1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1123 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

BCRIC purchase of MacMillan Bloedel shares. Mr. Barber –– 1123

Religious cults. Mr. Macdonald –– 1123

Functions of John Elliott. Mr. Stupich –– 1124

Swan Valley Foods Ltd. Mr. Stupich –– 1125

Presenting Reports

Comptroller-general two-month financial statement as at May 31 –– 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1125

Agricultural aid report.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1125

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act (Bill PR 402). Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 1125

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 30). Committee stage.

section 34.

Mr. Barber –– 1125

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1126

section 50 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1126

section 58 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1126

Report and third reading –– 1126

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act (Bill 34). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Lauk — 1126

Mr. Lorimer –– 1127

section 1 amendment.

Mr. Barber –– 1127

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1128

Mr. King –– 1129

Mr. Macdonald –– 1130

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1130

Mr. Mussallem –– 1130

Division on the amendment –– 1130

On the title.

Mr. Lorimer –– 1130

Report and third reading –– 1131

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 29). Committee stage.

section 22.

Ms. Brown –– 1131

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1131

Report and third reading –– 1133

Motions and Adjourned Debate on Motions

Motion 1. [See appendix.]

Mr. Hall –– 1133

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1133

Motion 2. [See appendix.]

Mr. Hyndman –– 1134

Hon, Mr. Gardom –– 1134

Motion 3. [See appendix.]

Ms. Brown –– 1135

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1135

Motion 4. [See appendix.]

Mr. Barber –– 1135

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1136

Motion 6. [See appendix.]

Mr. Smith –– 1136

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1137

Motion 8. [See appendix.]

Mr. Mussallem –– 1137

Mr. Hall –– 1137

Mrs. Dailly –– 1138

Mr. Hyndman –– 1139

Mr. Hanson –– 1140

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1140

Mr. Barber –– 1141

Division –– 1142

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR 401). Second reading.

Mr. Ritchie –– 1142

Mr. Hall –– 1142

Mr. Nicolson –– 1142

Ms. Brown –– 1143

Hon, Mr. McGeer 1143

Mrs. Dailly –– 1143

Mr. Hanson –– 1144

Mr. Levi –– 1144

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1145

Mr. Hyndman –– 1146

Mr. Ritchie –– 1146

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR 401). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Levi –– 1147

section 2.

Mr. Levi –– 1147

Report and third reading –– 1148

Motions and Adjourned Debate on Motions

Motion 9. [See appendix.]

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1148

Mr. Nicolson –– 1149

Motion 10. [See appendix.]

Mr. Hall –– 1149

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 30). Committee stage!e.

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1149

Report and third reading –– 1149

Constitution Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 35). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1149

Constitution Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 35). Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 1150

Royal assent to bills –– 1150

Appendix –– 1151

TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today we have Mr. and Mrs. Chris Straiton and their son

Michael. Mrs. Straiton is my constituency secretary.

Also,

we have Mr. and Mrs. Roy Craven of Abbotsford and their daughter

Carolyn. Carolyn is a past Provincial Secretary of our Youth

Parliament. With them are friends from England, Mr. and Mrs. Ken

Jenkins.

Also from Abbotsford are some very good supporters

of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Weibe. Would the House please welcome these

friends today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today is Mrs. Jules La Vertu and three of her eight children:

daughters Rosemarie of Victoria and Nicole of Richmond, England; and

son Paul of Sao Paulo, Brazil. She is the mother of the representative

of the CP News Services, Charles La Vertu. Would you bid her and her

children welcome?

MR. HANSON: I would like the House

to join with me in recognizing and welcoming a person in the gallery

today who is a champion of the rights of senior citizens in this

province, Mr. John Duffie.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr.

Speaker, I notice in the press gallery today the husband of a very

well-known columnist and writer in British Columbia, Mr. Allan

Fotheringham.

Oral Questions

BCRIC PURCHASE OF

MACMILLAN BLOEDEL SHARES

MR. BARBER: I have a

question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Could the Premier indicate

whether or not he has received advice from the board of directors of

the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation that they have

determined to purchase controlling shares in MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I would again caution some members of

this House who fuelled speculation regarding that company before that

the only people they can hurt, and did hurt when they fuelled that

speculation before, are the unsuspecting investors in this province. I

would say the answer is no, the rumour has not been transmitted to me,

and I would hope that members of this House wouldn't unwittingly, once

again, lead the unsophisticated investor into a very speculative

venture based upon rumour.

MR. BARBER: I thank the Premier for whatever his advice was worth. Has

the Premier specifically instructed the board of directors of the British Columbia

Resources Investment Corporation that they are not to contemplate, or finally

enact, a policy that would see them obtaining in the name of the corporation

a controlling interest in MacMillan Bloedel? Have you specifically instructed

them that they are not to do this?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, once again the first member for Victoria shows an alarming

lack of understanding of the private sector, and the fact that BCRIC is

not a Crown corporation or a government-controlled company, but is a

public company operating within the private sector. I wish to state to

him what everybody else knows — I trust that he knows, and I hope he's

not just making mischief, because this could be very, very important —

so that the average person in B.C. is not confused or misled in areas

in which speculation may result: this government has given no direction

to the directors of BCRIC at all.

MR. BARBER: I have

a final supplementary. When you are called upon for advice, given that

you have made all of the significant Resources Corporation

announcements to date, I wonder if you would advise them to take a look

at Canadian Pacific Investments, which, judging by the leverage

available and the capital at hand in the Resources Corporation, might

just be available for sale.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Any

shareholder is able to offer advice. I would think that any of the

shareholders over there, or at least those who, unlike their leader who

had no confidence to buy a share in a company in British Columbia and

who publicly stated so.... If there are any who believed enough in this

province to participate, then I hope you have some good advice. But if

you choose to give them the type of advice you've offered in this

Legislature, I hope they have the good sense not to listen.

RELIGIOUS CULTS

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. I want to ask the

Attorney-General whether his ministry is engaging in a little

mind-bending of its own in making a study of the so-called

mind-expanding or mind-bending cults. My information is that a law

student by the name of Dellis Rand is conducting such a study for the

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I guess if it was

mind expansion the hon. member would be first on the list. [Laughter.]

I have rather a lengthy response to the question. Would you like me to

give a lengthy response in question period, or would you like me to

defer a bit so you could perhaps ask a few other questions?

MR. MACDONALD: Just answer the question. Yes or no.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Well, I'd like to give you a proper response, because I'm afraid that

some mischief is perhaps floating abroad, Mr. Member. As I've said

before, I've been informed that there's no secret investigation and

there is no study per se being conducted by this ministry into

religious groups. If some groups wish to interpret the process that's

being followed as an investigative one, for whatever purposes they may

have, that's entirely up to them.

I'd like to share with the

hon. members the background of the matter, which is this: on September

3, 1978, the ministry received a letter from a Vancouver man asking if

the ministry was looking into deprogramming. The writer

[ Page 1124 ]

was

told the ministry was not. A few days later a file entitled "Religious

Beliefs and Practices" was opened in the ministry, and the letter and

the reply were placed in it. The file was opened, hon. members, so that

all matters touching the subject would go into one place, and this

included newspaper clippings and articles gathered by the ministry's

routine clipping services, as well as any that were sent to it by the

general public.

The next item was September 15, when a

letter was received from a Vancouver woman who asked the same question.

The same reply was sent to her, and her letter and reply also went into

the file.

The plot thickens: on September 25, 1978, a letter

was received from a Member of Parliament, Mr. Robert Wenman, asking if

the Attorney-General's ministry had any special information on

deprogramming. A reply was sent that the ministry did not. This letter,

and the reply, were also put into the file.

On January 25,

1979, a letter was received from a lady in Windsor, Ontario, saying

that her 27-year-old daughter was a member of the Divine Light Mission

and had been a member of the church since she was 19 years old. The

woman said she believed at the time that her daughter was at the Divine

Light Mission in Vancouver and she wanted the ministry to investigate

the matter, as she believed her daughter was being exploited. The

criminal division of the ministry investigated and informed the lady

that her daughter was an adult and a member of the church by choice,

and unless there was some indication, obviously, that the daughter was

being held against her will or via some other violation of criminal

law, it was not able to assist the mother. This letter, and the reply,

went into the same file.

On March 15 we received a letter

from a Dr. Daniel Hill, who is the head of a study authorized by the

government of Ontario into mind development groups, cults and sects.

Dr. Hill sought the ministry's cooperation in finding out whether or

not the B.C. government had received complaints about issues such as

deprogramming, abduction, consumer protection and solicitation

practices involving groups acting in the name of religion.

response to this request, a UBC law student working for the ministry

was asked by officials to contact other ministries to see if they had

received similar complaints. She was also asked to sort through the

newspaper clippings and magazine articles in the file mentioned to weed

out duplications and get them in some sort of order.

Well,

the other ministries so far have reported that they haven't received

any written complaints, except for Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

which has received four consumer-related complaints involving possible

false advertising and possible failure to refund money. A few telephone

complaints have been received by the ministries, but exact details of

these complaints have not been recorded. Dr. Hill, from Ontario, was

told of this and he was asked to contact the legal student if he wanted

further details.

On April 19 a letter from a Terrace man was

forwarded to the ministry by the Ministry of Agriculture. The man

complained that his daughter, a married woman with two children, was a

member of a hippie commune, and no particular religious sect was

mentioned. The father was told that as his daughter was an adult, and

because she was living in the commune by choice, the ministry could not

assist him.

That is about where the matter stands. There are

six letters and the replies, about a dozen newspaper clippings and

magazine articles in a cardboard file, and a few interdepartmental

memos that accompanied the material. I would say that this is hardly an

investigation or a study, though some seem to appear to want to make it

such.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before I take

this supplementary, Beauchesne suggests that there are questions which

are perhaps beyond the scope of question period to deal with. The Chair

is hard pressed to determine the scope of these questions at the

outset. However, when questions requiring such a lengthy answer are

made in question period, the Chair will need some assistance as to how

to screen this kind of question. The supplementary question?

MR. MACDONALD: I don't think my question required a lengthy answer, but I'll just ask another one now.

it the policy of the Attorney-General's ministry to conduct a study or

to refuse to conduct a study of so-called mind-bending cults?

MR. SPEAKER: That is a question which inquires about the future action of the minister.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On what basis does the Attorney-General seek the floor?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would not like the hon. member to escape the question....

MR. SPEAKER: It is difficult, Mr. Attorney-General, to accept an answer to a question that has been ruled out of order.

