allow you to do that."

That's exactly what that minister said. For the Attorney-General to stand

up and say that it's because of restraint that they can't fund them,

and that the minister may make a decision to fund someone.... Where is the

minister going to get the money? Under the act the commission could direct the

appellant to pay the costs. The only thing they can direct now would be to pay

the costs of the commission. If the minister in his wisdom decides that he wants

somebody to appeal, and wants to fund somebody, then it will come out of the

government budget. What kind of restraint is that? That's absolutely backwards.

As it is now the government wouldn't pay anything. As it's going to

be, as the Attorney-General explains it, if the Minister of Energy decides to

fund some body, and leave it to his discretion.... That's Big Brother

watching again. Big Brother will decide who will go before the Utilities Commission.

Big Brother will decide who will be paid.

I cannot believe that in this Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia we're taking that kind of a measure. We've had legislation

that provided fair and just opportunity for all sections of the

community to be heard, but that's not good enough for this government.

It might embarrass them; it might be a little awkward for them to live

with. It might cause the Public Utilities Commission to come up with a

decision as they did in the Site C case, which was a bit of an

embarrassment to B.C. Hydro. They would have liked to have gone ahead

and built that thing, no matter the cost, so they would have had more

power to export. What a situation to find ourselves in, Mr. Chairman!

It's beyond description.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to add my two bit's worth here, Mr.

Chairman. This is the kind of thing that reflects the government's

philosophy. There's no surprise to me. I'm not as surprised as the hon.

member for Cowichan-Malahat, but she's a person of positive

disposition. Over the years I've grown to be negative-minded.

[5:00]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You've noticed that?

It's clear to me why this government has eliminated the opportunity

for small citizens' groups and ordinary people in this province to

adequately present a case. Unless these cases are fully funded,

particularly when it has to do with environment, the funding of experts

with some degree of sophistication.... They are swamped with the

tremendous amounts of money that are invested by the huge corporations

that wish to deface the countryside. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that

section 67 is typical of the attitude of the government toward the

democratic system. They clearly believe in a feudal system — that the

lords of industry and the powerful in society should have access to

justice, the courts and commissions and tribunals of this province, and

that ordinary citizens should have every conceivable roadblock thrown

in their way. So it's no surprise to me.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I know that the hon. Attorney-General, who is the helmsman of this

bill, has the kind of attitude that says: "Oh, dear me. Well, I suppose

this is not as democratic as I would personally like to have it. But I

mean, after all, it's the position of the Attorney-General that counts.

I'll guide these through. We're going through a very conservative

period." But the Attorney-General is a man for all seasons, a man for

all parties, a man for all philosophies — he just likes the office, Mr.

Chairman. I've heard from former students of his at law school, where

the Attorney-General taught law and jurisprudence, that he would bang

his fist on the podium and say that rich and poor have access to the

courts on an equal basis; and how he decried the fact that the very

rich would have a better chance at justice than ordinary people. But

you know, the power, the great medallion of office hanging around his

neck — the chancellor of the law, the minister, the Attorney-General....

Do you remember the play about St. Thomas More, a great martyr not

only to Christianity but to upholding the law itself? In that play, the

man who turned him in, who gave evidence against him — and history,

from at least one point of view, has it that the man perjured himself

to convict Thomas of treason — was given the attorney-generalship of

Wales. And Thomas says: "Richard, it profits a man nothing to sell his

soul for the entire world. But for Wales!" I wish to draw the analogy.

It profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the entire world. But for

the attorney-generalship of British Columbia! For this little village

council on the Pacific Rim!

Well, Mr. Chairman, the higher principle remains that if democracy

is going to progress and work, ordinary people must have their say;

indeed, they must even prevail. And one of the small ways in which one

was partially able to do that through our democratic system was that an

NDP government encouraged the awarding of costs to interveners in any

of the kinds of commission hearings that we would sponsor. This is

[ Page 4649 ]

an example of further roadblocks. So it's no surprise to me — none whatsoever.

Section 67 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

McClelland

Schroeder

Brummet

Waterland

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Wallace

Barnes

Lockstead

Brown

D'Arcy

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 68 approved.

section 69.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment as circulated, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I was hoping that the Attorney-General would have

explained whether we were just cleaning up his grammar here, or if

there was some other significance to the fact that he was going from

the words "comes into force" to the words "came into force." I was

hoping we would get some kind of explanation for that. Also, I wonder

if he would tell me what "annuitant, " as defined by the Income Tax

Act, covers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first question would deal with the amendment to

section 70. We are on the amendment to

section 69.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm going to speak on this amendment, but do you want me to speak on some

section we've passed as well?

MS. BROWN: No. Mr. Speaker, the amendment deals with a

section that has been passed. I'm trying to figure out whether he's

just cleaning up his grammar or making some other significant change.

I'm asking for an explanation.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm cleaning up the grammar of the

transitional section. The advice of legislative counsel was that we

should change the transitional provisions for these reasons. It will

make clear the transitional requirements of the changes to the Income

Tax Act annuity provision in

section 19 that we passed. It will also

parallel what we propose to do in relation to the RRIF. It shall be the

same thing as we did here in relation to RRSP. It is transitional

clarity and grammatical, not substantive.

MS. BROWN: All this has to do with the definition of "annuitant." I'm asking him to tell me what it is.

HON. MR. SMITH: That definition of annuitant is broadened so

that it will allow annuitants under all registered retirement savings

plans to designate beneficiaries other than by way of a will. You have

a case where a beneficiary is not designated in a will but is

designated simply in the policy or in some other way, and then a death

occurs; because of that, the tax shelter provision of the RRSP that the

beneficiary would receive is lost. You may remember back in January and

February a number of trust companies were extremely concerned about

this problem with the RRSPs and how they affected people who didn't

designate their beneficiary specifically by testamentary instrument. So

we have passed this amendment really in response to the industry, which

wished to have the advantage of RRSPs for tax purposes apply where they

are not designated in wills.

[5:15]

MS. BROWN: The thing I was a little concerned about was the

benefit not being part of a person's estate. I understand that that

hasn't been interfered with.

Amendment to

section 69 approved.

Section 69 as amended approved.

section 70.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment that has been circulated to

section 70.

MR. ROSE: I can't tell what it means in legalese, but I

assume it means what he said it was to mean, and that is that it would

not be proclaimed until a legal opinion has clarified the concern

expressed during the debate, and I thank him for that.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's absolutely correct: it's to empower me to do as I undertook to do.

Amendment to

section 70 approved.

section 70 as amended.

MR. NICOLSON: On the

section as amended, or even before

amended, it empowered the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to proclaim

section 35, which is the Notre Dame or DTUC

section of the bill. I

would ask the Attorney-General whether, having listened to the debate,

which he did over two days, he will also give any kind of an

undertaking to the people of Nelson and also to the Notre Dame board

that prior to proclamation they might sit down and engage in some

negotiations and resolve matters, not just with the city but with the

Notre Dame board, which is the legal entity involved in this agreement.

[ Page 4650 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, that only ingeniously arises on this

amendment. I'