1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3073 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents.

Management Advisory Council annual report.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 3073

Oral Questions.

Cheque for Burnaby Meals on Wheels. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3073

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Heritage Trust annual report for the year ending March 31,

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3073

Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act (Bill 38). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 3073

Mines Act (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 3073

Interim Supply resolution –– 3073

Supply Act, No –– 2, 1980 (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3074

Supply Act. No –– 2, 1980 (Bill 35). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3075

Mr. Hall –– 3075

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3076

Supply Act, No –– 2, 1980 (Bill 35). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Hanson –– 3077

Mr. Cocke –– 3077

Mr. Barber –– 3078

Mr. Levi –– 3079

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3079

Mrs. Dailly –– 3079

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3079

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3080

Ms. Brown –– 3080

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3080

Mr. Howard –– 3080

Mr. Cocke –– 3081

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 3082

Report and third reading –– 3083

School Amendment Act –– 1980 (Bill 20).

Third reading –– 3083

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act (Bill 18). Committee stage.

Division on

section 2 –– 3083

section 3.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3083

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3083

section 8.

Mr. Macdonald –– 3084

Division on

section 8 –– 3084

section 10.

Mr. Leggatt –– 3085

Report and third reading –– 3085

Land Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 13). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 3085

Mr. Howard –– 3085

Mr. Barber –– 3085

Mr. Hanson –– 3086

Livestock Brand Act (Bill 32). Committee stage.

section 4.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3086

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3086

section 9.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3087

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3087

Mr. Howard –– 3087

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3088

section 11.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3088

On the amendments to

section 11.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3088

Report and third reading –– 3089

Royal Assent to bills –– 3089

Tabling Documents.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3089

Agricultural Land Commission annual report and financial statement for the year ended March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3089

Appendix –– 3089

FR IDAY, JUNE 27, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Joining us today on the floor of the House from Ottawa is the Hon.

Romeo LeBlanc, federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Before

beginning to make him welcome, I would remind all members that it's

summer holidays even in Ontario because his son, Dominic, is in the

gallery. I would ask you to make them both welcome.

MR. HOWARD:

I want to join the Minister of Environment in welcoming a former

colleague and dear friend. I enjoy your company and presence. I hope

the two ministers will have been able, by now, to come to a mutually

agreeable conclusion about the flow of water in the Nechako River.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In the gallery today are two good friends, Jean Almas and Jim Dudley.

The House will be interested to know that Jean and Jim are associated

with one of the very fine free enterprises of this province, the King

Neptune restaurant in New Westminster. The King Neptune has made a

tremendously good name with tourists and residents alike, and really

has been an example of a business that has grown through the free

enterprise system and succeeded with hard work. I'd like you to welcome

them to this House for the first time this session.

MR. PASSARELL: In the galleries today are Mr. and Mrs. Norman Williams from Telegraph Creek, and I wish the House would welcome them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Every day seems to be a celebration of some kind or other in the House,

and as the unofficial herald of such ridings I'd like to ask members to

acknowledge another anniversary today among our members. Believe it or

not, it's the twenty-fourth anniversary of our member for Surrey, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and his good wife

Lillian.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a not so

pleasant task here. Yesterday when we were discussing a matter of

privilege the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) made a statement

about my columns in the Alberni Valley Times which I did not hear at the time. He said that if the House "would attempt to get copies of the Alberni Valley Times

and review the columns by the member for Alberni, which are clearly

full of lies...." I would ask that the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources withdraw that statement, which is untrue and

unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologize, but as

Chairman at the time, I did not hear the remark. If the remark was

made, certainly I must ask the hon. minister to withdraw it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just wonder: is the member reading from the newspaper or the Blues?

MR. SKELLY: I'm quoting from the Blues, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I didn't attribute lying to any member of this

House yesterday, but if something I've said offends the House I'd be

very happy to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. For the record, the member withdraws the remark.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the second annual report of the Management Advisory Council.

CHEQUE FOR BURNABY MEALS ON WHEELS

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, with leave I'd like to answer a question asked of me yesterday in oral question period.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I notice that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) is not in

his seat, but I'd like to advise him that the cheque of which he

inquired yesterday of both the Minister of Finance and myself was

mailed on June 25 to the Meals on Wheels people in his constituency,

and it's now in the laps of the gods and the federal mail.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Introduction of Bills

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND

SECURITY AGENCIES ACT

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

a bill intituled Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act.

Bill

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

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

MINES ACT

a motion by Hon. Mr. McClelland, Bill 39, Mines Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to withdraw Motion 19 standing under my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid

[ Page 3074 ]

and

applied in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses

of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially

one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, as laid before the Legislative

Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of

Supply on June 27, 1980, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The resolution is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses

of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially

one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, as laid before the Legislative

Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

The question proposed is that this House doth agree with the committee and the said resolution.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated

revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times

as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of

the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981,

not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-quarter of the total

amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,

1981, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia

at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported a resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the resolution, as reported, be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on June 27, 1980, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 35, intituled Supply Act No. 2, 1980.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would ask you to remain in your places pending the distribution of the bill.

It would appear that the distribution has been completed and with agreement, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

[ Page 3075 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the debate on second reading of this second

supply bill, on behalf of the official opposition I assure the treasury

benches opposite and the Minister of Finance in particular that we

don't seek to hold up supply in any way whatsoever, and it will be done

as expeditiously and quickly as possible. We hope to see the

Lieutenant-Governor here at the appropriate moment to give royal

assent, all of which has been arranged, I'm sure, with the correct

amount of protocol and smoothness for which the House Leader is

renowned. I want to, however, spend a few moments discussing a couple

of disconcerting events, one of which is very serious, the second of

which is not so serious but is politically immoral. I want to deal with

the second one first, and get that out of the way, because the second

one is a feeling which is shared by both sides of the House to which

the Minister of Finance can bend his mind and deal with in the normal

way. I want to deal with the second one first, and other members will

be addressing themselves to it.

When the opposition allows

supply to go through in this way, brooking no delay, cooperating in

every way, we do so in the assurance that everything is going to be

paid, that salaries are going to be paid, estimates are going to be

met, that there are going to be no delays, no problems at all

associated with the expenditures of the moneys that are represented in

sections 1 and 2. And yet, Mr. Minister of Finance, just recently there

have been instances whereby we are hearing that things are not being

done because the opposition is debating the estimates. Frankly, that is

not good enough.

I want to draw to your attention an

incident that happened yesterday in this chamber, let alone what's

happening outside. Yesterday, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr.

Lorimer) was asking the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) about the

payment of money for the Meals on Wheels programs. The minister made a

special effort to tell us today, by leave, answering a question of my

colleague, that the cheque had been mailed on June 25. An exchange of

information correctly took place and was correctly done by the

minister. There was an interjection by the member for Kootenay (Mr.

Segarty). The member for Kootenay said: ''Pass the estimates and you'll

get your cheque." Mr. Minister, we had already passed one-quarter of

the estimates. We're now passing another quarter of the estimates. I

use that as an example and say to you that that is political trickery,

if that is going on outside. I will not accept that kind of behaviour

from anybody.

I asked the member for Kootenay if he was saying that outside this

chamber and he said "yes." I asked the member for Kootenay if he was

spreading that story outside the chamber and he said, "yes." That's not

good enough, Mr. Minister, and I want you to dissociate yourself, as

the Minister of Finance, from that kind of activity.

Mr. Minister of Finance, we're passing now, when this bill goes

through, half of the total expenditure of the province. You don't have

to be much of a genius, you don't have to be much of an expert,

particularly when you've got B.C. Systems Corporation helping you — or

perhaps you do have to be a genius, perhaps you do have to be an expert

if you've got B.C. Systems helping you — in order to pay half of what

everybody wants.

I think the member for Kootenay and anybody

else within or without the public service of British Columbia who is

suggesting for one second that the opposition or the members of the

government benches debating estimates today are holding back payments

of cheques in any shape or form whatsoever should be ashamed of

themselves. That's the first thing. In my view, members of the

Legislative Assembly, that is political trickery at its worst. Enough

of that. I hope the Minister of Finance comes to it when he answers me

on second reading. We'll go back to it in committee if necessary.