FUNCTIONS OF JOHN ELLIOTT

MR. STUPICH:

Yesterday, in commenting about the B.C. Systems Corporation analyst who

was taken off work in the Ministry of Forests and transferred to the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) indicated that he was actually doing very

little in the Ministry of Forests. This information is completely at

odds with the information given to us by the comptroller of the

Ministry of Forests. He told us that we were $50 million behind in

billing revenue a year ago and $80 million behind this year, simply

because that person had been transferred.

I assume, Mr.

Speaker, that the minister must have done some investigation of this.

He must have something more complete than the answer he gave us

yesterday in order to explain the difference between the information he

supplied and the information from the comptroller in the Ministry of

Forests.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The question I took on

notice had to do with a given employee in the Systems Corporation, how

he was related to the ongoing job of stumpage reporting, and the

suggestion of a gap between the time that logging is done and the time

when billing is conducted. I reported that this gentleman's name was

John Elliott, and he

[ Page

1125 ]

had been with the Systems Corporation since

September 1977. He had been assigned to the mineral land tax system of

the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. This is where he

was normally employed.

In answer to the member's question, I

indicated clearly that he was then loaned to the Ministry of Forests on

this particular project that was referred to in public accounts. He was

employed there for some two or three weeks as a project analyst. But I

think the suggestion was made that this employee was normally employed

in Forests, was removed at a crucial time, and it had a great impact on

the problems associated with stumpage recording.

So in

summary, once again, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Elliott was assigned by the

corporation from his primary duties in Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources to help in the transfer of personnel in the then Forest

Service Systems group. His involvement in the Forest Service was on a

fill-in basis, when time was available from his normal duties in the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. His total

involvement on this project is estimated to have been a maximum of

three man-weeks, and Mr. Elliott was never permanently assigned to work

on the particular billing system in question. Therefore his removal

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

system regarding billings.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker,

the answer that was repeated from yesterday is completely at odds with

the information given to us by the comptroller at the Ministry of

Forests. But I guess that's something we will have to take up with that

person.

SWAN VALLEY FOODS LTD.

have another question to the Minister of Agriculture. I hope the

Premier's listening because he always answers for the Minister of

Agriculture. When the Swan Valley Foods Ltd. plant at Richmond was

sold....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, you usually turn around to give it to him; either way, I don't care, Mr. Premier.

Mr.

Speaker, when the Swan Valley Foods Ltd. plant at Richmond was sold out

to Standard Brands a couple of years ago, did the purchaser, that

American corporation, give any understanding at all that it would

reopen the plant?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, that plant was to go into production.

MR. STUPICH: When?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

No, the plant at Richmond is dealing with the — oh, I wish I could

remember the name they use — entrees. They were redesigning the size of

the package, and it was to be back into production very shortly after

they purchased it as a going concern. I can check that out and let you

know, Mr. Member.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a report from the

comptroller-general, as required under the Financial Control Act, which

is a copy of the interim financial statements covering a two-month

period ending May 31, 1979, and the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the report on agricultural aid to developing countries and world disaster areas during 1978-79.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CULTUS LAKE PARK ACT

On a motion by Mr. Ritchie, Bill PR

402,

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act, introduced, read a first

time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 30.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 19 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

MR. BARBER:

The import of this

section is to deny opportunities for municipal

governments in British Columbia to tax as a business the operations of

the Crown provincial in this province. The reason the amendment is here

is because the city of Victoria had the good wit and good sense to

introduce such a policy two years ago. It was challenged by the

province. That challenge went to court, and the court ruled the city of

Victoria had every right to engage in such a tax, and to treat the

province in its business enterprises like any other business enterprise

would be treated in this city. The city of Victoria had the good sense

to take Social Credit at its word, which is that they were prepared to

pay their full share, their full taxes, and bear their full load. This

Act undermines that. This Act repudiates a promise of Social Credit as

regards its corporate responsibility on behalf of the province to pay

its taxes. This particular

section 34 is here only because the city of

Victoria had the good sense to proceed in a very businesslike way, and

in a perfectly legal way, under the previous Act, to do what they

thought Social Credit permitted them to do.

As Municipal

Affairs critic for our party, I've had representations from

representatives of local government in the greater Victoria area, from

the mayor of one community on the coast, from aldermanic

representatives from other communities. I presume the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has had the same

representations as well. They make clear to me what I hope they make

clear to the minister. This is, to say the least, a

section not

welcomed by local government. I hope the government has some good

defence for it. Otherwise, they will continue to impair their relations

— impaired enough already — with local government across the province

of British Columbia.

[ Page 1126 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, and I'm sure the member is aware,

that this government has met its commitment and actually has been

extremely fair with municipalities in providing them with tax revenue

from government enterprises, which wasn't previously available.

With

respect to the

section now in question, it's a clarification as to

business enterprise as it relates to business taxes and licences.

Government enterprise has not previously paid those levies. I realize

there is a particular situation in Victoria, and I would certainly be

prepared to recommend to the Ministry of Finance that a grant in lieu

of business tax or licence be given to an enterprise such as the

Glenshiel Hotel, which is in direct competition with other hotels in

Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Forgive me for having to ask a

question of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). Can

we take it that what the Minister of Municipal Affairs just said is

government policy, that he has announced something that will be held?

Or do we have to go and ask you about it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Absolutely out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: It's not out of order. Any minister can be asked questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. It involves personal allusions, hon. member. I don't

necessarily want to go through a repetition of yesterday. Perhaps

members would confine themselves to being in order this afternoon.

MR. BARBER:

Given the disarray of that cabinet, and the extent to which its members

contradict one another in public, as well as in private, I was just

asking a reasonable question as to whether or not on this occasion —

unlike on others....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've got no business asking a reasonable question here. [Laughter.]

MR. BARBER:

I may have no business expecting a reasonable answer, but it is a

reasonable question. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has just

announced — at least on his own behalf — a significant departure in

policy. He has announced he is prepared to recommend a grant in lieu of

taxes which would solve a very particular problem in the riding shared

by myself and my colleague for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). This is an

important policy that he has announced. What I want to know is whether

or not he announces it with the authority of the Deputy Premier. If he

doesn't, I expect to see it repudiated in the Times tomorrow night.

Section 34 approved.

Sections 35 to 49 inclusive approved.

section 50.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under the name of the Attorney-General on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Sections 51 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under the name of the Attorney-General on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 58 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 30, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

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

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

section 1.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, with respect to second reading debate, and with specific

reference to the

interpretation of the word "association" in Bill 34,

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) intimated by his brilliant

defence of the bill that the Municipal Act would still apply to

Whistler as a whole, and that this little sovereign state created by

this Act was really separate and corporate, and should be left to the

decisions, desires and motivations of those few individuals and

corporations having sovereign control over this little plot of land in

sovereign British Columbia.

[ Page 1127 ]

fact, that is not the case. When one examines the

interpretation of

section 1, one can readily see that, in fact, this little 300-acre

sovereign state in the province of British Columbia can in many ways,

by virtue of this present bill, circumvent the provisions of the

Municipal Act — as will be seen in subsequent sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind members that we are in committee stage on this bill, and not second reading.

MR. LORIMER:

Section 1, Mr. Chairman, covers pretty well the whole bill. I dealt at

some length with the bill on second reading, but I do want to deal with

article 19 of

section 1 — the bylaws.

It is my opinion that

it could well be that the action will be in the preparation and

endorsement of the bylaws. Those bylaws will not be seen by this House;

they will be decided behind cabinet doors. We have to debate this

particular bill without having previous knowledge of what is intended

to be put in the bylaws. The bylaws do say that there are going to be

different classes of membership, whatever that might mean. Possibly the

minister will explain to us the different classes that they intend to

have in this particular company, and what voting rights and benefits

the different classes will have.

The admission of membership

is another matter. We know that some of the members in this particular

corporation are going to be compulsory members, but that others are

going to be allowed in; and we would certainly like to know the

criteria for allowing those in, and how it is to be decided who is to

be left out — whether it goes by who they are or what they own. What

are the criteria by which the bylaws will dictate as to whether or not

a person may become a member of this association?

Then we

have the voting rights of members. We want to know whether or not this

weighted voting that the minister has already described to us will be

set out in the bylaws. I am sure that he will give us a full

explanation of this.

In the Vancouver Sun a few days

ago the Minister of Labour stated that he would not go along with

weighted voting in this particular case, and that he would break rank

with the cabinet in the event that this occurred. I know that Minister

of Labour has strength in the cabinet, because he's been able to push

this bill through when, reportedly, there's been a lot of opposition to

this bill in the cabinet and in the caucus of the Social Credit Party.

I know that we can feel fairly safe that there will not be weighted

voting when the bylaws come in. But in order to allow the minister to

show us he is against this, I have proposed an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

It amends

section 19(1)(c), and reads: "To delete the word 'and' and

substitute the following: 'Based on the democratic principles of one

member-one vote'."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment seems to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LORIMER:

It seems to me that all of us in this House are opposed to weighted

voting in a democratic country like ours. People have been fighting for

the principle of one person-one vote for many centuries. We are now in

that position, and it would seem a very severe retrograde step to go

back on that.

MR. BARBER: In supporting the

amendment, I'd like to point out a couple of things about why we feel

compelled to introduce it at this time. The government has in its

lamentable defence of this bill tried to argue that it's really no more

than a particular kind of strata corporation. In defence of the bill

they have tried to point out that what's really being granted here is

what the Minister of Municipal Affairs said in an interview with the Vancouver Sun :

that what would come in the form of weighted voting was no more than an

older amendment to the Strata Titles Act, which, on half-acres here or

in apartments there, somehow made the same provisions applicable that

they hope to apply here to the Whistler Resort Association.

The

problem with the government's argument is that it's completely bogus.

It misses on two counts: the content is wrong and the scale is wrong.

The content is wrong because had they chosen to introduce some other

strata corporation they would have done so. They could have done so by

an amendment to the Strata Titles Act — not this bill. They could have

done so by simply using and advising the developers of Whistler to use

the Strata Titles Act, but that's not what we have; we have this bill

instead.

Unless they've changed their mind, I expect that

the government's argument in repudiation of our amendment will be that

it's just another strata corporation like all the rest. The first

problem with that argument is that it's wrong. That's not true. In

content, at heart, understanding the nature of a strata corporation,

it's simply wrong.

It's also wrong in the question of scale.

It is simply absurd and laughable to compare the scale of a 40-unit

strata corporation on Denman Street in downtown Vancouver or on Heywood

Street in my riding with the multimillion dollar operation envisioned

at Whistler and Blackcomb Mountains, and that will be provided for, the

government tells us, by the outcome of this bill. It's wrong as a

matter of scale as well. For them to attempt to defend the system of

weighted voting in a $500 million investment operation, which will be

guided and enhanced, the government tells us, by the Whistler Resort

Association is, I think, to mislead the people of British Columbia

about the real scale of operations here.