The

other point, and a very serious point, was addressed correctly by the

Minister of Finance, in terms of revenues. I regret reading what I read

yesterday. As a British Columbian and a member of this House, I think

we are all disturbed and upset about the loss of revenues, the downturn

in the economy, and the symptoms that the minister pointed out

yesterday. None of us can take pleasure in seeing those kinds of

figures illustrated and pointed out by the Minister of Finance.

What

remedies the Minister of Finance is going to put into place I don't

know. I'm sure he's going to tell us about them, perhaps in second

reading, perhaps in a revised set of estimates, perhaps during his own

discussions during his ministerial estimates: I don't know. I do know

that belts will have to be tightened; some of the crazy advertising

programs may have to be looked at. Some of the flights of fancy,

subterranean and otherwise — if I may mix my metaphors — will have to

be looked at. The doctor from Point Grey may have to be brought under

control.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you do that?

MR. HALL: How do you do that? That's your problem. There are 19 of you over there. If you can't control him, who can?

Interjections.

MR. HALL: I've pointed out it's a mixed metaphor. I know you allow me one of those each time I make a speech.

Somebody

is going to have to stop his grandiose ideas of spending money, because

there isn't any money to spend. Maybe he's going to try to buy a used

tunnel somewhere. Maybe he can accompany the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) on one of his Far

Eastern trips and buy a plastic used tunnel somewhere. I don't know.

Nevertheless,

some of these spending habits of the government will have to change.

Certainly some of the grandiose ideas, some of the political

expenditures that have been announced since February 28, will have to

be revised. I think it may well be an opportunity for the minister to

present the House with a revised set of estimates in terms of revenue.

I certainly think that when we come back after the celebration of our

national holiday, we may well look on our desks and find a revised set

of revenue estimates. I hope that the minister will do that.

[ Page 3076 ]

Certainly

it's a cause for concern in the province. It's a cause for concern on

both sides of the House, as we see the revenues from our natural gas

resource, stumpage and other revenues go down. Certainly expenditures

must be trimmed, and I know that the Treasury Board must be working

overtime, as it was in previous years, to try to handle that situation.

Those

are my concerns as we enter debate on second reading of this second

supply bill. We don't wish to delay it, but I hope the minister enters

into those two points of debate dealing with, first of all, the

essential nature of what estimates are supposed to do: keep the

expenditure engine of this government working, and not put up with this

nonsense that we heard the other day; and secondly, provide an

up-to-date statement, because a printed statement isn't due from the

minister until the end of July, when I think the quarterly report that

he would normally be giving us is due. In view of the seriousness of

the situation perhaps a full statement is due, and maybe this is the

opportunity.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I appreciate the

cooperation of the official opposition in what is essentially

authorization to ensure that salaries, payment for goods and services

and the business of government continue without interruption. My

remarks will be brief.

As the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) mentioned two points, I shall deal very briefly with the second

point which he raised first. Each member of this House is responsible

for his or her remarks. I did not hear the interjection to which the

member referred.

I would remind all hon. members that the

policy which I announced earlier this year at budget time indicated

that prompt payment of all accounts by government was a policy which I

endorsed and which I intended to improve upon even to the extent where

the announcement has been made that after a given number of days — my

colleagues and I in treasury benches are working on this particular

point right now — the province should pay interest on overdue accounts.

That was the statement in March and that is the statement reiterated

today, recognizing that it takes a little time to flush out all the

details in such a policy or the flow from such an announcement.

With

respect to the main point made by the official spokesman for the

opposition in second reading of this Supply Bill No. 2, it is this

government which introduced quarterly reporting. The member is correct.

The first quarterly report of this fiscal year will be presented as

quickly as possible, pending the closure of the quarter. I would

anticipate that that would be about one month from now, in the last few

days of July, if all our targets are met in terms of the mechanics of

producing that material, gathering it and putting it into a complete

form. This government introduced quarterly reporting. This government

continues the policy of quarterly reporting so that all members of this

assembly and all interested British Columbians have a more current

report — if you will permit — on the state of the province's economy,

the state of the provincial accounts and the state of revenues and

expenditures. I think that my predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary

and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), is again to be

commended for introducing the policy of ensuring that that information

is officially produced and made available every three months for all

British Columbians to consider, observe and comment on.

What

has occurred in the last several days — I think it is appropriate that

the member mentioned it and it is appropriate in second reading that I

respond to it — is the early warning of certain circumstances which

could affect the provincial budget if they were permitted to go

unchecked. I suggest that the actions which have been taken thus far —

the member did not suggest otherwise — are in line with prudent

management of the people's money: appropriate response quickly enough

that we're not faced with a more serious situation as a result of

hoping that something will change, hoping that a problem will go away

or that magically other revenues will flow.

That is

responsible management of the province's accounts. I have no trouble

with that. I was never in a majority ownership situation of business,

but I earned my living, as many of us have in this House, from the

success or lack thereof of the economy in a particular community. I had

targets in terms of revenue and targets in terms of what the

organization could spend. You can't always see those targets met

precisely as planned some months earlier. I am not pessimistic about

the material which was presented to the members of this Legislature on

budget day in March of this year. I am not pessimistic with respect to

the short; medium or long-term future of the province of British

Columbia. I am optimistic in the short, medium and long term, and I'm

not alone.

The rather quiet member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt) will enjoy my next remark. He can already hear it. Within

recent days I was able to stand in my place in this Legislature and

indicate that Standard and Poor Corp. of New York had raised the

ratings of the bonds issued in the name of British Columbia Hydro and

Power Authority from AA to AAA. It did not take place in December,

January, February or March of this year; that review has been ongoing.

The announcement was made in New York six or seven days ago, and then I

was able to make the announcement here. It's a very up-to-date

assessment of the prospect for British Columbia — again, in the short,

medium and long term.

As Minister of Finance, I stated

certain policies in the budget address in March. I have had an

opportunity to discuss those policies briefly in some legislation. The

members opposite know that my estimates have not yet been presented to

this House. I suggest that the more appropriate opportunity for

discussion would occur at that time in Committee of Supply, when the

members opposite can question to the fullest extent on a variety of

matters which fall within the jursidiction of this particular portfolio.

Mr.

Speaker, we are doing what the people of British Columbia would expect

us to do. In the event that revenues show a decrease, it is appropriate

— indeed it is more than that; it is demanded of a Minister of Finance

— that he turn to his colleagues and give that early warning sign; that

he give full notice to his colleagues, and then to the public, that

measures which might be necessary later on are now being considered.

don't know precisely what is going to happen. Is it going to be a

beautiful summer in British Columbia? Is the sun going to shine? I hope

so. I'm optimistic about that. How deep is the recession in the United

States going to be? This recession was late. The recession in the

United States should have been here in 1979, according to all the

economists. It didn't occur until just a few months ago in 1980.

The variety of circumstances in an economy such as ours

[ Page 3077 ]

demands

that the Premier, cabinet, Minister of Finance and the senior staff

have the opportunity to respond quickly, not in a panic, not in a

crisis-oriented atmosphere, but rather to respond as circumstances

dictate. In my view, Mr. Speaker, that is prudent, responsible

management of the great trust placed by the people of British Columbia

in any Minister of Finance of the day. Those are the guiding principles

which I intend to follow through the course of the next months and

years.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 35 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 35, Supply Act, No. 2, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. HANSON:

As revenues turn down, priorities in spending should be reassessed. As

I look around my riding and see the needs before me.... I'm following

on from the minister's remarks about advising his colleagues of

spending priorities....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

debate in second reading allows for great latitude in discussing the

principle. However, debate in committee has to be strictly relevant to

the

section before us. The

section before us is explicit that money

shall be paid and about the amount; that is what the committee must

consider at this point. The second member for Victoria continues.