It is not a

competent argument on their part, and I hope they don't try and raise

it. I hope, instead, that what we see raised is what the Minister of

Labour, at least as far as the press was concerned, makes a case in

favour of, which is this: in this particular situation there is no

clear or competent definition of need for a weighted vote. No such case

has been made by any of the developers who talked to us; I ask you to

take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. They've been on the phone many

times. To the very best of my knowledge, no case has been made for a

weighted vote by other than the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the

mayor of Whistler, Mr. Carleton. I don't know Mr. Carleton; I presume

he's a fine man. I don't question his judgment, but we certainly

question the judgment of this government.

Speaking again to

the amendment as we propose it, to clear up a situation that could lead

dangerously and devastatingly to gross conflict of interest within the

association and to gross misapplication of law by it, we think that

this amendment provides something in law, very clear and very simple.

We point out that the bill makes membership in the association

mandatory. May I read, Mr. Chairman, the second line of the explanatory

note provided

[ Page 1128 ]

legislative counsel for the government? It reads as follows: "The bill

requires participation in the association in order to further the

association's goals."

There is no question of choice here.

Those persons who are affected in schedules A and B — B of this bill, A

of the old bill — do not have any choice in the matter. A person

entering a strata corporation knows in advance what the rules are. A

person entering a strata corporation with a half-acre somewhere in

Kimberley has more value per vote than does the quarter-acre somewhere

else in Kimberley — if it's a strata operation — and that's the best

defence the government has. At least everybody knows in advance what he

or she is getting into.

In this case these people have no

such foreknowledge. If they did, something has gone grossly wrong with

the provisions that tell us how a bill comes into this Legislature. To

the best of our knowledge, these people did not know in advance that

this requirement would be in there. The only persons who have defended

it are the minister and the mayor. We've heard many complaints that it

is, to say the least, a highly improper way to proceed, especially in

such a scale of operations as this is, a half-billion dollar investment.

The

government is in trouble on this bill, and everyone knows it. They're

split internally. They've been attacked publicly. Both the Victoria Times and the Vancouver Sun

have editorialized against the bill. It has been heavily criticized,

and judging by the noises at the moment, they are defensive about it.

One of the most particular reasons why it has been attacked, and why

they should be defensive, is because of this weighted voting provision.

the government had been wise — with all respect — when they introduced

the bill, they would have tabled the proposed bylaws. Had they been

willing to take this House into their confidence as much as they appear

to have taken certain developers into their confidence, we, as well as

they, would have had an opportunity to look at the draft bylaws of the

Whistler Resort Association.

We have reason to believe the

draft bylaws contain provision for seven directors. There is, indeed, a

weighted vote that would see two votes going to Fortress Mountain, 50

percent of which is owned by American interests. It would see one vote

going to the hotel and accommodation industry. It would see one vote

going to the culinary or the restaurant industry, and three votes going

at large. That's our information. If it's not correct, I'd be very

happy for the minister to correct it and to do today what he should

have done two weeks ago: table the bylaws.

The reason this

amendment is most important and should be approved is because weighted

voting offends the democratic principle. The reason this debate is

necessary is because the government has been unwilling to treat this

Legislature with as much respect and interest as they've treated the

interests of developers who put them up to this thing in the first

place.

If they had the good sense and the common courtesy to

table the draft bylaws, much of this debate may have proved unnecessary

as far as subsection (19) of Bill 34 goes. But because they haven't

done that, because politically they are in some difficulty, we find it

necessary to stand for an important principle by way of the amendment

proposed by my colleague. In this situation, for the purposes we have

outlined, one member-one vote.... It's a good principle. It will

guarantee, better than the current provisions do, a somewhat better

operation for the Whistler Resort Association.

We still

certainly oppose the bill in principle. We still find it is a foolish

and mistaken way to proceed. We still believe it a betrayal of the

public interest. However, it apparently will become law. The next best

step we can take, the next best case we can make, is to offer an

amendment which may help to limit what we perceive to be a very real

danger, with opportunities for very real abuses because of weighted

voting, in the organization to be called Whistler Resort Association.

think it is a reasonable amendment. We have some reason to believe your

colleague, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), would support

it. We ask the whole House to support it. If you believe, as you say,

that the Whistler Resort Association is going to be organized and

operated in a totally open and democratic fashion, let us take you at

your word and let us see you support this amendment. It's a good and

sound policy, and we ask for your endorsement of it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the bylaws are not here, because until the legislation

has passed, it's not proper to have the bylaws drafted. I think there

would be quite a scream from the opposition if, in fact, the bylaws

were already in place, or even being circulated, prior to the

legislation having passed.

MR. BARBER: You have a draft.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The bylaws will be dealt with by council in open meeting and certainly

after their approval of the bylaws, they will still need to be

considered by the cabinet.

The member mentioned that

reference would undoubtedly be made to the Strata Titles Act, and all

the other things that happened during the NDP years — and, I think,

rightly so.

When you speak of weighted voting, what, in

fact, is it? I don't know what will be proposed in the bylaw. Certainly

I can assure all hon. members it will be carefully looked at, not only

by ourselves but by the council as well. The council, and the whole

community of Whistler, is very supportive of this particular

legislation. I am receiving letters and telegrams. There is one here

from Mr. Drew Meredith, president, Whistler Chamber of Commerce. He

says:

THE WHISTLER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT AND INTENT

OF THE WHISTLER RESORT ASSOCIATION. THIS ASSOCIATION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE

SUCCESS OF OUR AREA AS A YEAR-ROUND DESTINATION RESORT. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING

IN CONCERT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VILLAGE LAND COMPANY AND FEEL THAT THE

CONCEPT OF THE ASSOCIATION IS VERY SOUND.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is a similar telegram from the Rotary president, Doug Reid.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. A point of order has been raised that we are straying

from the amendment. Once again I will read the one-line amendment:

"...to delete the

[ Page 1129 ]

word

'and' and substitute the following: 'based on the democratic principle

of one member, one vote'." That is to

section 19(1)(c), line 5. Until

such time as we have disposed with this amendment, we cannot allow

further broadening of the debate. I caution the minister to keep his

remarks on the amendment rather than the bill. I remind all members

that second reading has already taken place on this bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'll make reference to the Strata Titles Act and several other things

referred to by the member, particularly since he mentioned he has a

fear that the people coming into the association will not be aware of

what they are entering into or what will be expected of them. They

certainly will be aware, because the association and its bylaws will be

registered with the land registry office. It will be public

information; it will be there for all people to see. They will be

properly advised prior to them deciding to enter.

The Strata

Titles Act — as was mentioned in second reading — certainly does

provide for weighted voting, if, in fact, that could be termed as

weighted voting. That was provided for in 1974 by the former NDP

government. People, particularly in a strata title commercial

enterprise, pay on a per square footage basis.

I think the

member should consider the example of the Sterling properties — or

sometimes called the Sterling commune proposal — in Matsqui which was

again entered into by the previous NDP government. There was a common

farm area, common farm buildings and a one-half acre subdivision, The

people vote on the use of the buildings in the common area dependent on

how many lots they own along the perimeter of it. Undoubtedly that will

be mentioned, and it should be mentioned. I think these are fair

comparisons.

There is also the Companies Act, in which

people vote according to the number of shares they hold. I'm not sure

that any one of those or a combination of those might be proposed for

the Whistler Resort area. I don't think we should anticipate the

council; I think we should give the municipality the freedom to

consider those bylaws prior to presenting them to us.

I think we have an excellent proposal, and I am opposed to the amendment. I think we should give the council that opportunity.

MR. KING:

I have some difficulty understanding why the government would oppose

this particular amendment. We've had a variety of positions taken by

the government with respect to whether the bill contains a provision

for weighted voting. Now the minister has indicated that it does.

Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday, July 25, 1979, in Hansard on page 712-2, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), in defending this particular bill, had this to say:

appears in one newspaper that there was a suggestion about weighted

voting, which does not appear in this legislation in any place. There

won't be any weighted voting with respect to the association under

consideration here.

That's what the Minister of Labour said.

During the weekend the Vancouver Sun reported the same minister, and I quote:

"My view is that it should not be a weighted vote. Quite

frankly, I don't think it's desirable here. Therefore when the bylaws

of the association are fully developed, they'll have to convince me that

there is a real need."

Mr.

Chairman, aside from the minister's change of position, or however you

explain that minister taking one position in the Legislature and

another on the weekend when he was speaking to a newspaper reporter....

I guess it's for him to justify.

I want to say to him today,

Mr. Chairman, that he should not wait for the bylaws to be presented to

him, containing the principle of weighted voting on the basis of

investment or holdings in land. That does not conform to any

contemporary principle of democratic procedure. If the minister is

sincere about objecting to that kind of direction, then obviously his

opportunity presents itself with the introduction of the amendment that

is now before the House.

So the Minister of Labour is in a

rather unique position today. On the one hand, in debate last week he

said there's no provision for weighted voting. Then he went out on the

weekend and said: "When weighted voting comes in with the bylaws, I'm

going to oppose those bylaws. They're going to have to convince me."

Well, Mr. Chairman, it's important, I believe, if the minister feels

that this is a matter of conscience on which he should take a position

which might depart from that of his cabinet colleagues, that he should

do so in this Legislature. Don't wait to get behind the closed doors of

cabinet, Mr. Minister. Don't wait until the cabinet doors close and

bring the shroud of secrecy to say: "I fought for democracy, I really

oppose those bylaws, and I'm the only clean one of this gang." You have

your opportunity with the light of day shining on you in this public

forum of debate, Mr. Minister. If anyone in this province is to ever

give any credibility to any future utterance of that minister, he had

better protect his credibility today and support this amendment. It's

as simple as that.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has

risen in his place and said: "We'll closely monitor and look at those

bylaws when they come before us. They'll be vented and they'll come to

cabinet...." Well, obviously we now have two cabinet ministers who do

not agree either on the contents of the bill and its authority, or on

the principle of weighted voting. So, Mr. Minister, I suggest to you as

Minister of Municipal Affairs — through you, Mr. Chairman — that you

should have the candour to say in this House that either those people

who have a higher investment are going to pack more clout in the

democratic process than the ordinary residential landowner in that

community, or they are not. The minister shouldn't try to play both

sides. You cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either the bill provides

for weighted voting or it does not. If it's not the intent to provide

that kind of distorted benefit to the rich in this province, then, Mr.

Minister, accept this simple amendment.