MR. HANSON:

I'm seeking the advice of the Chair. Is it not within the rules of the

House to indicate some priority emphasis that may be placed on that

$1.47 billion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. The

section says we shall pay or shall not pay, and it designates an

amount: that would be debatable in committee.

The first member for Victoria rises on a point of order.

MR. BARBER:

There's another key phrase, which reads: "shall pay towards defraying

the several charges and expenses of the public service." If I

understand correctly, the argument raised here is that there is some

moment for examination of the several charges and expenses, That's the

argument being put forward now and it's specifically named within this

section and thereby in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, that would be for the estimates as they came before us. This

section discretely says that we shall or shall not pay, and it

describes the amount of money that will be paid as covered in this

section. The second member for Victoria continues on

section 1.

MR. HANSON:

Sometimes it's very difficult for a new member to determine where one

should best make one's point. The point I am trying to indicate in a

very brief fashion to the Minister of Finance is that as a member for

Victoria concerned about expenditures and the needs of my own

constituency, I am extremely concerned that money from this vote may go

to the bridge-tunnel possibilities that are being outlined by the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm afraid that debate cannot be accepted in committee.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, under

section 1 we're debating $1,470,000,000. That's a

quarter of our total budget for the year. I'd like to reflect on a vote

that took place in this House a few months ago. That was on

$1,470,000,000 in a former bill — Bill 11, as I recall — and I'm not

reflecting, because I want to use that as an example. This House passed

a quarter of the budget for a quarter of the period of the year. Now

we're being asked to pass another quarter of the budget. Mr. Chairman,

don't be nervous; I'm debating this $1,470,000.000.

I was

very disappointed not only with members of this House indicating that

the people who have a right — that is people receiving grants and their

portion of the budget for that particular period.... I say that for the

ensuing particular period I want it duly noted here that the opposition

is totally cooperative with the government and is cooperating in terms

of giving the government this portion of this year's budget.

the government needs to come back in September.... The Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) sits there and shakes his head — that

minister who goes running around the province telling stories....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. COCKE: And that's what I'm warning about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. COCKE: I don't want to hear any more stories, not only from members of this House....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You held up the bills so that we couldn't get on with projects and you know you did. The appropriation bill....

MR. COCKE: What bill?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you did. You held them up. You stand there in the House and talk about nothing

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there are 20 bills that haven't even come forward yet.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and all hon. members come to

[ Page 3078 ]

order,

please. We are in committee and thus we have to be specific and discuss

the detail of the

section before us. That's the only debate that can be

allowed. Under standing order 43, any debate that strays from that

would have to be discontinued.

Now the Chair will recognize the member for New Westminster on

section 1.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE:

Section 1 provides the government with an additional quarter of the

1980-81 budget. When this

section passes and this committee rises, the

government will be afforded that portion of this year's budget. If we

again hear that either bureaucrats or politicians are indicating to the

public or to people who are to receive grants that the reason that

they're not receiving them is something to do with the opposition, then

I really think there has to be a great deal of trouble in this province.

There

has been total cooperation, as there will be this morning. This shows

the willingness of the opposition, despite the fact that the estimates

are not finished and all the legislation has not come before this

House. If anybody's holding it up, believe me, a government that has

announced 20 more bills coming down the line can hardly say that the

opposition are the ones that are standing in the way of progress of

this province. What nonsense! We're quite prepared to go for this, but

we don't want to hear any more of this talk.

There have been

actual letters put in the hands of people who were to receive grants in

this province from the Ministry of Human Resources indicating that the

reason the grants are not forthcoming is that the opposition is holding

things up. That's a bit much. That's almost the kind of exaggeration

that I saw from the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie)

yesterday. It's totally unacceptable behaviour.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I will have to ask you to discontinue that line of debate.

The

section is specific. Will all hon. members address themselves to

the section.

MR. COCKE: That

section is specific. It

asks us to authorize the expenditure by the government of this sum of

money. We are authorizing the expenditure of this sum of money.

Therefore we don't want to hear charges that somehow or other we are

standing in the way of these expenditures. That's sheer and utter

nonsense. That's what we are talking about. That's the only point we

want to make and it's a very serious point with us, an extremely

serious point indeed.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I

rise to make essentially the same point as my colleague for New

Westminster. Three months ago I had in my office two people

representing a legitimate community service agency in my riding. They

had been to the Ministry of Human Resources and had made a legitimate

proposal well within the terms of reference of the ministry itself.

They were told so by the public servant who looked at the terms of the

application itself. They were also advised falsely and wrongly that

because the opposition had not concluded the estimates debate, no such

grant could be paid regardless of its merits or how closely it fell

within the guideline. That was a false and wrong thing. That should

never have been said by any person, even a government MLA.

are awarding today in the second supply bill, which certainly will pass

this morning, in the same way that we awarded in one morning on a

previous occasion, more than adequate operating authority for this

government in its financial organization. Twice now — I predict —

within one morning the opposition has granted clearly and indisputably

more than adequate funds to pay for the entire public service in the

forthcoming quarter, and to pay for all of those programs authorized in

ordinary estimates. It is an offence to this Legislature that any

person purporting to speak for the government should make the false

claim that because estimates have not been wholly concluded it is

justifiable that certain expenditures, in the form of community service

grants within Human Resources, for example, may be denied.

This

morning we are awarding $1.47 billion. We are awarding that without any

undue delay. It will pass shortly. It will pass unanimously. It will

grant the authority necessary.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not "we" — the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Speaking for all of us, we in the Legislature will do this.

That

is why when debating this

section it is most necessary that every

person who has a legitimate proposal, from the point of view of private

or public business within the private or public sector in any regard,

not be misled by those who argue that because we have not yet concluded

main estimates it is impossible to provide such grants.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, at this point I will read to all members of the House

standing order 43: "Mr. Speaker or the Chairman after having called the

attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a member

who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own

arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may

direct him to discontinue his speech...."

Hon. member, we

have before us

section 1, which is specific and discrete. Debate in

this committee must be strictly relevant to that section. Nowhere in

that

section does it mention that members will or will not mislead

members of the public. The section, in my estimation, is discrete. I

cannot allow debate to continue outside of the bounds of the language

contained in that section.

MR. BARBER: I quite agree,

Mr. Chairman. Nothing you or I have said is outside the bounds of

section 1. What I am trying to do — and I understand the special usage

of the word "discrete" that you apply — is make sure that the people of

British Columbia understand it as clearly as you and I do. That's

valid. When we pass this $1.4 billion for deferring the several charges

and expenses of the public service of the province, we are doing that

in order to allow the government to get on with its proper business.

There should be no mistake about that. Nor should any person be

mistakenly advised. This is the central point and a very important

point to this opposition, which will vote for

section 1 very shortly.

The point simply is that people must understand that in the financial

organization and in the fiscal structure of British Columbia, when you

award a quarter of the budget in the first interim supply bill and

another quarter of the budget in the second interim supply bill, that

doesn't mean that

[ Page 3079 ]

public

servants only receive 25 percent of their pay for the first three

months and then 50 percent for the three months after that and then 75

percent, if we're here still in September. That's not how it works.

means the government has 100 percent of its budget to draw from during

the entire period of the quarter where we've awarded interim supply. It

does not mean the government is restricted by

section 1 to simply

paying 25 percent of the total moneys to which it may be committed by

salary or any other expenditure. Now there may be some people who

think, because now we only award another 25 percent of the main budget

of the province, that that's all the province can spend — 25 percent

only of every application. Some people who are naive might actually

believe such mistaken advice, but a number of the members of this

opposition have had the experience in the last quarter of hearing from

people who have been the victims of false information. We want to make

sure that that doesn't happen in the next quarter, Mr. Chairman, which

is why we're taking a few moments to make sure that the full import of

section 1 is clearly understood.

The existence of a second

interim supply bill is no excuse for a government that chooses not to

make certain expenditures. If a grant is to be turned down for Meals on

Wheels or any other good and decent purpose, let it be turned down on

its own merits, or lack of them. That's fair. But let it not be turned

down or delayed because someone falsely claims that the government

can't spend this money because main estimates aren't passed. That is a

false, disreputable claim which some have made, and I want to make sure

that no one who reads these remarks in Hansard , which I will be mailing to them shortly, is under any illusion at all about the import of

section 1.

Let

me restate it briefly, Mr. Chairman. We are awarding $1,470,000,000 to

allow the government of British Columbia to pay its bills, to make its

grants, to give welfare to business, to give non-interest-bearing

forgivable loans to human beings and to do all of the other things that

the government should do by law and should do by policy. That's why

we're doing it. There is no dispute about why.

But I don't

want to have to come back here for the third interim supply bill,

together with my colleagues, and stand up and say: "For a third quarter

people were misled about the nature of the estimates debate and the

nature of interim supply." If that point is understood and if we don't

hear the same false information in the next quarter, then, when we come

to the third interim supply bill, the debate will be even shorter than

it will prove to be this morning.

MR. LEVI: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the minister a question under this

section. He's been minister now for about seven or eight months and

this is his second go-round for an interim supply bill. Can the

minister tell us that in terms of the expenditure of $1,470,000,000,

has he issued any special instructions to either his ministry or to

others — I presume comptrollers — about how money is to be given out in

terms of this quarter? Has he said, for instance, that no grants can be

made because we don't have the full estimate; we have not had full

approval on the estimate? I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that while

we're doing interim supply — and this is the second time around, and we

could very well be doing a third one — there is an understanding among

people in this Legislature that when it comes to the reality, the

numbers game counts and the government will pass its interim supply

after debate every time. The presumption has to be to the public out

there that the operation of the government does not slow down because

instead of completing the estimate process and getting into an interim

supply process somehow everything has to stop. Now, as my friends have

pointed out and my colleague said, it seems to be abroad among some

people that this is the case.

Can the minister tell us — now

that he's had seven months in the ministry — whether he has issued any

special instructions curtailing the expenditures within the scope of

$1,470,000,000, or is the government proceeding to run as we expect all

responsible governments will run, on the basis of making the grants

available? We know the statutory programs — the ones they can't

interfere with — but are there any special instructions relating to

non-statutory programs? Has the minister given such instructions? I'd

be interested to know. Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I would refer the hon. member who has just taken his seat

to the brief debate which occurred on April 2 of this year, as shown in

Hansard , when the hon. member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not present today, put a similar

question. He may care to glance at that. No such instructions have been

issued.

In answering the question further, Mr. Chairman, I

fear that I'll incur your wrath and stray from the section. But interim

supply, as the member opposite well knows, is not the only financial

mechanism to have come before this House. and there is one bill which,

indeed, took considerably longer for passage than I think anyone on the

government side of the House would have expected. Some of the remarks

which have been alluded to may have flowed from that. But to answer the

question specifically, no such instructions have been put in place with

respect to interim supply than have existed in the past, under my

predecessor, or under Supply Act, No. 1.

MRS. DAILLY: I just want to follow up very briefly what my colleague

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has brought to the attention of the House,

and just ask the minister one very brief, simple question.

has been brought to our attention that misleading statements have been

made by someone in government with reference to the opposition holding

back money for payment because of interim supply. All I want to ask the

minister is whether he will assure this House that he will take the

responsibility of informing the public that it is an impossible thing

to happen when you have an opposition that is willing to support the

passage of interim supply. Will you repudiate any of those misleading

statements which have come to our attention?

I think, as Minister of Finance, it is a major responsibility for you to take, and we would like to hear your reaction to that.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I could give that assurance if such were required, if

this were the only financial legislation to have been presented to this

House in this session. As the member opposite knows, this is not the

case. This is the second supply act, but quite apart from interim

supply we have had other bills where concern has been expressed by the

public service in terms of an inability to proceed with a certain

program until that bill has been given royal assent.

[ Page 3080 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I just want to make one point for the purposes of the record. The

members opposite are talking about quarterly expenditures as if the

government had a constant flow of expenditures throughout the year. I

would point out, and I hope the record will indicate, that many of our

ministries do not have a constant flow of expenditures throughout the

year. In mine, for example, the springtime — the early part of the

fiscal year — is a very heavy expenditure period when we're into our

reforestation work, cruising work, road construction, all those things

that are seasonal in the manner in which they have to be done. I'm sure

my colleagues the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

have similar situations. If we have very heavy expenditures in a part

of the year — the first quarter — higher than the normal quarterly

expenditure would indicate by going on 25 percent in each quarter, then

obviously other ministries would have to tighten back some, and there

must be a disruption in the normal operation of the government. So I

hope that the record will indicate that their argument is not

completely accurate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind all

hon. members again that our question is shall it or shall it not, and

shall the amount pass or shall it not. That is debatable in Committee

of Supply. If members would be reminded of that, then our debate will

he in order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, certainly it

shall pass. No one is suggesting that it shall not pass. What we are

suggesting is that the government should cease and desist from accusing

the opposition of holding up the passage of interim supply, because

that is just not true. We are very much in favour of this interim

supply bill passing. We are very much in favour of the estimates being

dealt with too. But when a constituent of the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) phones me, as the critic on human resources, and explains

that she has been told by the Human Resources office there that they

cannot receive the grant money for their community project because the

opposition will not pass the estimates of the Ministry of Human

Resources — estimates which have not been presented to the House —

well, that just is not true. All that the member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly) is asking the Minister of Finance to do is to repudiate

the statements being made by some of his colleagues on the government

benches that the opposition is holding up interim supply. The

opposition has never held up interim supply and does not intend to do

so now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your statements do

not deal with the question before us. The statements that have been

made during second reading clearly address some concerns, and they were

permitted during second reading, as the records of this House will

show. We are now in committee and we have a question before us. The

committee is only empowered to discuss the question before us.

MS. BROWN:

I am merely stating that in supporting the passage of interim supply in

the amount of $1,470,000,000.... We have not received any statements

that the Minister of Finance has himself been spreading this kind of

information around, but certainly his colleagues have been. We are

suggesting to the Minister of Finance that he draw the attention of the

community at large that the opposition very quickly, on two separate

occasions, has passed interim supply and that, in fact, his colleagues

on the government benches have been very wrongly accusing the

opposition of not doing so.

The Minister of Finance is the

person who has to take responsibility for getting that information out

to the Ministry of Human Resources in, for example, the Powell River

area and in Victoria and in Vancouver, so that those community grants

can get at least a half or a quarter of their allotment. The opposition

has very quickly, on two separate occasions, passed interim supply —

given it in one day. For his colleagues to continue to accuse the

opposition of holding up interim supply or indeed holding up the

estimates is just not true. It is the government's responsibility to

introduce interim supply; the opposition doesn't have the right to

introduce interim supply. It is the government's responsibility to

present the estimates to the House; the opposition doesn't have that

responsibility either. Surely the Minister of Finance must recognize

that he has a responsibility for seeing to it that the facts get out

there, if his colleagues can't do that.

One is continually

being reminded that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), whose department is stating this erroneous information, is

precisely the same minister who went around this province accusing us

of having a secret police, which she has never been able to

substantiate to this date.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm just tired of your lies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair heard that remark. I'm afraid I will have to ask that you withdraw.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the fact that I'm tired of their lies.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'm sorry, that is not acceptable. You have imputed a falsehood against

another hon. member. It is unparliamentary. Would the member please

withdraw.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the statement that I'm tired of their lies.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, you have pointed out to a number of members opposite that

we are dealing with a

section in committee. I would suggest that the

concern which has been expressed by the member who has just taken her

seat is more appropriately dealt with in estimates. On three occasions

in this brief debate I have indicated that concern has been expressed

not only by members of this assembly, I'm sure, but by senior public

servants in various departments, where other financial legislation

which has been before this House has not permitted the processing of

accounts or the undertaking of certain projects until royal assent has

been given. The matter is not as straight and fine as the members

opposite would suggest.

MR. HOWARD: What we've been

examining is not expenditures or items that may have been included or

covered by other legislation that the Minister of Finance now refers

to. What we have been talking about is the normal, ordinary course of

expenditures that arise within a department as a result of the

estimates being dealt with, and not some other piece of legislation.