It's a very

clear-cut issue today. If anyone wants to play Mr. Liberal Nice Guy in

that coalition, they have their opportunity today, because it's too

late, after this amendment is dealt with, to go into the secrecy of

cabinet and try to clear your name by protestations that you voted

against the cabinet to protect the principle of democratic procedure in

this province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 1130 ]

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word or two on this bill. The

analogy to a strata corporation is ridiculous. This little thing is

only 325 acres, but it's called a municipality.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, it says "resort municipality." Is the government seriously going

to turn its back on the principle of one man, one vote in a

municipality? If you are, how many other municipalities down the road

are you going to look at and import that undemocratic principle into?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD:

Which municipality? This one? Is this a municipality, or is it not? Is

the bill correctly named, or is it not? Does this government believe in

one man, one vote within a municipality?

Now here's the acid

test and the Minister of Labour is joking and laughing; but he's being

forced to accept the acid test. We're going to watch how you vote, to

see whether you live up to your protestations, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I keep getting interrupted by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis). That means I'll be thrown out in the hall.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Same time next year, Mr. Provincial Secretary, yes.

are dealing now with a municipality, and we are engaged in a grave

departure from principles of municipal self-government and democracy.

The simple principle of one man, one vote, if it is repudiated now by

this government, is something that every municipality in British

Columbia should be afraid of.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Certainly one man-one vote is applicable in the municipality, and as

they vote for their municipal councils then there is no question about

that at all. We are talking about an association which is there for a

specific purpose — to promote Whistler as a resort destination. It may

be, Mr. Chairman, that in fact the bylaws could provide that only those

who benefit from the reservation system — that is the hotels

particularly — would contribute toward whatever money is required to

promote the reservation system. In that particular instance it could be

argued that democratically those people should vote on the expenditures

of moneys that are taken from the fund to which they have contributed.

So, talking about democracy, I think they should consider their

amendment very carefully and they'll find that it is not in order here,

that it is not applicable, and that it could, in fact, be some

injustice.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I do not with to prolong the debate in any way, except

to say that this bill is here on the behest of the municipality, and in their

judgment it was necessary. But, above all, such things as we have here, such

as the weighted vote, are necessary. I refer the hon. members of the opposition

to the Strata Titles Act of 1974....

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not a municipality.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. MUSSALLEM: It doesn't matter; it makes no difference.

The

Strata Titles Act of 1974, in which that opposition, when it was

government, gave the weighted right to the strata title holders.... The

weighted right was given because, as is clearly stated here, in that

area there were business as well as residential lots. It says here,

very clearly, under

section 1(h): "In respect that the strata title

plan is not entirely for residential use...have endorsed upon it a

schedule that is acceptable to the superintendent of insurance at the

time of filing the prospectus under the Real Estate Act, specifying the

number of votes allocated to each non-residential strata lot, and

that...."

Now here is an almost a parallel thing. I'm not

saying they were wrong then; I'm saying they were right. But why speak

both ways at different times? It is necessary in this case because of

the tremendous size of the development in conjunction with the

municipality. That is necessary and it must be done. I see no point in

the amendment, and I am prepared to vote against it.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lauk

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On the title.

MR. LORIMER:

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, the title is a misnomer. There is no connection

whatever between the original Resort Municipality of Whistler Act and

the documents that we are debating here today. There is absolutely no

connection whatever, and they should be separate bills. This was a good

bill. This one is a different bill and should stand on its own feet.

Title approved.

[ Page

1131 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: 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 34, Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 22.

MS. BROWN: On

section 22, Mr. Chairperson....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's "Mr. Chairman," please.

MS. BROWN: I'm not prepared to get into a debate with you over that, so I will just refrain from referring to you, Mr. Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Because of a previous ruling of the Chair, I must ask

that if a member wishes to refer to the person sitting in the chair,

they refer to "Mr. Chairman."

MS. BROWN: I will not refer to the person sitting in the chair.

Section

6(1)(

d) of the Act presently reads: "...possession of the family

residence and its contents." The amendment has been changed to make it

read: "...occupancy of the family residence and the use of its

contents." I'm very opposed to this amendment and, in fact, quite

disappointed by it. It's one of the things that the original Act had

which was of some kind of value to the spouse who decided to remain at

home with the children, whether that spouse is male or female. By

amending that to go back to the old "occupancy of the family residence,

and the use of its contents," we've taken one step forward and two

steps backward. Nothing has really changed. Although I realize we've

had a couple of bizarre examples recently of very expensive family

residences up for grabs in settlement and maintenance cases, I don't

think those two exceptions justify amending this particular section.

It goes on to talk about the fact that as a result of this amendment the property

can't be changed in any meaningful way. This means the spouse cannot sell

it, do any major renovations, or put a suite in the basement in order to gain

some kind of livelihood out of it, or anything. In fact, all it ensures is that

the person living in the family home is stuck right there. As is the habit in

many instances now, given the opportunity, that family home is sold, the equity

is taken out of it and that spouse has something with which to start a new life

for herself or himself. As a result of this occupancy ruling, rather than possession,

as it was in the previous legislation — especially with the contents as well

— what we have is a further enslavement of the spouse remaining at home.

would like to ask the Attorney-General to give some justification for

this

section being amended back to what it was before the bill was

introduced. In particular, why did it have to include the contents of

the family home?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the

hon. member,

section 6 refers to the jurisdiction of the provincial

court, and only of the provincial court. It was felt that possession

started to transgress into the powers of the superior courts under

section 96 of the BNA Act. As I've mentioned in the House before in

debate and personally to the hon. member, the constitution of Canada,

as it now stands, is providing a far larger number of obstacles and

hurdles for local decision-making than it ever has in the past, perhaps

by virtue of the fact that Canadian society is more complex and more

interdependent, as are all societies in the western world. That is the

number one problem. The amendment is here in order to effectively

reflect the constitutional difficulty that we are facing, and that we

considered we were facing.

So this makes it absolutely clear

that the provincial court does not have jurisdiction under

part 3,

which the supreme court does have. The supreme court has ample

jurisdiction in dealing with possession under

part 3 of the Act. I

would refer you to

section 52(2)(a), wherein the supreme court can

declare the ownership of or the right to possession of property. So the

remedy is there; but the remedy is not constitutionally available,

insofar as possession is concerned, in the provincial court of this

province, nor in the provincial court of any province in the country.

That's why the words "occupancy and use" have been substituted —

possession goes to proprietary rights, and "occupancy and use" does not.

MS. BROWN:

I tried to discuss this explanation when I mentioned this to the

Attorney-General before and he gave me that explanation. I've tried to

discuss it with various and sundry people dealing in this area, and

they have told me that, in fact, what the bill now does is to make it

possible to go to court and get a divorce, but still end up having to

go to family court to deal with the bread and butter issues. You still

have that split jurisdiction, and you still have the contentious parts

of the whole business of divorce being dealt with at the family court

level. You really haven't solved anything by doing it this way. Under

the present system — even before this bill was amended — the family

court can deal with the fact that the spouse who is at home can have

possession of the house and its contents, and deal with them in

whatever way she or he deems fit to do so. This has now been taken away

from the family court and put back into the superior court.

[ Page 1132 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM:

There is a provision under the Family Relations Act for the joinder of

proceedings into the supreme court, where all matters can be heard at

the some time. The difficulty lies in the ramifications of the BNA Act.

It is really just that simple. You know, there was a tremendous desire

indicated in this province, and in no end of other provinces, to have

all family law under one roof. This is a measure that British Columbia

has been advocating for a number of years. And it is true that this

province piloted the unified family court concept, in order to provide

better delivery of family services, and reduce the adversariality and

expand the concept and make it more accessible to the people who need

it throughout the whole of the province, and indeed throughout the

whole of the country.

This was a matter on which a great

deal of consensus was reached at the last federal-provincial conference

on the constitution. Perhaps there was a greater degree of consensus

reached here than on any other point, and that was that the provinces

be given the power to appoint provincial judges to have jurisdiction in

all family matters, including the granting of divorce decrees. Well,

that was an indication of the desires of the then Premiers and the then

Prime Minister of Canada. Now we have a substantial number of new

governments in the provinces in our country, and we also have, of

course, a new federal government.

This matter was met with a

great deal of approval at the federal level, and the argument behind it

was that the service would be more accessible because there are more

provincial courts. They are in more locales throughout all of the

provinces than we find the superior courts.

There has been

some recent opposition to it by the bars in certain of the provinces.

There was also the recommendation at the federal-provincial conference

that the provinces should eventually be able to make their own divorce

laws. But this is not suggesting that any province would become a

divorce mecca. Dramatic changes would not be anticipated because the

federal side, under the concept, would retain authority to insist that

a divorce granted in one province be recognized in all others.

I'm

just sort of bringing you up to date concerning the conceptual

direction that was taken a matter of a few months ago. I'm only going

to be redundant in saying to you now that the purpose of the amendment

is to make it abundantly clear that we do not have a transgression of

jurisdiction and run into conflict with the British North America Act

and

section 96, judge power.

MS. BROWN: I certainly

appreciate the history about the direction. I'm quite aware of it, as I

am sure the Attorney-General knows, but this

section hasn't been

challenged. Has anyone challenged that

section since it has been on the

books?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes.

MS. BROWN: I was under the impression that you amended the

section even though no one had ever challenged it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want me to stand up?

MS. BROWN: Sure.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

It's a question of some nicety as to whether or not it was an effective

challenge, because the challenge was not initiated by the litigants in

question, nor was process under the Constitutional Questions

Determination Act followed — serving the notice of challenge upon

either the federal Minister of Justice or the provincial

Attorney-General.

MS. BROWN: It seems to me that

would have been the more logical way to do it, Mr. Attorney-General,

because as the Act was written originally, that is in the best

interests of the spouse. The possession of the contents and the house

is in the best interests of the spouse. Now to back away from that

without going through all of the constitutional challenges that are

available to us, I think, is not the best way to do it.

The amendment weakens this piece of legislation, and renders it.... There is no protection whatsoever for the spouse.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's not true.

MS. BROWN:

The fact of the matter is that in many instances the spouse who is not

employed outside of the home cannot afford to continue to occupy that

home. The spouse cannot afford to meet the mortgage payments or any of

the expenses involved in occupying that house, and if the other fails

to meet his or her maintenance payments, then everything is lost to

that spouse. So it would have made much more sense for the government

to have challenged that and gone through all of the legal avenues open

to us to protect that

section of the Act, rather than to water it down

this way.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, we have

developed what we consider to be the best method of protecting the

statute. I know that you are not wishing to misconstrue anything, but I

think, with every respect, you have emphasized something that is not

correct, and that is that the rights for possession have not

disappeared one iota by virtue of this amendment. I have to repeat

that. You're nodding in acquiescence.