[ Page 3081 ]

The

complaints that have been lodged by members on this side are about a

situation in the past and a request — an insistence, if you want to put

it more strongly — that these kinds of abuses against the integrity of

members in the opposition be discontinued and not become active as a

result of the particular bill we are now looking at. That is what the

complaints are about and they are very serious ones. I don't think they

can be sluffed off by referring to other legislation and saying: "Well,

maybe under other legislation public servants have been dismayed

because the bill didn't get royal assent and therefore there is not

specific legislative approval for that particular item."

What

we are talking about are the matters concerned with the normal course

of the flow of money through the departments as a result of the

estimates of expenditure, not as a result of specific pieces of

legislation or programs. We are talking about these things.

Having

listened to what you said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm not going

to offend the rule that I think you were talking about, or how you

attempted to apply it. I want to relate a couple of instances within

the constituency of Skeena where the complaints that other hon. members

have mentioned, in fact, took place. In the

section now before us, a

portion of it says: "...there may be paid and applied in such manner

and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a

sum of money not exceeding...." We're talking about that specific

application "in such manner and at such times." I suggest to you that

if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council determines that particular moneys

are not going to be paid within this particular period encompassed by

this bill, and the result of that decision of government is then

misrepresented by cabinet ministers or backbenchers on the government

side as an accusation against the opposition holding up that particular

expenditure, then, I submit, it is perfectly within the ambit of the

section before us to talk about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

exception being, hon. member, that great latitude was allowed during

second reading to make that point. At this point to continue that line

of debate would, in fact, be repetitious.

MR. HOWARD:

Second reading, with respect, Mr. Chairman, did not and does not afford

an opportunity that the informality in committee affords of posing

questions to a minister following upon responses. It offers one

opportunity for debate, a closing debate by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'm sure I don't have to tell the member what the rules of second

reading are in the House. All members are afforded the opportunity to

debate. The member for Skeena continues on

section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Talking about that aspect of it. It applied in a previous

bill. It was with respect to a particular situation in Skeena relating to the

Lakelse Hot Springs. Money was not forthcoming and was not provided for a particular

feasibility study. The word got out — and I'm not saying the Minister of

Lands Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) generated the word or originated this

message. I don't think he would. But somebody in his department, somebody

associated with that department or with that project and with political sensitivity,

spread the message all over Terrace that the reason that money wasn't available

was because the opposition was not passing the estimates. That was a false statement.

The minister himself, by responding to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Levi), indicated that was a false thing to do, but it happened.

I'm

sorry the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is not here at the

moment because part of this relates to forestry. The Ministry of

Forests, insofar as a few parks were concerned in that area, determined

that there were a number of trees that had to be removed from the

parks. They were ancient, decadent trees and were in danger of falling

upon those people who used the parks, and they had to be removed. The

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing issued a press release to that

effect, saying they had to get the trees out of the park, and then

proceeded not to do it. People in the area were wondering why they

didn't get to work on Furlong Bay and remove the trees.

MR. KEMPF: That's not what they were saying. They were saying just the opposite, and you know it. I know the story.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) come to order,

please, and will the member for Skeena try to relate to the

section in

front of us. We are in committee.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Omineca will maintain his place, and the member for Skeena continues on

section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Your request for the member for Omineca to be in order.... It's not possible for him to be in order at any given time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't accept that.

MR. HOWARD:

In any event, the message that got back to the people there who were

concerned about it was that the reason they were not removing the trees

was because the money was not available, and the money was not

available because the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing had not been considered by the Legislature.

MR. KEMPF: Not true, and you know the story.

MR. HOWARD:

I'll have to repeat it; it is true. That was the message that was

distributed in that community. Perhaps if others in this House on the

government side are now saying that something else happened, maybe they

had a hand in that something else. Maybe they were responsible for

spreading this false information; maybe they're responsible for the

fact that in that community baldfaced lies were told about why that

money was not available. That's what we're complaining about.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I'm going to have to ask you, under standing order 43, to

discontinue that line of debate. You may feel you have a grievance and

if you have a grievance against a member it can be brought to this

House. However, the House is in committee right now and can only

entertain debate on

section 1 .

[ Page 3082 ]

MR. HOWARD: I have no grievances against any member in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

If the member is to continue his debate, the debate will have to be

within the guidelines of this committee and within the specific details

as laid out in

section 1 — strict relevance.

MR. HOWARD:

Section 1 is what I'm talking about. As you did earlier, Mr. Chairman,

I want to read it into the record again. It says: "In addition to the

amount authorized under Supply Act No. 1, 1980" — and what I was

talking about earlier arose during that period when Supply Act No. 1,

1980, applied — "from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there

may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding...."

That's

the point I'm talking about. We are now being asked to give the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to spend up to a certain

amount of money in such manner and at such times as he, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, deems fit. We raise the earlier

complaints about falsehoods that were told in particular ridings and

told to a number of people in this province as to why they couldn't get

money. We raise that as a complaint now, saying that we hope that

doesn't occur again in this period of time contemplated to be covered

by the authority here, and that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will

decide in such manner and at such times to proceed in the normal,

ordinary course of expending the funds available to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and that no falsehoods will be spread

about it and no misrepresentation designed to advance the interests of

Social Credit and to denigrate the interests of anybody else who

disagrees with him. That's what we're saying.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I think we've made the point at this juncture, but I

would just like to reply to what the Minister of Finance had to say

with respect to other finance bills and the fact that they didn't go

through as quickly as maybe he would have liked. The government

determines the rate at which bills are put before the House and whether

or not they remain before the House. Those particular bills came and

went like yo-yos. They also called the time that the session began.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

MR. COCKE:

This session began February 28, one month before the last budget was

finished. That's why we're debating

section 1 of Supply Act, No. 2 —

because this government was reluctant to come back to the House. Not

only are they reluctant to come back to the House and discuss the

people's business; they're also in a great hurry to get out of here.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. COCKE:

Well, in that case, let's proceed with

section 1 of this bill and pass

it with an understanding that no longer will people be informed that

something is happening here in Victoria that's inhibiting the

expenditure of government funds. Provided we have that kind of an

undertaking, we're quite happy to cooperate with this government in

every way possible, and particularly with this minister, who I feel is

responsible — comparatively, in any event.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, on

section 1, there's no doubt in everybody's mind in

British Columbia that the opposition have been stalling the passage of

a variety of things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has had to bring to the attention of this committee....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has had to bring to the

attention of the committee on numerous occasions this morning the fact

that in committee we can only debate

section 1 as it appears before us.

We have, in second reading, approved the bill in principle. Committee

allows us to discuss and debate the detail of the section, and that's

the only debate that the committee will allow.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

We're talking about the allocation of funds for specific government

projects. The member for Skeena has talked about the failure to

allocate funds for the cutting of timber in Furlong Bay, Lakelse Lake

Park, and in the north. He is attributing statements made by me and

possibly officials of my ministry....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the member for Skeena was advised to discontinue that

debate. The debate did discontinue, and I'm now going to ask you to

discontinue that debate. We are in Committee of Supply. The chair

cannot allow discussion or debate out of the bounds of

section 1.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, thank you very much. If there's no longer any discussion or

debate I will have some great difficulty in speaking, Mr. Chairman. But

I just do want to say that the opposition has been very draggy. I want

to say that those statements that are attributed to the government, and

possibly to officials of my ministry, relative to Furlong Bay, are

untrue and false.

Section 1 approved.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps it should be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that I attributed nothing of that sort to the minister that he alluded to.

HON. MR. CHABOT: To who?

MR. HOWARD:

Aha! Now the minister, by asking, "to who?".... As my colleague from

Burnaby North tells me, "to whom?" is the correct form of that. But now

that he is using that, he is admitting that he knows full well that

I've made no such attribution of remarks to him. He knows it. He just

came in here to try to confuse the issue.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All hon. members, I call for order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell the truth.

[ Page 3083 ]

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Lands , Parks and Housing and I both always tell the truth.

Section 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 35 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 35, Supply Act, No. 2, 1980, reported complete without amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 35, Supply Act, No. 2, 1980, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 20.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Bill 20 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 18.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND

LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS- 17

Macdonald

Howard

King

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Sk~Jy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

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

section 3.

MRS. WALLACE:

I am concerned about this section. In adding the words "where the

general manager requires it" after "unless" in

section 10.... Just

to bring into context what are talking about, "

(1) For the

purposes of this act, the province is one licensing area.

(2) A licence

shall not be issued for an establishment unless....'' is how it

reads now. It lists several things that have to be done in order that a

licence can be listed. Now by this amendment we are going to say that a

licence will not be granted "unless where the general manager requires

it," which to me means that a licence can be issued just at the wish

of the general manager, with none of these provisions, not even an

application. Item (

a) is that a licence shall not be issued for an

establishment unless the applicant has given, in a form and manner

approved b the general manager, reasonable notice of the application

and the name and so on. Now we are going to say that he will have a

licence as long as the general manager says it's okay. It can go ahead

without even an application in the required form or any notice. Unless

I am misreading this, that is the kind of thing that is happening in

this section, and I have some real concerns, I would like the minister

responsible to indicate just what the intent of this particular part of

this

section is — in putting in the words ''unless the general manager

requires it."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I believe I heard

most of what the member said, although the noise level was getting a

little high. Madam Member, the reason for this change — not to do with

the application, but the application once in process — is to allow the

general manager additional discretion as to whether certain forms of

advertising and other methods of obtaining information are required. As

you correctly pointed out, the province is one licensing area.

Circumstances in various parts of the province are very, very different

from others. It is to permit the general manager more capability and

more flexibility in requiring certain procedures to be followed by

applicants.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't like to belabour

this point, but it seems to me that in putting that particular phrase

into this particular

section we are into a position where the general

manager can simply grant a licence to anybody, with no information

obtained in any way, shape or form from anybody. That is really what

this is doing. It may not happen, but it is opening the door for that

kind of thing to happen. As has been pointed out in this House many

times, this is a very sensitive area: it is a one where a lot of

dollars are involved. There certainly should be some kind of protection

to ensure that that kind of thing can't happen — with no rules and

regulations at all. completely at the discretion of the general

manager. It seems to me that's what this is doing.

[ Page 3084 ]

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. MACDONALD:

I just want to say another couple of things about this appeal section.

This is the one that extends a little bit this right and discretion of

the minister to decide appeals on liquor licences which have been

denied. There is no appeal to the minister on liquor licences granted.

They would go, in a proper appeal procedure, to the Corporate and

Financial Services Commission if the neighbours or general public or

another applicant thought it was an unjust denial. This cozy little

power to grant a licence goes right to the minister, and he gives no

reasons.

He said that the second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Macdonald) is wrong, as usual, because the appeals don't take

place in the minister's office. I believe they used to, Mr. Minister.

They take place in the Oak Room or the Hemlock Room or something like

that. No reasons are given, and the minister defends that. He said: "We

on our side of the House have respect for the integrity of a politician

to decide on the rights of people. " Without impugning anybody's

integrity, I say the minister, philosophically, is all mixed up. That

should not be a political decision.

What do you want to do?

Do you want to take Workers' Compensation Board decisions right into

the minister's office too, on a discretionary thing by a politician?

You wouldn't think of it, because you are dealing with the rights of

people. But you do it here. What you are doing, in terms of taking it

into politics, is mixing politics in a heady mixture with liquor, and

liquor in a heady mixture with politics. It's a hangover situation,

insofar as the public....

This is the new minister, eh?

I say it is fraught with the potential of corrupt influence. There have

never been any reasons. I asked the minister in a letter what reasons

you give on an appeal of this kind — because the corporate and

financial services division gives excellent reasons. They decide the

rights as between, say, four applicants, or as between the public and

somebody applying for a licence. They decide those kinds of things and

they give proper reasons. They are an impartial body in the sense that

they are not applying any political consideration to it. The minister

says: "Oh, we are different on our side of the House. The minister can

leave his politics aside, go into the Oak Room, and decide this kind of

appeal without any political considerations." I say you can't do that;

no human being can do it, Mr. Minister.

You should have all

of the appeals going to an impartial body that gives reasons for its

decision and has a proper forum of appeal, not just going in....

This is exactly what you did under the Land Commission Act for leaves

to appeal. You said that all you've got to do now is go to the minister

and he makes a decision. In some of the cases the minister concerned

said he didn't know anything about them, but he granted leave to appeal

anyway. So you are politicizing things. I say that for this government,

of all others, with its record in the field of public morality, to take

unto its ministers the right to decide this kind of question is just a

pathway back to the bad old days when, without any question, liquor

ruled politics in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know all about it.

MR. MACDONALD:

I know perfectly well that even in the days of W.A.C. Bennett, through

Arthur Fouks, they used to pay 10 cents per barrel of beer delivered to

a hotel to the Social Credit free enterprise fund, just as regularly as

the days went by one by one. Ten cents on the barrel!

AN HON. MEMBER: What about 1916? Macdonald was in.

MR. MACDONALD: That was bad too, I know. There were wets and drys. I'll tell you the whole story of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Macdonald in 1916?

MR. MACDONALD: I know. The wets got him. You know that story. So do 1. I'll tell you that story.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell it as it is.

MR. MACDONALD: They paid 10 cents per barrel to the Social Credit Party.

Now the minister comes along with an amendment....

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty cents in the days of Macdonald.

MR. HOWARD: What was that?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know what....

MR. HOWARD: He said 30 cents in the days of Macdonald. Is that John A. Macdonald?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I'm not related to John A. Macdonald. He had a red nose, for one thing.

Anyway, you are taking us right back to the bad old days with this legislation.

I think this kind of a decision is made non-politically up to a certain point

through the liquor licensing branch. Then at the last you say: "Ah, but

we've got an angry friend out there who knows somebody. He's mad and

he's got a right to appeal right to the minister and walk away with that

licence in his pocket." It has happened and everybody in this chamber knows

it has happened — just that scenario. You now extend this power of personal

appeal to the minister. I say you are just laying a bed for potential corruption

there, Mr. Minister. I know you are a new minister. I'm not attacking any

of your decisions. I'm just telling you that this is bad legislation.

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

[ Page 3085 ]

NAYS — 14

Macdonald

Howard

King

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Skelly

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

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

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to comment on this section, which gives

such a broad right to search in respect to looking for liquor, or

offences taking place under the liquor act. One of the dangers of this

kind of

section where you don't require a warrant is that the effect

can be that this is an excuse to do a general search. When you give the

police the general power to move without warrant, as you do in regard

to drugs and liquor, you enter into a very dangerous area.

now have to rely on the police entirely not to use either of those

excuses as an illegitimate way to avoid the application for a warrant

on another offence for something they may really be searching for. We

have, of course, listened for some time to evidence before the McDonald

inquiry with regard to police abuse — and I'm not saying here that I

have any specific evidence that this

section is being abused and that

searches, supposedly for liquor, are being used as a way of getting

into someone's premises for other purposes. Nevertheless I just wanted

to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the real danger in permitting

the police to proceed without warrant, either in drug cases — that is

the writ of assistance, the open-warrant system — or in regard to

liquor.... The legislatures must be very cautious when providing

authority to the police to move without reference to a judge in terms

of doing something that the average citizen doesn't have the right to

do. So I just make these few remarks to express our concern as to how

we have moved in giving the police authority without going before the

courts to get that authority.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 18, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 13. Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, Bill 13 is the bill.... I was going to say it was without

principle. Seriously. It's a bill with a variety of principles, and I

think it's a bill that could be more appropriately debated in

committee. Under those circumstances, I move second reading.

MR. HOWARD:

Bill 13 lends itself to consideration in committee stage. However,

there is.... I don't want to transgress against the rules by

referring unduly to a particular

section of it. There is concern on the

principal question with respect to the bill, and that is the

retroactivity feature in it with respect to easements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which section?