MS. BROWN: Sure, you hire yourself an expensive lawyer and you go and apply for it.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Your last remark, hon. member, somewhat convinced me, and indeed I hope

erroneously, that you were under the impression that the rights of

possession have disappeared. The rights of possession have not

disappeared. They're still there under the powers of the Supreme Court

of British Columbia, but it is not possible constitutionally, in our

view, to grant that possessory power to the provincial court, so in

substitution thereof, the provincial court has been granted the power

to deal with occupancy of the family residence and use of its contents.

MS. BROWN:

I know that the right is there for anyone who can afford to go out and

hire themselves an expensive lawyer and carry it through a superior

court. There is a difference involved in the cost of dealing with

superior court and dealing with family court. Anyone who can afford an

expensive lawyer can end up, if they have a good enough

[ Page

1133 ]

one,

with 100 percent of the estate. I know that. I'm talking about those

people who haven't got access to expensive legal counsel, Mr.

Attorney-General.

Section 22 approved.

Section 21 approved.

Sections 23 to 64 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, we were dealing with sections 21, 22 and 23. You did cover

section 22 there, did you? We've got all the sections?

MR. CHAIRMAN: They were all passed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, and the Chairman did call it, but I just wished to be certain....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We called

section 22, then went back to

section 21 and then went 23, 24, 25 through to 30, then 31 through 40.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Under the "I", Bingo, congratulations.

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 29, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move we proceed to motions and adjourned debate on motions, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

On Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, under the name of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the second member for Vancouver Centre....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You will need leave to move in the absence of another member.

Leave granted.

MR. HALL: I have the motion signed by the second member for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all members are aware that the topic covered in the motion regarding

the British Columbia Summer Games and the televising of those games has been

the subject of many questions in the House. It has seen members on this side

of the House rise on numerous occasions to challenge the government's decision,

and indeed challenge the right to permit one commercial television company the

exclusive privilege to report live telecasts of the British Columbia Summer

Games.

the absence of the second member for Vancouver Centre, I want to convey

to the House and particularly to the Provincial Secretary the arguments

from our point of view. The resolution is that the British Columbia

Summer Games should exemplify the spirit of grassroots participation,

that local community organizations, individuals and athletes who

cooperate in staging the games should be recognized and the local TV

community channels and local commercial TV stations be afforded equal

opportunity to record and report the games, as indeed the larger

commercial TV networks.

The object of the resolution, Mr.

Speaker, is to ensure that the Canadian Radio and Television Commission

licensing policy concerning cable television companies is not

undermined by this government, is not undermined by the private deals

made by representatives of the government and retained personnel.

The

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission requires

the cable company, for instance, to return a 5 to 10 percent revenue to

the community in the form of non-commercial, non-profit community

channels. Such channels are to televise events of local grassroots

interest such as the British Columbia Summer and Winter Games. The B.C.

Games are perhaps one of the most exacting examples of events community

TV should be expected, or expect, to carry and to telecast.

Because

of government hype and promotion and ballyhoo, the games, under the

professionalism of the managing director, have turned into a commercial

commodity from an advertising point of view. By the director's mistaken

notion, now supported by the government, granting the exclusive right

to telecast the games to one commercial television company was the best

assurance of broad and thorough coverage. That has done a disservice

not only to other competitive stations in community TV, but to the

community as a whole. That's the statement, Mr. Speaker. I thank you

very much, and I move Motion 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I

thank the second member for Surrey for his comments with respect to

this topic which has occupied considerable attention on the part of the

hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) since this session

commenced some weeks ago.

I find some of the statements

which the hon. second member for Surrey has presented on behalf of his

colleagues to be rather strong in tone. Fair enough. We have the 1979

British Columbia Summer Games commencing this week, and we look forward

— I think on both sides of the House — to the most successful series of

games yet, involving hundreds of British Columbians. With respect to

the point which has been made on a number of occasions by the member

opposite — who is not in his seat at this time — perhaps as a result of

his early questions, a meeting was held between the community cable

companies in British Columbia and the television network which has a

contractual arrangement with respect to the games. My information, as

we discussed just a few days ago in my estimates, without reflecting on

those votes, Mr. Speaker, suggests that perhaps the resolution which

has been reached is more amicable than the absent member opposite would

believe.

[ Page 1134 ]

Nonetheless,

the government will watch the way the television network which has this

contractual arrangement, and the cable companies, work out any

arrangement during these games. Should it be apparent there is some

difficulty I shall certainly address myself to it.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 2.

MR. HYNDMAN: I have here a signed coy of Motion 2, which I will table with the Clerk at the conclusion of my remarks.

way of prefacing those, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this motion is in

no way critical of the practising bar, of lawyers in British Columbia,

the judiciary, the Ministry of the Attorney-General, or the

Attorney-General. Because it deals with the private sector, it is

supportive of the efforts all those persons are making to improve the

quality of the delivery of legal services in his province.

Briefly,

I would like to outline the essence of the motion. It is to call for a

special committee of this House to inquire into several topics relative

to the principle of the private sector, not the government, making

legal services more available and more affordable to the public. The

phrase "private sector" is important because, philosophically, the

source from which greater availability and lower cost of legal services

must come is the private sector. Hopefully, through the work of this

committee, new ways can be found to improve the delivery of those

services.

Briefly, the committee would enquire into three

topics. First, there is the question of legal advertising, a question

that in recent months has vexed the members of the practising bar and

the Law Society of British Columbia. Two aspects to that question could

be usefully considered. The first is the extent to which, through

advertising, the informational function of advertising could permit our

public to better understand what lawyers do, how it is done, and how

the legal process works. Secondly, on the question of legal services

costs, this committee could give guidance and a public declaration as

to the proper position the Law Society should take on the question of

whether or not lawyers can advertise their fees or their costs.

Speaking

personally, I'm of the view that lawyers, to remove the mystery, should

be allowed to advertise in an informational way if they wish to spend

their dollars to tell the public what they do and how they do it.

Secondly, because the question of legal costs and legal fees is one of

the most misunderstood in the area of solicitor-client relationships,

any light which can be shed on costs, through advertising, is to be

encouraged.

My second topic is the question of

home-acquisition costs, particularly for the first-time home buyer, be

it a home, a house, a condominium. The conveyance fees, particularly if

a mortgage is involved and where land registry disbursements are very

high, are front-end costs. This means that the money has to be put up

at the front, at the time of closing, when it's often tough to get the

down payment together. Many lawyers of the practising bar have been

grappling with this problem. The practising bar shares the concern of

the public that these costs are high. The two areas which I think the

private sector should be encouraged in are: to carry on its work with

the use of computers in the land registry system, and the possible

organization of a title-insurance system. These are topics for which

solutions to the problems must come from the private sector, not from

government; hence, the committee should investigate those.

Finally there's the question of a prepaid legal care system for British

Columbia, under which our citizens voluntarily can subscribe, much like medicare,

to a system of legal services and, when needed, on an insurance pool

basis. Thus, the services of a lawyer can be afforded in consideration of regular

and, hopefully, modest monthly premiums. This kind of a premium system has been

in existence in Europe for years and in the United States in many sectors but,

surprisingly, not in Canada, although the British Columbia branch of the Canadian

Bar Association, to its credit, has pioneered the Canadian work and research

in this area, and, I think, should be encouraged.

Through

this motion, a committee of this House could encourage the private

sector and encourage the private practitioners in the bar. It could let

them know this House is concerned that they continue their efforts to

find ways to make legal services better understood, and to make them

more affordable.

The tremendous importance of the private

sector being encouraged to do this — not big government — is that the

legal rights of our citizens often involve claims against government,

or the question of the citizen's rights vis-a-vis government. For that

reason, the delivery of legal services must remain in the private

sector. Through this committee we can encourage that to happen.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

The hon. member has made some very interesting and valuable points. He

raised three matters: advertising by lawyers, the ways and means of

reducing legal costs of home acquisition, and the benefits of a prepaid

legal care or insurance program.

Dealing with the first,

this matter is under active consideration right now by the bar in this

province and by the bars in other provinces in the country. It has

already developed extensively in other common law jurisdictions.

Dealing

with the question of reduction of costs of home acquisition, this is a

matter we indeed hope will be fulfilled to a greater extent by virtue

of the new land titles system. We hope it will eventually provide a far

better and more reasonable method of conveyancing, certainly in the

simple conveyancing situations.

Prepaid legal care: of

course if insurers in the province decide to come into that field, it

is open for them to do so. They have done so in other jurisdictions,

and they have had some measured degree of success with it.

I would conclude by saying the matters are under consideration by the

bar and by the government, and I thank the member for his attention to

the points in question. I move adjournment of the debate until the next

sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 3.

[ Page

1135 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that this motion is

going to have the unanimous support of the House, and that the

government will not move adjournment to it because it's the kind of

motion that everyone — not just in British Columbia, but everywhere in

the world — is supposed to be supporting at this time,

The

motion says that in keeping with the spirit of the International Year

of the Child, this House endorses the United Nations Declaration of the

Rights of the Child. On behalf of this particular year UNICEF issued a

pamphlet in which it said: "The International Year of the Child

provides Canadians with an opportunity to do something now for the

future of our children." Endorsing the declaration would certainly be

one way in which we could begin to do that thing.

It is not

going to place an impost on the Crown. It is not asking for the

spending of any money. It is not asking for the striking of any medals,

or the printing of any scrolls or songbooks. It merely says that we, as

British Columbians, endorse the things declared by the United Nations

to be the rights of children.

The declaration says that the child has the right to

affection, love and understanding. That first declaration, of course,

is probably the most difficult one that we are placing before the

government at this time. It also says that the child has the right to

adequate nutrition and medical care; to free education; to the full

opportunity for play and recreation; to a name and nationality. In the

event that the child is handicapped he or she has the right to special

care. The child should be among the first to receive relief in times of

disaster, and the child should learn to be a useful member of society

and to develop individual abilities. The child has the right to be

brought up in the spirit of peace and universal brotherhood. All

children should enjoy these rights regardless of race, colour, sex,

religion, national or social origin.