MR. HOWARD:

Section 5, which seeks to amend

section 37 — on the following page,

page 2. I realize this is a delicate area, and in case the Chair stops

me from referring specifically to it....

It is a

principal thing, and it says that in respect of easements other than

statutory rights as may be defined in the Land Titles Act, the

section

is retroactive in its application. It applies to all easements over

Crown land whenever created, and the Crown shall be deemed always to

have been able to create assessments by grants or otherwise. That

implies that there's.... This is obviously correcting something

that was either done erroneously in the past, in a specific case, or

has been done erroneously ever since the authority existed with respect

to easements, because it says that the Crown shall be deemed always to

have been able to do that.

I think that before we get to the

committee stage I would appreciate some information from the minister

about the impact of that and, if the minister is able to do it, some

indication whether or not this will have — so far as the law officers

have been able to examine it — any application to the aluminum Company

of Canada's proposal with respect to the Kemano completion project, as

it is referred to — whether or not there is anything in error with

respect to easements that Alcan may have had and may have been granted,

and which it is now desired to correct and change. In any event, I'd

appreciate, before we get to second reading itself, a declaration from

the minister about that particular aspect, because it does seem an

unusual course to follow — to say forever and for all time in the

distant past the Crown was always deemed to have had this right. That

obviously indicates that there's something rather serious that's

perhaps been prevailing over a long period of time.

MR. BARBER:

The minister advises that there is no consistent principle in this

bill, and that it would be preferable for the purpose of competent

debate to debate the principle of each of the sections. That's fine,

but I would ask the Speaker that he ensure that whoever is the Chairman

when we get to committee stage not repeat certain of the directions

we've heard recently in regard to other bills that have no unifying

principle. and which by prior agreement we will discuss, in effect in

principle, during committee stage. There's been a fuss in this House in

the last week and it has not been reasonable or necessary. When we give

consent, in effect by foreshortening the second reading debate because

[ Page 3086 ]

there

is no thematic principle to a bill, we do not expect to have that

turned around and used against us, and to be told in committee that we

may not debate the principle because we already had our chance in

second reading. That's really important. The particular Chairman who

has occasionally made that suggestion is not here at the moment; but I

want to go on record as one member of the House who, when giving

consent not to debate a bill that has no principle — it has many

features and no single principle — urges that we not be denied in

committee the opportunity to debate the specific principles of each of

sections one by one. If we have that understanding on the opposition

side, the government will get a lot of cooperation and these things

will go through a lot quicker than they have.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, with respect to what has just been raised, I want

to say this. The House can't do that because the committee can undo it.

If the Chairman in committee decides — as he has in he past — that

that's the case, then that's the route that we go. We deny ourselves

the opportunity to do it unless there's a very clear commitment

beforehand — not through the Chair, I submit; that's not the way to do

it. It must be a consultative process; then we'll be able to look at it.

MR. HANSON:

This particular bill has been on the list for some days and leapfrogged

over, back and forth. Unfortunately, I happened to leave the hall for

just a minute and I missed the lengthy, detailed debate on the

principle that the minister put forward. I understand what he did was

move second reading.

So it is not entirely clear on our side

exactly what the principle here is in this bill. My assumption, and I

hope it's correct, is that it flows from a reorganization within the

ministry. There are clauses in this bill which indicate that authority

will be regionalized, that the disposition of Crown land will be

regionalized, and that is a position with which we agree. We don't

necessarily agree that everybody in all of 365,000 square miles of

British Columbia has to have all decisions made in Victoria. We agree

that it's a sound move to have it regionalized.

At the same

time, however, I'd like to point out to the minister that there is a

growing concern within your ministry that the planning, biological and

various other kinds of usages of Crown land are being downplayed.

Information on the planning and biological aspects of the land — the

impact assessment part — is being downplayed, and land as a commodity

for solely residential purposes is the emphasis. That is of concern to

many employees within your own ministry. I'd like to point that out to

you.

Now when I say to you that the principle is not clear

in the bill, I mean that there are clauses pointed out by the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) which are of a technical nature, indicating

retroactivity: they indicate the right to flood retroactively. They

deal with easements and changing the notion of easements, having a

dominant and servient tenement. I would like to ensure that the

minister clarifies for us how

section 37 relates to the principle of

the bill.

I'm reluctant to take my seat and have the

minister close debate, because as occurred earlier today, when we got

to committee stage, legitimate questions were raised and they were

ruled out of order. I want to ensure that we have an understanding of

exactly what the principle of this bill is. Will you give me your

commitment that you're not going to close debate?

HON. MR. CHABOT: When?

MR. HANSON: Now.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Okay, I'm going to indicate my concerns, and if he could come back in his closing remarks....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Okay, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK BRAND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MRS. WALLACE:

I just want to raise again in committee a point I raised on this

particular section. I'm wondering why it appears the word "may" is used

so loosely there. I know it's not mandatory, but certainly it seems to

me that this is a very weak

section dealing with suspension and

cancellation. I wonder how the minister anticipates that that

section

will work in actuality. What guidelines will be set down to cover this

problem when anyone is believed to have contravened the act or the

regulations? It appears to be a very loosely written section.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Section 4 states: "Where the recorder believes the licensee has

contravened the act," he may do something. The flexibility is there to

have some discretion as opposed to a shell situation, because the

circumstances surrounding the infraction of the act or the regulation

may not be that severe. It may be a case of cautioning the individual as opposed to a suspension or cancellation.

MRS. WALLACE:

My question really was asking what kind of authority the recorder is

going to have. What kind of powers will he have under this act? As I

indicated, the act is very much a skeletal piece of legislation with

everything covered in the regulations. I am wondering what kind of

powers he is going to have.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In

regard to the powers that he has, they are the powers that are

delegated to him by the minister under the act and the regulations of

the act.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

[ Page 3087 ]

MRS. WALLACE:

This is the

section that covers the regulations. As I pointed out

previously, there are any number of them, ranging from (

a) to (r). I

was interested that the minister indicated that the suspension and

cancellation would be covered by regulation. In reading the regulations

I can see no reference to the recorder at all. The only reference is in

(k), where it says: "The regulations will specify the records to be

kept and made available by a person slaughtering livestock or dealing

in livestock hides or meats." I am wondering where in the regulations

there is any authority given to the recorder relative to suspension and

cancellation.

Also, I am concerned about the very great

amount of legislation that has been done away with and put into this

section on regulations where, in fact, the whole meat of the act is

covered here and we don't really know what it is. We just know that

something is going to be done and we have no assurance what it is. I

certainly am wondering where the recorder is going to get his authority

for suspension and cancellations under these regulations.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Section 9 deals with regulations. It states, of course, in the opening

statement that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations.

These aren't the regulations as such, of course. The regulations will

set out, in their content, what the individual has to comply with, what

records must be kept, how they handle the transportation and records in

regard to hides or livestock, etc. This gives the items which relate to

regulations which will be put into place.

As I mentioned in

second reading, the determination of those regulations will certainly

be with input of the industry itself. The benefit of going to

regulations rather than just maintaining all the various sections of

the act — as it was in the old act — is that we can be flexible and we

can adjust to the modern times in the livestock industry. I think-

that's a plus, as opposed to a minus, with regard to the industry

itself.

MRS. WALLACE: I think that the minister has

outlined the reasons that I'm opposed to regulations. The underlying

thing in this act is that we don't know what we're doing or what we're

passing, and the cattlemen don't know what we're passing. It's

something that's going to be decided at a later date, and that's the

problem with this kind of legislation — nobody really knows what it's all

about.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make

a comment in that regard as well. There's a tendency in recent times to

do fewer and fewer detailed things in a legislative way and more and

more by cabinet. It's a practice that the federal parliament and the

federal government have engaged in for years. It's a practice that is

not friendly toward the democratic system, because decisions of a

regulatory nature are made behind the closed doors of cabinet and the

general public hasn't an opportunity to examine the debate with respect

to them — to have anything reported to it. There's a whole tendency

toward concentrating power and authority over the people of this

province more and more into the hands of a few hand-picked people in

the cabinet. I think the fact that we have here a so-called

modernization of an ancient statute, compressing and combining into the

power of cabinet the authority to do pretty nearly everything, is

really not a very good thing.