In effect, this

resolution is a companion to the private member's bill introduced by

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), Bill M 205, the

Children's Rights Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MS. BROWN: I'm not going to be dealing with the legislation; I just mentioned it in passing.

am going to be saying though, that this would be one way in which the

government could declare its genuine commitment to improving the status

of the children of British Columbia at this time. And so, Mr. Speaker,

I am hoping that, when the minister responsible rises to speak, she

will be speaking in support of this resolution rather than adjourning

it. The year comes to an end on December 31, so this is not an issue

which can be adjourned. It's an issue which, with happiness and joy and

love, all members of this House should support at this time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support, on behalf of the

government side of the House, the resolution which has been put forward

by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). In doing so, I

would like to say to the hon. member, because I think it may have

escaped her notice, that on February 9, 1979, the Lieutenant-Governor

signed order-in-council No. 399, in which the government of British

Columbia, on the recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with

the advice and consent of the executive council, paid tribute to the

International Year of the Child and the declaration of the United

Nations Assembly by ordering that:

"Whereas

the United Nations Assembly has declared 1979 to be the Year of the

Child; and

whereas the government of the province wishes to emphasize

the role of the total provincial community in caring for children and

contributing to family life; and

whereas the government of the province

wishes to encourage citizens in their efforts to enhance the lives of

children and families; and

whereas the government of the province

wishes to give recognition to individuals and organizations at every

level who are found to be setting an example of service to children and

families; and

whereas in recognition the government of the province

deems it expedient to issue a proclamation appointing the year of 1979

as Year of the Child and Family in the province of British Columbia, a

proclamation be issued appointing the year of 1979 as the Year of the

Child and Family in the province of British Columbia."

Mr.

Speaker, may I say in support of the resolution that is before us that

there is no question that the government in our province — and I say

that in comparison to other provinces across this nation — has

certainly been in the forefront in this nation in recognition of the

child in this year. May I say too that historically the citizens of our

province have always strived every year, year upon year, to give their

commitment and their tax dollars. In the spirit of the Year of the

Child and the United Nations declaration.... They have in past years

and will in years to come, I know, support that.

So it is

with the greatest of pleasure that I rise on behalf of the government

and ask the House to concur with this resolution. I hope that in the

months to come all sides of the House will make every effort and will

call on all members of our province to live within the spirit of the

declaration and within the total commitment that we all make in this

House to the children whom we serve and represent in this province.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 4.

MR. BARBER: This motion will, I hope, meet a similarly happy fate, as did the previous one, because it's similarly non-partisan.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, have you read it?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Apparently not. Let me read the motion, if I may:

"This

Kingdom to protect the pensions of British citizens resident in British

Columbia by indexing and increasing those pensions to the same extent

as in the United

[ Page 1136 ]

Kingdom,

and urges the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom to sign a

reciprocal social security agreement to ensure that those pensions are

protected."

I'd like to point out, if I may, Mr. Speaker,

that the motion does not call for the expenditure of a single cent of

tax money in British Columbia. It's in no fashion an impost on the

Crown. Rather, it's a declaration of opinion by this House that an

unfair situation should not be allowed to continue. The unfair

situation, very simply, is this: in Canada there are some 22,000

persons, formerly citizens of the United Kingdom, now resident in and

citizens of Canada, for the most part, who find themselves in the

unhappy position that because they have left the United Kingdom, their

pensions are frozen at the value they had on the day they left. What

that means is that when they come to the riding shared by my colleague

for Victoria and myself.... Say, for instance, they had a pension of 12

pounds a week in 1974; that pension is 12 pounds a week today. It's

frozen. The reason it's frozen is because so far Canada and the United

Kingdom have been unable or unwilling to come to an agreement called a

reciprocal social security agreement in international law that would be

mutually binding on both partners to the agreement, that would require

Canada to pay an indexed pension, as we do to our own residents in the

United Kingdom, and that would require the United Kingdom similarly to

pay such an indexed increase to its pensioners resident in Canada.

my own riding, there are literally hundreds of people who have in a

totally unfair way been the victims of an apparent unwillingness on the

part of both national governments, Canadian and British, to reach an

agreement.

I should point out that Canada currently has

agreements with other nations. Britain itself has agreements with 21

other countries, including Yugoslavia, Italy and Turkey. Britain has no

agreement with Canada. I'd like to point out as well that two years ago

Canada to sign such an agreement with the United Kingdom. It is already

now a matter of federal policy in our country.

I hope that

if this House accepts the motion, which is not an impost on the Crown —

it only calls for fair play in pensions — it will add some moral weight

to the case that has been made many times before: that we must have

such a reciprocal social security agreement. This agreement would

protect the incomes of 22,000, it is estimated, UK pensioners now

living in Canada. These people have a right not to live on a frozen

income. You and I would expect that right. So do they. So should they

have that right protected.

The effect of this motion would

be to communicate to Ottawa and to London our opinion that the current

situation is unfair, and our wish, as one of the members of

Confederation, that Canada and the United Kingdom will both come to a

sensible and early agreement to protect the pensions of these people.

It is not a partisan resolution. It doesn't cost the people of British

Columbia a dime, except perhaps for postage to mail a copy of the

resolution to London and to Ottawa. I think it's fair; it's welcome. I

hope the government supports it. That too would be most welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, speaking to Motion 4, the hon. first member for Victoria

has, I think, in a few words outlined a problem which is a concern not

only on that side of the House but on this side as well. The degree to

which this problem can be measured in British Columbia is something

which I think we should explore.

I've listened to the

observations of the member on the precise magnitude of the problem, and

I am advised that as much as we would like to accept this, we have to

be concerned about treaty matters, inasmuch as he has moved that this

be referred both to London and to Ottawa. That presents the government

with some difficulties. I do undertake, on behalf of the government,

with the member.... Inasmuch as it appears that an adjournment is going

to occur, this matter can remain before this House. I will undertake to

meet with the member for Victoria, should he wish, and with those

pension specialists who are available to government — within the

government employ. Albeit they have responsibility for public sector

pensions and superannuations in British Columbia, they can nonetheless

assist both of us in measuring this problem and we can then consider

the matter further.

I give the member that undertaking in

what is a matter which crosses partisan lines, as he observed, but

also, with regret, which crosses beyond at least a couple of boundaries

where this House has no jurisdiction. I therefore move adjournment of

this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 6.

MR. SMITH:

The purpose of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is to urge the government

of Canada to introduce some legislation which will modify their

national policy of metric conversion to ensure that the consumer is

protected and not confused. Since I first spoke in this House on the

subject of metric conversion, and first introduced a private member's

bill, the Truth In Metric Act, I've had a fair amount of correspondence

from around the province, and I've also had brought to my attention a

number of rather unfortunate elements of metric conversion that are

taking place.

I was sent a copy of a letter today that went

to CKWX Radio in Vancouver from a gentleman who describes himself as a

media relations officer for the Metric Commission of Canada. This

gentleman wrote to the news editor of CKWX admonishing that station for

giving understandable temperature — that is temperature readings in

Fahrenheit, not metric — which is, apparently, a most unpatriotic thing

to do, according to the metric media bully who wrote this letter. He

suggested the station was not really playing on the national ball team,

and they were undermining Canadian unity and not contributing to the

economic growth of the country.

If we are going to be

subject to this kind of national implementation of metric, and we're

going to have $20,000-a-year-plus media relations officers writing

these letters, I am sure that within a matter of a few months when the

final horrendous convulsions of metric take place, we will have

bounties placed in the hands of children to inform and snitch on their

parents if they, by change, take a temperature reading in the home in

the old imperial Fahrenheit measurement or, perchance, their mother

decides to use a teaspoon to measure some condiments in the kitchen.

[ Page 1137 ]

What

this motion is trying to do is to get some sense into the whole metric

conversion operation, and pause and take stock of where we're going in

relation to the United States. At the fifth annual conference of the

American Metric Council in Washington in April, it was made very clear

that Americans are not going to be into metric until 1990, not 1980. In

spite of all these tremendous timetables that Metric Canada has been

pushing us toward so that we won't be out of pace with our neighbours

to the south, it appears that we are 11 years ahead of them. I think we

should slow down and let them catch up. In the process of doing so we

should protect the consumer a little more.

This resolution

doesn't commit the payment of any money by the province of British

Columbia and is not critical of the policies of the government of

British Columbia. It simply urges this House to urge the government of

Canada to make some modifications in its program.

As far as

the consumer is concerned, and the confusion that he faces, one of the

problems is that increases in price are slipping in under the guise of

metrification. It was pointed out to me the other day that the doctors'

cards to the medical plan, which go in bulk each month for billing — a

little item like that.... For some time the cost of mailing these has

been 17 cents for one ounce. A new price list has just recently been

sent out and it now is 17 cents for one gram. Since a gram is barely

half of an ounce that is almost a doubling in price under the guise of

metrification. This sort of nonsense occurs almost daily. Most of it

seems to be the result of a policy embarked upon by

weights-and-measures bureaucrats in Ottawa who aren't interested one

whit in the sensibilities or the understanding of consumers across the

country.

They talk about information policies and how their

program is voluntary. But if you step out of line and try and give an

old designation to help a confused pensioner, you're going to get a

letter from a metric bully in Ottawa, and he is going to admonish you.

look to the Minister of Education, Science and Technology as the

guardian of metric truth in British Columbia. I know he is earnestly

and sincerely concerned about this problem, as is the B.C. director of

metric. I urge the House to support the resolution and to bring some

sanity and understanding into the metric conversion program.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, the member has some excellent points to make for the

House, not the least of which is that the proposed metric conversion

for Canada is giving the younger generation another tremendous

advantage over the older generation. They will be able to run even more

circles around us when it comes to calculating how much gasoline goes

in the tank of the car and so on.

We do have a national

commitment with respect to conversion to metric. As all members know,

we're midway between the United States, which is dragging its feet, and

the rest of the world, which is metric. We do business with both, and

therefore we've got to stride that middle ground between the great

power to the south of us and the rest of the world.

There is

excellent food for thought in the member's motion. As the person

responsible for metric in British Columbia, it is certainly something

that I would like to consider very carefully. In order to do that, I

move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 8, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 8.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, if you only knew the long and arduous path this motion has

taken. It reminds me of a man who slipped down a cliff and caught a

branch by his hand as he was falling. He was alone on the cliff, and

all he did was call out: "Is there anybody to help me?" Not a voice was

heard.

Suddenly out of a cloud came a voice saying: "I am here. What do you want?"

He said: "I want help. Who are you?"

"I'm your God. I can help you. Have faith. Let go."

"Have faith? Let go? Is there anybody else up there?" [Laughter.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, debate on motions must be relevant.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I thought I could probably exemplify in one minute more than I could say in a few minutes.

Here

I have the honour to stand in my place, after all this, and move that

the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills be adopted.

MR. HALL: I rise to

oppose the adoption of this report. As a member of that committee that

dealt with the application — a committee that by a majority vote found

the

preamble approved and asked that the bill be proceeded with — I

want to acquaint you, Mr. Speaker, with what I consider to be an

unsatisfactory report. This report is being made to the House without

the members of the committee having had the basic information and

knowledge from the public policy-deciding bodies of this province.