We are in a period of concern

about the large size and the authoritarian structure of government and

the power government has over the general populace. With that concern

growing it would seem to me that government, taking cognizance of it,

should be moving more in the direction of openness and in the direction

of the Legislature making alterations of a more detailed nature than is

available now, and less and less in the direction that the minister

seems to be going with this particular bill. This bill isn't one in

isolation either. There are other bills that the House has dealt with

that, I think, give more power and authority to cabinet than in these

times or probably is sensible in any period of time. I want to level

with the committee and with the minister my disagreement with that

process and tendency and trend and the hope that perhaps mine is the

voice of just a few in this province in objecting to greater and

greater control over people by government and by cabinet. Nonetheless,

it needs to be expressed. I know the minister, personally and

individually, I'm sure, feels the same way, which makes me wonder why

he brings in a piece of legislation of this nature when he himself. I'm

sure, within his conscience does not agree that this is the way to go.

One

can argue that there are certain matters that need to be dealt with by

regulation — those of a highly intricate and involved nature, usually,

and those that require a great deal of statistical references where

there are formulas involved and so on — but I think the government has

gone overboard with this one. I want to draw a specific reference, only

as an example, to subparagraph (

d) in this section, which says that the

establishment of the board, which as I read it is the board of brand

commissioners set up under

section 6 which we've already dealt with,

and which is the appeal body, can be by order-in-council. The

constitution of it can be by order-in-council: the membership of it by

order-in-council; the powers and procedures of the board all by order-in-council. It would seem to me that, if nothing else,

shouldn't be contained within the regulatory authority of the

Lieutenant-Governor.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

I want to move an amendment to this. This is a very important principle

in here that the whole structure of a board, with the powers that the

board has and so on, needs to be amended. We don't have the time to do

it now. That being the case....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Move the amendment and we'll vote on it.

MR. HOWARD:

The purpose of amendments is not just to have them voted on, Mr.

Chairman. The purpose of an amendment is to accompany an argument in

the hope that you will be able to convince the government of the error

of its ways. That's what I seek to do. I want to establish and find out

first, by debate, whether we can get some response from the minister

to agree that he would do it a different way. If he will do that,

then there is no need for an amendment. If he won't, then we have to

try it in a formal way. If there is a compression of time....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why don't you at least let us know what the amendment is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are in committee. Could we stick to the rules of order.

[ Page 3088 ]

MR. HOWARD:

In the first place, it should not be on the order paper. It doesn't

need to be. The rules provide that it doesn't need to be. While I have

the floor I will just scribble out the amendment on an ordinary, simple

piece of paper here, as we proceed. In fact, somebody has given me a

proposed amendment to Bill 32, the Livestock Brand Act. I'm writing it

out. The amendment is to delete subparagraph (d). Is that what you

want, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations?

I was

hoping that the minister would be able to tell the committee why he

wants this super-authoritarian regulatory power with respect to the

whole structure of a board of brand commissioners, who are the final

decision-making body with respect to any decisions by the recorder of

brands and that sort of thing. Why does he want that kind of power'?

Why doesn't he just leave that in there?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I was waiting for the member to sit down before I rose in my place.

We're talking now of a consideration.... Has your amendment been

put? It hasn't. You're still discussing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're in committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're talking about consideration of why subsection (

d) of

section 9(2) is in the new act. Am I correct? Are you sure?

MR. HOWARD: I thought the minister was following the debate and understood that.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I am following the debate. I want to make sure that I fully understand,

because you seem to be all over the ball park. I understand it's the

line which says "the establishment, constitution, membership, powers

and procedures of the board," and that's the item that you're

questioning. Would you nod your head'? Am I correct in that? He's not

going to nod his head; he's going to stand up and talk again.

MR. HOWARD:

I would like to know why the minister wants these authoritarian powers

of this nature. That's what I asked him before and that's what I'm

asking again.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman,

the old act stated that the minister may appoint a board of brand

commissioners to consist of four persons resident in the province, each

of whom shall be an owner of a stock, etc., etc. The purpose of that

board was to "meet at times and places its chairman or the recorder

appoints" and "shall advise and report on all matters connected with

the administration of the act." The role of that board of brand

commissioners was an advisory one. Under the old act, suspension and

cancellation were a responsibility of the minister. We have determined

that under

section 4 on suspension and cancellation in the new act, the

recorder has that authority designated to him by the minister. However,

instead of having just an advisory role of the board of brand

commissioners, we now have set them up as an appeal board, so that a

stock dealer or whatever can go and state his case to that appeal board

and possibly get relief from a suspension or cancellation by the

recorder. He would be judged by his peers, as opposed to giving the

minister that power.

So I'd suggest to the member, Mr. Chairman, that item (

d) in there establishes that board, its constitution, acts, memberships,

powers and procedures in conjunction with

section 6, which in effect

gives that board more effectiveness and more powers than it had before,

and takes, you might say, the cancellation or suspension out of the

"political arena," which sometimes is of concern to the member, and

allows an individual who feels that his cancellation or suspension is

in error the right of appeal to his peers.

MR. HOWARD:

I don't know why the minister has to be so obtuse about it all. I

didn't ask him for an explanation of what has taken place in the old

act. We know that.

Inasmuch as he has turned the board of

brand commissioners into an appeal body, giving it that final authority

with respect to these matters, that's all the more reason why the

cabinet shouldn't have anything to say about what the constitution of

that board is. That's all I'm saying. Now that you've elevated it to a

higher level of authority — the final authority — do you want political

interference in its constitution, membership, powers, procedures, and

everything else? Those matters should be contained within the

legislation where they can't be touched, meddled with and interfered

with politically. I asked the minister why. He just refused to

recognize the "why" part and refused to answer it.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move amendments to

section 11 standing in my name on the order paper. [See Appendix.]

On the amendments.

MRS. WALLACE:

I just wanted to say we on this side of the House have no objections to

the amendment. I'm glad that the minister realized these were required

before the act went through, so that we wouldn't have to come back and

change it later.

Amendments approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

We've dealt with (

a) under the amendments, changing

section 11 to 13.

Amendment (

b) is putting in

section 11 and

section 12 prior to 13. I'm

not sure whether we've done that procedure all in that one moving of

the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that the amendment was moved in toto, as it states on the order paper. It is now passed.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 32, Livestock Brand Act, reported complete with amendment.

[ Page 3089 ]

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 32, Livestock Brand Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I understand that His Honour is in the precincts. We might have a short recess so he may enter the chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask hon. members to retain their places, if possible. We are just a few moments away from the entry of His Honour.

The House took recess at 12:42 p.m.

The House resumed at 12:44 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1980

Special Funds Act, 1980

Crown Corporations Borrowing Authority Increase Act

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1980

Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1980

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1980

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980

School Amendment Act, 1980

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980

Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act

Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980

Home Owner Grant Act

Livestock Brand Act

Supply Act, No. 2, 1980

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tabled the annual report for 1979 for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Hon.

Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report and financial statement of the

provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ended March 31,

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think if all of the hon.

members would take a deep breath and blow upstairs we might get the

clouds to dissipate slightly so we could enjoy the weekend.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

32 The Hon. J.J. Hewitt to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 32) intituled Livestock Brand Act to amend as follows:

(

a) By renumbering

section 11 as

section 13.

(

b) By adding the following as

section 11:

"R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 44

"11. The Cattle Horn Act is amended

" (

a) By repealing the definition of 'dealer' in

section 1 and substituting the following:

'dealer' means a person licensed as a livestock dealer under the Livestock Brand Act ; and

" (

b) By repealing

section 9, and

(

c) By adding the following as

section 12:

"R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 246

"12.

Section 2(2) of the Livestock Public Sale Act is amended by striking

out 'stockdealer' and substituting 'livestock dealer'."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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