There

were many witnesses, the first of whom came on behalf of the

petitioner. All were good people, all stated their point of view and,

I'm sure, in the main, one can agree with most of what they said. But

we wanted to find out more, and we asked for witnesses to come from the

Ministry of Education and from the Universities Council of British

Columbia.

I want to tell you, I have never seen a more

discomforted person in my life than the witness from the Ministry of

Education. That witness was not forthcoming; his embarrassment was

obvious. The ministry did not have a position. How can we adopt this

report knowing that those people who are in charge of post-secondary

education in this province do not have a position on this bill? It is

beyond me, Mr. Speaker.

That's not to say that there is

anything wrong with the petition. That's not to say there is anything

wrong with the petitioner. That's not to say there is anything wrong

with the information that the petitioner brought to the committee. But

as legislators and as members of that committee, we were entitled to

know what the position of the ministry was and what the position of the

Universities Council was. The position of the ministry was vague; it

was not forthcoming. We had a discomforted witness, and one who was

obviously embarrassed by the questions that were asked of him.

[ Page 1138 ]

The

Universities Council came with a negative report, and has since

committed itself in reporting to the print media of the province, and

we find that they too are not satisfied with the progress of this bill.

speaking against the adoption of the report, I can think of no more

unsatisfactory way to deal with major issues of post-secondary

education than by this method. By saying that, Mr. Speaker, I want to

assure you that I find no objection whatsoever in the fact that the

petitioners came by way of private bill. According to the testimony in

front of us, that was the only way in which the petitioner could find

his way into the Legislature. He was having no success with the

ministry and no success with the Universities Council. I say that, in

itself, must tell us something. That, in itself, must make us ask why

we are asked to adopt a report which seeks to give permission, which

seeks to confer a power, without the necessary information provided to

the Legislature, the legislators and the committee members in this most

important topic.

I cannot support the adoption of this report.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely appalled that the Minister of Education

would see fit to ever allow a bill to come to the floor of this House

from a private bills committee which, by his silence and acceptance, is

going to change the whole direction of post-secondary education in this

province. He is completely abrogating his responsibility as the

educational leader of this province.

As the second member

for Surrey (Mr. Hall) just stated, the issue here is not to complain

about the inability of Trinity College to be a degree-granting

institution. The issue is that this private bills committee was asked

to vote, in one day, on granting them degree status. There was no

public inquiry or input from the Universities Council or the ministry.

I've

heard government members say: "Oh, but this came up before." Mr.

Speaker, the Social Credit government is bound and determined, for

political reasons, obviously, to push through this bill in front of us

without proper input by the proper authorities in this province. It is

forcing this Legislature, which is literally what we've become used to,

to take

part in this. I find it very reprehensible.

The

problem we face is that the Universities Council was set up primarily

to enable the Ministry of Education and the government to analyse any

new degree-granting institutions that would be established in this

province. They have had that right taken away from them by forcing us

to debate this bill in the private bills committee, and then on the

floor of the House.

In this morning's paper one of the

government appointed members stated, in reference to the Minister of

Education: "McGeer uses the council when it is to his advantage and

ignores it when it isn't." He's particularly referring to this case of

granting a degree to a college, when no one knows whether that college

is capable of producing degree-granting facilities.

All the

members of the opposition have asked from this government and from the

government committee is to let them have a fair hearing. That means

let's have input, not only from Trinity College, but let's have a

proper analysis by those who know.

Mr. Speaker, most of the

committee members are lay people. They're not educators, and yet

they're being asked to sit there and judge in one day whether a

facility should be given the right to grant degrees. To grant degrees

is a very important thing in this province, and by dealing in this

haphazard, political manner, they are denigrating the whole higher

educational system.

The argument has been made: "What is it

to do with us? Because, after all, Trinity College does not receive

public money." I want to put that argument to rest. In a moment I'll

deal with that, but before I do may I say that the point is not whether

they receive public money. We have a right to be sure that no college

is raised to university degree status without proper analysis by those

who can do it.

As to the matter of not having public money,

when the Social Credit government took office in this province, one of

their first moves was to ensure that Trinity College received money

from the federal government, which is transferred to them under the

Post-Secondary Fiscal Arrangements Act. That was one of their first

moves. That means that Trinity College is receiving public funds. Some

people say: "Yes, but that's federal tax money."

AN HON. MEMBER: Half a million.

MRS. DAILLY: Half a million, but we're all taxpayers.

Secondly,

Mr. Speaker, something that I think has been ignored by some of the

Social Credit members is that when that money is received from the

federal government, the ministry has to decide how to apportion it. If

you put in a private institution and give them money, then naturally it

follows that there's going to be less money for the public

institutions. The argument that Trinity College does not receive public

funds is completely erroneous.

Mr. Speaker, it has been

stated by members of that committee, and if I recall, particularly by

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who seemed to want to

push this through in rather unseemly haste....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY:

It's a fact. One day, and you expect us to decide whether a college

should have degree-granting status. In fact, maybe we'll say one hour,

Mr. Speaker.

It has been suggested, particularly by that

member: "Well, the Universities Council is not complaining; the

ministry isn't complaining." I want to put that to rest, because it was

pointed out by the second member for Surrey that it was quite obvious

that the representatives from the council and from the ministry at that

meeting had been muzzled, and I mean "muzzled," Mr. Chairman. We have

never seen people attend a hearing who were so obviously disconcerted

and uncomfortable. Someone got to them, I regret to say — not to all

members.... And I'm not holding those people responsible. They are

doing their job, particularly the deputy minister, who is working for

the minister. But he was exceptionally uncomfortable.

Dr.

Perry, who was representing the Universities Council, stated: "The

Universities Council is having some difficulty in understanding why a

significant change in higher education policy is being contemplated

through a private member's bill." This came from Dr. Perry, an esteemed

and respected educator in this province.

He made the point

that all university education can become a very costly service. One can

expect, in time, that if Trinity College were granted degree status,

eventually it

[ Page 1139 ]

would

be coming for more public money. It is a fact that will have to come.

If you look at the history of the private colleges in the United States

— there was a recent

article on them — they're folding up right and

left. If we decide to give degree-granting status, then we have to

accept the fact that there's going to be more of a drain on the public

purse. Dr. Perry went on to say:

"There is a

public interest involvement in the maintenance of an acceptable

academic quality behind all university degrees granted in British

Columbia. The holder of a degree from any of our recognized

universities has some assurance therefore that his or her credentials

are going to be accepted because they have been properly analysed,

studied and given credentials by those who are aware of what is needed

in a university to give it the full status."

He went on to say:

"In

this procedure, Trinity Western would be legally raised to full

university standing. Other private institutions may also reasonably be

expected to seek the same privilege."

We are opening a

Pandora's box, Mr. Speaker. Any group in B.C. who wants to have

degree-granting status, can simply come before the private bills

committee, talk to enough Social Credit members and get degree-granting

status without any input whatsoever. I know the member for Fraser

Valley, who is behind this petition....

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland),

MRS. DAILLY:

The member for Langley — is he going to stand up and tell us that he

alone has the capability of knowing that a college in this province can

give degree-granting status? I'd like to know his background that gives

him that ability and the credibility with the educational world to be

able to stand up in this House and tell us: "I know they're capable." I

can't accept it from one member. I can't accept it from a private bills

committee and, may I say, I cannot understand how the Minister of

Education of this province could actually allow such a thing to happen

to post-secondary education in the province of British Columbia.

could go on at great length, but in the interests of time and I

understand that the Lieutenant-Governor will be coming in shortly — and

because I also know the facts of life in this Legislature, that they

have the numbers.... Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they have the numbers

in the select standing committee, where the members of the opposition

all voted against this travesty, this procedure that has been forced

upon us. They have the numbers here, unfortunately.

So I

will not carry on any longer, except to say that I would hope that the

Minister of Education would stand up in this House and say there is no

way that we can proceed. But unfortunately we know that the reasons for

this proceeding have nothing to do with the development of good

education in this province, or due process, Mr. Speaker. It is straight

politics.

MR. HYNDMAN: In the hope that we may get to

the merits of this bill, I shall be very brief. In opening I must say

that is refreshing to now hear the opposition benches saying some

positive things about the Universities Council of British Columbia.

Some

members of this House will recall that several years ago there was a

debate concerning Notre Dame University. At that time the members of

the party to your left had some pretty critical things to say about the

Universities Council, a council which, in my judgment, is performing a

very valuable service for the public of British Columbia. The member

for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), for example, accused the

Universities Council of stating falsehoods in its report on Notre Dame

University, and went on to say that the Universities Council made an

effort to undermine NDU. I think it is helpful to note that a couple of

years later there has been a revealing change in the view of those

members about the worth and the presence and the value of the

Universities Council.

We heard some suggestion as to the testimony before the committee, Chairman, and I have a couple of extracts here from Hansard

as to the evidence given. I'm somewhat at a loss to understand the

interpretation suggested by the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall),

when according to Hansard , Dr. Neil Perry of the Universities Council had this to say about Trinity Western College:

"So our judgment is that as one of our junior colleges Trinity

Western certainly has been performing superbly, as far as we know. We don't

challenge that point in any way. We've always had a favourable report on

both the performance of the students after they leave Trinity Western, and on

the substantive content of the courses offered by Trinity Western."

Then the Deputy Minister of Education, in response to some questioning by members, said this:

"In fact, Mr. Couch of the Academic Council is here...."

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, may I draw your attention to the fact that it is highly

irregular to relive the debate of committee here in the House one more

time. The reason why this whole matter was committed and heard before a

committee was so that the committee could, in due process, come to its

conclusion and report to this House. So it is highly irregular to go

through that debate another time.

MR. HYNDMAN: I

appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I will refrain from any quotations.

Suffice it to say that the evidence heard by the committee from Dr.

Perry of the Universities Council, and Dr. Hardwick, the Deputy

Minister of Education, adduced favourable comment on the academic

performance and standards of the institution and went on to point out

that this institution had voluntarily submitted itself to the

guidelines and the review of the Universities Council. I therefore

think it is very misleading to suggest that there was not evidence

before the committee of a favourable nature. Indeed, had members to

your left wanted to continue their questioning, it was certainly open

to them.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was very

interesting that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) should be

speaking on this debate, because previously she was Minister of

Education in this assembly, and she had some things to say about

Trinity Western. The then member for Langley, the now Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), on one occasion in 1975 had asked in this

[ Page 1140 ]

assembly

if the then Minister of Education would consider designating Trinity

Western a university on the

schedule to the federal universities

foundation Act and program for the purpose of permitting it to obtain

some federal financial assistance. The then Minister of Education, the

member for Burnaby North, basically said that were it not for the fact

that it would, in her judgment, impose a cost burden on the province,

she would happily designate the university, and it was only that

problem which prevented her from doing that.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, the positions have changed. The member is on your left and

therefore not responsible for exchequer matters. She said in Hansard

on May 2, 1975: "We agree with the students of Trinity Western. Trinity

Western should be designated." She now has the opportunity to join in

that designation without being concerned about matters of the

exchequer. I urge her to do so.

In closing, may I simply say

that if time permitted much could be said on the record about the

earned merit of this institution. If time permits a little later this

afternoon I'd be happy to elaborate.

MR. HANSON: The

member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) gave us a highly selective,

editorial version of the transcript of that particular meeting. It is

correct that Dr. Perry indicated that the students of Trinity Western

College do relatively well in relation to their peers from other

institutions for the levels of first and second year. However, the

point my colleague for Vancouver South omitted to mention is that Dr.

Perry indicated to us, as did the deputy minister, that absolutely no

review of the third- and fourth-year levels at Trinity Western had ever

taken place. There had been no discussion whatsoever. The bill before

us today is about precisely that. It is about the third- and

fourth-year levels to award a baccalaureate degree. It's got nothing to

do with the first- and second-year standing that is presently there.

the Universities Act, sections 70(12)(

d) and (

e) refer to the role of

the Universities Council as it relates to the establishment of new

universities and new university programs. The role is to advise the

government and approve new universities and new programs. Now we are

witness to the Universities Council being completely bypassed in this.

Dr. Perry has testified to that effect that the Universities Council

was complete bypassed. This is a complete departure from the old

procedure, the procedure in place for the granting of degrees and for

access to public funds. Does the Minister of Education intend to

disband the Universities Council? They are certainly in opposition to

it. The alumni association is in opposition to it. What is the function

of the Universities Council now? If you're going to establish on an ad

hoc basis, without any review, degree-granting universities all over

this province, if they can get hold of a Social Credit backbencher and

establish a university, what is the role of the Universities Council?

I'd like to hear from the minister on that. I would think his

colleagues at the University of British Columbia would be very, very

interested in his reasons for no review of a new university, no review

of the standards. I don't know what they are. The minister doesn't know

what they are. I know there are courses such as jungle aviation, and so

on, but that may be an elective course.

The Speaker has

advised the House that we are not to quote from the transcript or refer

to the transcript again. As a member of that committee, I want to stand

in opposition to the departure and process. I'm not talking about

Trinity Western, or what they offer to people, and what the quality,

the academic standards are. I'm not qualified to give that review. My

opposition is to the process. You've laid down a process. We know they

have had up to $500,000 of public funds through the transfer of federal

tax points; we know that. But here we have a Minister of Education

sitting idly by while a private member brings in a bill to establish a

BA-granting capability at a university of which we have no review.

Would the minister please clarify it?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, I wasn't present at the hearing given this private

member's bill before the select standing committee. I therefore don't

feel qualified to review what took place during that particular

hearing. They did have an opportunity to hear representatives of the

Universities Council and the Ministry of Education. I can assure you

absolutely no muzzling took place from my office. I'm quite convinced

that the members, if they were not satisfied with the information they

were given, were welcome to seek more. But I should make it very clear

that the Universities Council, and the Universities Act were set up for

the purposes of dealing with public post-secondary institutions, as was

the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act.

What we have

here is a private institution not receiving any provincial government

support, but having to face, I would submit, a far more rigorous

scrutiny than we have through the Universities Council and, indeed,

than we have through any of our public institutions in Canada — that is

the scrutiny of the marketplace. Our public institutions are supported

through provincial funds of up to 90 percent of their costs. It's not

part of public education policy in British Columbia for us to intercede

in matters concerning private institutions which receive no provincial

funds. It is true that Trinity Western College has received a

pass-through of federal moneys, and on that basis they compete with

their sister institutions in other provinces across Canada. We assisted

Trinity Western College to receive those federal funds, because it was

contemplated at the time that federal legislation was passed that

institutions such as Trinity Western College would receive the kind of

support that the federal government intended when they brought forward

their legislation. If at such time there was a policy change in British

Columbia whereby some provincial funding was to be provided to Trinity

Western College, that would be the time for the Universities Council to

play a role, as they did with Notre Dame University, and to pursue the

public dollars and the value there obtained for the taxpayers of

British Columbia, just as we do now with the independent schools that

receive public funding.

On the other hand, it would be

unfair for us to intercede in a private institution that is not

receiving funds from this Legislature or from the taxpayers of British

Columbia. But this institution, as a feeder institution to our public

institutions here in British Columbia, has demonstrated its academic

ability to survive in the marketplace. I can only tell you that if that

institution is unable to provide the kind of quality education that my

friends opposite seem to think is so lacking, then it will fail,

because it will not survive the toughest test that an educational

institution faces today, which is the test of the marketplace.

[ Page 1141 ]

MR. BARBER:

How the standards have fallen! This man, when a Liberal, used to talk

about academic excellence and the maintenance of academic standards.

Today he talks about the marketplace. How the standards have fallen!

When in opposition, and when in some moment of principle, when in his

own book he used to talk about the vital importance of a competent

public policy that recognized academic standards and supported them,

some of us thought he meant what he said. He never used to talk about

the marketplace in those days. Had anyone done so, he would have

considered it a gross offence and misstatement of the nature of a good

education in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member,

may I interrupt you just long enough to remind you that we are not now

in Committee of Supply, and therefore the matter of administration is

not in question. We are debating a motion. Please make your debate

relevant.

MR. BARBER: The motion would have this

House and this province accept a particular decision in regard to a

particular institution, the basic information about which is not

available to this committee, not available to this House, not available

to the people of British Columbia. In part, it's not available because

of neglect by the Minister of Education, who hasn't done his job

properly. In part, it's not available because this House has not had an

opportunity to date to do the kind of work that could and should have

been done, based on the work that could have been done but wasn't, by

the Universities Council. The standards of academic excellence are

further impaired because this government appears not to know what

should be done to deal with a private member's bill. We know for

certain, had any member of the House on this side sponsored it, it

would surely have failed.

I've never been to Trinity Western

College. I have read their syllabus. It contains, as far as I can tell,

some perfectly good and perfectly ordinary courses, at least based on

my own university experience. It contains some other things I find

rather curious, but those are just my personal judgments; it's got

nothing to do with the matter. Personal judgment shouldn't have

anything to do with the judgment of this House. It should be a judgment

based on policy. But the motion we have here ignores policy and ignores

the requirements of good policy. Those requirements are: a factual

analysis by the competent authorities — we don't have it; a factual

analysis by the minister particularly responsible — he didn't present

it. He talked instead in a completely bizarre way about the test of the

marketplace. This House also requires evidence from the persons

administering this particular institution who would stand to benefit

from it — we don't have that here either. Nothing of the sort exists.

So how is it possible for a member of this House to understand the

consequences of this motion? We have no documents, no evidence and

nothing in writing — except a report from Hansard , which the Speaker wisely rules we may not refer to.

What

exists as a body of hard fact, hard evidence and hard documentation?

Nothing, precisely zero, zip. And the government asks us to decide this

matter of public policy on the basis of zero evidence. The Minister of

Education, Science and Technology has been grossly neglectful and

incompetent. This House should never be asked to decide such a matter

without a wholly able and detailed report. One should have been

prepared by his ministry, but was not.

What kind of academic

standards can be maintained in the face of that neglect and

incompetence? I don't know if Trinity Western College can do the job. I

do know that this House isn't competent to decide. Very few members of

this House are professional educators. Very few members of this House

have gone to that school, if any. Very few of us, on the basis of an

empty desk in front of us, have anything more to offer than a question

of procedure — and the question provides its own answer. This procedure

is utterly faulty and simply foolish. You're asking us to vote finally

on a matter of personal prejudice. You have provided no other

information. No other facts appear on the table. None, zero, except for

a transcript of a committee report which we are not permitted to refer

to. Now what is that? How do you expect anyone to make a decent

decision on the basis of this motion before us?

There is a

question of serious public policy and consequence here. It is this:

shall any institution be permitted to persuade one member of this

House, who happens to sit in government, to bring forward a bill that

provides nothing in the way of information behind it that we have on

our desks at this time, and have thereafter the imprimatur of

government granted to its degrees? It is an important question of

public policy.

If any outfit in the province could come

forward, through a private motion — and a private bill that I'm sure

will follow this motion — and persuade the government of the day that

it was doing a good thing and that its degrees should be recognized by

the province of British Columbia, what would be the final consequence,

Mr. Speaker? I think it would be that we would debase the currency. We

would debase the currency, and a provincial imprimatur on a bachelor,

master's or doctorate degree would no longer mean anything at all. If

this procedure were followed again and again, as this first procedure

has been introduced today, the currency would be debased and the

province of British Columbia would be the laughingstock in educational

circles in the western world.

I want to restate that I don't

know if these people are competent to grant degrees. But I do know that

you have no right to ask me to make the decision on the basis of no

information, no reports and no facts. The government has no right to

present the case they have and ask us to make the choice they are

asking on the basis of no evidence whatever showing that the

consequence of terms of public policy would be a good one. If they can

do it with this group, which may or may not have academic merit, they

could, I presume, do it with any old group in the province. Thereby and

thereafter the currency would be debased and these degrees would mean

nothing, no matter what the province of British Columbia said about

their worth.

If a group of, people came forward representing

something called Tommy Douglas College and wanted to grant a degree in

socialist education, and we happened to be the government of the day

and a private member brought it forward, what would you think about

that? Would you allow that to take the test of the marketplace in a

vote in this House? Of course not!

HON. MR. McGEER: It would be very exciting to have the socialists do the test of the marketplace.

[ Page 1142 ]

MR. BARBER:

The minister says it would be exciting. As far as I'm concerned it

would a betrayal of competent procedure, competent policy analysis, and

a competent examination of the alternatives that exist. I don't even

understand yet — we've had no evidence presented — why this particular

institution needs this authority. Why do they need it? To the best of

my knowledge, no such case has been made. If it has I don't know it. I

read the report of Hansard

that we are not permitted to refer to. I find no evidence in there as

to why they actually require this authority. Maybe they do, but if they

do they didn't make their case. If they did that page was ripped out of

Hansard ; I didn't see it. I don't see any analysis. There may be such a case, but it's not here.

The

point remains simply this: regardless of the academic merits — they may

be very high, I don't know — of Trinity Western